Category: Information Management

How will digital workplace autonomy satisfy corporate compliance?

The focus of the current interest in social networking is to enable the individual to make decisions about how they work, who they work with and what they share to achieve personal and business objectives. Working Out Loud is a fast-emerging element of this support of internal autonomy. There is a wealth of survey and anecdotal evidence that this fosters innovation and is good for employee engagement. One of the 2016 surveys was published by McKinsey & Company and was entitled “How social tools can reshape the organisation”. At the time of writing this blog the report had been dropped from the McKinsey website but there is a summary on the Consultancy UK website. It does rather read like a paean of praise for social networking at a time when other surveys (for example Digital Culture Clash from Cisco) are indicating that it is not quite as simple as some observers would have us believe.

No matter how much autonomy individuals have to create teams and make decisions on their own account  all organisations work within some form of compliance.  There will be a board of Directors that have defined responsibilities towards the organisation and towards shareholders and stakeholders. At some point a hierarchy will kick in. Hierarchies, like bureaucracies, have a poor reputation but have a role to play in the process of reviewing decisions that are going to commit the organisation to a specific course of action. Among the outcomes of the McKinsey survey was that 25% of respondents predicted that in the next three years strategic decisions would be made from the bottom up and that organisational hierarchies would either be much flatter or disappear all together. Call me old-fashioned but I can’t see major strategic decisions (21st Century Fox acquiring Sky is in the news today) being made bottom up when there are shareholders and regulatory authorities to take account of.

The challenge I see emerging is defining and managing the processes where autonomy and compliance meet. At what level within the organisation does this take place, and is it a hard transition or a soft transition? I’ve looked back through around 20 recent surveys on corporate collaboration and digital social working and I cannot find any discussion of this topic. It is not going to happen by magic. As a component of an overall social strategy for an organisation decisions are going to have to be made on how information and knowledge from autonomous working is sifted, verified and presented up the chain of management. In the final analysis the directors are responsible, in compliance terms, to shareholders, laws and regulations. This is enshrined in corporate law. An implication is that there is an audit route back to the decisions that were made leading up to the action being taken. When autonomy escapes compliance you end up with the Volkswagen story and a very large hit on corporate performance. It will be interesting to read the full Volkswagen story in due course.

I have no preconceived ideas about when and where autonomy and compliance should meet. Wherever it is this the pressure on managers will be very considerable as they seek to balance the demands from their own managers with the ambition of being supportive to autonomous work processes that are clearly having an impact on innovation, speed of response and employee engagement. Working out loud is an example of where a document or even an instant message written in the spirit of WoL is taken to be a definitive statement by someone who reads it in isolation. At present the focus on collaboration strategy is about what tools are needed to support this style of working. In my view the success of a collaboration strategy will be the ease with which outcomes from collaborative working can move through and up the corporate structure in a way that safeguards the interests of all stakeholders. This is not a technology issue but about supporting managers who find themselves between a rock and a hard place. If you want to read a story of what happens when ‘top down’ conflicts with ‘bottom up’ download this study of decision making in Nokia that led to the company losing the smartphone battle. What would happen in your organisation under the same circumstances?

Martin White


Agnes, Brian, Ellen, Jane, James, Janus, Kurt, Kristian, Mark, Michael, Paul, Sam, Susan, Tony and Wedge

If nothing else you will have to admit it’s an unusual title for a blog post. If you are a relative newcomer to the intranet community you may be unaware of the role that these people play in supporting the exchange of knowledge and good practice. Without exception the major consulting companies pay little attention to topics such as intranets, information management and search. Some do offer advice on social networking and collaboration but at a level that is targeted at senior managers who are probably the last people to network socially and collaborate. As I was writing reviews of outstanding reports from Jane McConnell and Sam Marshall yesterday their commitment to the wider community was very obvious. This post lists some of the people who in various ways and for many years have transformed our understanding of intranets, team working and digital workplaces through publishing reports and promulgating good practice and who have to make a living whilst doing so.

  • Agnes Molnar is an enterprise search evangelist with a very good knowledge of SharePoint search
  • Ellen van Aken curates a collection of 300 intranet promotion videos alongside her consulting work
  • Jane McConnell understands digital workplaces better than anyone else and publishes and annual survey of progress
  • James Robertson writes books, runs workshops and conferences, gives out awards and challenges conventional wisdom
  • Janus Boye runs communities of practice in Europe and North America and an annual conference in Aarhus
  • Kurt Kragh Sorenson also offers communities of practice and runs the IntraTeam event in Copenhagen
  • Kristian Norling is developing an excellent range of books and is the Swedish representative of IntraTeam
  • Mark Morell focuses on intranet governance as an author and consultant
  • Michael Sampson writes books and blogs about all aspects of collaboration and digital workplaces
  • Paul Miller set up the Intranet Benchmarking Forum and transformed it into the Digital Workplace Group
  • Sam Marshall publishes reports of an exceptionally high quality
  • Susan Hanley writes blogs and books on SharePoint with a strong intranet and portal focus
  • Tony Byrne sets the standard in assessing the performance of digital applications
  • Wedge Black and Brian Lamb are the entrepreneurs behind the Intranet Now conference

The Intranetizen team also deserve recognition.

Any list like this runs the risk of missing someone obvious. If you feel you are that person please let me know.

Martin White


The Organisation in the Digital Age – 2016 Survey and Report

Each year the Organisation in the Digital Age report takes me longer to read than the version for the preceding year. This is not because it is significantly larger but because each year the insights that Jane McConnell offers are even more worthy of due diligence. On opening up this 110 page report and looking at the Contents Page you are immediately struck by the scope of the report. This is not just because the contents page highlights the breadth of the issues surrounding the digital workplace but because Jane has pared the headings down to those that are of critical importance in making sense of, and in making progress in, working in the digital age. Over the last few months I have become increasingly frustrated at the number of surveys that seem to indicate an important trend but which, on closer examination, tell at best 50% of the real story. In the 2016 edition the 13 case studies and interviews with digital innovators are more prominent and more thorough than in previous years. This is an invaluable direction to go in as on their own the numbers tell less than half the story. Only through these case studies can you begin to gain the context behind the trends, and perhaps more importantly understand why progress has not been as rapid as was anticipated even a couple of years ago

As Jane notes in her introduction, a starting point for digital transformation is defining a compelling vision and strategy. The strategies that have been developed do not yet have sufficient traction in business units and with frontline people. The research shows that there is insufficient focus on people and change, and even less focus on creating new business models. In most cases technology was at the top of the investment list , with education and training at the bottom. However there is progress. In the initial research report in 2007 only 25% of respondents stated that people could share information using social tools, whereas today it is 86%. Only 25% of the organisations in 2011 offered internal crowdsourcing and ideation capabilities but that has now almost doubled. These are all steps in the right direction but there is so much else to do as a glance at the framework for the report indicates.

The report is based on around 300 responding organisations, of which almost 70% are common to the 2015 survey, which provides a reliable and invaluable baseline for trend analysis. There is no other report that has this heritage of continuous annual surveys coupled with the insights that Jane brings from projects and communities that she has taken part in over many years. It is worth remembering that Charles Grantham was writing about digital working in the 1990s and Jeffery Bier launched the eRoom collaboration suite in 2000. It has been a long journey with only isolated examples of corporate-wide progress.We need a benchmark against which to measure and focus our efforts. Jane’s commitment to the quality of research and insight provides us with just such a benchmark. Always there are more questions to ask and more answers to digest but for now this is the best there is. We should focus our efforts on making good use of the outcomes in the report and back off from conducting surveys and creating schematics that make the headlines but add little if anything to our knowledge base.

Martin White


Building Information Modelling – a prototype for digital workplaces

Much of the discussion and debate around digital workplaces takes place in a vacuum. With the exception of the case studies in Jane McConnell’s Organisation in the Digital Age reports there are very few published examples of working digital workplaces. For that reason it is well worth taking a look at what is happening in the global construction industry in the adoption of Building Information Modelling. The Wikipedia entry on BIM is written by people who are very conversant with this work. One definition of  Building Information Modeling (BIM) is that is a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility providing a shared knowledge resource for information about a facility that then forms a reliable basis for decisions during its life-cycle; defined as existing from earliest conception to demolition. I’d like to highlight the word ‘shared’ as BIM brings together all the stakeholders in a construction project from design to build to maintain and then demolish. Demolishing a complex building requires knowledge of how it was built!

There are global standards for BIM files and file management, an area where the UK construction industry is very much in the vanguard. For several years the Royal Institute of British Architects has been publishing an annual survey of BIM adoption. The 2016 report notes “We can see that BIM adoption is set to increase. Within one year, 86% of people expect to be using BIM on at least some of their projects. Within three years, 95% expect to be using BIM. Within five, that number increases to 97%.” Among the leaders in implementing BIM is Laing O’Rourke and it is well worth reading through its Engineering Excellence Journal.  Although there is a lot of good news the challenges are also important to be aware of. In the 2014 edition of Engineering Excellence Journal Laing O’Rourke comment that “The current fixation with Building Information Modelling (BIM) within our industry globally is gathering pace and this is undoubtedly progress. However, it once again reflects the vested interests within our own ranks that we chose to embrace the minimum standards of these new ideologies and technologies only when pushed to do so, rather than seize the opportunity to exploit their potential for real and lasting industry-wide transformation.”

This challenge is not unique to the global construction industry. In all sectors there will be a tendency to do the minimum possible rather than look to the future and work backwards to define what is required to take full advantage of not just the technology but the way in which the technology facilitates teams working together to solve complex problems. Of course the problem is always that we can often learn more from failures than we can from success stories and it is very difficult (especially for quoted companies) to share project failures There is no open forum for the exchange of visions, roadmaps, achievements and challenges, and in my opinion many conferences in this area focus on how employees are working in the back office at headquarters and not 30 stories up on a skyscraper building with only a ruggedized tablet for company.

If you are engaged in any digital workplace initiative I would strongly recommend that you take a look at BIM implementation. There may not be any individual elements that can be applied to your own sector but the principles are eminently transferable. Note just as an example the exemplary commitment of the Royal Institute of British Architects in supporting BIM initiatives. Are your industry and trade organisations playing a similar role?  And if not, why not?

Martin White

 

 


The complex search process of invention

I’ve lost count of the number of times I have seen business cases for search and for collaboration that cite ‘enhancing innovation’ as a reason for investment. When you dig deeper you realise that this is just a sound bite that has no basis in reality. A significant amount of effort has been expended over the years on measuring innovation rates, for example based on patents and published research papers, but inside the enterprise things are a lot more complex. Innovation and invention take time, and there is no better example of this than the stories behind the award of the 2016 Nobel Prize for Chemistry to Sauvage, Stoddart and Feringa. The award is the culmination of research dating back to the early 1980s an then a process of success and disappointment but above all a commitment to a goal. Another stimulus was the recent acquisition by Nokia of Bell Labs, the epitome of an invention powerhouse. Bell Labs was where Claude Shannon founded the digital age in 1948 with his paper on the Mathematical Theory of Communication.

Perhaps because I have worked alongside Ben Feringa on a Royal Society of Chemistry committee this year’s award has caught my attention more than most. I recalled seeing a research paper some time ago about the the processes behind invention and it took me a while to track it down to the journal Research Policy. It makes interesting reading. I should say at the outset that ‘search’ is being used in the widest of contexts, not the use of a search application. The authors summarise their paper very well.

“Using an extensive archival content analysis of notable inventors we find that the search and discovery process of invention is inherently complex, non-linear, and disjointed. Successful inventors are skilled at managing these complex systems, receptive to feedback, and able to revisit and change course. Our search model includes a stimulus, net casting for information, categorizing that information, linking unrelated ideas, and  discovery. Our findings articulate the search process as a complex progression through a series of simple stages. As such, the study contributes to our understanding of complexity and the complex systems view of the invention process.”

There are parallels here with the way in which business decisions are made. It is not just a process of undertaking a search and then making a decision. There are multiple steps with a significant amount of feedback at each step. Only though understanding the processes of decision making, of which invention is arguably a special case, can we begin to develop search applications that support this process. As an example, being able to maintain a search query history so that a search can be re-run with a small change in query structure on the basis of further consideration of the challenge. One of the implications is that seemed relevant at the time of a search may turn out to be irrelevant only a day or two later. This rather makes a mess of assessing ‘relevance‘ as the basis for search performance.

The Research Policy paper is not open access, and I’m not suggesting that purchasing it is going to transform your search application in the next 24 hours. It does provide an excuse for me to highlight the need to understand user requirements at a very granular, process-specific, level, and not with simplistic surveys about ‘What information do you need to find’ or providing an ability to personalize that is too often an excuse not to look carefully into user requirements.

Martin White

 

 


Social networking adoption, digital working and information culture

In almost all of the presentations and blog posts I have seen about enterprise social network adoption there is an implicit assumption that organisations are homogeneous and that works for the target group will scale for the entire organisation. One of the benefits of being in the intranet and search business is that I get to talk to employees at all levels across the organisations, mostly in departments untouched (in line management terms) by the IT organisation. What I see is that information behaviours vary widely across even quite small organisations. One of the reasons for this is that information cultures also vary across the organisation, and information behaviours arise from the information culture. Where the culture is primarily relationship-based or result-oriented the propensity to use social networking may be different than in rule-based or risk taking cultures. Organisations will usually have one or two predominant cultures with the others at a much less obvious level.

The obvious next question is how much you know about the information cultures in your organisation, and have worked through the role of social networking in each culture. One of the first to look at information behaviours was Professor Don Marchand at the IMD Business School in Lausanne. He and his colleagues developed an Information Orientation model that included an information behaviours axis that was published in 2002. The problem with this book is that the survey questionnaire is not included as the authors clearly wanted to build a business from the model.    There is a concise summary of the approach which can be downloaded. A survey questionnaire was included in the paper published by Adrienne Curry and Caroline Moore in 2003 but that was before Professor Chun Wei Choo published his four-element framework. A case study was published in 2015 by Thais Elaine Vicka, Marcelo Seido Naganoa and Silvio Popadiukba, and this does provide much more in the way of a practical methodology. The book by Professor Choo also considers each of the four cultures in some detail.

Another valuable perspective is the hubs, hives and hangouts model from Sam Marshall, Clearbox Consulting. If you take the 2D view of Choo and add in Sam Marshalls’ analysis you end up with quite a complex 3D view of working together in a digital workplace. That may seem over-complex but in my view it is better to start with this and then pare it down than work on a homogeneous adoption programme and find it fails to get beyond the pilot stage.

With the exception of the Information Orientiation summary and the book by Professor Choo the research papers cited above are not on open access. However I am confident that just reading Professor Choo’s book (Chapter 7 in particular) will help you to appreciate the implications of information cultures and information behaviours on social networking on a helicopter-view level. In my consulting work I find that just having this culture model enables me to recognise some of the features of each culture and then adapt my questioning and recommendations appropriately. There is no metric that would suggest that in a relationship-based culture 70% of employees (just as an example) should be using social media. It is more about using information culture and information behaviour models to ensure that signals about a resistance to, or a demand for, social networking can be recognised at a stage early enough to define technology requirements and adoption support, not when the technology is in place and the adoption is assumed to be ‘intuitive’.

Martin White


Information Plus – my consulting toolkit is now open access

I have two heros that I turn to time and time again for inspiration. For music it is J.S.Bach and for science it is Richard Feynman. The scale of the entry in Wikipedia gives a good sense of the scale of Feynman’s interests and achievements. Both were very dependent on what he often referred to as his toolbox. This was a vast set of mathematical processes that he used to solve the apparently unsolvable. Feynman was always approaching problems from a different direction to everyone else, using in effect a set of different mental models.

My own toolbox consists of the outcomes of academic and applied research carried out over the last 50 years into areas that might be broadly termed information management. As a chemistry major you quickly become adroit at understanding how research is published, and in the case of chemistry indexed in Chemical Abstracts. That interest has stayed with me for the last 35 years, and is responsible for my collection of around 100  books and some 2000 research papers. In the course of my consulting work I often find that the route to finding a solution for a client lies in the research literature. There is rarely a complete answer waiting to be implemented, but something more akin to the way in which the Rosetta Stone enabled the language encased in Egyptian hieroglyphics to be read for the first time.

I have now added a new section to the Resources category of the Intranet Focus website. It is called Information Plus because it consists of a series of pages each summarising key research in areas which begin with ‘information’. Among the sections that are now available are information behaviour, information charter, information life cycle, information quality, information relevance and information seeking. I plan to complete work on the remaining 16 by the end of 2016, though some sections may disappear and some may be added. Each will be updated if a significant new research resource becomes available. In effect Information Plus is my toolkit, and I am just following the trend in scientific research of making it open access.

Although much of the research is published in journals specifically about information topics (such as the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, International Journal of Information Management and the Journal of Information Science) the nature of information is that it lies very close to the surface of almost every area of human endeavour. For the last few years I have been writing a quarterly Perspectives column in Business Information Review (BIR). The aim of this column is to bring to the attention of readers of BIR important papers published in Sage journals that they may not be aware of. Some of the journals cited in recent columns have come from Human Factors, Ergonomics in Design, Health Informatics Journal and the  Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation. Many of the papers in this column deal with collaboration and other aspects of team working.

It is easy to disparage academic research as not being grounded in the real world. However a significant number of research papers are based on real world case studies and apply a rigour to the information collection and analysis which intranet managers and other information professionals would not have the time and skills to replicate. The problem that many face is that they do not have access to this research because it is behind a subscription firewall. That is why I have tried only to include books and open access publications. Moreover the use of either Google Scholar or Microsoft Academic Research will often provide a link to an alternate source of the paper from a university server. I should add that Information Research is open access and is a very good source of papers on information management.

I would welcome comments on the scope of the Information Plus section, and on the style and value of the entries and especially about high-quality research that I have overlooked. If you are interested in how I approach client engagements then read my recent book ‘Managing Expectations – Building Client/Consultant Partnerships‘ published by Intranatverk.

Martin White


The Inquiring Organisation – Chun Wei Choo

Although I claim to be an information scientist in reality I am an information practitioner. Like so many intranet, search and knowledge managers I have to observe closely and then scale up in an effort to find some generic approaches to solving the very complex challenges that organisations face in managing information and knowledge. May be because of my original training as a chemist I am constantly looking for answers to ‘why’ certain approaches to information management seem to work within some form of information culture. Then in 2013 I came across a paper on information culture and organisational effectiveness by Professor Chun Wei Choo of the University of Toronto. In this paper he described result, rule, relationship and risk taking cultures and their impact on organisational effectiveness, and I have used this model many times in the period since its publication. In 2015 a paper was published by Thasi Elaine Vick et al on Information culture and its influences in knowledge creation that built on Professor Choo’s model, which brought together knowledge management and information culture.

Now Professor Choo has published The Inquiring Organisation – How Organisations Acquire Knowledge and Seek Information which sets out the underlying principles of information and knowledge management from the perspective of the epistemology of organisational learning and information seeking. The book commences with a very well structured introduction which it is essential not to skip over – in effect it is a handbook to the book. In Part One the fundamental principles of organizational epistemology are presented, which provide an inclusive approach to the inter-relationship of knowledge and information that is not built on that invidious triangle of data, information and knowledge, topped out with wisdom. As is the case with the entire book there are relatively few case studies but those that are presented are analysed in considerable depth.

Part Two addresses organisational information behaviour. (I reviewed a book on this subject recently). There have been many models of information behaviour, of which Professor Choo selects those by Carol Kuhlthau, Brenda Dervin and Tom Wilson to examine in considerable detail. I cannot emphasis how important I regard an understanding of information behaviours to the delivery of satisfactory information and knowledge management services. There is also a consideration of Robert Taylor’s work on a taxonomy of information use, an approach which I have found very useful in building use cases for intranets. In this section of the book Professor Choo builds on his 2013 paper referred to above and the later paper by Thasi Elaine Vick. He presents an integrated model of organisational information behaviour based on information needs, information seeking and information use. There is also a chapter in internet epistemology that at first did not seem to fit with the rest of the book but several readings later I now understand why it was included.

This book is very well structured, both in the overall journey towards the final chapter on The Inquiring Organisation but also the introduction that sets the scene and thoughtful codas at the end of each chapter than pull together lessons learned ready for the continuance of the journey in the next chapter. There is a very well selected bibliography and a good index.

Professor Choo’s book rewards careful reading, because the evidence he presents and the insights he gives will provide you with an invaluable set of lenses with which to view aspects of information and knowledge management. In much of his writing his initial training in engineering comes through, with a very grounded approach to the analysis ofthe case studies and a sure understanding of how organisations work. In many respects he presents a unifying theory of information and knowledge management, and I would suggest that the KM community would do well to consider what Professor Choo has to say. After all the root of the word ‘epistemology’ is the Greek word epistēmē, meaning “knowledge”. It may take you nine weeks to read and consider the nine chapters but at the end I am certain you will say to yourself “Now I understand”. The benefits to both you personally and to your organisation will be significant and long lasting.

Martin White

 


Re-Imagining Productive Work with Office 365 – Michael Sampson

When I was working on the IMF intranet in 2001 (during 9/11!) I was given a book that was the result of an ethnographic study of how the IMF worked. Ethnography is the study of how people behave in a social setting, such as an office, and ever since that project I find myself looking around offices as I conduct interviews to try to get a sense of how work is being accomplished. The reason for this introduction is that Michael Sampson’s new book is not just a handbook for Office 365 but a handbook for a digital workplace which happens to be using (or planning to use) Office 365. This is an important distinction because even if you do not use Office 365 this book provides a specification for all the work elements that you need to support in whatever platform you are adopting.

Michael’s books always have a structure to them, and each chapter has sections on The Big Idea, Research Findings, the Office 365 Capability, Analysis and Evaluation, What Firms Are Doing, Behavioural Aspects and On Improving Performance. After the introductory chapters the topics covered are

  • Storing and Sharing Files
  • Profiling Employee Expertise
  • Co-Authoring Documents
  • Managing Meetings
  • Holding Discussions
  • Running Team Projects
  • Thinking Productively

The section on research findings is important because there are many lessons to be learned from well-conducted surveys and from academic research. Most practitioners ignore this wealth of knowledge but Michael presents it in a way that the implications for a digital workplace manager are clear and helpful. This book is not a ‘quick read’ and certainly does not set out to be a populist “101 on Office 365”. Some authors make me feel that they are talking to me; with Michael I feel that he is alongside me guiding me through the forest of digital working to show where Office 365 offers good solutions, and also where it is currently lacking in functionality. Rather like a tour guide around a new city! It has taken me a while to write this review just because I have been working through it slowly (very unusual for me) and adding digital comments to the digital text as I went along.

As with all of Michael’s books the production quality for this self-published book is at a level that the leading commercial publishers would be proud of. The book is presented in landscape format which works well when text and screen shots have to meet up. I would like to have seen the comments about where Office 365 does not deliver given a little more highlighting and perhaps a suggestion of a work-around. My own frustrations with Office 365 are the error messages and the latency. I can work more quickly than the server! There is also no reference to search in Office 365 apart from a passing reference to Delve. There is a particular issue with people search, but that’s a long story and you can read more about it in Enterprise Search.

The single user price is $19, which is less than a couple of coffees and two nice cakes! If you look at the comments from other readers you will see that most of them focus on the benefits to Office 365 users. But this is far more than the Unofficial Handbook for Office 365. If you have any plans or even pretensions of creating a digital workplace then you need this book. Jane McConnell will guide you on strategy, Michael shows you how to put the strategy into action using Office 365 as an example platform.

Above all this book will make you think about what the core working patterns are in your organisation. Without this understanding any digital platform will fail to support productive work. Sometimes you may even have to change the working patterns to get the best from the technology so that overall the organisation benefits from the investment. You will certainly benefit from investing in this book.

Martin White


Defining and managing information quality

For the last three years I have been supporting major projects that involve content migration and enterprise search. A primary objective of both migration and search is ‘to improve information quality’ but in the projects I have been involved with little attention has been paid to defining the parameters or information quality and putting in place policies and processes to improve quality. The reason for not doing so is that the staff resources required are significant, and because there is no corporate commitment by the organisation to information quality it is all but impossible to gain the support required to at least start the journey towards information quality improvement. It is indeed a journey; there are no quick fixes.

In general organisations seem unaware of the significant amount of work that has been undertaken in to defining information quality standards and guidelines, dating back to pioneering work at MIT in the early 1990s that recognized information had to be fit for purpose and not just ‘accurate’. A very good resource on the development of information quality management is a book entitled The Philosophy of Information Quality, published by Springer in 2014. This book is a collection of contributions on all aspects of data and information quality edited by Luciano Floridi and Phyllis Illari. The quality of the contributions is very high but for some unaccountable reason there is no index to the book. Springer clearly does not have a commitment to information quality!  A similar book on Data and Information Quality is about to be published by Springer, and it will be interesting to see if an index is provided. There is an earlier book on Managing Information Quality from Springer which was published in 2006.

MIT remains at the heart of information quality management. It organises an annual conference, which in 2016 takes place in Spain from 22-23 June. The papers from previous conferences can be downloaded from the conference archive. The International Association for Information and Data Quality (IAIDQ) also organises an annual conference. It should be noted that in the context of work on information quality there is no differentiation between data and information though there are initiatives, notably around ISO 8000 – 2011 where the emphasis is on master data management. The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) publishes the Journal of Data and Information Quality but access is limited to ACM members. A good overview of the challenges of managing information as an enterprise asset (pdf download) is provided by Nina Evans and James Price, based in Australia.

The purpose of this post is to summarise some of the resources that are available in the area of information quality management. As I have mentioned above there are no quick fixes but information professionals should certainly ensure that they are aware of the substantial amount of work that has been published and is currently being undertaken.

Martin White