Electronic Resources and Libraries Conference 2012

It’s a beautiful time in Austin, Texas. The weather is warm to hot and the music is loud and proud. But I am in Austin for the  Electronic Resources and Libraries Conference. I attended this conference last year and I am pleased to be back again.

I’ll start my conference report with the morning session today (the first day) of the Electronic Resources and Libraries Conference. I will have to post another instalment for the after lunch sessions. By the way, I had lunch at the wonderful Blanton Museum down the road from the conference venue. The morning was both interesting and satisfying.

I will focus on the keynote since this was the presentation that had the most relevance and interest to me and my workplace. The keynote was delivered by Andrea Resmini currently working in Sweden. The title of his presentation was “Between physical and digital: understanding cross channel experiences”.

Andrea opened up with a story based on the Umberto Eco novel (and subsequent movie) The name of the rose. He focused on the labyrinthine library and the differences between the description and map of the library in the book and in the movie. The purpose of the story was to illustrate how important meaning is in understanding complex environments; and secondly, that we need to be able to understand how different media affect people’s experiences. Thus, is there really a meaningful difference between the physical reality of the library or information centre and that of the virtual library?

Taking some inspiration from William Gibson’s novel, Neuromancer, Andrea explains that cyberspace is not a place to go to, it is a layer tightly integrated into the world around us. And as such, there are cross channels that enable information to be delivered, exchanged, and received to suit the needs of individuals and the contexts in which they find themselves. Cross channels may be expressed this way: “Cross-channel is not about technology, or marketing, nor it is limited to media-related experiences: it’s a systemic change in the way we experience reality. The more the physical and the digital become intertwined, the more designing successful cross-channel user experiences becomes crucial”. A full explanation, from which this quote was taken, can be found here.

The point of course is that libraries can no longer think of themselves as a set of discrete multiple actions, or silos,  (e.g. circulation desk, catalogue, web site etc.) but as facilitator for the provision of information in different ways to meet the needs of clients/users/students and the way in which they want to access and consume information. This of course involves the virtual library.

More generally, all of us are not staying within one channel all of the time. We move between them, depending on what it is we need them to do. And we would like all the digital pieces of the jigsaw puzzle to fit and work together.

I will return in my next post to continue what Andrea went on to say, outlining his seven point “manifesto” about information architecture, the user experience, and cross channel experiences.

But to finish this post, I want to give some further reading. Andrea mentioned the book “Pervasive Information Architecture” and I will be chasing that up when I return home later in the week.

 

My favourite quotes from Gov. 3.0 conference

I went over my notes from the Gov. 3.0 conference over the weekend. There was much to read and think about. In my notes were some key quotes. A summary of key quotes from the conference is worth keeping – here they are:

“Sometimes we forget that social media is an exchange” Angelina Russo (Museum3). This quote really identified one of the biggest problems with the hype around social media – for many, social media is used as a broadcast mechanism and this is fine up to a point. But the real reason for social media is to allow communication exchange; to make mutual connections; and to learn from each other. Government – are you listening or just broadcasting?

In a similar vein, Amanda Eamich (US Dept of Agriculture) said that “it’s not about the technology…it’s about the people and intent”. I couldn’t agree more.

“Web 2.0 is the social filter” Robert Thomas (Dept of Innovation, Industry, Science & Research). A key reason people use social media is to be able to share experiences and opinions with friends. These experiences and opinions are used to filter the vast swamps of information out on the web and in junk mail catalogues. Word-of-mouth marketing has never been more significant.

According to research from IBM, “every week businesses waste 5.3 hours due to inefficient processes” Mike Handes (IBM). This quote was actually on a slide in Mike’s presentation but really reinforced the point to me that knowledge management is vitally important to the bottom line in business and government. If we as knowledge managers can improve the way information is used and knowledge accessed within an organisation, then we are saving people valuable time AND ensuring that decisions can be made with the best available information.

The other quote from Mike that makes a lot of sense is that “content revolves around people”. Technology is a wonderful enabler but it really is the people who really count. That’s the difference between loading documents onto a website and calling that open government when what should be happening is increasing the access and level of interaction between government, it’s workforce, and the citizenry. My fear is that government doesn’t think much of the social and prefers the document repository form of community “interaction”.

Anni Rowland-Campbell (Intersticia) quotes Genevieve Bell when she said to “think of data as a person”. I liked this metaphor because it gives awareness to the fact that data can be viewed with many personas and used for many different reasons. Whilst I am not certain of the context the quote was originally used, “data as a person” opened my thinking as to how we might perceive data in the web 2.0/web 3.0 world.

Tudor Groza (University of Queensland) observed that “the problem (with social media) is the silos”. By this he meant that our social media is compartmentalised (in silos). Social media relies on formal links (hypertext) to join information elements together rather than having the right combination of information about a person or an object in the one spot at the one time. Personally, I don’t see this as a problem as the “silos” can be linked if they want to be. I also believe that a person’s identity is comprised of many different personas representing different interests and associations. Let me think this one through in the context of the semantic web…

My final key quote is less about the potential  “dryness” of a topic, but more on the way in which the topic can be communicated.

“I’m the kind of person who, if you met me at a dinner party, would find accountants more interesting to talk to” Paul Storey (Dept of Health). I certainly disagree, Paul. Your presentation about the use of health data to solve medical riddles was both interesting and passionate. Don’t underestimate passion in anything that people do.

On what you do and what you care about

I am still in Kiribati for work with AusAID.  I can report, as I have stated in my twitter feed, that the project is going well.  I am working with an independent consultant on the Kiribati Education Management Information System project.  We are reviewing and evaluating the project, especially the EMIS and it’s use and functionality.  My strength here is in doing the situation analysis and doing the review and evaluation.

There are also a few other expatriates from other places working on other projects. Many of us are staying at the same place (Mary’s Motel on Terawa) and so naturally we often meet and talk at meal times.  At these times, as in other contexts, we find ourselves asking each other about we do, usually related to our employment context.

Today is Saturday and I am starting to carefully assemble and write the draft report. I have tended to do this in the open-air “cafe” of Mary’s Motel because, although it is hot, it is more pleasant than staying confined to a room. However, I am having a break during the hottest part of the day to spend some time in my room reading some of the blog posts I regularly read.

Reading my favourite blog authors and their writings is always interesting. I have several authors with blog posts who I especially like to read because of their ideas and passions.  So I could not let this quote from Dave Pollard go unrecorded here:

“perhaps instead of asking people we’ve just met what they “do” (usually “for a living”), we should ask them what they care about. What keeps them awake at night. What they would die for. And likewise when others ask us what we “do” we should deflect the question and instead tell them what we really care about. If there’s an obvious disconnect between what we/they do and what we/they care about, that in itself should be the basis for an interesting and soul-searching conversation: Why the disconnect, and what can we do about it? And if the conversation resolves that you and the other(s) you’re speaking with care about the same things, then so much more will have been accomplished than in you had merely exchanged data on your current employment”.

I think this is an excellent idea.  I will try to ask “what do you care about?” instead of “what do you do?” at the next opportunity.

On communication, language and meaning

Last night I watched a movie on DVD called Where the green ants dream.  The film came out in 1984 and was directed by noted German director Werner Herzog.  I remember seeing the movie at the cinema back then and not quite fully coming to terms with the storyline.  When I saw the DVD of the movie in a shop recently, I bought it to have another look.

The film is about a land claim by a clan of Australian aboriginals of a sacred site in an area where a mining company is prospecting and drilling for uranium.  The aboriginals claim the land is sacred because it is where the green ants live until they are ready to fly east, after which the cycle of renewal begins again.  The story is couched in terms of birth, death and rebirth.  The mining company, with all their drilling and explosions, are at risk of waking and disturbing the green ants and breaking the dreamtime cycle.

The first observation about the land predicament is the difference in the explanations given by the aboriginal people and the white mining company representatives concerning the importance of the land in question.  For the aborigines, the land is a sacred symbol of life while for the white man, the land is something to be exploited and used for riches.  The meaning surrounding the same patch of land is totally different and dependant on the contextualised stories of each group – the green ant story from the aboriginals and the development and progress story of the white people.  This is a common point of difference between indigenous populations and settler groups in North America and Africa as well.

This isn’t a film review, so I just want to point out one particular scene in the film when the aboriginals and the mining company representatives are in court.  They are in court to settle ownership of the land in question.  At one point, an elderly aboriginal man stands up and walks to the witness box in the middle of another witness’s evidence.  The witness steps down and the aboriginal elder takes his place and starts to speak in his own language.  The judge is confused but sympathetic and asks if the man can speak English or whether anyone can translate.  The judge looks at his notes and identifies the elderly aboriginal man, saying “I thought this man was mute!”.

One of the other aboriginal men, one of the plaintiffs, stands and tells the judge that there is no one in the court room, or in the country, or in the world that can understand this man – he is the last living survivor of his language and that is why he is referred to as mute.

If we cannot understand what people are saying (or writing for that matter) we do not have communication. Unless somebody can translate the meaning for us, it will be as if we are mute.  In all our communications, we must try and put ourselves in the shoes of the other so that we can find the best way to ensure the meaning of our message is understood.  At the same time, when we try to put on the shoes of the other person, there will be times when we also have to look beyond just the shoes, but to consider the whole contextual environment in which those shoes have walked.  This is not always easy and usually forgotten in our rush to speak.

Without good communication in all its forms, there can be no knowledge management.

On complexity and strategic planning

A couple of weeks ago I organised a half-day workshop for my team and our key internal stakeholders as part of the planning process for next year. I wanted to hear from my stakeholders what they thought about my team and the work we do, as well as to tease out themes and priorities for my team to look at doing in the future. But I wanted to find out this information within the different workplace contexts in which we do things. I also wanted to use the Cynefin framework from Cognitive Edge that I had learned about when I did the accreditation course in July.

I asked Viv and Chris from Emerging Options to conduct the workshop. Both Viv and Chris are exponents of the Cognitive Edge way and are the authorised Australian trainers for the Cognitive Edge accreditation course.

The workshop went better than I had expected. I had excellent participation from the highest levels. The feedback I received afterwards was very positive, especially how the workshop was conducted.

We were also commended for our willingness to encourage such open dialogue with the rest of the organistion. It was certainly my intention to flag very clearly our intention to be seen as an integrated part of the business, and not an isolated organisational silo. Part of that process is openness and facilitating organisational dialogue and collaboration.

For me and my team, the themes that emerged give us some scope to review what we do, re-establish priorities, and give us new opportunities moving forward.

We looked at our work in terms of the simple, complicated and complex domains used within the Cynefin framework.

In simple domains, performing a particular activity or process will bring about a defined result. Basically, if you do A, you will get B. Process-driven activities often fall into this domain.

In complicated domains you analyse the problem called A, and by bringing in expertise or resources, you can identify the solution and solve the problem. There is no new thinking here, just the application of expert knowledge to deal with the problem.

In complex domains, there is uncertainty as to what outcome will occur (if any) by performing a particular action or process. This is what is often called, “the intractable problem”. Generally, it is risky and expensive to try a range of actions in order to test which action might yield the better result. Usually a decision is made to take one action, spend resources on it, and if it fails to meet expectations, the project is dumped all together. Many a pilot project ends up like this!

Complex domains are particularly sensitive to context. What one action in one context brings need not be the same outcome in another context. Basing a decision on what someone has done in a different context (replication) is dangerous if context is not given due consideration.

Similarly, complex problems should not rely on past events to determine future outcomes. Cognitive Edge describes this phenomenon as “the problem of retrospective coherence” which means that all becomes obvious after the event has occurred (but before the event, these signals were not obvious). One of the strategic outcomes from working in the complex space is to try and identify (bring to the surface) “weak signals” and amplify them so that they can be considered in the decision-making process.

In the complex space, one needs to use probes to test to see what works in your own context.

So what did we learn from the whole experience?

It was clear that we had an identity problem – a change of name was offered as a potential solution. We will mull over this problem because identity is something that brings meaning to what we do in the eyes of the organisation.

In a similar vein, there was some ambiguity as to what work we did, what we should be responsible for, and how we communicate that to the wider organisation. Our response to this (our probe) is to launch an internal e-zine and see what reaction we will get from that. We will also use a cartoon, something I alluded to in a previous post, and develop the cartoon story as we progress. While we have a reasonable claim to extenuating circumstances on this one (both historical, and as a consequence of a very new team), we are already working on ways to overcome this problem.

There was also an expectation to do some things that we are either not equipped to do (for example, a lack of resources), or that we don’t yet have the formal authority to proceed.

And, some themes emerged around things we should not be doing.

Now what was really successful about the workshop was the way in which we were able to aggregate and prioritise responses based on activities within the three domains. Identifying the issues in each domain will help us develop improvements and interventions most appropriate to those particular contexts. Knowing that improves our chances of success, particularly in using probes for some of the problems and issues identified in the complex space.

In addition, the participatory and collaborative nature of the exercise within our workplace context means that we have information we can really work with. And we have introduced to the organisation a new way of  looking at problems and finding solutions by using the Cynefin framework.

Our strategic planning is continuing. The workshop using the Cognitive Edge approach has been a rewarding and helpful experience. Not only will the material help in our planning, but it will also help in our execution – and that’s the real nub of the matter!

On Cognitive Edge (2)

I have finished tidying up my notes from the Cognitive Edge accreditation course I did in Sydney last week. There was plenty to go through but I feel the notes only just scratched the surface! Dave Snowden certainly covered a lot of territory!

I have listed some key knowledge fragments from the course that I particularly liked:

• correlation is not causality
• a complex system is always different from its parts
• retrospective coherence gives us the benefit of hindsight but not the benefit of future-telling
• with complexity, one can replicate starting conditions but not outcomes
• using safe-fail in the complex domain, “go forward, probe and experiment”, because we don’t know the answer
• amplify “good” weak signals
• we use “ritual” to trigger identity (and we each have multiple identities)
• archetypes are collective representations, not caricatures
• metaphors are good for human understanding
• humans use pattern recognition intelligence; we are not an information processing machine
• any time a measure becomes a target it is no longer a measure
• and my favourite line, “cynics are people who care”, since they are the ones looking for a better way to improve their organisations (hear, hear!).

There was much more from the course, and plenty to reflect upon. I will do some more reading, thinking and writing. For now, I am chasing up some of the author references in my notes (Sutcliffe, Thom, Kaufmann, and Klein, among others).

On the human joke

Q. What do you call the interface between thinking, knowledge, communication, connection, emotion, motivation, psychology, technology, and information?

A: Human

Well, can it be anything but?

On perspective

There’s a great piece in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy that says: “Space is big, really big. You might think it’s a long way down the road to the local chemist, but that’s just peanuts to space”. And there’s also the piece about the total perspective vortex, the most hideous torture for any sentient being, where one sees oneself in proportion to the infinity of space: “an invisible dot on an invisible dot”. And lastly (in case you haven’t fielded my drift yet), there was that great image in Al Gore’s documentary, An inconvenient truth, that showed a photo of Earth from the (Voyager?) space probe out past Saturn, that turned its camera back to planet Earth and showed our tiny little dot of a planet in relation to just a part of our solar system and the Milky Way. Sobering stuff, mein Gott!

Perspective. What’s our perspective of our life in Australia (and other parts of the rich world) in comparison to that of other human beings in Burma, China and Zimbabwe – or Indigenous Australia for that matter? And that’s just for starters.

It’s all about perspective, isn’t it? As individuals, we might feel helpless in not being able to make a difference, but collectively we can make a difference. Every small positive act can mean something – to an individual, a family, a community. The aggregation of hearts, minds and commitment have achieved many positive things in history if, as individuals, we choose to act. Despair is not something we in the rich world can afford for inaction.

What can we do? We can start by donating now to the appeals from Medecins Sans Frontieres and others in relation to the current natural disasters in Burma and China. We can be selective if we want to but let’s not use that as an excuse to do nothing. We can make a commitment to keep donating to whatever helpful cause (you can see who I support below my blogroll), so that our commitment is enduring and consistent. But this is a financial commitment, important and necessary, but we can do more.

What is just as important, and just as significant, is how each of us relates to each other – in person, within our communities, and with people we may never meet. It’s our way of thinking – our perspective – that can make the difference (something that was reinforced to me today when speaking with Andrea from Reconciliation Australia). How we look at things, and how we try and see the perspective of others, are very important for each of us. And out of this perspective shift, our attitudes and behaviours and responses will change accordingly.

Perspective – that’s something to think about in our dealings with other people, both here and overseas

On the fear factory

I intended to write some pithy comments about communication strategy in Australia’s federal election (voting is tomorrow) and how the spin from the current government has focused on fear, fear, and more fear. Fear the opposition Labor Party, fear the future economic tsunami, fear the immigrants, and fear the internet. Perhaps fear losing the election also has a bit to play.

But I am now sidetracked by this piece of internet fear from a report last week in The Guardian. The report is called Dork talk and it is full of fear about malicious code spreading with the same apocolyptic speed and danger as AIDS: “Don’t trust those you don’t know. Don’t have unprotected sex with someone whose status you are unsure of and don’t, don’t, don’t click on that alluring headline, that tempting YouTube link, that interesting ad, that funny-sounding birthday card or joke unless you are 100% certain of its origin”.

Now I admit I am careful about things and have harped on previously about digital identity and the digital space. I am also fully aware that there are some bad people out there in cyberworld, as indeed there are in the real world. But should fear be so pervasive?

Well, the media is full of stories telling us all about all the bad people and all the bad things happening next door and all around the planet. Ironically, all this bad news is consumed voluntarily by consumers and feeds business via advertising.

Now fear can be good if it promotes change to a less fearful position or brings about a positive outcome. Fear of the consequences of climate change should be such a tipping point (and let me add here that just the human impact from climate change will mean the potential relocation of millions of people, something the sceptics forget in their claim that the odd increase in temperature won’t mean anything more than a few more hot summer days).

What is not good about fear is “fear myasma” – the climate of fear where fear is the means used to paralyse thinking and inhibit action. Significantly though, fear more often than not leads to helplessness, apathy, and abrogating responsibility. “Let someone else deal with it”, is a common refrain.

Fear happens at the micro level as well, inside families and organisations. Fear usually is not a productive culture to live and work in. Fear inhibits trust and social relationships. Fear stifles creativity. Fear rarely instils confidence in the work one does (although I remember an interview on televison with a Russian chap who had to write speeches for Stalin. He said that fear of writing a bad speech and then being shot were powerful motivators!).

Professor Robert Dawson provides a good overview of the psychology of fear that is well worth a read. Martin Seligman is also someone with plenty to say on the debilitating state fear and depression can have on the individual. The book, Learned optimism is a classic read and I thoroughly recommend it.

How does the fear factory affect you?

On Facebook security loophole

There is a newspaper article today about a Facebook security loophole warning. Well, I read the article and it was all very lame, unless of course you don’t have any common sense.

The “loophole” is nothing more than opening your profile up (or having a friend in your personal network open up the profile) to the whole Facebook community. The article then goes on to say how some people accepted friendship invitations from bogus people. The warning is that personal information could be made available to “outsiders”. It’s also true that people still send lots of money in response to bogus Nigerian e-mail scams!

I know I shouldn’t be too critical – digital indentity is an important issue and something I am particularly interested in. However, I must say, the only “loophole” is a decision made by a member of the community to choose to open up a profile or personal network to the wider community – or “outsiders” as one wag put it. Sure, some people will be less careful than others and this is the risk one takes in participating in such networks. People need to decide what information about themselves can be disclosed in these forums.

Dave Birch in the digital identity forum makes some salient points in a recent blog post on social networking good/bad. Dave Birch also has a book out on digital identity management that could be well worth a look. [BTW, the 8th annual Digital Identity Forum will be be held in London, 20-21 November 2007].

Some common sense is necessary in any communication forum, whether it’s publicising one’s share trade or mother’s hysterectomy operation to everyone on a suburban train over the mobile phone. Likewise, it’s just as important when disposing of sensitive personal documents, like bank statements, medical records, and credit card bills.

I suppose Twitter will be in the media’s sights soon for telling everyone where they might be at a certain moment…..

On 6th Annual Identity Management Forum

Just a quick conference alert to the 6th Annual Identity Management Forum to be held in Sydney, 28-30 November 2007. And a disclaimer – I do not receive advertising fees for my conference alerts!

On identity and social networking

I was reading a great Wharton knowledge article by Jonah Berger and Chip Heath on identity, from a marketing perspective. The article, From cool to passe’: identity signaling and product domains, looked at “how consumers use products to signal membership in social groups, but swiftly abandon those same products when the original message is diluted as other groups co-opt the trend”.

Of note was the conclusion, that consumers blend both conformity and divergence from the choices of others.

If this is the case, will we see the same dichotomy in the digital identity space for social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, as other social networking sites, such as Netlog and Quechup, gain momentum? [Euan Semple's blog post and comments have alerted me to some major problems with Quechup so maybe it won't be a threat after all].

Or will social networking sites fragment into more specialised niche operations like Flikr and LinkedIn? I have a feeling the latter will prevail…

On digital identity (2)

Matt Moore has a couple of recent blog posts on digital identity that pose some interesting thoughts.

The first, the technology of the secret, discusses secrets and what they represent, especially in terms of knowledge sharing and trust. Matt rightly says that we need to ”manage our identities in ever more complex ways. And they make our secrets increasingly fragile to exposure”.

The second post, I want to stay hidden, discusses his experience with Facebook. Matt poses a critical question in relation to our emerging digital identities: “How do we manage ourselves to get the best out of our interactions with others?”

Finally, let me recommend the 8th annual Digital Identity Forum to be held in London, 20-21 November 2007, as a good place to hear and discuss the latest digital identity issues.

On digital identity

I want to discuss the topic of digital identity in future posts. Let me introduce a couple of thoughts here.

In particular, I want to discuss “identity politics” in the Web 2.0 age. I don’t mean the traditional definition of identity politics. I define “identity politics” in the context of Web 2.0 in terms of the way in which an individual’s identity is portrayed across multiple and different media and how that individual chooses to portray that identity.

The issue of digital identity is important, both in terms of the way in which multiple identities can so easily be promulgated, but also in terms of how multiple digital authentications could be simplified by a single digital identity. Thus, on the one hand we have the issue of multiple identities and how they aggregate for an individual, and on the other hand, we have the need to create a single and authenticated digital identity to work within the Web 2.0 space more efficiently and effectively.

Taking up the latter point, I recommend this podcast by Dick Hardt, called “Identity 2.0″.