K Feeds

A friend on Twitter pointed me to a simple post from Chance Bliss.  It's only one paragraph and the title basically tells you everything: Managing projects through email sucks.  But in case that isn't enough, here is the first sentence.

There are many ways to sabotage a project, but the one I find the most effective is email.

Good stuff!  This statement can be just as easily applied to the business at large.  Email is fine for the transmission of facts and some information, but directing people and asking for more nuanced information via email is just asking for trouble.  In most cases, this just fails outright. How many times have you seen emails pinging back and forth when a simple phone call or office drop in could resolve the question then and there? 

The struggle for many people and organizations is that they see no other way to work than via email because it has become so deeply ingrained in the way of doing things.

Here is a suggestion: Instead of sending email, step back for ten seconds and reflect on: Does this need to be sent?  Can I contact the person directly instead?

IWR News Desk, Information World Review, Thursday 4 March 2010 at 12:55:00

The ongoing social media revolution is set to radically change the way data is created and maintained and stored and shared in government departments across the world

As the direct result of the social web revolution, governments around the world will have to rethink and reinvent themselves from the perspective of the citizen and we could witness a new wave of democratic engagement.

This was the key message from Ian Wilson, librarian and archivist of Canada Emeritus, made on behalf of Open Text, at the ‘Managing Public Sector Information’ event held in London.

“Today we are looking at an explosion of digital content – some 32 million books, 100,000 films, 2 million songs, 10 billion web pages and 1 million newspapers and that content is doubling every three months.”

Wilson also said that effective collaboration is being held back by issues such as protecting privacy, ongoing silo mentality, the issues of risk and trust and a traditional culture that has surrounded information since the dawn of time – who owns it. In other words human nature.

“But the drive to collaborate is equally strong driven in part by the financial imperatives as a result of the global economic crisis, as well as political demands and the increased need for compliance.”

According to Wilson, social media is one of the greatest challenges confronting government today. “There is an entire generation used to developed patterns of social media use and a higher expectation for integration of mobile social media in day-to-day working life,”

This means there will be new ways of collaboration with working colleagues, which cross traditional organisational lines, where trust is no longer associated with risk but based on knowledge and ability. “Access to all relevant information past and present from within the organisation or externally is a ‘must’, and this leads us directly to the social media revolution that could rapidly engulf government unless it responds.”

Arguably, the governments are set to be transformed in the information-rich, technology-enabled society. With it will come an end to their hierarchy, their closed walls, expert internal knowledge and vertical information flow and secrecy. And in their place, we could see a horizontal approach and information flow.

Governments will collaborate with experts, lobbyists, trade organisations, and service partners. “Policy will therefore evolve and the citizen will become more engaged in the political process. To my mind social media will deliver one of the greatest leaps forward in democratic participation seen yet in our world. Government had better be ready,” Wilson concluded.

I run across plenty of articles, either through friends pointing me to interesting things or via my feed reader and the interesting stuff people write outright.  As everyone knows, there are far too many.  But... here are a couple articles with metaphors that work for me.  And they are related to the interests of this blog.

Chris Grams has Three tips for escaping the creativity peloton without giving up on collaboration which uses the bicycle racing image of the peloton as the connection to collaboration.  The members of the peloton must work together, but at some point the winner has to jump out of the pack and cross the line first.  It takes leadership, shared vision, and people who are working for the win.  Chris argues the same has to happen in organizations.

The ever-prolific Robert Scoble has Coming soon: the disruptive molecular age of information in which he likes all the material out there on the web to "atoms" and the painful job of bringing those atoms together into "molecules" as something that may become more automated.  As it stands now, it takes humans time and energy to do this: kind of like I've done in this brief article.  Robert wants to see tools that help us be better at making the molecules we want to build.  The logical connection here would be to the data-information-knowledge-wisdom hierarchy, but that's not really where Robert is going.  He just wants to be able to supplement the human capability to blend and meld disparate ideas - to make it easier for people to make those molecules, rather than mucking about in the laboratory.

[Photo: "Raleigh Record" by Dave Elmore]

[This is a comment on Beyond lurking - Modes of participation from Nancy White.]

Jack, thanks for adding some great URLs. I've added yours to my blog post as well (and will continue adding and mining!)

THANKS!

IWR News Desk, Information World Review, Tuesday 2 March 2010 at 14:13:00

More than three quarters of professionals intend to increase spending on projects that address data quality and consistency issues as they look to exploit data consistency to support data hungry risk management processes and achieve a holistic view of risk

A survey of data management strategies, conducted by Thomson Reuters along with an independent research firm, Lepus, outlined the importance of next-generation data management solutions to support effective risk, regulatory compliance and trading strategies. 77% respondents said they will increase spending on data quality projects while almost 87% cited improvements in this area as a priority.

The need for clarity of data to facilitate compliance is a key focus for 44% of survey participants, likely driven by the need for data intensive stress tests as firms look to improve scenario modeling for low probability, high impact events following largely unpredicted volatility across financial markets in recent years.

In addition, portfolio management, regulatory compliance, trading, finance, clearing and client profitability remained important considerations for improved data infrastructure.

Robert Smith, head of research, Lepus, said: “A huge majority of firms have looked to revise their data management solutions in the wake of the credit crisis. The survey results show that firms are committed to improving data quality and consistency across the organisation and are investing significantly in a bid to move closer to their ideal data management solution.”

Jason du Preez, global business manager, enterprise platform for data management, Thomson Reuters, said: "As the economy recovers, financial institutions are looking to improve and simplify data operations by demanding greater consistency and quality of data across the front, middle and back-office."

IWR News Desk, Information World Review, Tuesday 2 March 2010 at 12:45:00

At Monday’s [March 1] parliamentary hearing, Phil Jones, head of Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia admitted he had sent “some very awful e-mails” and that those “papers weren’t very good”

But Jones denied any wrong doing with the peer-review process or manipulating climatic data. He also said that the freedom of information requests had to be refused because the CRU was denied permission to release data.

Jones’ admission of withholding information came at the Science and Technology Committee hearning following a grilling session by MPs.

The committee involved witnesses including former information commissioner Richard Thomas along with other experts such as Lord Lawson of Blaby, chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation and professor John Beddington, government chief scientific adviser, professor Julia Slingo OBE, chief scientist, Met Office, and professor Bob Watson, chief scientist, department for environment, food and rural affairs.

Also present at the hearing were Professor Edward Acton, vice chancellor of the University of East Anglia.

Jones was accused of withholding raw data behind his research on global warming after thousands of emails he sent from the university were hacked in November last year.

One of the stolen emails quotes him saying: "why should I make data available to you when you're trying to find something wrong with it?" However, he insisted that the stolen emails are just one tenth of a percent of the full correspondence.

According to a Guardian report, former info commissioner Thomas said he cannot comment on whether the university had broken the rules, but suggested that there was a stronger case for public disclosure when data had been used to influence public policy, such as in climate science.

This, along with misleading research from the IPCC, have prompted climate-sceptics to allege scientific research misconduct, loop holes in peer-reviewed papers and obstruction of freedom of information requests.

It was Jones’ first inquiry appearance following the e-mail controversy, dubbed "climategate" by many. There will be another separate inquiry on the issue organised by the university itself and will be led by Sir Muir Russell.

Read IWR’s March issue (out this week) for a 2-page update on climate science information and efforts to regain confidence in the scientific information community.

[This is a comment on KM in the media - Toyota recall from Nimmy.]

Thanks for the post, Jack. Thinking about two simple ways in which such a situation could possibly be approached....

1. Processes that suggest problems/solutions from an appropriate database at the time of project documentation/appropriate project registration activity

2. Smart Enterprise 2.0 mechanisms that retrieve relevant content/pointers based on attributes/tags related to domain/challenge/expertise/region etc

There are many modes of participation in a community.  You can be the leader, driving action and encouraging others to jump in.  You can be one of the many regular people who raise their hand to do things and respond to events within the community.  And you can be one of the many more who are members of the community who only actively participate on an infrequent basis.

But even among these big buckets, there are additional distinctions.  People who have been leaders fall back into regular participant mode or even idle participant mode.  The level of engagement of the entire community changes, and the resulting mix of people in various roles changes.  Or the reverse happens: the mix of people changes, creating a change in the sense of the community.  Or both.  Or a simple change of venue causes the community to operate differently.  And for the individual, there are many reasons as to why they "lurk" beyond the first assumptions about time and fear.

Two posts in my feed reader - right next to each other - have me pondering this.  First off, Nancy White asks for References on Lurking - or as she calls it "legitimate peripheral participation" - and then there is Lurking, a Personal Story from Andrew Gent.  Andrew talks about his personal perspective about why he has gone from active community member to a lurker - an aspect that many of the lurker discussions ignore.

To answer Nancy's question, one of the first things I thought of was a Communications of the ACM article I read and wrote about a while back on Encouraging participation in virtual communities.  I liked the notion in that research that the leaders and more active participants have some role in encouraging ongoing participation - beyond the cajoling of people to get their backs up off the wall.  And then there is the Ladder of Participation, which delves into the layers of engagement on a different framework.  Jakob Nielson generated a lot of excitement in his delving into the 1-9-90 discussion, and I wrote about it too.  And finally, one of my favorite comments on the topic of "being a lurker" was in Lurking builds commonality 

... broadcast television is (was?) all about building common understanding across the populace. Everyone was a "lurker," but we were being informed, so that next-morning conversations over coffee had a common basis.

[Photo "lurking" by massdistraction]

IWR News Desk, Information World Review, Monday 1 March 2010 at 14:08:00

Scientific publisher Springer has agreed to publish both the online and print publications of the journal - European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics. The latest additions are aimed at reinforcing pharmacology and drug research portfolios

The journal was founded in 1975 by the late Professor Achille Benakis at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and through the years it has gathered a loyal community of authors and readers.

All aspects of drug delivery and bioavailability are covered in the journal, which was previously published by the Swiss publisher Médecine & Hygiène for 33 years (1976 to 2009).

The European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics focuses on aspects such as pharmacokinetics, drug metabolism, drug interactions and all aspects of drug development.

The journal provides relevant information from this research area, publishing original articles, short preliminary communications, review articles on special topics and conference proceedings. Published four times a year, the journal is indexed in Medline as well as in Current Contents.

Guido Zosimo-Landolfo, managing director of Springer France said: “We started working with professor Benakis just weeks before he passed away.”

“The journal’s move to Springer is one of his last decisions. We are aiming at improving the journal’s influence and impact through our multidisciplinary publishing program and our broad distribution network.”