an increasing idea that “knowledge should find the user”, rather than have the user search for it. But that requires a lot of data science, data management, graph database rather than relational database technology and so on. Do KIMers have the status, or the technical understanding to initiate or at least join the necessary discussions at the formative stages? And if not, who does, or is the rapid improvement project going to be delayed by lack of a starting point?”
David and Goliath
He says he’s not alone in his view. “Mar- tin White makes a related point in his article in the latest issue of eLucidate Vol 16 issue 1 Autumn 2019. In Challenging Goliath: Is Microsoft inhibiting enter- prise-wide information management? In which he writes that: ‘There can be little doubt that Microsoft dominates the delivery of desktop information manage- ment tools. To be sure there are many other collaboration applications and a growing number of content services platform applications. However, so strong is the Microsoft hold on most IT departments, that any manager wish- ing to use a non-Microsoft application has a mountain to climb.(p11)’” Dion adds: “This is the same kind of narrow focus, to put it kindly, that I’m talking about.” He thinks this attitude not only restricts KIM professionals but also the companies creating products that might be useful. “Press releases for new AI or data science flavoured products in the KIM field come out every week now” He points to (
https://www.hrtechnologist.com/articles/ digital-transformation/benefits-of-ai-powered-knowl- edge-sharing-platforms-for-hr/) and the role of next generation KM tools in HR. He also mentions insight engines like mind- breeze saying these “are conceptually at least, and probably in reality, the next generation of search engines. They apply indexing, natural-language processing, and machine-learning technologies to an organisation’s unstructured and structured data. Gartner has a magic quadrant for them in its regular reviews of products, so they are likely to have staying power. And at the structured-data end at least, they are within the reach of KIMers interest, if KIMers have a reason- able chance of being in their organisa- tion’s discussion about current and next generation technology.”
Stay tuned
Dion thinks that knowledge and infor- mation professionals should be looking at this even if their employers aren’t listening to them. “Without a reasonable expectation that they will be listened to, why should practical, busy KIM profes- sionals keep up to date with these ideas? The answer is that KIMers have specific understanding of how information science works, and have a valid perspective to con- tribute.” He said that CILIP’s aim to bring
12 BG layout 2020
spare3.indd 10 23/01/2020 19:59
all kinds of data professionals into its fold – including data scientists – means that “this is no outlandish fantasising.” Stephen thinks that employers can leverage the knowledge of KIM staff more effectively: “KIM staff have a unique set of qualities that position them to inform/guide the procurement of these systems:
l They are usually tenured and have deep institutional knowledge
l That tenure enables them to under- stand the specific requirements of the business
l Their knowledge of the market and available products is extensive so they know which products are best for par- ticular applications
l They have or should develop an understanding/working knowledge of the capabilities of the technology
l This should enable them to act in an advisory capacity within their enterprise on how best to combine all these components.
Pessimism
Dion, whose clients span public and private sectors, said: “Something has to happen to loosen the narrow focus around digital KIM service/product purchasing where only the products from the existing platform providers have a chance of at least being explored. It might also be part of a loss of confidence or confusion in the modernising agenda,” he says, adding that the debate over KIM and purchasing is happening “at a time when focus on the next generation of digital services may be beginning to falter in the public sector, according to the archi- tects of the Government Digital Service.” – (
https://www.globalgovernmentforum.com/ the-rise-and-fall-of-gds-lessons-for-digital-gov- ernment/ (2018) – He adds that “there is a close conceptual link between KIM and Digital Services, and a practical one too… and the freshening of focus that’s needed could at least come from KIMers looking for a voice in that space, and pushing for power to spend money on some of the new kinds of products.”
Asked if there was any discussion among his workshop participants about how this could happen he said “There isn’t, at the workshops at least. For now they only last a day, with quite a tight agenda.” He said that many remained “committed to living within the strengths/constraints of the IT infrastructure bought by the organisation to meet its entire information systems needs. In the worst case there’s likely to be resistance at the strategic level to buying special technology outside that system, and if a case is considered it’s not obvious that KIMers voices are heard there. KIMers needs to be in that space too. They may be, in some of the large forward thinking commercial enterprises.”
Optimism
Is it possible for some vendors to help break the cycle? “Maybe they can. Firstly, there’s scope for active collaboration. A topical parallel that comes to mind is that one of the big KM Conferences (APQC KM Conference in the US) provides a proforma letter for potential delegates to rework and submit to their employers to get permission and the funds. If there’s enough trust in the customer/KIMer/ supplier chain for new KIM products or commercial services, then that kind of collaboration should be useful. Secondly, perhaps suppliers and/or CILIP could have events or press releases, keeping up a steady sense of how AI, DS, machine learning and natural language processing are allowing designers and KIMers to re-imagine what can be offered for more effective working in organisations.” There is also hope for lobbying employers via older, trusted routes. “I think the result is that KM/IM systems sellers rely on very long term relation- ships with librarians or what they’ll have become. These relationships probably predate the attitude of one IT system suits all – these are relationships that software suppliers have been careful to maintain with libraries and by extension with information units and so they might be trusted more by KIMers’ bosses, and provide an easier ride for new products into an organisation, than a brand new supplier trying a hard sell with a com- pletely new AI or DS product.” Stephen also thinks there is scope for optimism suggesting a number of factors that could help KIM professionals work their way into the process: “Procurement functions are becoming increasingly centralised and product agnostic – the general principle being if you are a good negotiator you can secure best pricing on any product regardless of category. That said, the high level procurement categories commonly seen are IT, Non-IT, Market Data and Professional Services (consulting). All of which may involve K&IM products/services.” His view is that KIM professionals have a natural place in the procurement process: “Procurement teams rely on Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in the business to define overarching business requirements, compile scope of work documentation (with SLA’s and KPI’s) and identify products/suppliers to participate in the process.” Having drafted a “Request for Information” or “Request for Proposal” documents, the organisation will go to market. Stephen said; “They rely on the same SMEs to review the responses in terms of capability/competence and use those insights to provide leverage on pric- ing. Ergo the K&IM professional should have a role in an advisory capacity to the business and Procurement to ensure informed purchasing outcomes.” BG
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44
