So it's that time of the year again - the time of the year where we spend most of our days writing endless year round-up or prediction stories for your delectation. Having had my fill of that, and stretched my tiny little brain about as far as it will go, I'm going instead to list some of the main predictions made by analyst firm CMS Watch.
Now the firm has scored a pretty good success rate in years gone by, so with any luck, I'm going to look pretty good when the following actually happens. With any luck. First off, the inevitable; you may have had your fill of "economic meltdown" stories already, but it's likely to genuinely impact the market next year, and could mean good news for buyers.
As I've mentioned a few times throughout the year, if you're prepared to bargain hard, good deals can be had from ECM vendors on up-front license costs, and this will be especially true as vendors become desperate to retain as well as attract new customers. According to the analyst, year-end discounts of 50-70 per cent are already starting to crop up, although as CMS Watch founder Tony Byrne told me, vendors are unlikely to budge on maintenance and consulting fees, where they will hope to claw that money back.
The economic climate is also likely to encourage IT shoppers to look at open source alternatives, although a word of warning here from the experts: unexpectedly high development and integration costs may mean that these offerings are less of a bargain than they first appear.
Another knock-on effect of the downturn could be low valuations for WCM firms, which may spur some M&A activity in the industry. Some big ECM firms without a strong web content management solution may see this as a perfect time to buy-in some expertise.
Moving away from the credit crunch, and back (briefly) to SharePoint; the next version of Microsoft's flagship 'content management' solution could be seen in beta by the end of 2009. However, it's unlikely that firms will be seriously considering it, as many have yet to fully digest SharePoint 2007.
And finally, there is perhaps a spot of bad news for Oracle, whose lack of investment in knowledge worker-facing technologies could leave the firm trailing rivals Microsoft, IBM and others. Fine for heavy duty document management and back office stuff, but in the lighter weight Web 2.0 applications and web content management space it could be struggling, said Byrne.
And there you have it. Now let's sit back and see what happens.
Monday 22 December 2008
Sunday 14 December 2008
PHP and .Net - a third way?
There are certain topics in the world of information technology which always excite intense debate and near-religious fervour. PC versus Mac, open source versus proprietary; whatever stories we push out which may come down on one or other side, you can be sure that feedback from readers will be swift, uncompromising and sometimes abusive.
Now I'm all for debate, I'm up for a lively exchange of views as much as the next man, but sometimes the level of devotion to one or other side is so high it's quite bemusing. Wouldn't it make everyone's life a little easier if we all just got along and put their differences on the back burner?
We've already seen promising moves being made in the content management space to bring together the competing ECM vendors and make their products interoperate with each other. The Content Management Interoperability Services initiative has been hailed by many as a major breakthrough in the industry as it could finally ease the IT headache of having to manage multi-vendor and multi-repository environments. With Microsoft, IBM Alfresco, OpenText, Oracle, SAP and Adobe all on board, it stands a great chance of success. Finally the vendors have realised that the industry can't grow unless greater interoperability is achieved.
And now, at a programming level, a new initiative which could finally reconcile the great divide between PHP and .NET programming languages for the good of everyone - courtesy of WCM vendor Jadu. Development of the Phalanger PHP compiler was funded by the firm, but it is now releasing it into the open source community. It basically enables the creation of PHP applications which can run natively under the .NET Framework, allowing firms to make use of PHP apps without needing to rip out existing .NET/Visual Studio environments.
So PHP developers will finally see the lucrative Microsoft customer base open up to them and, as Ovum analyst Tony Baer told me, it provides "one less reason for .NET development shops to oppose allowing PHP into their wall gardens". It seems web developers can finally have their cake and eat it by profiting from the ease-of-use and effectiveness of the PHP language and the richness of the .NET platform; a benefit which will surely cascade down to end users ultimately in the form of more compelling applications. Good news too for the careers of developers, who will no longer have to go through costly retraining on PHP or .Net if they want to get on in the industry. See, everyone's a winner when look for ways to work together.
Now I'm all for debate, I'm up for a lively exchange of views as much as the next man, but sometimes the level of devotion to one or other side is so high it's quite bemusing. Wouldn't it make everyone's life a little easier if we all just got along and put their differences on the back burner?
We've already seen promising moves being made in the content management space to bring together the competing ECM vendors and make their products interoperate with each other. The Content Management Interoperability Services initiative has been hailed by many as a major breakthrough in the industry as it could finally ease the IT headache of having to manage multi-vendor and multi-repository environments. With Microsoft, IBM Alfresco, OpenText, Oracle, SAP and Adobe all on board, it stands a great chance of success. Finally the vendors have realised that the industry can't grow unless greater interoperability is achieved.
And now, at a programming level, a new initiative which could finally reconcile the great divide between PHP and .NET programming languages for the good of everyone - courtesy of WCM vendor Jadu. Development of the Phalanger PHP compiler was funded by the firm, but it is now releasing it into the open source community. It basically enables the creation of PHP applications which can run natively under the .NET Framework, allowing firms to make use of PHP apps without needing to rip out existing .NET/Visual Studio environments.
So PHP developers will finally see the lucrative Microsoft customer base open up to them and, as Ovum analyst Tony Baer told me, it provides "one less reason for .NET development shops to oppose allowing PHP into their wall gardens". It seems web developers can finally have their cake and eat it by profiting from the ease-of-use and effectiveness of the PHP language and the richness of the .NET platform; a benefit which will surely cascade down to end users ultimately in the form of more compelling applications. Good news too for the careers of developers, who will no longer have to go through costly retraining on PHP or .Net if they want to get on in the industry. See, everyone's a winner when look for ways to work together.
Monday 8 December 2008
UK data breach notification laws?
After all the recent news about the new powers to be granted to the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, another piece of information pushed out by the Ministry of Justice appears to have gone rather unnoticed.
It was a definitive statement saying that the government would accept Thomas's request that there should be no US-style data breach notification laws for private sector organisations in this country. Of course, public sector organisations are already forced to report any significant "actual or potential" data losses to the ICO - so why not private sector firms?
Well, Thomas has argued that the US experience has not been a particular good one. It's certainly true that mandatory notification laws have the potential to desensitise the public to data losses. If breaches are in the news all the time then the public is less likely to pay any attention - although you could argue that this is pretty much already the case. Then there are problems such as how high should you set the notification threshold, and who should firms be obliged to notify - just their customers or the relevant authorities too? And on top of this there is the potential problem of phishing attacks. Criminals could well decide to send out mass emails after a large data breach, hoping to hit gold by appealing to an organisation's customers that there has been a data breach and that they should reconfirm their details.
But is the alternative to breach notifaction laws really the best option? ICO Thomas, and now the government, seem to warnt a situation where private sector firms have to report breaches only as a matter of good practice, but although fines will be levied according to the seriousness of the breach, a system of voluntary disclosure hardly seems like the best solution
The negative impact of a data breach can be so great that it may well tempt some firms to keep quiet in the hope it could be covered up. No breach notifaction law also means that the government and law enforcers can't get any idea of the true scale of the problem, which is woefully underreported at present, according to most experts.
This could all be a moot point of course, if the EU has its way. Data protection supervisor Peter Hustinx told me recently that European breach notifaction laws could be put in force for telcos and ISPs as soon as 2011. He also argued that it would be "fair and in line with reality" for them to be extended to all firms. Were this to happen we could be in that rare situation where European laws actually have a positive outcome.
It was a definitive statement saying that the government would accept Thomas's request that there should be no US-style data breach notification laws for private sector organisations in this country. Of course, public sector organisations are already forced to report any significant "actual or potential" data losses to the ICO - so why not private sector firms?
Well, Thomas has argued that the US experience has not been a particular good one. It's certainly true that mandatory notification laws have the potential to desensitise the public to data losses. If breaches are in the news all the time then the public is less likely to pay any attention - although you could argue that this is pretty much already the case. Then there are problems such as how high should you set the notification threshold, and who should firms be obliged to notify - just their customers or the relevant authorities too? And on top of this there is the potential problem of phishing attacks. Criminals could well decide to send out mass emails after a large data breach, hoping to hit gold by appealing to an organisation's customers that there has been a data breach and that they should reconfirm their details.
But is the alternative to breach notifaction laws really the best option? ICO Thomas, and now the government, seem to warnt a situation where private sector firms have to report breaches only as a matter of good practice, but although fines will be levied according to the seriousness of the breach, a system of voluntary disclosure hardly seems like the best solution
The negative impact of a data breach can be so great that it may well tempt some firms to keep quiet in the hope it could be covered up. No breach notifaction law also means that the government and law enforcers can't get any idea of the true scale of the problem, which is woefully underreported at present, according to most experts.
This could all be a moot point of course, if the EU has its way. Data protection supervisor Peter Hustinx told me recently that European breach notifaction laws could be put in force for telcos and ISPs as soon as 2011. He also argued that it would be "fair and in line with reality" for them to be extended to all firms. Were this to happen we could be in that rare situation where European laws actually have a positive outcome.
Thursday 4 December 2008
Online Information Conference - Day 3; The Digital Company in 2013
How will technology change the way organisation operate and do business with one another?
The task of understanding how we use information whether as casual browser, consumer or scholar has been one of the elements examined rigorously on the last day of the Online Information Conference.
The JISC National Observatory project studied how eBook usage in academia operated, what was required and what was needed by students and librarians alike. Traditionally trusted sources (such as journalists) were no longer seen as credible as they once were. "Print is dead" said one speaker. David Nicholas meanwhile gave us a stark warning to start understanding how users interact with information (based on our traditional assumptions - not the way we would like to think) we need to adjust our models accordingly, that much is clear.
The irrefutable conclusion was that things were going to change with the demand for information online continuing to rapidly increase.
In attempting to meet that demand, it is essential for content providers, whether publisher or amateur to understand how users operate when searching.
Dennis McCauley, Director, Global Technology Research of the Economist Intelligence Unit came to talk to us about what the digital company would look like in five years time.
McCauley explained the research his organisation has conducted recently found that there will be a greater age of collaboration - why? Because it is much harder for firms to go it alone, there will be a need for organisations to "let go" he said.
Technology will remain the greatest influencer of business change and it will cause excessive complexity, such as the change of business models and the changing nature of demand for a company's products, he added.
Because customers will continue to become more tech savvy, there will be a great increase into the importance of online communities, this will be beneficial in that organisations will get to hear what their customers think (whether they like it or not) as well as the risk of mob mentality should your cross them.
This all ties in with the collaborative behaviour McCauley outlined. There is the expectation that some of the best ideas will arise from improved interaction with their clients.
Social networking applications will be widespread in the enterprise organisation; those that don't like this idea will need to start accepting it and with it give their trust or get left behind.
In summary McCauley gave us these points to consider
There will be no big tech jumps in next 5 years - although e-books will become more widespread
Technology will be used more effectively but differently in an organisation
Collaborative technology will be mastered
Obstacles include: rigidity in organisations, tight budgets, skill shortage and security concerns
The task of understanding how we use information whether as casual browser, consumer or scholar has been one of the elements examined rigorously on the last day of the Online Information Conference.
The JISC National Observatory project studied how eBook usage in academia operated, what was required and what was needed by students and librarians alike. Traditionally trusted sources (such as journalists) were no longer seen as credible as they once were. "Print is dead" said one speaker. David Nicholas meanwhile gave us a stark warning to start understanding how users interact with information (based on our traditional assumptions - not the way we would like to think) we need to adjust our models accordingly, that much is clear.
The irrefutable conclusion was that things were going to change with the demand for information online continuing to rapidly increase.
In attempting to meet that demand, it is essential for content providers, whether publisher or amateur to understand how users operate when searching.
Dennis McCauley, Director, Global Technology Research of the Economist Intelligence Unit came to talk to us about what the digital company would look like in five years time.
McCauley explained the research his organisation has conducted recently found that there will be a greater age of collaboration - why? Because it is much harder for firms to go it alone, there will be a need for organisations to "let go" he said.
Technology will remain the greatest influencer of business change and it will cause excessive complexity, such as the change of business models and the changing nature of demand for a company's products, he added.
Because customers will continue to become more tech savvy, there will be a great increase into the importance of online communities, this will be beneficial in that organisations will get to hear what their customers think (whether they like it or not) as well as the risk of mob mentality should your cross them.
This all ties in with the collaborative behaviour McCauley outlined. There is the expectation that some of the best ideas will arise from improved interaction with their clients.
Social networking applications will be widespread in the enterprise organisation; those that don't like this idea will need to start accepting it and with it give their trust or get left behind.
In summary McCauley gave us these points to consider
There will be no big tech jumps in next 5 years - although e-books will become more widespread
Technology will be used more effectively but differently in an organisation
Collaborative technology will be mastered
Obstacles include: rigidity in organisations, tight budgets, skill shortage and security concerns
Wednesday 3 December 2008
UPDATE: What Future for Search?
I was going to wait until tomorrow's keynote on Search before blogging about this, but I understand that the session will now count Andrew Kanter, Chief Operating Officer from Autonomy as a panellist.
As one of the senior figures at Autonomy it is going to be revealing what he has to say about search and what plans the organisation has for its technology. If you are involved in Enterprise search or just interested in semantic developments, this will be a must see.
With search guru Stephen E Arnold moderating the session I have a feeling that the panel will get a thorough grilling.
We will be blogging from the session so if you can't make it check back here around mid afternoon for a round up.
As one of the senior figures at Autonomy it is going to be revealing what he has to say about search and what plans the organisation has for its technology. If you are involved in Enterprise search or just interested in semantic developments, this will be a must see.
With search guru Stephen E Arnold moderating the session I have a feeling that the panel will get a thorough grilling.
We will be blogging from the session so if you can't make it check back here around mid afternoon for a round up.
Online Information Conference - Day 2: Using Web 2.0 tools in a learning environment
We all hear a lot about how Web 2.0 is applicable to all areas of life, both at work and at play. The education sector is certainly no exception with the library poised to play a crucial role in what is offered to scholars.
Professor Anne Morris, from Loughborough University examined the technology surrounding libraries and the service they provide in Higher Education. What they want to offer students is a richer learning experience.
The key thing with 2.0 tech is that the more people use it the better it gets, as far as libraries are concerned, she said.
Morris gave us a quick run through of what is on offer and its potential for helping students learn better.
Blogs - encourage the development of communities, they facilitate communication among librarians (Stanford University being a very good example).
Wikis - Offer an easy way to create lists and tips as well as the easy ability to comment on LIS services. There are of course issues with trust and security, but then that is true of any wiki.
Instant Messenger (IM) - Has been used for reference management, training and immediate online assistance.
One example that Morris gave us was the offering from the OCLC or QuestionPoint as it is known to its users. It's a good example of library's spreading the burden of information sharing and works well with a group of libraries using this technology.
Podcasts - a wide choice of material is made available to students whether as a lecture, interview, conference or tutorial. The list is substantial.
Social Networking - can be applied to recommendations, listings of popular materials and the opportunity to work in groups. The Virtual bookshelf available on Face Book is a nice idea to highlight the favourites in your collections and offer recommendations and reviews.
What the Pilkington Library have done at Loughborough is adopt a range of these ideas, such as a podcast introducing the library, a blog, RSS feeds on either all new material that comes in or a specific subject area.
What did the students think about all this? Had they even heard of the concept of Library 2.0? The research that Morris and her team conducted on the Information Department students showed that less than half of the scholars knew what the library 2.0 term actually meant. More worrying was that over 70% hadn't even used the tools or knew that they existed. However when asked if they would find receiving updates about their specific needs useful over 70% expressed a positive interest.
The general conclusions that Morris came across were mildly positive views of Library 2.0 tech. The most welcomed technology came from RSS feeds, podcasting, IM and professional reviews of books. There was little faith that fellow students would contribute much in the way of their own recommendations. The key thing to consider is that whatever technologies you are thinking of adopting, make sure they are user-centric, specific to their course needs and of course wanted in the first place.
Professor Anne Morris, from Loughborough University examined the technology surrounding libraries and the service they provide in Higher Education. What they want to offer students is a richer learning experience.
The key thing with 2.0 tech is that the more people use it the better it gets, as far as libraries are concerned, she said.
Morris gave us a quick run through of what is on offer and its potential for helping students learn better.
Blogs - encourage the development of communities, they facilitate communication among librarians (Stanford University being a very good example).
Wikis - Offer an easy way to create lists and tips as well as the easy ability to comment on LIS services. There are of course issues with trust and security, but then that is true of any wiki.
Instant Messenger (IM) - Has been used for reference management, training and immediate online assistance.
One example that Morris gave us was the offering from the OCLC or QuestionPoint as it is known to its users. It's a good example of library's spreading the burden of information sharing and works well with a group of libraries using this technology.
Podcasts - a wide choice of material is made available to students whether as a lecture, interview, conference or tutorial. The list is substantial.
Social Networking - can be applied to recommendations, listings of popular materials and the opportunity to work in groups. The Virtual bookshelf available on Face Book is a nice idea to highlight the favourites in your collections and offer recommendations and reviews.
What the Pilkington Library have done at Loughborough is adopt a range of these ideas, such as a podcast introducing the library, a blog, RSS feeds on either all new material that comes in or a specific subject area.
What did the students think about all this? Had they even heard of the concept of Library 2.0? The research that Morris and her team conducted on the Information Department students showed that less than half of the scholars knew what the library 2.0 term actually meant. More worrying was that over 70% hadn't even used the tools or knew that they existed. However when asked if they would find receiving updates about their specific needs useful over 70% expressed a positive interest.
The general conclusions that Morris came across were mildly positive views of Library 2.0 tech. The most welcomed technology came from RSS feeds, podcasting, IM and professional reviews of books. There was little faith that fellow students would contribute much in the way of their own recommendations. The key thing to consider is that whatever technologies you are thinking of adopting, make sure they are user-centric, specific to their course needs and of course wanted in the first place.
Online Information Conference - Do We Have a Profession? (part 2)
Following Natalie Ceeney's presentation, Gloria Zamora (President Elect, SLA, USA) examined the alternate careers on offer for the intrepid info pro. With a similar position to Ceeney she added "We are our own worse enemy, we need to blow our own horns more than we do", Zamora believes that sometimes the profession attracts the kind of people who want to help everyone but don't have a tendency to promote themselves.
One of the things the SLA have taken on to deal with this issue is the Alignment project which has concerned itself with finding out what the senior decision makers think the librarians, record keepers and specialists in the organisation are doing.
The perceptions seemed to be that while people understand what a Librarian is and does there is also a lack of appreciation of the specialisation that comes with the territory. Similarly there was uncertainty into what an information professional is. Sound familiar when you are trying to describe what you do to the layperson?
For Zamora, so long as the info profession get out there and bang their drums, there is a positive future, so much so that she believes we should start by bringing in people from other disciplines such as IT. Of course that doesn't mean making way with influencing the decision making process. The fight to make yourself heard will be an ongoing one.
One of the things the SLA have taken on to deal with this issue is the Alignment project which has concerned itself with finding out what the senior decision makers think the librarians, record keepers and specialists in the organisation are doing.
The perceptions seemed to be that while people understand what a Librarian is and does there is also a lack of appreciation of the specialisation that comes with the territory. Similarly there was uncertainty into what an information professional is. Sound familiar when you are trying to describe what you do to the layperson?
For Zamora, so long as the info profession get out there and bang their drums, there is a positive future, so much so that she believes we should start by bringing in people from other disciplines such as IT. Of course that doesn't mean making way with influencing the decision making process. The fight to make yourself heard will be an ongoing one.
Online Information Conference - Day 2
Do We Have a Profession?
The somewhat controversial sounding title of this morning's session was posed to us by Natalie Ceeney, head of The National Archives (TNA) and as of last night, IWR's Information Professional of the Year.
"We are now living in an 'information society'" said Ceeney, whether that is through the daily use of tools such as Google to Wikipedia and a host of social networking services. During her 8 years in the profession she has seen the importance of information rise in the organisation from that of the outsider to of critical importance.
Information of course is the life blood of public services, it has a fundamental impact on the education system said Ceeney. Information is now a mainstream issue in British politics and recognised as such at the most senior level.
What has been driving Ceeney however is her quest to get us all to consider how much of an asset information is to business and to get that recognised by the most senior decision makers. Just as importantly it's about getting recognition for those who actually work with information and the skills they bring.
Ceeney explained how a report from Cap Gemini released in March this year, found that by not exploiting their information assets, the cost to organisations equated to lost opportunities of approximately £46bn in the private sector and £21bn in public sector.
Where does this all sit for information professionals? For Ceeney, it's about how the info pros define themselves. The culture is such that "we define ourselves by our sub professions - librarians, record managers, archivists she said, "The problem is because everyone has a different job description there is a lack of a cohesive identity for info pros among the organisation." Because of that definitive description, the due recognition is amiss in their organisation.
"If we sub-divide ourselves too much there is a risk that jobs are given to other departments as they don't fit properly at the moment." "Why do we think we are so different from other departments in the organisation?" Ceeney asked, murmurs of consent rippled around the room.
Ceeney outlined her own experiences within government as an example such as her role in the data handling review, getting the acknowledgement of information as an asset. The crux of her point was that these ideas are less for the profession and more for the eyes of senior management.
In making information management mainstream, Ceeney gave us the example of her Digital Continuity project that meant a joined up strategy of information management across government rather than each department trying to achieve it themselves and the great cost each would generate.
The biggest challenge we have got is getting senior people to realise that this matters and less the information professional.
The somewhat controversial sounding title of this morning's session was posed to us by Natalie Ceeney, head of The National Archives (TNA) and as of last night, IWR's Information Professional of the Year.
"We are now living in an 'information society'" said Ceeney, whether that is through the daily use of tools such as Google to Wikipedia and a host of social networking services. During her 8 years in the profession she has seen the importance of information rise in the organisation from that of the outsider to of critical importance.
Information of course is the life blood of public services, it has a fundamental impact on the education system said Ceeney. Information is now a mainstream issue in British politics and recognised as such at the most senior level.
What has been driving Ceeney however is her quest to get us all to consider how much of an asset information is to business and to get that recognised by the most senior decision makers. Just as importantly it's about getting recognition for those who actually work with information and the skills they bring.
Ceeney explained how a report from Cap Gemini released in March this year, found that by not exploiting their information assets, the cost to organisations equated to lost opportunities of approximately £46bn in the private sector and £21bn in public sector.
Where does this all sit for information professionals? For Ceeney, it's about how the info pros define themselves. The culture is such that "we define ourselves by our sub professions - librarians, record managers, archivists she said, "The problem is because everyone has a different job description there is a lack of a cohesive identity for info pros among the organisation." Because of that definitive description, the due recognition is amiss in their organisation.
"If we sub-divide ourselves too much there is a risk that jobs are given to other departments as they don't fit properly at the moment." "Why do we think we are so different from other departments in the organisation?" Ceeney asked, murmurs of consent rippled around the room.
Ceeney outlined her own experiences within government as an example such as her role in the data handling review, getting the acknowledgement of information as an asset. The crux of her point was that these ideas are less for the profession and more for the eyes of senior management.
In making information management mainstream, Ceeney gave us the example of her Digital Continuity project that meant a joined up strategy of information management across government rather than each department trying to achieve it themselves and the great cost each would generate.
The biggest challenge we have got is getting senior people to realise that this matters and less the information professional.
Reasons to be cheerful
First day of Online Information always has a special buzz about it and yesterday was no exception. The conference was crowded and at some points during the day it was standing (or sitting on the floor) only in some of the tracks. The exhibition was also buzzing with the usual range of meeting by chance of old friends and contacts, as well as the fulfilment of carefully planned meetings and briefings.
The IWR stand was particularly busy with the December issue in great demand (no surprise there). If you haven't seen a copy or you want to join or rejoin the circulation list, then come by the stand and leave your business card.
There is no doubt that much of the conversation at the conference and the exhibition revolved around how the profession would cope in a downturn. I think the answer is pretty positive. The profession is brimming with ideas and initiatives to help organisation do what they have to do better and there are a seemingly endless stream of new products and tools which should help to harness the brain power.
And yesterday's business pages in The Times agree with my assessment. Discussing Reed Elsevier the report suggested the information business is not "overly sensitive to the economic cycle".
The IWR stand was particularly busy with the December issue in great demand (no surprise there). If you haven't seen a copy or you want to join or rejoin the circulation list, then come by the stand and leave your business card.
There is no doubt that much of the conversation at the conference and the exhibition revolved around how the profession would cope in a downturn. I think the answer is pretty positive. The profession is brimming with ideas and initiatives to help organisation do what they have to do better and there are a seemingly endless stream of new products and tools which should help to harness the brain power.
And yesterday's business pages in The Times agree with my assessment. Discussing Reed Elsevier the report suggested the information business is not "overly sensitive to the economic cycle".
Tuesday 2 December 2008
IWR Information Professional of the Year 2008
IWR would like to offer their congratulations to Natalie Ceeney (CEO of The National Archives) who has just been announced as Information Professional of the Year 2008.
Having met and interviewed Ceeney soon after I joined IWR, I was quickly aware of her passion for information and the role it has to play in government. Hearing her speak on various occasions since it is clear that passion also applies to the people who are involved in that profession.
Although Natalie had a prior engagement this evening and couldn't pick up the trophy in person, well done from all of us here.
To hear more from Natalie, she will be addressing the conference tomorrow morning in her session "Do We Have a Profession?"
More then.
Having met and interviewed Ceeney soon after I joined IWR, I was quickly aware of her passion for information and the role it has to play in government. Hearing her speak on various occasions since it is clear that passion also applies to the people who are involved in that profession.
Although Natalie had a prior engagement this evening and couldn't pick up the trophy in person, well done from all of us here.
To hear more from Natalie, she will be addressing the conference tomorrow morning in her session "Do We Have a Profession?"
More then.
Online Information - Innovators Under the Spotlight
After my somewhat lengthy post of Clay Shirky's opening keynote I wanted to keep this next post brief. It was a session of information innovation experts giving us their advice on how best to implement your own online strategy.
As moderator to this session, Euan Semple noted that by engaging in the more cutting edge of innovation there is a high degree of risk being involved (citing the experience of his own redundancy). Big changes how organisations work and how they relate to the people that work with them are coming he said.
Here is the gist of key points and principles I picked up from them:
Consider what are the information needs of your target audience?
Where are the gaps in what people want?
Make what you do fun and entertaining for users. Experience is key not necessarily the information
Pilot groups often don't work as customers often don't know what they want or need
Let people make their own niches in your space
The process should be about lifting the lid off of something - rather than creating it, it should be easy because there should be a vacum of information to fill
Too many tools can put off users and spook them
Explaining what the idea is key. How would you explain it so that it is easily understood?
People need to see the benefits offered to communities in order to recommend an online service.
More later...
As moderator to this session, Euan Semple noted that by engaging in the more cutting edge of innovation there is a high degree of risk being involved (citing the experience of his own redundancy). Big changes how organisations work and how they relate to the people that work with them are coming he said.
Here is the gist of key points and principles I picked up from them:
Consider what are the information needs of your target audience?
Where are the gaps in what people want?
Make what you do fun and entertaining for users. Experience is key not necessarily the information
Pilot groups often don't work as customers often don't know what they want or need
Let people make their own niches in your space
The process should be about lifting the lid off of something - rather than creating it, it should be easy because there should be a vacum of information to fill
Too many tools can put off users and spook them
Explaining what the idea is key. How would you explain it so that it is easily understood?
People need to see the benefits offered to communities in order to recommend an online service.
More later...
Online Information - Open Keynote, Clay Shirky part 2
Utilising crowds in Business
What does that mean for business models? For Shirky in the old Gutenberg economic model (publisher decides what is distributed in order to make money) the risk is born by the publisher. What the internet has done is allow anyone can publish to anyone (less risk less cost) anyone can say anything to anyone. It's too much content to corral, instead of why publish something? it is now why not publish something?
Because there is no economic/efficient way to control what gets published, so instead it is better to allow content to get out there and then choose what is of interest and therefore value. Also consider that even though some information out there is in public, the content might not be for public consumption - think twitter or your average blog
One of Shirky's final examples (which I love) is the story of how long suffering Josh Wheedon fans (long suffering because all the popular programmes that Wheedon makes get cancelled). With his latest venture, Doll House due to air in 2009, the fans have this time takend the initiative and have already started a "save the show" group. Cynical maybe, but they figure why wait until that decision is made? By then it will be too little too late, they don't trust the official marketing department so have instead become an unofficial one.
The old divisions of information management content producers have gone said Shirky, or are at least disappearing, it means that everyone involved can move across these boundaries.
So with these horizons and no boundaries what is the next thing to do? For Shirky, its about discovery and innovation. "Explore, try new things there is no obvious roadmap
he said, "It's a period of experimentation not transition".
What does that mean for business models? For Shirky in the old Gutenberg economic model (publisher decides what is distributed in order to make money) the risk is born by the publisher. What the internet has done is allow anyone can publish to anyone (less risk less cost) anyone can say anything to anyone. It's too much content to corral, instead of why publish something? it is now why not publish something?
Because there is no economic/efficient way to control what gets published, so instead it is better to allow content to get out there and then choose what is of interest and therefore value. Also consider that even though some information out there is in public, the content might not be for public consumption - think twitter or your average blog
One of Shirky's final examples (which I love) is the story of how long suffering Josh Wheedon fans (long suffering because all the popular programmes that Wheedon makes get cancelled). With his latest venture, Doll House due to air in 2009, the fans have this time takend the initiative and have already started a "save the show" group. Cynical maybe, but they figure why wait until that decision is made? By then it will be too little too late, they don't trust the official marketing department so have instead become an unofficial one.
The old divisions of information management content producers have gone said Shirky, or are at least disappearing, it means that everyone involved can move across these boundaries.
So with these horizons and no boundaries what is the next thing to do? For Shirky, its about discovery and innovation. "Explore, try new things there is no obvious roadmap
he said, "It's a period of experimentation not transition".
Online Information Conference - Opening Keynote, Clay Shirky
Part 1
Clay Shirky, author of "Here Comes Everyone" spoke to assembled delegates this morning about the nature of how we like to share and use our information and how that has led to the next information distribution revolution.
Shirky discussed how communities work and come together through publishing their shared interests, all a platform like flikr needs to do to work is provide the infrastructure. Users then share tips and help each other with their problems - it's a good example of how every URL has the potential to be a latent community he said.
Ultimately people turn themselves into a user community.
The distinction between publishing and communication is more blurred. Flikr's advantage is that it doesn't have to decide what info will be useful Shirky pointed out, by managing less Flikr offers more opportunities for its users. It is one of many such areas out there that do this successfully and makes a good example.
Another intersting example Shirky shared with us was the attention to detail given to the Dr WHO Wikipedia page - edited no less thab 9000 times! That would average about 2-3 edits per each users one would expect - however to demonstrate how we can't rely on a simpistic model of user behaviour Shirky pointed out that the editing process and contribution was far more skewed. For example, 2200 contributors edited the page once while 965 edited it multiple times, one user in particular has edited the entry over a 1000 times! The point is though is that there aren't typical users or typical behaviour.
If you wanted to tap this kind of commitment (especially if its provided for free) for your content consider how you would pitch that to a decision maker - would you even dare?
Colaboration and Collective Action
The story of HSBC reneging on its "free" OD fee for students recently was a PR disaster. When the bank went back on its word it angered many of its student customers. As a bank it knew that to move your money and finances to a competitor is no easy matter and so therefore they could afford to upset them. What tHSBC didn't count on was that students use Facebook and know what it can do.
The protest group acted as staging post for the outraged to come together, others offered advice on how to move their money and who to, it acted as a clarion encouraging even more dissaffected so the story made the national press. HSBC backed down not because the students were upset but because they were upset, organised and co-ordinated.
It is the difference between just reporting what HSBC had done than reporting and offering a way to do something about it.
However Shirky noted that we still tend to underestimate these tools, as they are often used for entertainment and frivolously so. For Shirky they can (and have) been utilised for far more significant uses - the example he gave was of flash mobs entering the main square in Belarus to protest against the law that crowds were not allowed to gather there. The state could do little as each person came there individually not as a group and with a big grin on their face. What is important is that there was the intention among each individual in how they would use this tool, by doing so they became a community with power - albeit shortly.
It is this in part that means there is no longer a difference between the producer of information and the consumer of it. The internet has the many to many element at the core of its nature.
CONTINUED in part 2
Clay Shirky, author of "Here Comes Everyone" spoke to assembled delegates this morning about the nature of how we like to share and use our information and how that has led to the next information distribution revolution.
Shirky discussed how communities work and come together through publishing their shared interests, all a platform like flikr needs to do to work is provide the infrastructure. Users then share tips and help each other with their problems - it's a good example of how every URL has the potential to be a latent community he said.
Ultimately people turn themselves into a user community.
The distinction between publishing and communication is more blurred. Flikr's advantage is that it doesn't have to decide what info will be useful Shirky pointed out, by managing less Flikr offers more opportunities for its users. It is one of many such areas out there that do this successfully and makes a good example.
Another intersting example Shirky shared with us was the attention to detail given to the Dr WHO Wikipedia page - edited no less thab 9000 times! That would average about 2-3 edits per each users one would expect - however to demonstrate how we can't rely on a simpistic model of user behaviour Shirky pointed out that the editing process and contribution was far more skewed. For example, 2200 contributors edited the page once while 965 edited it multiple times, one user in particular has edited the entry over a 1000 times! The point is though is that there aren't typical users or typical behaviour.
If you wanted to tap this kind of commitment (especially if its provided for free) for your content consider how you would pitch that to a decision maker - would you even dare?
Colaboration and Collective Action
The story of HSBC reneging on its "free" OD fee for students recently was a PR disaster. When the bank went back on its word it angered many of its student customers. As a bank it knew that to move your money and finances to a competitor is no easy matter and so therefore they could afford to upset them. What tHSBC didn't count on was that students use Facebook and know what it can do.
The protest group acted as staging post for the outraged to come together, others offered advice on how to move their money and who to, it acted as a clarion encouraging even more dissaffected so the story made the national press. HSBC backed down not because the students were upset but because they were upset, organised and co-ordinated.
It is the difference between just reporting what HSBC had done than reporting and offering a way to do something about it.
However Shirky noted that we still tend to underestimate these tools, as they are often used for entertainment and frivolously so. For Shirky they can (and have) been utilised for far more significant uses - the example he gave was of flash mobs entering the main square in Belarus to protest against the law that crowds were not allowed to gather there. The state could do little as each person came there individually not as a group and with a big grin on their face. What is important is that there was the intention among each individual in how they would use this tool, by doing so they became a community with power - albeit shortly.
It is this in part that means there is no longer a difference between the producer of information and the consumer of it. The internet has the many to many element at the core of its nature.
CONTINUED in part 2
Online Information Conference - Opening Keynote
"We are now seeing a new set of business innovations and it's an interesting time to develop business, information being at the heart of business. Without the information tools and tech that we will here about can't hope to be successful." So opened this year's Online Information Conference courtesy of its chairman Adrian Dale
The theme for this year (subsequent to the economic bubble bursting)
Dale explained how in the 1960s and 70s it was those professionals in personnel who saw the importance of their role in a businesses strategy to justify their place on the board. Their its predecessors in Finance were the same. Meanwhile, the 1980s and 90s was the time for the business process managers - the supply chain managers in other words to take the lead and further influence their organisations for business benefit.
For the information profession, that role has largely been contained and formed as a number of cottage industries such the realm of the librarian, web development, the records manager. Now though we are moving into a time when it's the information manager that takes the lead, said Dale - at least in those organisations that have the foresight.
Why now?
For one, because of the vast amounts of information being generated across the globe. A live feed from EMC showed a row of whirling numbers projected across the world to represent this current data generation, in fact 432bn GB created since 1st Jan 2008.
We are dealing with the explosion of information and it has now caught up with us, said Dale, we have got to get to the heart of these processes. Most businesses won't understand how to manage information properly. Unfortunately that can mean less cottage industry of information management and more like a personal approach with everyone managing their own, but is that really a strategy?
This opened up the floor for Keynote speaker Clay Shirky, author of and "Here Comes Everyone - the power of organising without organisations. More to follow...
The theme for this year (subsequent to the economic bubble bursting)
Dale explained how in the 1960s and 70s it was those professionals in personnel who saw the importance of their role in a businesses strategy to justify their place on the board. Their its predecessors in Finance were the same. Meanwhile, the 1980s and 90s was the time for the business process managers - the supply chain managers in other words to take the lead and further influence their organisations for business benefit.
For the information profession, that role has largely been contained and formed as a number of cottage industries such the realm of the librarian, web development, the records manager. Now though we are moving into a time when it's the information manager that takes the lead, said Dale - at least in those organisations that have the foresight.
Why now?
For one, because of the vast amounts of information being generated across the globe. A live feed from EMC showed a row of whirling numbers projected across the world to represent this current data generation, in fact 432bn GB created since 1st Jan 2008.
We are dealing with the explosion of information and it has now caught up with us, said Dale, we have got to get to the heart of these processes. Most businesses won't understand how to manage information properly. Unfortunately that can mean less cottage industry of information management and more like a personal approach with everyone managing their own, but is that really a strategy?
This opened up the floor for Keynote speaker Clay Shirky, author of and "Here Comes Everyone - the power of organising without organisations. More to follow...
Monday 1 December 2008
New powers for the ICO
Just when you thought it was safe to dismiss the UK's data protection tsar the Information Commissioner as a toothless watchdog, Justice Secretary Jack Straw finally grants him the powers worthy of the title. Yes, last week saw Information Commissioner Richard Thomas finally get what he has been asking for over the last year or so - the ability to impose monetary penalties on organisations for "deliberate or reckless" loss of data. He is now also able to inspect central government departments without having to ask permission first - a rule so absurd it totally undermined the ability of the ICO to carry out effective checks.
And the experts I spoke to broadly welcomed these new powers. Most seemed to think that the long, long list of public and private sector organisations which have lost sensitive data could all have avoided their infamy if they'd just followed the DPA. By granting the ICO the power to enforce this much-maligned piece of legislation, the argument goes, they might actually pay more than lip service to the law.
Another interesting element of the news is the new funding structure the ICO will be getting. Instead of a flat-rate notification fee, the ICO will be able to charge depending on the size of the notifying organisation. Details have yet to be thrashed out but the idea is that it will finally give the watchdog the financial support it needs to carry out its work effectively, although if it's partly used to fund the £50,000 pay rise mooted for Thomas, the move will not win many supporters.
So what does this mean to you? Well, if you were thinking of just paying lip service to the DPA, you're probably better off re-examining your data handling strategies and taking it a whole lot more seriously. The ICO has teeth at last and is probably not afraid to use them. However, while it certainly will be handing out fines and punishments and naming and shaming those who are reckless with data, Thomas has consistently stressed that much of the work of the ICO is in educating organsiations about good data handling practices and compliance with the DPA.
To that end, the ICO last week also released a new report, Privacy by Design, listing ways in which firms can design information systems incorporating privacy enhancing technologies from the get-go, rather than thinking of these technologies as an add-on, or an afterthought. It's well worth a look.
And the experts I spoke to broadly welcomed these new powers. Most seemed to think that the long, long list of public and private sector organisations which have lost sensitive data could all have avoided their infamy if they'd just followed the DPA. By granting the ICO the power to enforce this much-maligned piece of legislation, the argument goes, they might actually pay more than lip service to the law.
Another interesting element of the news is the new funding structure the ICO will be getting. Instead of a flat-rate notification fee, the ICO will be able to charge depending on the size of the notifying organisation. Details have yet to be thrashed out but the idea is that it will finally give the watchdog the financial support it needs to carry out its work effectively, although if it's partly used to fund the £50,000 pay rise mooted for Thomas, the move will not win many supporters.
So what does this mean to you? Well, if you were thinking of just paying lip service to the DPA, you're probably better off re-examining your data handling strategies and taking it a whole lot more seriously. The ICO has teeth at last and is probably not afraid to use them. However, while it certainly will be handing out fines and punishments and naming and shaming those who are reckless with data, Thomas has consistently stressed that much of the work of the ICO is in educating organsiations about good data handling practices and compliance with the DPA.
To that end, the ICO last week also released a new report, Privacy by Design, listing ways in which firms can design information systems incorporating privacy enhancing technologies from the get-go, rather than thinking of these technologies as an add-on, or an afterthought. It's well worth a look.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)