Library Closures - a Trend? Madness I say! Madness!

Human Resources library closure part of troubling trend - I'll say! For years, much has been written about information overload, challenges with personal information management, finding the "right" needle in the information haystack, the gradual transition information on the Internet from free to "for a fee." And now it appears that organizations are dismantling the very groups that are in the BEST position to have a significant, positive impact on knowledge worker productivity and quality of knowledge work.

Like many of you I'm sure, my love affair with librarians began with my very first contact. Faced with what I thought the insurmountable challenge of writing my first essay in what was known then as "junior high school," I tentatively took my first steps into that sweet space of learning called the Library. There I met the most wonderful person. Welcoming, supportive, inquisitive, brilliant, empathetic, and soooo knowledgeable, my first librarian inquiried about my objective, my challenges, my existing thinking, and helped me navitage through the thousands and thousands of books, magazines, newspapers to the best few relevant to my quest. And she also helped pinpoint specific pages/paragraphs of greatest value, and helped frame up my thinking and approach to the essay. Heaven sent! My stress immediately shrank like a deflating baloon.

Thus began the love affair that has lasted years and years through various educational institutions, public and corporate settings. Definitely a long term relationship that is even richer and deeper today.

I find a lot of people get "juiced up" about how social media and associated technologies are changing how we work in amazing ways. No denying that.  But we're still a long way from - a la Star Trek - saying "computer.. " and having magic happen. Sure, we can more easily build social networks that we can tap into. Sure we can have RSS feeds that send us gobs of content based on some general criteria from sources we choose.  Sure there are lots of blogs and other content sources we can surf. And sure, we can share tags, ranks and comments about the content. OMG can you say "MEGA OVERLOAD!"  Can you say "Information Armageddon!"

Most of us are NOT in the information management business (unless it's your hobby on your personal time). Our job is to do our job, which we can't do if we're spending too much time rifling through / filtering, deciding exactly what to use and learn from - of all of the information from all of the information channels at our disposal - for a specific task.  And do we not often lament that we don't actually have the time to find, and often don't have the access rights for, what we really need? And are the networks of people that we are ever more reliant on filled with people facing the same challenges with little time to help US out?

Is there not very significant value in having highly trained professionals who can:

• continuously identify, qualify, broker, provide access / point to highly relevant information sources ranging from high-cost subscriptions to leading discussion forums / blogs and even internal information sources?
• do some preliminary research and analysis to get you off on the right foot?
• help you connect and dialog with people who share common interests?
• anticipate what you need and make necessary provisions so there is no lag time between when you need something and when you can access it?
• participate in and serve the immediate and emerging information / learning needs of the communities you belong to?
• do the above with quality and timeliness and enthusiasm because it's their primary role?

At its most basic, we consume information and talk with others to learn.  In the context of today's information challenges, let's shorten the learning curve, not lengthen it!  Though the mechanics of the work is changing, we need MORE librarians, not less!

And maybe, just maybe, we all need lessons on how to better leverage this valuable resource.

Information Persistence in a Networked World

I was thinking back to a Google presentation at the APQC KMEdge conference, where the presenter challenged the need to delete information, and suggested that with the current and anticipated future state of search technologies and capabilities, there is no issue finding the right information.

Of course, that proposition tends to make Information Management professionals react quite strongly, in particular around the issue of ensuring that business is properly documented by retaining accurate, relevant corporate records and deleting transitory information from corporate systems.

But what about in the "networked world?" Imagine a not-so-distant future when a range of social technologies are in use inside the organization, and individuals link to internal/external shared content, others' personal / team spaces, URLs etc., very much like what is happening on the Internet today. They build on the ideas /information in those links, and presume that if a reader chooses to follow the path of precedence, they can. Multiply this by the number of people using these linking strategies, yielding an exponential rise in a "network" of connected information.

So, what happens if a number of links in the chain break because they are to information considered transitory in one circumstance, but provided a great foundation of ideas in another? What happens if the originating source is not longer available? (Perhaps a bit like a research paper footnoting another paper or book that ceased to exist.)

In a future of social technologies in the enterprise, can organizations afford to delete any information, regardless of its value, or lack thereof, as a corporate record?

Can't Do KM Until You Get IM Right - Truth or Misconception

I've often seen an interesting perspective from a few information professionals in conversations about knowledge and information management. They sometimes categorize information management as the "hard stuff" and knowledge management as the "soft stuff." I've seen a few of them assert that you can't do the "soft stuff", often pointing at their heads, until you get the "hard stuff" right, pointing to or holding a piece of paper. (The implication there perhaps is that our heads are soft ? )

At first blush, that premise seems to make sense. In many respects good information is very important to creating and sharing knowledge; we are what we read (or don't), information about people's location, experiences and competencies can help us decide with whom to initiate a conversation.

There are couple of alternate perspective that are worth considering.

First, if you subscribe to the metaphor of the knowledge "iceberg," (where knowledge that is codifiable, or codified (information) is the tip of the iceberg above water, and the knowledge that is below the waterline is much larger, and is only accessible during exchanges between individuals), then does it really make sense to think of a linear progression from IM to KM? If, for example, you attribute 20% to what is above the water and 80% to what is below, then you have to ask if devoting 100% of your resources for %20 of your value/potential is a good decision?

And secondly, if you consider "IM" to include developing principle based policies, developing information standards /guidelines / practices, capacity building across a diverse community, generating awareness and encourage compliance & use, you probably know that none of these are possible without working collaboratively with colleagues and stakeholders across multiple perspectives and disciplines. This requires negotiating and agreeing on common objectives and outcomes, the process for achieving them, sharing information and knowledge through the collaborative process to enable effective/efficient teamwork, and sharing in the risks / rewards.

To me, that sounds a lot like knowledge management, which is as much or more about "how" people work, than what they do. So it would seem that you can't do much of IM without using KM approaches to accomplish IM objectives.

So, should you start and finish IM, working on the "hard stuff," before you do the "soft" KM stuff? I'm not so sure.