Library Outreach, Advocacy & Marketing - close cousins or poles apart?

Last night I took part in a very interesting #UKlibchat discussion on the topic of Outreach and Inclusion on Twitter.  Many of the comment revolved around whether, and how, librarians should use marketing knowledge and techniques to better achieve outreach goals.  Even on the topic of social inclusion, marketing was being cited as a useful means to an end.

There were several comments indicating that some librarians either didn't have the knowledge about marketing (or business concepts in general) or were reluctant to consider using marketing techniques.  Reasons for this were given variously as fear of incurring costs, lack of time/staff resource or a feeling that marketing, in a commercial way, went against the ethos of a 'purely cultural' institution or meant that libraries would be competing against each other, which was inherently wrong and would lead to 'chaos'.

So is marketing the close cousin of outreach and advocacy of library services, or are they poles apart?

I believe that it is possible, and indeed essential, for librarians to learn about marketing concepts and techniques, and then to apply them sensibly to the situation in which libraries find themselves.  In an age of scarce funding resources and rapid technological change, when politicians, budget holders and society at large are questioning the role and place of libraries (and indeed education as a whole), I think it is imperative that librarians 'shout out' for libraries, for their value, and for the benefits they can bring to their communities.

Whatever name or label you give it, this activity is marketing.  You can try reinventing the wheel and creating campaigns called 'outreach' from first principals - or you can learn about marketing theory and learn from past examples of marketing campaigns, and then apply those principles to the matching of library services to the needs of different groups in the community and to the promotion of those services.

Surely it is better to learn the best of what's available, and adapt and grow from there, rather than to dismiss all that knowledge as 'too commercial' and try and recreate a way of communicating with users from scratch?

Update 8 September 2012:

The discussion continues on Twitter (most recent tweets at the top):

What do you think?  I'd love to hear your thoughts so please do leave a comment if you have a view on the whole 'marketing, good or bad?' debate.

Media savvy?

On the programme for the upcoming Library Camp Leeds I noticed that a session has been proposed on how to advocate for libraries on camera and / or off the cuff (presumably to politicians or other influential people one might meet on the train, etc).  
This got me wondering about whether librarians in general, or at least those working at industry bodies or in campaigning or leadership positions, feel they are in need of media / PR training?  Do courses exist already to help people learn how to present effectively to camera, talk in memorable soundbites, and get key messages across quickly?  Is this something CILIP should be offering?  Does anyone at CILIP have the skills themselves?


Checking the CILIP website under 'training' I found a section of onsite courses offered, including a sub section on Marketing Skills, which included using multimedia to promote your service, and one on branding your library service (which includes creating brand messages) but nothing apparently for appearing on camera or advocating generally 'for libraries'.


Hunting around Google for any other organisations that might offer media training for librarians, I came across VolResource, a site offering support for voluntary and community organisations.  They have a page dedicated to media support - perhaps a resource page similar to this would be useful for librarians?

Future Role for Libraries?

Earlier this week I read a blog post which argued that, despite years of projects (eg, to ‘catalogue the web’ by OCLC and others, to set up ‘virtual reference’ services, to provide ebooks, etc) libraries have been largely unsuccessful at becoming the leaders in the new digital information world.  Others, such as Google, Amazon, Library Thing, etc, have had no such difficulties engaging with the public.  If libraries’ forays into the web2.0 world have largely failed, and book borrowing and library visits are declining, then what are libraries for, now?

Another blog post, which I saw yesterday, suggested that “libraries are a technology for free, large scaleinter-generational transfer of knowledge and culture,”.  However, one could easily substitute “the internet is” for “libraries are” in this sentence and it would be equally, or perhaps even more, true. 

Given this background, what is the remaining USP of libraries?  What feature do they have, that the internet cannot offer?  What benefits does this bring?  One obvious one that springs to mind is - a physical space.  A place to congregate.  A place for direct person to person knowledge transfer, collaboration and sharing. 

I think libraries need to consider what activities, related to information and knowledge transfer, can only take place in a physical space.  Those are the activities, and those are the benefits, of libraries that we should be promoting, advocating for and marketing – to users and to potential new users.

Communication vs Collaboration - what's the difference?

Today I was reading a post by Sam Marshall of Clearbox Consulting about Sharepoint based intranets, and the sentence What defines collaboration is that multiple people work towards an end goal. caught my eye.

As a member of the group promoting the Defragmentation discussions, about encouraging information sector groups to collaborate more effectively, this definition struck a chord.  We have been trying to persuade the various groups to collaborate (for example to jointly produce concrete products such as an Information Manifesto that all groups could use to promote the value of information professionals).  However, I've started to wonder whether effective collaboration can take place before regular communication is established? 

It seems to me that (despite some great personal links between a few of the members of some of the groups) there is little or no regular, effective, senior level communication between the boards, management committees, trustees, etc, etc, of the various groups.  I am aware that some of the groups have tried to establish this, with varying degrees of success, while other groups seem to see it as less of a priority.

Without this communication, which could build familiarity and trust, perhaps asking for collaboration on joint projects is just too much to expect. 

Data Protection Act - Barrier to Good Customer Service?

The Data Protection Act is designed to protect individuals’ personal data from mis-use by organisations.  There are eight Data Protection Principles, covering such issues as fair and lawful processing of data, collection of data for specified purpose(s), keeping data held accurate and up to date, and not keeping data for longer than needed under its defined purpose.

Problems can arise, however, when organisations misunderstand their duties under the act or, in some cases, wilfully ‘hide behind’ the DP Act to excuse their actions, or justify their lack of action.

There are many examples of this in the press, some of which have gone to court.  For example:

A franchise operation, where the franchisee’s contract said they had to send customer details to the franchise owner, and they said they couldn’t under the DP Act - Court of Appeal ruled this was wrong as they would have had ample time & opportunity to seek the customer’s consent to do so.   Grow With Us Ltd v Green Thumb (UK) Ltd,  2006 (1)

A Panorama programme in Februrary 2011 showed the British Legion complaining that MoD were using DP Act as ‘an excuse’ to not give departing soldiers contact details to them, so they could offer them support.  Surely it would be easy for them to get soldiers to sign a consent form allowing this? (2)

Some equality researchers from the Open University were given DP Act as an excuse for not sharing information about women engineers by Microsoft.  The software giant claimed privacy laws prevented it from saying how many Microsoft-certified engineers were women. The OU got a note from the Information Commissioner to show the defence was nonsense - the researchers were asking for statistics, not names and addresses. (3)

Because of this uncertainty on the behalf of organisations about what the DP Act does, and doesn’t, say they can’t do, the Information Commissioner has issued various guidelines and examples to clarify the situation:

“You should explain why you want to use an individual’s personal data at the outset, based on your intentions at the time you collect it. If over time you devise new ways of using that information, perhaps because of changes in technology, you will be able to use their personal data for the new purpose if it is fair to do so.”

“The Data Protection Act does not impose a blanket ban on the release of personal information. It requires a common sense approach, and should not be used as an excuse by those reluctant to take a balanced decision.” (4)

Another recent example has arisen recently rather closer to home, with CILIP.  A newly joined member of CILIP posted a link to her blog on Twitter.

@bumsonseats Carolin Schneider

What is a new CILIP member to do? wp.me/p1IjjA-en

19 Nov via WordPress.com Favorite Retweet Reply

In her blog post Carolin made a point about new members experiences with Branches & Groups:

“I think for a new joiner going to a branch meeting is daunting. It would be nice to have a buddy, someone to help you take those first baby steps. This could be something you can opt in once your membership pack arrives in the post. With social media it should be easy enough to coordinate, no?”

In a comment responding to this, Jo Alcock said:

“My problem (as a branch committee member) is that I don’t know who our members are or when new members join. I appreciate that there are data protection legalities but I’m sure there must be a way to opt-in so that your branch and groups know that you have joined and can contact you to see if there’s anything you’d like to know or what you would like them to do for you.”

This generated some discussion on Twitter about why CILIP might feel that it shouldn’t share members details internally to allow branch or group committee members to contact new members.

Charles Oppenheim (retired Professor at Loughborough University and now independent copyright and DP consultant) was one of those contributing to the conversation:

@CharlesOppenh Charles Oppenheim

@joeyanne @NicolaFranklin I am aware of CILIP's approach to DP. There is absolutely no reason for it. No idea what its problem is.

21 Nov via web Favorite Retweet Reply

Charles later expanded on his Tweet by saying:

“There is an obligation under the DPA that a data controller shall ensure that all necessary technical and administrative measures are taken to ensure unauthorised disclosure, etc.  does not occur.  So yes indeed, [their Data Controller] would be liable if something went wrong, but the law requires them to take such steps as are necessary to ensure no problem arises. Stopping people with a bona fide need from accessing the data is a quite inappropriate response to the problem.  Ensuring B & G officials are properly trained is the correct response.

Equally, the centre is obliged to keep info accurate and up to date.  Again, the onus is on CILIP to put into place procedures to ensure this is the case.”

Carolin has also sent in an expanded statement explaining the service she would hope to receive, as a newly joining member of CILIP:

“I recently re-joined CILIP as an associate member. Having shared on twitter and my blog that I am once again a CILIP member I received a warm welcome from several people on twitter, which was good and showed that these individuals care about new members and how to get them involved. So whilst waiting for my membership pack to arrive in the post, I hoped that my regional branch and my chosen interest groups would get in touch to share what they do and how I can get involved.

After blogging about these expectations I was informed by a colleague on twitter that my regional CILIP branch and special interest groups would not be able to send me a welcome letter as they are not notified when a new member joins their group. She was under the impression that it was due to data protection.

From looking at my online profile I know what my entry in the CILIP Yearbook says. I am able to edit the entry, and therefore have control over the details CILIP stores in their database. This would make it possible for me to not share my home address, for example, or opt out of sharing my phone number. Every member of CILIP is listed in the CILIP Yearbook, with their name, job title and workplace. Through this entry (and with the help of the internet and other resources) it would probably be quite easy to find more details about me, e.g. the address my workplace. Any details I don't want to be shared I could delete from my profile, so why can't my details be shared with a different part of the organisation that I signed up with?

Whatever you do these days, from shopping online to signing up to a newsletter, organisations ask you to opt in or out of sharing your details. If CILIP is worried about sharing something they shouldn't: I suggest that CILIP enables their members to opt-in to sharing personal data with their regional branches/special interest groups/third parties when they first sign up. It just takes a few tick boxes on the membership application form.”

When asked to comment on this situation and CILIP’s approach to sharing member’s data, CILIP’s Head of Customer Services, Francis Muzzu, made the following statement:

“Members’ information and the database are extremely important to us, and we are committed to reviewing how we can share data more effectively with Branches and Groups.”

Perhaps including a simple tick box on the application form along the lines of ‘tick here if you agree to your contact details being shared with the branch and group(s) you have elected to join’, as Carolin suggests, would help enable this process.  Also, if members data were being provided from the centre, then branches and groups would not need to collect their members’ details separately.  This would make keeping the data accurate and up to date easier and more effective and reduce the risks of holding two or more separate data sets.

I understand that CILIP is planning to review its policy over sharing members details internally next year, and sincerely hope that they can adjust their policy, processes and procedures, and have the IT infrastructure, to enable them to manage member’s data more effectively in the future.

As the membership body for librarians and information managers, members and prospective members expect the organisation to embody best practice in its own information management practices.  In this case, where doing so would help new members feel more welcome and possibly also attract more members to join, at a time where CILIP needs to not only reverse its declining membership numbers but also widen its membership base, demonstrating good internal information management practices should surely be a key tactic to achieving its goals.

Footnotes
(1)  http://update.legal500.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1247 viewed November 2011
(2)  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12386376   Feb 2011, viewed November 2011
(3)  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/18/medical_academy_privacy_complaint/  viewed November 2011
(4) http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/principle_1.aspx viewed November 2011

**Wednesday 30th November - Charles Oppenheim has since submitted an additional statement, outlining which data protection principles are involved and his opinion of CILIP's argument:

CILIP’s Head of Customer services had written to say that, if they distributed members’ data, they couldn’t guarantee that it would be treated confidentially.  Charles’ reply to this contention is “The seventh data protection principle (schedule 1 of the data protection act 1998) requires that appropriate organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction to personal data.  In other words, CILIP already has legal obligations to ensure everyone who handles personal data does so properly.  This principle requires CILIP to educate and train anyone handling personal data.  It is not an excuse to refuse to pass such data to people when they have a bona fide need to use it.”

CILIP’s Head of Customer services had written to say that a second consideration was that, if the Branches & Groups had member’s data they might overload them with information, which could be counterproductive.  Charles’ response to this argument is “This is again a matter of education and training.  CILIP should be training all who handle personal data in good information management practice, including avoiding information overload on members.  This is not a good reason for refusing to pass to branches and groups information they are entitled to.”

CILIP’s Head of Customer services had written to say that, if Branches & Groups had copies of the data as well as the central office, it would be harder to ensure it was kept accurate and up to date.  Charles’ reply to this is “The fourth data protection principle requires CILIP and its branches and groups to keep accurate and up to date personal information.  Francis notes that some branches and groups fail to pass on revised details to cilip centrally.  By definition, CILIP and the branch/group is then in breach of the fourth principle and could be sued/prosecuted as a result. What the data protection act requires is that cilip educates and trains. The act is no reason to refuse to pass information to branches and groups, and vice versa.”

Charles concluded by saying “In short, the legal obligation is on CILIP to ensure that its branches and groups both receive, and handle personal data appropriately.  Branches and groups cannot function properly without master lists of members. At the moment, in my view CILIP is in breach of the DPA.  Best to sort the matter out by releasing the data, and ensuring good information management practices, rather than burying its head in the sand hoping the problem will go away - because it won't!”

ILI2011 - Navigating the New Normal - Strategies for Success

This week saw the Internet Librarian International Conference 2011 come to London, for an excellent two day programme devoted to the "New Normal" - the new environment, with new technologies and new economic realities.  How can librarians and other information professionals adapt to this new situation?

A full review of my experiences at ILI2011 can be found here

Event - LIKE 29 (Take 2) - Connecting Information with Innovation

On Thursday I spent a very enjoyable evening back at the Crown Tavern, at the second showing of John Davies’ presentation of TFPL’s report on their second survey of the information profession.

In 2006 TFPL conducted a survey of the profession and produced a report “Who is managing information - roles in the e-landscape”.  They have recently conducted another survey to follow up on this work and John described some of their key findings.  In view of the credit crunch and ongoing economic woes, they were surprised to find that there was on balance stability in the numbers of staff in ‘knowledge and information management’ or KIM functions, having expected to see a drop.  Also interesting was that the trend to these staff being dispersed across the organisation, rather than concentrated in an ‘information centre’, has increased since the last survey.

John asked us to discuss some of the survey questions around our tables.  One of these was “what is the point of a professional qualification, and a professional body?”  Amongst the reasons suggested around my table were:

• To widen new entrants' view of the profession
• To give a baseline of skills
• To give a theoretical underpinning to professional practice
• To set standards
• To govern ethics
• To accredit qualifications
• You can't be a profession without a professional body

The point was also made that almost all other professions insist upon a set number of CPD hours &/or revalidation, to retain professional status, and that CILIP should do the same for the profession to have more credibility.

During the survey respondents were asked to say which attributes they felt were important in KIM workers.  Although many permutations were received, they were able to distill these down into several key areas, including:

• Vision
• Perseverence
• Pragmatism
• Collaboration

John asked us to debate which of these were the most important. On the table I was at we felt that vision and collaboration were the most vital, but also unfortunately the most often lacking.  Someone suggested that too many people still came into the profession expecting it to be ‘back room’, and another said that it tended to attract introverted people.

Another point that was made was that many people nowadays may self-identify as ‘knowledge workers’ (eg, information asset managers, or people like immigration officers who manage large databases of information), and yet not have a ‘library qualification’ or be seen as information professionals by CILIP or any of the other groups.

During the feedback discussion, John pointed out that we were naturally talking in terms of ‘us’ and ‘the business’ - and he was sure that HR or IT or other groups did the same - but that in fact we are ‘the business’ and should be talking about ‘we’.  

Dinner arrived while the debate was still in full flow, and the animated conversations continued over the food and afterwards, with Jennifer encouraging us to get up, circulate and share ideas with new people.

Guest Post - Professionalism and the need for a competence framework

Susie Kay from The Professionalism Group with her viewpoint on a competency framework for the information profession.

This article is also published today on The Information Professions wiki, where you can read more about efforts to bring the various groups, associations and societies that make up the information profession together to communicate and collaborate more closely.

It is just over two years since I last put pen to paper on this subject in an article for the Opinion page in CILIP’s Update.  Natalie Ceeney, then Government Head of Profession for Knowledge & Information Management (and CEO of the National Archive), took the time in a later edition to state her public agreement with my position that the missing element in CILIP's work to define and maintain professionalism in this diverse sector is a profession-wide competence framework and, further, that it is essential that it should embrace the whole knowledge and information management profession.

In light of the current changes happening at CILIP and the ongoing perception that the sector’s professional association is failing to meet the needs of a very diverse workforce under extreme pressure and, more importantly, not answering the ongoing questions about the profession’s value to society, I believe it is time to make the argument for a comprehensive competence framework once more.  In recent times those professions who have achieved both improved professional reputation and internal stability have all worked to either implement or update their competence frameworks and CPD requirements.  There really is nothing to be gained by delaying any longer.

There has been previous discussion about perceived divisions within the community about how we demonstrate professionalism, citing lack of employer engagement, disappointment with the skill sets of graduates and ‘de-professionalisation’, followed by the professional body reporting that it had embarked on a review supposedly designed to modernise how professional education is delivered for this sector (1).

I agree that a radical overhaul is needed and further believe absolutely that our understanding of what it means to be a professional must entail a demonstrable level of competence and range of abilities. There are three crucial missing elements in the argument which the professional body has never, unfortunately, addressed.  

Firstly, as the sector contains a vast, evolving array of specialisms, exactly how big is the sector, how do the specialisms connect, who is included and why? The work to construct a competence framework would, in itself, help to bring together those who should or could be part of the community while still leaving room at the periphery for new and future additions or changes over time.

Secondly, what does professional competence look like for all those who seek to be part of this profession, at all levels.  In such uncertain times it is crucial that we are able to demonstrate and describe the underlying, unifying assumptions and detail about our levels of competence.

Thirdly, how do we ensure that both our education and training processes keep up, building in consistency and agility, while also encouraging the free thinkers and pathfinders? How do we ensure that the skill sets on offer to employers of graduates and those transferring into the profession are relevant and useful? How do we ensure that innovative and ground breaking courses are given the support and approval they need?  How do we ensure that relevant short courses are available whenever they are needed to top up skills or quickly rectify a skills shortfall within the workforce? Critically, how do we ensure CPD is taken seriously and that personal and professional development are shown to be of paramount importance for all?

In my opinion the answer lies in a detailed and constantly refreshed competence framework for the profession. The best of such frameworks have review cycles built in which ensure that they take account of the latest thinking and developments within the sector as well as refreshing connections outside. This enabling mechanism would mean that the profession would firmly embrace and provide constant connection to all of the many interrelated communities of interest which currently have such difficulties in relating to each other.

Competence frameworks have two dimensions -- breadth and depth. The breadth describes the range of those to whom the framework applies, allowing inclusivity, defining the range and diversity of ability and specialisms within the sector.  The depth defines that ability at a number of levels, from student and entry level to the highest levels of management.  The addition of job role descriptors at appropriate levels then also provides a career structure across the sector and enhances the ability to link education, training and CPD opportunities to the framework at the appropriate points, as well as publications, events and other products and services. Such a defined structure then means that qualifications can be aligned at appropriate levels, further linking the profession to other structured disciplines.

Frameworks usually detail the various competence elements in groupings which loosely equate to technical, behavioural and contextual areas, with ethical considerations as an integral part of the overall framework. As an individual progresses to higher levels of responsibility, they will be required to demonstrate enhanced interpersonal and management skills which are an obvious overlap with frameworks from the leadership and management disciplines. These overlaps will be repeated in other frameworks such as IT, project management, HR, etc, offering opportunities for alliances and a modular approach for academic courses.

Entrants to the profession looking for  accredited academic courses could be reassured that the course content was directly linked and derived from the competence framework, thus ensuring relevance and consistency.  This would help to ensure employability of graduates and reassure employers about the quality and relevance of education and training.

The existence of the framework would also remove the perceived differentiation between academic and experiential routes as the expression of levels of competence would be of paramount importance, indicating an individual’s professionalism, not just their qualifications.

If we are serious about wishing to talk about maintaining professionalism in the workforce and raising the public profile and understanding of the profession then we need to better describe who and what we are - our uniqueness.  How better to do this than to develop a competence framework which declares unequivocally what we stand for and how we manage and maintain expectations of ability at all levels?

The CILIP Body of Knowledge is no longer an adequate vehicle to enable individual professionals to make commitments to the employer community.  We must move to a structure which enables us to specify the capabilities of each and every one of the individuals who make up this extremely talented sector. The Professional Skills for Government competency framework [2] is described as ‘a structured way of thinking about jobs and careers for Civil Service staff at all grades. It sets out the skills you need to do your job well...'.   That’s a great definition and statement of intent.

Until a competence framework exists for this profession with which all can identify then we will not take our place among the leading professions as we should do.  The lack of a framework which makes the statement on behalf of each and every individual means that everyone has to rethink who and what they are every time they are asked and no one has time for that. Recent discussion lists have demonstrated clearly that we have a range of abilities but few can identify how these skills and competences link together.  Identity needs a framework for support for now and for evolution into the future.

At the end of her article two years ago, Natalie made a unique offer to the professional body, to share what they had already accomplished while creating the Professional Skills KIM framework (3).  A large proportion of what is needed for the future of the profession is already in place so the work required to create the profession’s competence framework would not begin from a standing start but with a huge first stage lift.  What remains is to establish the breadth and depth, make some intelligent guesses about where we going in the not too distant future and ensure that we include everyone in the conversation.  I believe the time is well overdue to make a start on what could be the answer to this profession’s very considerable current difficulties.

References:
1  Defining our Professional Future report http://www.cilip.org.uk/get-involved/cilipfuture/pages/default.aspx
2  www.civilservice.gov.uk/people/psg/
3 Government KIM Framework:  http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/gkim/gkim-professional-skills.htm

Susie Kay is Managing Director of The Professionalism Group, an advice and consultancy service working with individuals, businesses and professional associations focusing on the benefits of professionalism

Thank you to Susie for such an interesting and thought provoking post, which touches on career development, advocacy and professionalism, all issues relevant to librarians, records, knowledge and information managers alike.

Event - Gurteen Knowledge Cafe

A short stroll down Charing Cross road to the PwC offices in Embankment Place after work on Wednesday 17th August led me to my first Gurteen Knowledge Cafe.

I was pleasantly surprised to see around 50 people gathering for what turned out to be a very enjoyable and thought provoking evening. David Gurteen had difficulty dragging us away from our coffee and networking to get things started, but once we sat around our ‘cafe style’ tables we soon settled down.

David introduced us to Theodore Zeldin and his book “Conversation; how talk can change your life” and took a quote from the beginning of the book as the inspiration for the evening.David reworked the quotation into three questions. Rather than the normal format of having 3 rounds all discussing the same question, with participants moving between tables for each round, on this occasion we discussed a different question in each round:

• How does conversation change the way we see the world?
• Can conversation change the world for the better?
• What do we need to do to have such conversations?

During the first round my table first discussed what made a conversation, and concluded that it had to include dialog between at least two people (or could be a “trialogue”... or more!) and that participants needed to be open and willing to change their opinion. The success or otherwise of this would depend on various factors, including culture, risk, trust, and past backgrounds and vulnerabilities.

In the second round we developed the theme of trust a bit further, with some round the table feeling that trust could only be developed over time as relationships deepened, while others felt they could instinctively trust someone within minutes of meeting them. We also considered ‘what is better?’ Better for some people might be worse for others (ie, what is ‘desirable’ or ‘good’ can depend on cultural background, political views, ethics, etc - there are few universals).

We also thought about the participants in the conversation being as important as the content of the conversation itself - whether to influence politicians or business managers, or to bring people from opposing communities together in neutral space for a conversation about an everyday topic, to allow both parties to see their common humanity.

My final group talked about what elements were needed to have effective conversations that would lead to change. We were on the whole against the very formal ‘conversations’ that tended to take place in businesses or government - where board room tables, set agendas, and group politics all constrain people.

The last 15-20 minutes of the evening were spent in one large group circle, continuing the conversation, about conversations, in the round. For conversations to be able to change things, whether in a small way locally or in big, important ways, the importance of participants approaching the conversation predisposed to change their mind was emphasised again. The best conversations were felt to be spontaneous shared dialogues to discover a new truth.

All rather heady stuff for 9.00pm in the evening after a full day at work! A quick sprint across Waterloo bridge to the station, and lovely views of the illuminated South Bank, rounded off the night nicely.

If anyone is interested in learning how to run a Knowedge Cafe themselves, David Gurteen is running a Cafe Workshop on September 13th in London.  See here for more details.

Event – IRMS Site Visit to Dyson R&D Centre

Tuesday 11^th August saw me driving through a beautiful English summer morning from Hampshire up into Wiltshire to the Dyson headquarters.  After getting safely through the rather daunting security gate, I met up with the other delegates and walked through a striking sculpture installation by Peter Burke to reach reception.

Billed as a site visit, I was delighted to find that Sam Steer (Information Manager) and her team had put in a great deal of thought and effort for the day.  Rather than a tour around the site, which was restricted for commercial confidentiality reasons, we were treated to a masterclass of in-place records and information management.

Sam joined Dyson four years ago, and was originally offered a £4m budget to buy and implement an EDRMS.  This led to sharp intakes of breath and jealous looks from many round the table!  However not bedazzled by this largesse, Sam proceeded to carry out a cost benefit analysis of the initial plan, which looked like this:

The characteristics of Dyson as an organisation, founded upon rapid growth, innovation, perseverance, perfectionism and anti-bureaucracy, had led to a particular set of IRM challenges:

·    Rapid growth had meant moving from a simple file share and conversations to share information, to 3,000 staff and a business reorganisation project

·    Innovation meant that competitors felt threatened and resorted to regular litigation as a strategy to try and maintain market share

·    Perseverance and perfectionism worked in IRM’s favour!

·    Anti-bureaucracy meant there was a need for strong business cases and demonstrations of value in what IRM was asking of staff

Because of the number, complexity and frequency of litigation, and subsequent need for legal hold notices and a legal discovery processes, it was felt that adding an EDRM system layer would lead to duplication of information and increasing the cost of discovery.  Another drawback was that the retention of information was largely to meet business needs for information re-use, and moving information into an EDRMS would mean loss of functionality, making it harder to re-find and re-use that information later.

The decision was therefore taken to follow Plan B: in-place records management.  This has meant tackling each of the line-of-business systems illustrated above in turn.  Sam is closely involved with IT in the specification, testing and roll-out of new systems, whether these are to be purchased and customised external solutions (like the Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) system) or systems to be developed internally (like the File Share search system, (Index)). 

The roll out and management of all these systems would clearly be too much for one person – so Sam has recruited 60 information custodians around the business who have information management objectives to meet as well as their ‘day job’.

On the roadmap for future development are a new front-office application, for example for CRM, a new web content management system for the website, email management, and an investigation of the use of social media. 

Our day included presentations from the developer of the new PLM system, which is due to go live later this year, and of the File Share search, categorisation and review system, which is already being implemented.  We had a splendid lunch, including fresh berries and either lemon or chocolate cake for desert, and then had a hands-on training session on Index where we learnt to categorise folders and review them.

As the first in a series of site visits organised by the IRMS this was an outstanding success, and everyone got a lot out of the day.