Archive for Definitions

Reaction: Embracing community through dialogue and unleashing the synergy of change: A multi-stakeholder dialogic change process workshop” [用對話擁抱群眾. 發揮改變的綜效] ~ Taipei Nov. 4-6 2011

Facilitation for me is the key to getting a group to buy-into any sort of change management process, knowledge sharing approach or system usability design process. It is never easy and the facilitation can be rather messy and on the surface appear disorganized and un-focused. I know from my work inside organizations that enabling the conversation between people involved in a process can be very difficult. The traditional meeting format doesn’t work because one or two leaders will dominate the discussion and often the other people will adapt whatever they say to suit the situation and not offend the leaders. Over the past three years I’ve learned how to use some of these facilitation techniques in classes, conferences and workshops; Bohm Dialogue, Knowledge Café, Open Space Technology, Butterfly Stamping, Appreciative Inquiry, Anecdote Circles, Future/Backwards and a few others. In learning settings these all seem to work quite well. However, when I’ve tried some of these facilitation techniques in the workplace I’ve had various degrees of success. This is certainly due to my lack of skill and experience but I think there is a big difference in a class or workshop using a facilitation technique where most people are very willing to give it a go and in the workplace where there are typically a few people who say ‘why are we doing this’ ‘let me just tell you my problem so I can get back to my desk’ ‘I think this is a waste of time’. It is not that everyone is negative and resistant to using the technique but even some resistance makes the process materially different from a learning experience in a class or workshop.

I went to a 3-day workshop on dialogue sponsored by the CP Yen Foundation in Taipei between November 4 – 6. The foundation’s goal is to ‘foster the art of dialogue’. The workshop had about 40 people almost all from Taiwan, myself from Hong Kong and 3 from mainland China. I had gone to a workshop called “Profound Journey Dialogue” this past May sponsored by ICA, Institute of Cultural Affairs, and was very impressed with the energy and passion of the participants. I knew some of the same people would be attending this workshop so I wanted to join. Taiwan is making a serious effort to build an inclusive and participatory democratic society and there is quite a lot of interest in the process of facilitating communication, dialogue, knowledge exchange and community participation. The CP Yen Foundation translated all of the workshop materials into Chinese so there are now many useful resources on dialogue and facilitation for Chinese speakers.

The workshop facilitator was Philip Thomas. He has a background in Latin American conflict resolution and has co-written a book with Bettye Pruitt, Democratic Dialogues: A Handbook for Practitioners published by United Nations Development Programme. The book can be downloaded for free.

Here is the flyer on the workshop. Philip has been generous to let me post the slides from the workshop here. Also, here are some photographs taken during the workshop. I’m so impressed with all of these people’s passion and commitment to pushing the boundaries of dialogue and participation.

So what do we mean by ‘dialogue’? Except for the Bohm quote all of these are from the Philip Thomas’ presentation materials:

“Because the nature of Dialogue is exploratory, its meaning and its methods continue to unfold. No firm rules can be laid down for conducting a Dialogue because its essence is learning – not as the result of consuming a body of information or doctrine imparted by an authority, nor as a means of examining or criticizing a particular theory or programme, but rather as part of an unfolding process of creative participation between peers.”
David Bohm, Donald Factor and Peter Garrett

“Dialogue asks that we navigate the narrow ridge between holding to our own perspectives while at the same time remaining profoundly open to the Other.”
Martin Buber

“Truth only reveals itself when one gives up all preconceived ideas.”
Kaneko Shoseki

“Each person’s view is a unique perspective on a larger reality. If I can “look out” through your view and you through mine, we will each see something we might not have seen all along.

The origin of the vision is much less important than the process whereby it comes to be shared. It is not truly a “shared vision” until it connects with the personal visions of people throughout the organization.”
Peter Senge

The book by Daniel Yankelovich – The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation has been translated into Chinese and was being sold at the workshop. Here is a PBS video interview with him from 1999.

Some of the facilitation techniques we used in the workshop were familiar to me and some were new to me. A very good resource recommendation Philip gave us was THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR DIALOGUE & DELIBERATION.

A 3-day workshop provides the opportunity to listen and do and ask and re-listen and re-do and ask again. These are some of the snippets with some references to the slides that resonated to me:

3D – Dialogue, Deliberation and Decision – see slide no. 20
Dialogue is a methodology to see the whole problem
Deliberation is deciding between the possible trade-offs
Decision is making the choice

Dialogue is about how to deal with dissent – not about eliminating differences.

Consultation does not equal consensus building.

Pab = Dba
Power of ‘a’ over ‘b’ is equal to the dependency of ‘b’ to ‘a’

Design is a dialogic process – this is the chorography part of a dance.

Facilitation is the execution – this is the performance part of a dance.

Triangle of Satisfaction – see slide no. 34
One side Psychological (People)
One side Substantive (Product)
One side Process (Process)

The people in the middle of the process are key. They communicate with the top and the bottom and provide a web of interaction between the top, middle and bottom levels of people. See slide no. 27.

There is a difference between the process design and the execution. Design the process carefully, thoroughly, participatively and respectively. Interview the participants carefully and document the results. Map the issues. Map the actors. Know the context. See slide no. 42.

Be aware that dialogic processes can be used as window dressing to obscure real issues and problems. People in an organization may try to use dialogic processes to their own ends.

In order to move beyond dialogue there needs to be a wiliness to reach
agreement and follow-thru with implementation. If all you can do is have a dialogue that is acceptable but don’t make promises beyond the dialogue.

Comments (1)

Results from my Case Sharing on Creating & Running a Records Management Programme at KM Singapore 2011

I went to the KM Singapore 2011 pre-conference master class on 31 August and then the 2-day conference on 1st and 2nd September. Take a look here for a run down of the conference and video interviews with the main speakers from the social media reporter Pier Andrea Pirani. Here are presentations and other materials from the conference.

The master class and conference were excellent; better than any thing I’ve seen done in Hong Kong in the knowledge management area. There were about 70 people at the master class and 180 people at the conference. The conference theme was ‘Riding the Wave of Experience’ and it built around having practical advice from people who had done things before like build intranets, how to facilitate a social media campaigns both inside and outside a big global organization, how to avoid the common traps of a knowledge management approach which has the best of intentions but so frequently fail so miserably, how to deal with organizational blindness and ignorance with even the smartest people and how to run a knowledge capture and transfer initiative. IKMS, Information & Knowledge Management Society, did a great job finding diverse speakers both from Singapore and from aboard. Throughout the conference there was good use of social media, such as an active twitter wall and video interviewing during the conference. This was the 1st time I’ve seen these kinds of social media done truly successfully at a conference.

On the second day, I ran two 45-minute case clinic sessions on Creating and Running a Records Management Programme. I had done a blog posting on 25 August in preparation for this case clinic. Following is a description of what I tried to explain and some of the questions and responses. At the first session there were about 20+ people and at the second session about 10+ people. These break-out sessions were run concurrently on both the 1st and 2nd days of the conference. It was a good idea and got us away from the ‘dreaded talking heads’. I like listening to good presentations but not for a whole day.

I put-up some A3 size sheets of paper on the wall and a flip charts. I learned blue-tack will hold a piece of A3 size paper to a velvet-covered wall.
1. Definition of Records
2. My Riff on the Knowledge Wheel

Inspired by Dave Snowden and Patrick Lambe

Knowledge Wheel – Updated

3. My Riff on the Cynefin framework

Updated 2013 ~ An Interpretation of the Cynefin Framework

Updated 2013 ~ An Interpretation of the Cynefin Framework

4. Template Letter to Law Office on Record Keeping Brief
5. Template Records Retention Schedule TOC
6. Template Records Retention Schedule Definitions
7. Template Records Retention Schedule Master List
8. Template Master Records Retention Schedule
9. Template Records Retention Schedule based on legal requirements only

Here is a run-down on my ‘case clinic’.
– A brief introduction about myself – 30+ years in records management, mostly in Asia with some time in Europe and the US – have 10,000 hours of experience so I guess I’ve reached Malcolm Gladwell’s expert level

– I believe what records management (RM) adds to the mix of knowledge management, content management, information management and library science is a way of separating the ‘useful’ from the ‘useless’. Not all knowledge is of equal value although it seems that many times this is the perspective of knowledge management; if it is offered up as ‘knowledge’ it must have long term value. The idea that some tangible piece of knowledge expires and can then be disposed is unique to RM.

– Pointed out that many times over the past 2 days we had heard people talk about ‘repositories’ full of junk, ‘repositories’ which no one used. If they used RM concepts of scheduling and expiration then these ‘repositories’ would be more useful and not full of junky and useless knowledge artifacts.

– Gave them 5 minutes to read the materials on wall and flip charts

– Explained the definitions of ‘records’ 1. Definition of Records

o Emphasized that having a policy with a clear ‘record’ definition was required. They would have many questions such as:
? ‘what is a record’
? ‘what do you mean by record’
? ‘does it include email’
? ‘does it include drafts’
? ‘does it include copies’

o Pointed out that the organizational definition included ‘promotional items’ – tangible objects, posters, video tv commercials, radio broadcasts, uniforms used during promotional campaigns ~

o ISO definition has always seemed a bit narrow to me but it is adequate

o ARMA definition longest and with an emphasis on the potentiality for a lawsuit. This is because ARMA is an U.S. dominated RM organization. Risk from lawsuits are not unique to the US.

– Used the Knowledge Wheel to explain where RM sits in KM. 2. My Riff on the Knowledge Wheel. Clearly it’s a part of Explicit Knowledge ‘Paper or Electronic, Documents, Books, Manuals, Vidoes, Audio, Databases, Systems, How to use them’ in the centre top sector. These are what I choose to call ‘knowledge artifacts’, which is taken directly from Snowden’s original ASHEN framework.

– However, to have a RM programme requires paying careful attention to the ‘Methods, Way we do it here, Routines, Processes, Standards, Teams & Crews’ in the left-hand sector. RM is always very closely connected to “how we do it at this place” so I recommend strongly you don’t try to change how they do it without having a very good idea of what is happening on the ground.

– Also, a RM programme must foster ‘Skills both physical and mental from learning, training and practicing’, from the right-hand sector. Tagging an electronic document or printing a label for a file folder, reading and using a records retention schedule, participating in an annual records day are all skills that the RM programme needs to teach and people need to learn. You will need to teach these things over and over again before people learn them: they need to become part of the mental model that people have about managing records in their organization.

– The RM programme gets supports from the Tacit Knowledge sectors in the bottom part of the Knowledge Wheel but it is very important to remember that records management has, at best, only an indirect role in tacit knowledge creation, sharing and use.

– I place RM in the ‘Simple’ and ‘Complicated’ domains of the Cynefin Framework, see 3. My Riff on the Cynefin Framework. RM is most useful for groups with >150 members and it may be helpful for groups of experts <150. I cannot see RM being very useful in the Complex domain because the groups are small and the time frame of the decision making is likely quite short for each iteration of ‘probe, sense, respond’. In the Chaotic domain there is no time to be searching thru the knowledge artifacts, although this seems to be a favourite Hollywood film or TV script scenario; ‘get me the file, the answer is found, the disaster is averted’. Does it every really happen this way?

– Explained the letter requesting a record-keeping brief to Outside Counsel, see 4. Template Letter to Law Office on Record Keeping Brief. In-house counsel seldom does this type of legal research work. It may not be that useful to even let in-house counsel try because they are unlikely to have the skills and necessary knowledge. It is vital to specify the type, scope and purpose of the record-keeping brief. Be sure to get a quotation first and specify there will be at least 3 drafts. The final record-keeping brief must be clearly written because it would be made transparent to all employees as a supporting document for the records retention schedule. Here is an example of a records retention schedule mapped back into record-keeping briefs, see 9. Template Records Retention Schedule based on legal requirements only.

– Explained how to collect business/organizational requirements needed using facilitation techniques
o focus groups
o anecdote circles
o card-sorting exercises
o ask questions like which records do you think are important, which are not important, what format are the records in, where are they kept
o very important to talk to all levels of staff, not just senior manager, not just line staff

– Conduct records inventory and compile statistics on type, format, volume, and ownership and then compare these results to what people have said during the facilitation exercises. It is quite likely what they have told you is different from what you think the records inventory and statistics are telling you.

– Take the results from the record-keeping brief and the business/organizational requirements and create a Records Retention Schedule. This is an iterative process that will take several rounds. It’s important to get to the ‘first usable draft’ and then keep revising it on at least an annual basis.

– Explained the RRS TOC ~ the first 2 levels are only for navigation, see 5. Template Records Retention Schedule TOC.

– Explained the RRS Definitions – Primary Records, Temporary Records and Disposal Suspension,see 6. Template Records Retention Schedule Definitions.

– Explained they needed some high level tags/categories for the Master Records Retention Schedule, see 8. Template Master Records Retention Schedule.
o Historic
o Fiscal
o Date Compliance
o Legal
o Reference
o General

– These are only useful when they can be applied consistently to a group of records that are described by use, function or purpose. This is where the more descriptive tags/categories are useful. Explained the RRS tags/classifications ~ how a classification was chosen, how it linked to the RRS 7 categories, Office of Record and the Notes which linked back to the Legal-keeping brief, see 7. Template Records Retention Schedule Master List.

– Emphasized that records are both paper and electronic and that frequently the paper records are more valuable/useful because of their organization. The ability to put different documents from disparate sources together, make notes on them, physically organize them with tabs and dividers is the real advantage of a paper file.

– Emphasized that senior management would not simply continue to buy more storage space, both hard-copy storage space in the office and off-site box storage or electronic storage archives, even if it is very cheap. Very cheap is never going to be ‘ZERO’ so it is likely that at some point you will no longer be allowed to keep adding various types of storage.

– Explained how standardized regular processes needed to become part of the ‘Way we do it here’; to apply the RRS tags/classifications to documents and file folders, move to archives as a regular process, dispose of them according to the schedule. Running records management days is a very good idea. When you run records management days it helps to recognize the amount disposed, moved to hard-copy and electronic archives by people, teams and departments.

– Telling people how many emails they have, how many electronic files in both personal storage and in departmental and team repositories, how many paper files in active office filing space and how many boxes in off-site storage would help people understand the scale and scope of the records management tasks.

Questions and comments from the groups:
1. Do we have to follow the schedule?
My answer: Well, if you go thru the process of making a RRS it isn’t very practical to not follow it. There is a tendency in RM to make a policy, make a schedule and then not follow them. Therefore, the RM programme never ‘gets legs’. Also, it can be quite dangerous to the organization to have a RM programme that isn’t actively followed.

2. Most people just want to save everything.
My answer: If they save everything then it becomes very difficult to find anything. If the haystack is smaller it is easier to find the needle. Remember what Patrick Lambe said in his presentation about the ‘tyranny of the collective’ and ‘mutual ignorance’. Don’t presume to know what ‘everybody’ wants to do. In my experience, if you give people a set of practices, processes, a records retention schedules then they will willingly dispose of expired records.

The response was: Yes, but it is just your opinion.

3. We just want to get better search engines and save everything.
My answer: Even the best search engines are not very effective with out tagging and structure around the records.

4. There are not many legal risks in Singapore involving records.
My answer: I don’t think this is true. As a common law jurisdiction the ability to request records as evidence is enshrined in Singaporean law. If you sell any product then you have legal risk from records. If you work in any sort of financial services business you have legal risk from records.

The response was: Yes, that’s probably true. We do sell things.

5. What do you do with email?
My Answer: Get across the concept that the email does not belong to the individual. They don’t get to take it with them when they leave the organization. Be prepared to hear many reasons why ‘I can’t do this’ with my email. Restrict mailbox size. Stop the use of personal archiving ‘pst’ files, they just cause many problems in the long run. Buy and implement email archives so your MS Exchange servers are more efficient but be sure to require tagging against the RRS categories. Remember that IT people typically do not have long-term perspective; they are only looking for the quick fix to the problem right in front of them; the IT solution, buy an archive, install and fill it up. They are thinking they won’t be here when the archive is full.

6. Should we have a central group that receives all records and manages the records?
My answer: It can work in a specialized situation like a law firm, court, hospital but in most organizations and businesses with a distributed work model it is not feasible or practical.

7. We cannot make people dispose of records.
My answer: You can certainly encourage them. You just have to be consistent, practical, offer real solutions and help them thru the process. I use to regularly facilitate the disposal of around 40% of paper and electronic records every year. Once again, remember what Patrick Lambe said in his presentation about the ‘tyranny of the collective’ and ‘mutual ignorance’. Don’t presume to know what ‘everybody’ wants to do. In my experience, if you give people a set of practices, processes, a records retention schedules then they will willingly dispose of expired records.

8. Can we use bar-codes and RFID (radio frequency identification) on documents?
My answer: Bar-coding is used for off-site hard-copy box storage in most cases. Bar-coding individual documents is only practical in those cases where the documents are very important and there needs to be a lot of control around them. I’ve done it for legal contracts. RFID could be used for boxes but I’ve never done it. Using is on individual documents is likely going to be too expensive.

9. Instead of disposing of the paper records can we scan them and keep them ‘just-in-case’ we need them?
My answer: You could but the cost is huge. How are people going to find the scanned images? Creating an index, tagging structure, taxonomy is not a simple task and they need to be maintained. In the end you will have put in a lot of effort and money for something that is not very useful.

People at the case clinic asked the same sort of questions about records management I’ve heard for years. This is not surprising. Records management is one part of ‘doing knowledge management’. Organizations mistakenly believe they are doing records management when they build a repository, create tagging terms and train people how to use this repository. Without the records retention schedule summarizing both legal and business/organizational requirements it is not a records management programme. Good RM processes help people find useful tangible knowledge artifacts and ensure that only those, which are truly useful, are being retained in various kinds of electronic and hard-copy repositories.

Comments (2)

Creating and Running a Records Management Programme: Case Sharing at KM Singapore 2 September 2011

I will be running a ‘Case Sharing’ called ‘Creating and Running a Records Management Programme’ as part of the KM Singapore 2011: “Riding the Wave of Experience” conference running between 31 August to 2 September. This case sharing will be on September 2nd. I created and managed records management programmes for many years. Take a look at my public LinkedIN profile for my work experience and education.

I’ve prepared some background material about ‘Creating and Running a Records Management Programme’ in this posting and other postings on this blog. If you are interested in attending the case sharing I recommend you read this post before the event. Think about the questions, concerns, problems, issues on the topic of ‘Creating and Running a Records Management Programme’. At the case sharing, I will facilitate a group discussion to share our knowledge on the questions, concerns and problems that people bring along. Just to be clear, I’m not going to give a ‘presentation’ on the topic.

Define Record
To start I want to define ‘record’. You will always come back to your definition of ‘record’ when you are rolling out and managing a records management programme. People will frequently ask ‘what is a record’? Here are three definitions of “record”. All of them are good.

The first is a short definition that could be found in a policy statement. It is short and says what a record is and what a record is not at this particular organization.

The second definition is from the ISO 15489 Standard ‘Information and documentation – Records management Part 1’. It is short and says what a record is with an emphasis on legality and transactional value.

The third definition is from the Association of Records Managers and Administrators. It is the longest and specifies both the physical format and that copies of records are included and it emphasizes the importance of records as evidence of activities and the risk of possible lawsuits.

An organizational definition of a record:
A “record” is information in any form or medium that is within the organization’s control and relates to the organization’s activity or business. This includes both electronic and hardcopy information and other tangible items such as promotional materials. Recorded information that is personal and not related to the organization’s business is not a record under this Policy.

ISO 15489 Information and documentation — Records management – Part 1
Section 3.15 
RECORDS – information created, received, and maintained as evidence and information by an organization or person, in pursuance of legal obligations or in the transaction of business

ARMA’s definition of record
Records are the evidence of what the organization does. They capture its business activities and transactions, such as contract negotiations, business correspondence, personnel files, and financial statements, just to name a few.

Records come in many formats:

    Physical paper in our files, such as memos, contracts, marketing materials, and reports

    Electronic messages, such as e-mail content and their attachments and instant messages

    Content on the website, as well as the documents that reside on PDAs, flash drives, desktops, servers, and document management systems

    Information captured in the organization’s various databases

When there’s a lawsuit, all of these – including the copies that individuals have retained and any items prematurely deleted or destroyed – may be identified as discoverable. This means they could be used against the organization in a lawsuit.

Records Management as a part of Knowledge Management
I want to place records management within a knowledge management framework. To start with, you should read these two posts I did in October and December 2009.

October 2009 on ‘CM, IM, KM, LS, RM – Is there any difference?’
I was almost finished with a MSc in Knowledge Management and I had been thinking and pondering how Content Management – CM, Information Management – IM, Knowledge Management – KM, Library Science – LS, Records Management – RM fit together. My perspective is they are all inter-related that is it difficult to do one without doing the other.

December 2009, ‘The Knowledge Wheel’
Records management is about managing explicit knowledge artifacts found in the centre top of the wheel, “Paper or Electronic, Documents, Books, Manuals, Videos, Audo, Databases, Systems to Use Them”. To make a records management programme work all of the other parts of the knowledge wheel come into play. You must have a clear idea of ‘how it is done here’ and you must support the skills, learning, training and practicing required when managing records. It needs to be acknowledged and made clear that the records management programme can only indirectly change how knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer is done between people and the programme will not reduce the importance of experience. In other words, records management programmes cannot ‘make’ people share knowledge although they may make it easier to share explicit knowledge artifacts if there is a willingness to do so; nor will records management programmes make it possible to share and transfer ‘experience’ unless there is a willingness on the part of the people to do so. What I’ve noticed is that knowledge managers, information managers and technology vendors will blithely make these claims whereas an experienced records manager doesn’t even consider them to be in the realm of possibility.

What is so special about Records Management?
The concept that records are ‘useful’ and eventually become ‘useless’ and can be disposed is what is so special about records management. For me, this concept of ‘expiration’ and subsequent ‘disposal’ is what separates records management from knowledge management and information management. This is basically of assigning some measure of importance to the records. Those that are more important need to be retained longer. Importance is a combination of organizational/business value and legal requirements. Both are rather difficult to collect and summarize easily on records retention schedules.

Recent research from TAB, a records management services and system vendor, says that 70% to 90% of hard-copy and electronic records kept at organizations over 5 years old are not required for day-to-day operational reasons. My experience with both hard-copy and electronic records confirms this is true. My rule-of-thumb is that people seldom use records that are more than 3 years old. Think about it this way; you are generally working on something that is looking towards the future and it may be useful to know what was done 12 months ago but only seldom is it useful to know what was done 24 or 36 months ago.

When records are created they are ‘useful’ for some purpose. However, the records become ‘useless’ over time and they need to be disposed. Records management uses the ‘records life cycle’ concept of CREATION – USE – DISPOSAL. USE is split into ACTIVE and INACTIVE where many times INACTIVE means moving the records to some cheaper and less assessable location. Even when the records are INACTIVE they are ‘useful’. Rather frequently people think moving records to storage means they are no longer ‘useful’, which is simply wrong. Sometimes during USE the record is transferred from one format to another format; traditionally paper to microfilm, paper to scanned image and becoming more common from one electronic format to another electronic format, e.g. Microsoft WORD to PDF or PDF to TIFF. A key records management goal is to motivate people to the point of DISPOSAL.

The advantages to the organization of creating ‘useful’ records and disposing of the ‘useless’ records can be broken into three groups:

One – it makes ii much easier to find useful records if the useless record are no longer there. It is easier to find a record if you or more likely the computerized index only needs to look through 10,000 records rather than 100,000 records.

Two – it protects the organization because if the ‘useless records’ are disposed they cannot be used to show what the organization was doing at that time in the past. Many times something done in the past is very difficult to explain when the social and cultural context has changed. Also, bit and pieces of records can be taken out of context to make up a story about the organization that may not be completely accurate. The organization does not need explain ‘why’ if the ‘useless records’ are disposed. The organizational/business usefulness may expire and then these ‘useless records’ may be moved to an historical archive. Remember that records in an historical archive still pose potential risk to the organization.

Three – it reduces the need to re-create work already done if ‘useful’ records are created and retained for as long as they are ‘useful’ to the organization. If records are disposed while they are still ‘useful’ it can be very expensive, very difficult and perhaps practically impossible to recreate the information and knowledge contained in these records.

Some records management horror stories
There are real risks of having to explain past actions based on retained ‘useless records’. For example, the U.S. Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement provides for US$ 206 billion to be paid to 46 U.S. states over 25 years arguably over the past actions of the U.S. tobacco companies. Those past actions were documented in thousands of internal tobacco company records, many of which were decades old when they had to be offered up to law firms working for U.S. state attorney offices and used as evidence against the four major U.S. tobacco companies. We do not know if it was only because of these retained ‘useless records’ that the settlement was made but it seems quite likely that it was a significantly contributing factor.

There are real costs if records have to be recreated because ‘useful’ records were disposed. NASA famously failed to retain the useful record of the original tapes that recorded the first moon-landing, see Kim Sbarcea’s blog on ‘The curious case of NASA lost tapes

There are real costs if records are not created and the tacit knowledge is only held in people’s heads. There was a US$69 million cost overrun because information and knowledge was either disposed in records which should have been retained or the tacit knowledge about ‘how we do it’ was never written down about how to build a component of a Trident nuclear warhead called Fogbank, see Patrick Lambe’s blog on ‘Forgetting’ . I am not suggesting that all tacit knowledge should be written down, but I have a strong suspicion that it would not have been impossible to document the production process for the component Fogbank and retain it. The Fogbank processes are from that part of ‘The Knowledge Wheel – Methods, Way it is done here, Routines, Processes, Standards, Teams & Crews’.

Why create a Records Management Programme?
A records management programme comes about for many reasons but generally these are the main ones I have encountered loosely ranked from most to least important:

  • Improve the ability to find records for operational and legal reasons
  • Reduce risk from keeping records too long
  • Reduce risk from not having records that are needed
  • Control costs for storage or for transfer from one format to another
  • Make the work environment more effective and efficient
  • When creating a Records Management Programme you need to do the following:

      Create a policy document and have it approved by the most senior members of the organization.

      Work with the people who create and use the records to collect the organizational/business reasons to retain/dispose of records.

      Work with in-house and outside legal counsel to collect the legal reasons to retain/dispose of records.

      Create a Records Retention Schedule (RRS) template. Typically there are two kinds of RRS templates. One is a global schedule that applies across the functions or the organization. Another schedule is a department specific schedule. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages.

      Create and maintain RRS that summarize who/where the official records are kept, any physical format requirements, trigger dates to move to storage, to transfer to transfer to another format and to dispose of the record.

      Identify and implement ubiquitous tools that can apply the RRS to records and tell you when to transfer, dispose and which will track these records management activities.

      Hold regular records management events – training, records management days, disposal events, compliance reviews, assess and follow-up with vendors, collect what does and does not work. The purpose of the events is to ensure people know who to use the RRS for their records.

      Create a storage and disposal strategy for both hard-copy and electronic records – off-site/on-site – out-source/in-house.

      Assess on a regular basis what does and does not work and amend the programme’s RRS, processes, templates, training, events and so on.

    Finding Aids and Retention Schedules
    The retention schedule is a key output of the records management programme. It tells the organization how long to keep the record. It tells the organization when to dispose of the record. The actual disposal event becomes an important record for the organization to keep since it proves the records were disposed and it means people can stop looking for the disposed record. The schedule may tell the organization when to move the record to another location.

    Collecting the organizational/business reasons is not easy. On the ‘The Knowledge Wheel’, “Methods, Way it is done here, Routines, Processes, Standards, Teams & Crews” is where you will find these reasons. Facilitation tools that get a group of people to talk about how and why they are doing something will help elicit these reasons; knowledge café, open space technology, knowledge audit, positive deviance, future backwards are all worth considering. Remember to include and ask many people at different levels in the organization what are these reasons to retain records. The opinion of the senior manager is most likely very different from a line worker. A senior manager is likely to say ‘we don’t need this’ while a line worker will say ‘we use this every year-end to cross check the annual sales numbers’. Frequently people will say that they need to keep records for ‘legal reasons’ but it turns out their reasons were inaccurate regarding length of time and format.

    Collecting legal reasons for record-keeping is not easy. You can ask lawyers but the off-the-cuff response is likely to be along the lines of ‘ideally keep everything’. This is not what you or your organization wants to hear. You can ask ‘professional service firms’ and they may have some answers but my experience is they only focus on financial records and even then may miss some of the requirements. Almost always the work is going to be out-sourced to outside counsel; it is unlikely that in-house counsel have the time and/or expertise for this type of question. Take a look at this template letter with some guidance on the review process. It is very unlikely that the first and second drafts will answer the questions you need answered. I have several times had to do my own legal research and give it to outside counsel to correct the erroneous information they were giving me on length of retention, format and so on. However, the final document is very valuable when it is shared widely and summarized on a records retention schedule.

    I do wish people would use the general term ‘finding aid’ first and then the more specific terms of classification, metadata, thesaurus and taxonomy. They are all different kinds of ‘finding aids’ and within each one there is a lot of variation. I guess I will have to keep hoping and wishing. The records management programme needs to have tools that help people find the records so they can manage them. Improving ‘findability’ is shared with both library science, knowledge and information management. Therefore, records managers spend a lot of time developing finding aids (see how easy that is to use) linking records to retention schedules. If you are lucky you will be able to work with a well-trained taxonomist and metadata specialist as you develop these finding aids. If not or even if you do have a good person to help you, I recommend you read these two excellent books:

      Patrick Lambe’s Organising Knowledge: Taxonmies, Knowledge and Organisational Effectiveness 2007
      Heather Hedden’s The Accidental Taxonomist 2010

    You may also want to join the Yahoo Groups/LinkedIN Groups ‘Taxonomy Community of Practice’.

    On a records retention schedule there can be categories, which define how long to keep a record. This category is one kind of metadata that can be attached to a record. A descriptive classification is another kind of metadata which may help you find the record but it won’t help you decide how long to retain the record. These two needs to be linked together on a records retention schedule. If you come to the case sharing on 2 September I can share some of my experience with creating, maintaining and applying record retention schedules.

    Here are some examples:
    Retention Categories
    Defines how long to keep the records. There only needs to be few of these retention categories. They must be centrally controlled and only changed if absolutely necessary. There must be a clear definition with examples and a retention period assigned to each retention category.

      Date Compliance

    Descriptive Classifications
    Helps you find the records. The bold and italics terms are only for navigational purposes; the descriptive classification which is assigned to a paper folder, electronic folder or a single document is under them. There can be hundreds or even thousands of these descriptive classifications. A central control authority must exist to ensure they are being used and that they meet the requirements of the people applying them to records.

      Human Resources

      Benefit Plans
      Educational Allowances
      Incentive Plans / Stock Options
      Pension Plans
      Relocation Files
      Retirement Plans
      Passage Allowance
      Home Leave


      Human Resources

      Personnel Administration

      Business Conduct Policy
      Employee Records
      Employee Tax Files
      Job Descriptions
      Organizational Announcements
      Organizational Charts
      Performance Appraisals
      Orientation / Training
      Work Permits/Visa

      Salary Administration

      Salary Administration

      Advancement Planning

      Advancement Planning
      Career Dialogue

    Records Management Organizations
    If you need information and education resources about records management then the place to start is with your country’s professional records management association. Here are a few of the biggest ones in the English-speaking world to get you started.

    Primarily North America with some outposts around the world:
    ARMA – Association for Records Managers and Administrators

    Primarily Australia & New Zealand with some members in the South Pacific and Asia
    RIMPA – Records and Information Management Professionals Australasia

    Primarily the United Kingdom & Ireland
    IRMS – Information and Records Management Society

    More on the technical side and they like to emphasize ‘content management’ but they have a strong records management perspective and it seems to me more of an international presence than those above:
    AIIM – Association of Information & Image Management

    Leave a Comment

    Reaction: Online Information Asia-Pacific

    I went to the Online Information Asia-Pacific exhibition and 2-day conference on this past Wednesday and Thursday, 23 – 24 March, at the Hong Kong Convention & Exhibition Centre, conference program here. There was also a 1-day Business Information Forum which I did not attend. All was organized by IncisiveMedia based in London. I was a member of the ‘Conference Committee’, which means I made some suggestions on speakers, marketing and promotion. The exhibitors were primarily compilers and resellers of information for academic libraries and businesses. Maybe there were 50+ exhibitors. The exhibition was free and there were some free seminars. It seemed to me that there were never more than 50 people at the 2-day conference but someone told me about 100 had registered. Turn-out for both the free exhibition and the conference could have been better but for a first year effort it was quite good. Hopefully, the 2012 exhibition and conference will be better attended.

    All of the speakers were good and here is the program. The 1st day was more technological and the 2nd day was more knowledge enabling. Eric Tsui from the HKPolyU facilitated the 1st day. Waltraut Ritter facilitated the 2nd day. Some of the highlights for me were:

    David Warlock, from Outsell, highlighted that the tablet is a ‘game-changing’ device like the IBM PC in the 1980’s. Its 5-year projected adoption rate is faster than any new ‘information’ device. What does this mean for information management? He didn’t claim to know that clearly. For me the big change is in ‘usage’. It’s all about ‘gestural computing’. People expect to be able to manipulate the device with a gesture. By the way, I don’t have any gestural devices but I intend to get my first iPhone4 soon.

    Bonnie Cheuk, from Citi, focused on the leadership skills to make using Web 2.0 social networking tools work in a large corporate environment. Bonnie has solid academic credentials and deep and successful big organization experience so I listen carefully to what she says. Bonnie has been using Sharepoint at two large organizations to facilitate online interaction, networking and discussion. I would say she is trying to do online ‘Knowledge Café’, ‘Open Space Technology’, ‘Bohm Dialouge’ and ‘Anecdote Circles’. She cautioned about getting over involved in the looking for the ‘best technology’; make what you have work, it isn’t about the technology. She is trying to move away from ‘anything goes conversations’ to focused and structured interactions.
    She didn’t say this exactly but I took away that Leaders 2.0 need these traits for using Web 2.0 in their organizations:
    • Passion – they must be internally motivated to want to use these tools
    • Commitment – they have to ‘stay the course’ and ‘stay on track’ and ‘spend time to learn’
    • Openness – they have to both listen to others and give their own opinion, feedback and expertise freely
    • Fearlessness – they must stand-up to the nay-sayers, to the people who say ‘I told you this won’t work’

    Diane Cmor, from Hong Kong Baptist University, talked about ‘information literacy’ and how that requires a ‘practice’ and a ‘mind-set’ to become a ‘Knowledgeable Knowledge Worker’. A KWW needs these attributes:
    • Expertise – stay current and know how to find what you need
    • Judgement – know when to stop looking
    • Mess tolerant – see past the mess of information and use it, don’t spend too much time on organization
    • Multi-focal – see the patterns and embrace serendipity
    • Social – share and exchange openly and transparently widely with the world
    She had a very good working definition of knowledge:
    Regular, wise use of best suited information to build, change and/or challenge knowledge in support of decision-making, problem-solving, innovation and growth.

    Waltraut Ritter, from the Asia Pacific Intellectual Capital Centre, explained what ‘Public Sector Information, PSI’ was and how it was opening up around the world. PSI can add value to the economy in many unexpected ways. It requires governments to change their ‘mindsets’ in order to make this ‘raw’ data available openly and easily to their public. The Hong Kong Government will open up traffic and geospatial data next week to the public thru an online website. She pointed out three good links to PSI sources:
    United States –
    European Union – European Public Sector Information Platform
    Europena – cultural institutions data

    Louise Pemberton, from Kroll, gave an excellent description of ‘real-world’ information management at a risk and security investigation firm. It is all about guiding the users, training and re-training, setting up the same look-and-feel across the Sharepoint sites and emphasizing that not all information in online. Some information comes from people and there are real skills and techniques to use when asking for information from people. Interestingly, Kroll has tried to use some of the Web 2.0 techniques like blogging and expertise pages and they didn’t ‘have much traction’. This is what I’ve also observed and experienced.

    Catherine Ruggieri, from Elliott Management, spoke about morphing from a traditional corporate librarian into a hedge-fund Market Data Manager and how she took on the IT Department and won thru persistence and guile. She reminded us all that it’s about making it happen and showing real value to the organization that give information management recognition inside the organization.

    Steve Arnold, from ArnoldIT, facilitated a to-the-point panel discussion at the end of the first day on the state of ‘Search’. He kept the panel focused and they had insightful answers. It was a good example of running a structured content meeting.

    Paul Corney, from Sparknow, facilitated all of us to give-back what we had gotten out of the conference at the end of the 2nd day. He used these in his introduction to get us started sharing:
    • Solutions – make in relevant
    • Sound – evokes memory and place
    • Space – enables interaction
    • Heritage – gives people a starting point
    • Stories – enables sharing across the generations of workers in a organization

    Leave a Comment

    Reactions – Chinese Facilitators Conference

    I went to the 2nd day of the Chinese Facilitators Conference in Shenzhen on 19 March. This was organized by Leadership, Inc. This was my birthday present to myself. Shenzhen has grown-up so much in the last 10 years. It is now a major Chinese city and has a different feel from both Hong Kong and Macau. The big superhighway coming in from the Shekou ferry pier on Friday night made me think I was in America. Dinner with some of the conference speakers and organizers on Friday night at an excellent Italian place made me realize this was a very different Shenzhen from my last trip ‘to the north’. Its sad to say but I seldom go to China and when I do I tend to fly to Beijing or Shanghai.

    At the conference there were 60 people from China (mostly) with a few from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. Many of the people were from learning and training functions in Human Resource departments. Many different industries were represented. Most of the people from China were from the south-east with a smattering from farther up the northeast corridor towards Shanghai and Beijing. Maybe there were people from interior but I din’t meet them. On the 2nd day we started with a good ‘Share a Process’ exercise. We counted off and then re-grouped into new tables of about 5 each. This was useful to ‘break the safety nets’ that people form on the 1st day. We each wrote down a facilitation process and then discussed them as a group. We chose one and each table presented their process to the group. I learned some new processes.

    There were then group break-out sessions. I listened to 张树金 Simba Zhang explain ORID methodology and how it can help make people more productive in meetings – Objecitve thinking, Reflective thinking, Interpretive thinking, Descional thinking (Experience, Emotion, Thought, Action). One of the student helpers from Shenzhen University translated for me which was very helpful. It was quite a good talk but gently I would recommend that Simba do this talk again and actually have the participants ‘do a ORID facilitated meeting’. ORID is a TOP, Technology of Participation facilitation technique. Here a good slideshare on ORID from Patricia Tuecke.

    A helpful guy from Fairland Information Limited, a translation firm in Shenzhen, very kindly showed me how to write my name in simplified Chinese. This was the subject of my last post so I enjoyed knowing how to do this:
    鲍 伟 林 Bao4 wei3 lin2 vs. 鮑 偉 霖 Baau6 wai5 lam4
    Putonghua vs. Cantonese
    Simplified vs. Traditional.
    Here is a good simple site for Chinese character lookup from Cantonese to Putonghua.

    The afternoon was devoted to an Open Space meeting with the topic, “Issues and Opportunities for facilitation in organizations in China”. I’ve read about Open Space several time but never experienced an event. It started with Larry Philbrook and Karen Lim arranging us all in a circle of chairs. There were some colourful blankets in the middle with some large sheets of paper and marker pens. I noticed they never used called this Open Space Technology, but only Open Space. It’s about ‘self-organization’, which sounds both easy and terrifying. People propose topics and anyone can gather around and discuss them. People can join and leave whenever they like. People are like ‘bumblebees’ and ‘butterflies’ and both are good. There is actually a little bit of organization in that at the beginning people write topics on the large sheets of paper and announce the topic and go put it on a wall. The topics are divided into 3 groups and each group of topics is given 45 minutes for discussion.
    The mantra of Open Space :
    – Whoever comes is the right people
    – Whenever it starts is the right time
    – Whatever happens is the only thing that could have
    – When it’s over, it’s over

    What I thought was the best was that this group of Chinese people self-organized themselves and participated openly, vocally and willingly. I’ve heard this so many time before that ‘we can’t do these types of group activities with Chinese people, they are too shy, too reticent to speak up in public, and so on’. I didn’t see any of that at this Open Space. We discussed and moved around and wrote up bullet points on butcher paper. We signed our names on the ‘topic’ sheets so we could but our mark on this participation. Of course, my participation was minimal since most of the conversation was in Putonghua. I got some help from time to time and if I sat and listened carefully and read what was being written down I could participate a bit. We finished with a huge circle of chairs using a talking stick. About 10 people stood up and commented on the Open Space. We then all got a chance to speak and make a comment and give our thanks. It was truly very inspiring.

    Comments (3)

    Chinese Character Normalization – Finding People in Greater China

    For most of this past year I’ve been working on a project that involved searching for Chinese people in various online databases using their Romanized names or their Chinese character names. When you are searching for someone’s Chinese name inside a database there are some quite thorny issues. With the rise of China as the world’s 2nd largest economy and Chinese people traveling and spending more and more around the world these issues about identifying Chinese people by their names are going to become a part of many knowledge workers day-to-day tasks. Here is the definition of Greater China from Wikipeida.

    Most of the time trying to find a Chinese person among many other Chinese people in a database by name is not very successful. Most of the problems are around ‘Romanization’ and ‘Simplification and Traditional Chinese characters’. If you are interested in ‘Romanization’ see this Wikipeida entry. The ‘Romanization’ problem is that there are simply too many methods and no real standard.

    In mainland China, people are by law required to use ‘simplified’ characters for their names. This assumes that there is a ‘simplified’ character for that name. In Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan people use ‘traditional’ characters for their names. If you are interested in the difference refer to this Wikipedia entry. In any event, ‘simplification’ is a master stroke of censorship and knowledge control by the mainland Chinese government. Mainland Chinese have difficulty reading books, pamphlets and newspapers from outside of China. What better way could there be of controlling knowledge than by changing the writing system people use every day? Conversely, people from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan have a difficult time reading ‘simplified’ characters. Some claim it is harder to go from ‘Simplified’ to ‘Traditional’ than from ‘Traditional’ to ‘Simplified’ but I’m not sure. Reading Chinese is always hard for me and I’ve learned both character sets, sort of, up to the 1,000 character mark.

    However, since there are different character sets a problem arises when someone from mainland China comes to Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan and start to use their written character name to open accounts at banks, shops, hotels and so on. The same happens when people from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan go to mainland China. Simply put, people can’t easily read this person’s name. The solution is to ‘transform’ the name into the ‘correct’ character set; ‘Simplified’ Character to ‘Traditional’ Character or ‘Traditional’ Character to ‘Simplified’ Character. It happens all the time when a person opens an account where there details will be input into a database. They write down their name in the character set they are comfortable with using and the person either collecting the names or the data-input person ‘transforms’ this name. Interestingly, all Hong Kong and Macau Chinese people may apply for a ‘home return permit‘ card that lets them cross the border into China easily, and also lets the Chinese government know they have arrived. Their names are always ‘transformed’ into simplified characters when there is corresponding character between the ‘traditional’ character and the ‘simplified’ character. I assume these transformations are more accurate than some of the others. I know some of the transformations between ‘simplified’ to ‘traditional’ are not always accurate. This is due to imperfect knowledge of the mapping rules between the character sets. Sometimes people are in too much a hurry so they simply guess. All Chinese names have at least 2 characters and many, maybe the majority, have 3 characters. Sometimes the transformer will transform 1 or 2 characters and leave 1 or 2 character unchanged.

    The end result is that if even if you have a Chinese person’s correct name you may not be able to find it in a database because someone has ‘transformed’ the name. Sometimes you can’t find a Chinese person in a database because you believe their name is written with character ‘X’ but in fact they write it with character ‘Y’. The only way to solve this problem is for the database’s search engine to ‘normalize’ the search. Here is an excellent summary of ‘normalization’ prepared by Michael CY Chan.

    Leave a Comment

    Debate is good but ….

    I’m still rather surprised how basic concepts such as the explicit / tacit split or the role of ‘culture’ are continuously debated by the global blogging KM community. Explicit knowledge in documents is important but clearly not everything that is in documents is important. There needs to be assignment of value to the documents. The most effective way (actually it seems to me to be the only way) of doing this is by classification and assigning retention periods. Call it taxonomy building if you like. Tacit knowledge can only be found, used or shared by connecting people. The importance of facilitating connection cannot be under-estimated. However, KM can’t just be about connections because memory over time and space requires more than just making transient connections between people. What do people mean by organizational culture? It has never made sense to me and I notice people use the ‘culture’ word without ever defining what they mean when they glibly say ‘culture is important’ or ‘consider culture carefully’. Do they think culture is something that can be broken if mis-handled like fine china?

    Leave a Comment

    Knowledge Wheel

    This is based on a much more simplified version from a Patrick Lambe video on how to conduct a knowledge audit. This wheel also owes a lot to David Snowden’s ASHEN framework but the language has been simplified. I recommend this video highly. My version here grew out of my last project in the MSc programme at HKPolyU. I am now finished! At least I hope so, I need to see what the final marks are in a few weeks time. Assuming successful completion, this has made me reflect on what I’ve learned and this sums a lot of it up. I have a much better idea on what is explicit and tacit knowledge. Also, I understand much better the tension between trying to ‘manage’ all the different kinds of explicit and tacit knowledge. There will always need to be choice on where to put knowledge management effort and it depends on the organization’s goals, resources and abilities. The explicit / tacit distinction is fluid much of the time which is what I’m trying to show with the blurry lines and spaces. Methods and Relationships as well as Skill and Experience are two sides of the same coin. Explicit may not always be as concrete as a document but it could become a document, webpage, recorded talk very easily. Tacit may not be as ephemeral as ideas, thoughts or hunches since many people have very good tools to help them describe and share them with others. The knowledge wheel gives a pretty bumpy ride.

    I’ve decided to update the Knowledge Wheel in 2013. The wheel is showing the 6-facets of knowledge. The top three are more concrete, what knowledge managers like to call explicit, and these are either actual knowledge artifacts (from Snowden) or could be easily made into documents, visual images or audio recordings. Explicit-like knowledge is where most knowledge management programmes spend time, effort and resources. The bottom three are less concrete, what knowledge managers like to call tacit, and these are difficult to quantify and make visible. This is the knowledge that most people perceive as being the most valuable. This value may be difficult to describe but there is a gut feeling that this is what counts. Knowledge management programmes don’t spend enough time nurturing these three sectors of the knowledge wheel. Facilitation methods that bring people together to explore different perspectives are helpful.

    Inspired by Dave Snowden and Patrick Lambe

    Knowledge Wheel – Updated

    Comments (5)

    Future Centres

    I went to a half-day seminar at the Hong Kong Science & Technology Park about Future Centres.  Four main presenters, Prof. W.B. Lee from HKPolyU, Mr. Hank Kune from the Netherlands and associated with the Dutch Future Centre network, Dr. Ron Dvir from Sweden and associated with Innovation Ecology and Prof. Leif Edvinsson founder of the Skandia Futures Centre and well-known for his work on intellectual capital.  This was prelude for the Knowledge Cities Summit starting tomorrow in Shenzhen, just across the boarder in China.  The summit will go on for 2 days and now I’m sorry I will miss it but I must concentrate on my school work.  Back to the future centres.  The HKSTP is very impressive; built on the waterfront of Tolo Harbour, a collection of about a dozen low by HK standard glass and steel towers on a green campus.   Its been a work in progress for years and rumor has it that it is having a hard time getting tenants.   There were quite a lot of people around at lunch but many of the towers looked rather empty.  It is a bit difficult to actually get to but by bus, train and bus I was there in just at an hour.  This is not bad considering I’m coming from Discovery Bay on Lantau Island which is about as far away as one can get in Hong Kong.

    So what is a Futures Centre?  It seems to be a physical place which is outside of normal experience.  Hank Kune said “it is a place you can think outside of your normal mental patterns.”  It is not just meeting rooms but really different physical places, with unusual colours, unusual furniture – just generally unusual – sometimes quite jarring.  The concept is that by putting people in a new, different and unusual environment they will think about the future more easily.  Well ok, I guess this may be true.  The analogy is that most inspiration happens when people are doing something like hiking, going to the theatre, taking a shower and so on.  Somewhere it was decided that Future Centre meant Innovation Centre.  I’m not too sure when that happened but it was never questioned by the group.  Can we re-create and facilitate this sort of spontaneous innovation space and call it a Future Centre?  From the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Finland and the UK they gave us examples of Future Centres.  Typically associated with government bureaus and departments but there were a few examples from banks and the like.  Places where people could have the time to think about what may happen.  There were some impressive results – start-up companies formed, conflicts eased between bureaucrats and   construction industry , faster and more consolidated public service and so on.

    Dr. Ron Dvir talked abou the Operating System for Future Centres and what that OS is made up of.  You can find a short list on his website here.   He came up with a much longer list so I’ll list them all again here.  Think how all of these can come together to create a space where people while embrace the future – lots of Nonaka’s ば, ba, here.

    • Value proposition
    • What are future centres
    • Building blocks
    • Models
    • Metaphors
    • Future centre as BA – ば
    • Organizational perspectives
    • Methodological perspectives
    • Physical perspectives
    • Technological perspectives
    • People
    • Results & Impact
    • Lifecycle
    • Business models
    • Permanence management
    • Visit
    • Play
    • Meet
    • Watch
    • Prototype
    • Innovate
    • Futurize

    Prof. Edvinsson asked what would be the opportunity cost of not doing a Future Centre.  DaVinci entertained his patrons with his games, puzzles and ideas and used that income to fund his serious work.  It seems as reasonable as any other explanation, although I do think DaVinci made some money in building war machines for some Italian princes.   Prof. Edvinsson left us with a new word ‘actuality’ defined as what will happen in 0-12 seconds – apparently this is via Prof. Nonaka.

    We toured the HKSTP briefly and saw some very well-kitted out rooms with science museum like games and activities.   A brain-storming center with a dozen laptops and a 4 huge screen overheard where participants could ‘brainstorm’ quickly and efficiently.  I don’t think my comment that 2.5 million HK dollars (my quick mental arithmetic on the kit) was needed to build something that could be done with post-it notes and a white board was well-received.   It was impressive and it would give almost perfect anonymity to the brain-storming participants.  Some of the other kit, like the brain wave game, was purely fun.  Are these rooms a Future Centre?  Most people agreed that the rooms were not the critical factor but rather the facilitation of using the rooms is what would make them become a Future Centre.  Now they are just rooms with fancy kit.

    I spoke to a senior manager at the HKSTP at the end and it was revealing that  most of the 300 or so companies in the complex do not have any explicit knowledge management role in their organizational structure.  The HKSTP doesn’t have any group who facilitate knowledge management for the complex as a whole.   This is disappointing because the HKSTP is one of the most knowledge using intensive places in Hong Kong.  Maybe it will change in the future.

    Comments (1)

    CM, IM, KM, LS, RM – Is there any difference?

    I am inspired to blog about this after reading Patrick Lamb’s blog here.
    A list of my acronyms.

    • Content Management – CM
    • Information Management – IM
    • Knowledge Management – KM
    • Library Science – LS
    • Records Management – RM

    I’ve wanted to blog about the CM/IM/KM/LK/RM divide for months.  For me, a long time records manager, they are all so inter-related that I can’t really recognize them as separate disciplines – different facets on the same subject area seems like a more reasonable perspective.  Academically, Library Science and Information Management are the most common in university programs.  Most of the time, IM straddles somewhere between information technology and business management.  Increasingly, library science programs are described as information management programs.  Library Science programs produce academic librarians and organizational libraries.   Academic libraries are now heavily computerized and give many traditional library services on-line.  Organizational librarians seem to often morph into information managers and knowledge managers because they deal with electronic records and online services and want to distance themselves from the vision of the dusty under-used library.  Content Management should be about managing all sorts of content; hard-copy records, electronic records such as email, documents, spreadsheets, presentations, small and large databases, web-pages, moving and still images.  In practice, in the job market it almost always means internet/portal design and management.  There is nothing wrong with this but it may be more practical to just advertise for intranet or portal managers and avoid the confusion.  Records Management is about keeping organizational records needed to run the organization and comply with regulations.  It has existed in one form or the other for centuries and its processes are embedded in organizational structures.  This does not mean the processes are necessarily good or effective but there are embedded processes that can be very difficult to change.  Knowledge Management takes bits from all the above; explicit knowledge from Records Management, technology from Information Management, classification and taxonomy from Library Science, the wide scope from Content Management and then adds one of its own many flavors of tacit knowledge identification, decision-making, story-telling and complexity, among others.

    RM and LS are old school disciplines that existed before computers.  CM, IM and KM are new school disciples in the post-computer age. This is at the core of why they often don’t communicate well with each other.  They speak different languages and have a high level of mis-trust.   Many Librarians and Records Managers learn about information technology but are blocked from applying what they know to real-world problems.  Content Managers, Knowledge Managers and Information Managers spend too much time re-inventing the wheel because they haven’t learned basic library science and records management concepts.  So much of the time when I see approaches devised by CM, IM, KM managers to solve problems I wonder, ‘why don’t they just learn a little bit of library science and records management methods and techniques?’  By the same token, I see KM managers who seem to have no understanding and amazing even less wish to learn about web-pages, electronic repositories, databases and system design.  It is not reasonable to call yourself a Knowledge Manager and have no understanding of the technology of managing information (call it explicit knowledge).  It is not reasonable to call yourself a Content Manager and have no understanding of how classification and taxonomy can be applied.  There are too many examples of extremely naive classification systems being put into place to manage intranet and portals simply because there is a lack of knowledge of what librarians and records managers have been doing for centuries.  It is not reasonable to call yourself a Records Manager and have no understanding on how to assign value to records.

    Specifically, here are some examples.

    • When KM talks about building electronic repositories it is doing a kind of RM.  KM repositories all to often have no concept of expiration and retention and then become overly full of expired and untrustworthy knowledge.
    • When RM talks about assigning retention periods based on business value it is doing a kind of KM.  How do you decide what is important?  What is needed to make a better decision?  KM has real value to offer in these areas.
    • When CM talks about keeping content current it is doing a kind of RM.  The concept of retention periods only seems to exist in records management and it needs to become pervasive across all the facets.
    • When IM talks about managing information it disregards anything that isn’t electronic.  There are then huge holes in the scope of information being managed.

    If you are going to be involved in CM/IM/KM/LK/RM then you need to accept that you will need to become reasonably competent in each of these facets.   Spending time on demarcating the differences is not worthwhile.

    Comments (3)

    Older Posts »