The concept of content convergence – or information convergence – is not new and, as different forms of born-digital information objects are proliferating, there is a growing awareness of the need to preserve access to these digital assets and a recognition that digital curation is one of the great challenges of the digital age. This paper explores the changing information landscape and how the roles of those involved with the management of information will need to evolve, adapt and converge to meet the challenges of the digital age.
Category: Information Management
Systemscope welcomed two new members to its team of consultants:
Kathy Roy has implemented business transformation and change management projects in complex organizations for over a decade. She has worked with major companies, both public and private, and with numerous business sectors in both Canada and the United States.
As a Management Consultant, Kathy has partnered with her clients as they sought innovative ways to reduce costs and improve service delivery. She has worked with clients at all levels and can offer both strategic and operational perspectives on business solutions. She has created and analysed detailed process maps, integrated process metrics into work activities, and utilized this information to develop powerful management decision-making tools, such as scorecards and dashboards. She has a unique perspective on how to truly effect change, as she has gained extensive feedback on all of her change implementations as an auditor. This unique insight has delivered lessons learned that she applies with all of her clients to deliver truly sustainable solutions.
As an Executive Coach, Kathy enjoys the flexibility and precision that may be applied to the highly specific business objectives of her clients. She has assessed client needs and crafted engagements to best suit them. She has the hands-on experience required to provide guidance that considers both strategic and operational requirements. Years of managing business transformation projects have afforded her the ability to see opportunities where others see obstacles, and this quality is effectively applied through her coaching.
Kathy is driven and dedicated to solving the problem at hand; she has never met a challenge too big.
Kathy can be found on LinkedIn, and reached via email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Ryan Gideon is a consultant in Systemscope’s Enterprise Information Management practice. With a Master of Library and Information Science degree from the University of Western Ontario combined with his employment history, he offers a broad range of experience and knowledge. He has worked with a number of federal government clients on various projects including electronic records disposition, preparation for implementation or upgrade of electronic documents and records management systems, and IM training and awareness.
The truth is out there. So why is it so hard to find? Performance measurement and management is often paid lip service in government, but rarely is it done well. Is it because we are afraid of what we’ll find? Will the truth affect our budget, our bonus, our credibility? Is it safer to mask the truth under a thin veil of rhetoric in saying that objectives have been met, supported by simple indicators and a lot of spin?
As accountability instruments (e.g. Fed AA, MAF, PAA, PMA) continue to grab hold, there’s nowhere to hide. Want to get credit for something – prove it! Need to avoid a crisis – manage it! Want to improve – learn and do it better! Performance management is more than just tracking and reporting. It’s critical in the upcoming climate of fiscal restraint, as well as strategic review and administrative review.
Gina Smith, A/Executive Director of the IT Project Review and Oversight Division, Treasury Board Secretariat, and Stephen Karam, Systemscope Partner and Practice Lead – Government Service Excellence highlighted how performance management within the GC are fundamentally evolving as a result of several influences – from Administrative Review to recent OAG reports through to the need for more effective executive decision support.
Download the presentation: You Can’t Handle the Truth: Management of Performance
Systemscope returned to GTEC October 5, 2010 with three informative workshops from our consultants paired with innovative public servants. New this year was a fast-paced, provocative Ignite-style session as well as two other workshops showcasing how public sector leaders are using new approaches and methods to address the persistent challenges within Government Transformation and Performance.
Presentations Now Available!
Igniting Government Transformation: With Ignite-style presentations from Systemscope experts and client partners David Eaves and Ron Surette, DG of Information Technology Branch, Library and Archives Canada.
You Can’t Handle The Truth: Management of Performance: With Gina Smith, A/Executive Director of the IT Project Review and Oversight Division, TBS, and Stephen Karam, Systemscope Partner and Practice Lead – Government Service Excellence.
Everything’s Different, But Has Anything Changed?: Realizing Efficiencies Through Organizational Transformation: With Victor Abele, DG of Citizen Service Strategy, Service Canada, Denis Barbeau, Systemscope Partner and Practice Lead – Strategic Business Consulting and Stephen Karam, Systemscope Partner and Practice Lead – Government Service Excellence
Systemscope Senior IM specialist Linda Daniels-Lewis and Alexandra Freeland from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) presented Architecting for the E-Record on Tuesday, April 27th, 2010 at the Managing Information in the Public Sector conference in Toronto, Ontario. Their session focused on:
- The requirements for managing an electronic record;
- Which systems can and should be regarded as Systems of Record deserving of RM rigor;
- The information architecture components required to aggregate records across data systems;
- How the development of a Business Information Relationship Model can help identify those IA components; and
- How digital signatures can be introduced and managed to reduce the need to retain signed paper records.
By Kellen Greenberg and Linda Lee
As consultants working for government clients, we have recently noticed that “business process mapping” has become a loud whisper among the IM community. It has been said with interest, as well as with some trepidation. Regardless, IM specialists are starting to feel the need to understand this tool better and understand how it can be used within the IM context.
One of the reasons business process mapping is sparking a lot of interest is due to the new Directive on Recordkeeping that was released in July 2009. Government organizations are being asked to identify and focus on managing information resources of business value. One of the suggested methods for identifying information resources of business value is through business process mapping.
View of a Management Consultant
I’m continually surprised at the new challenges that can be overcome using process mapping tools and techniques. When we first sat down and looked at the new Directive on Recordkeeping, it became apparent that the core challenge was not just identifying which records are of “business value”, but doing so with accuracy and efficiency – going through records one-by-one is not practical and applying batch values can often miss the mark.
As we talked through the challenges, process mapping started to show promise as the tool that could find the balance between “getting it right” and “cost effective”. Process mapping lets us focus on how documents are used, rather than what the document is. First, we identify the processes that are of value to your business, and associate with those, the records that are of value to the process.
The solution: Records, meet process.
Let’s take a transactional process as an example. The specifics of a transactional process will vary from one business line to the next. The specific steps may be different and the records used and produced throughout these steps will be different. However, at a higher level of detail, there are similarities that hold true across nearly all transactional processes. They all typically involve four basic steps: Receive request, process request, produce response, and follow-up. Further, the documents produced and used along these steps will have significant similarities in value.
By defining these generic processes for your organization, and defining generic records of business value within them, you can begin rolling-out the model across the whole organization. Doing this will provide you with a sound first cut at defining the records of business value across the whole organization, and do so far more efficiently than other methods.
What this gets you:
- Identification of records of business value at a generic level across the whole organization
- Common approach for defining process types and records
What to do next:
- Link specific documents from business lines to the generic ones identified
- Continue to manage the definition of ‘business value’ at a process level
View of an Information Management Consultant
Although the Directive on Recordkeeping may have ignited the interest in business process mapping, I have found that this tool can be very useful for both the IM specialist and the IM group in an organization. This is true more than ever as the role of IM specialists is changing in this evolving GC IM environment. More and more, we are being asked to be business analysts.
Business process mapping can be a powerful communication tool. Communication is a large part of IM in an organization – communication of IM responsibilities and properly managing information. Process maps can very simply and effectively show the links between the business processes and IM requirements. For instance, process maps can clearly show business managers when and where to store the information resources created and collected in their business processes.
The exercise of identifying information resources of business value, although potentially a large investment, can be worthwhile in the long run.
Kellen Greenberg is a consultant with Systemscope’s Strategic Business Consulting practice. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Linda Lee is a consultant with Systemscope’s Information Management practice. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
On October 21 2009, Systemscope’s Senior Information Architect Linda Daniels-Lewis delivered a very well-received workshop at the 5th Electronic Documents and Records Management conference in Ottawa. The workshop explored a common challenge faced by many GC organizations: managing e-records without the support of an Electronic Document and Records Management System (EDRMS). The workshop drew participants through a process that covered:
- Defining the e-Record
- Managing e-records
- Classifying e-records
- Where to begin
- How to proceed
- How to succeed
If you’d like to discuss this challenge with Linda, she can be reached via email at daniels-lewis[at]systemscope.com
Download the Presentation (English, PDF)
For more information, visit the Federated Press (PDF link)
Many GC organizations are still learning and applying the lessons of Web 1.0 with respect to information architecture, findability, and managing content lifecycles. Web 2.0 creates new challenges. One of the most compelling aspects of Web 2.0 is that it enables open, creative, user-generated approaches to contributing and organizing information, but social media platforms also need to get the basics right: ease of use, search that works, and content you can trust and manage from cradle to grave. What tactics can you use to strike the right balance between control and chaos? What’s the relationship between user-generated content (wiki articles, blog posts, group discussion, tweets) and more traditionally understood content domains (Web sites, documents, and records)?
Using GCPEDIA as an example, this session focused on the principles, challenges and risks involved in architecting effective and usable social media experiences. Jane Stewart, Systemscope’s Senior Web Information Architect and Director of Web Channel Management, and Thom Kearney of Treasury Board’s Chief Information Officer Branch discussed:
- The role of categories and taxonomies in social media environments;
- User tagging vs. controlled terminology;
- Finding and linking across multiple repositories;
- Managing “trust” in Web 2.0 environments.
Download the Presentation: Architecting 2.0: Striking the Balance Between Control and Chaos (English)
Créer l’architecture du 2.0 : atteindre l’équilibre entre le contrôle et le chaos
Plusieurs entreprises du GC en sont encore au stade de l’apprentissage et de la mise en œuvre des leçons du Web 1.0 quant à l’architecture de l’information, la trouvabilité et la gestion du cycle de vie du contenu. Le Web 2.0 amène avec lui de nouveaux défis. L’un des aspects les plus fascinants du Web 2.0 est sa possibilité de permettre aux utilisateurs de contribuer au contenu et à l’organisation de l’information de manière ouverte et créative. Toutefois, les fondements de ces plateformes de médias sociaux doivent être solides : faciles à utiliser, permettre une recherche efficace et créer un contenu auquel on peut se fier et qu’on peut gérer intégralement, « du berceau au tombeau ». Quelles méthodes pouvez-vous utilisez pour atteindre cet équilibre entre le contrôle et le chaos ? Quel est le lien entre le contenu généré par l’utilisateur (articles wiki, blogues, discussions collectives et microblogage) et les domaines de contenu plus traditionnels (sites Web, documents et enregistrements)?
En utilisant l’exemple du GCPEDIA, cet atelier était axé sur les principes, les défis et les risques liés à l’élaboration d’une architecture qui permettra des expériences de médias sociaux à la fois efficaces et utiles. Jane Stewart, chef des services de l’architecture de l’information Web et directrice de la gestion du canal Web chez Systemscope et Thom Kearney, de la Direction de dirigeant principal de l’information du Conseil du Trésor, ont discutés:
- le rôle des catégories et des taxonomies dans les environnements de médias sociaux;
- l’utilisation du taggage contre de terminologies contrôlées;
- rechercher et relier plusieurs logithèques de référence; et
- la gestion de la « confiance » dans les environnements Web 2.0.
Désolée, cette présentation n’est pas disponible en français.