Shaida Dorabjee explains why information audits are an essential tool for ensuring that the information service is fit for business purpose.
Information professionals (IPs) have a tough time these days. Users expect to find information themselves and expect it to be delivered immediately, to their desktop, through multiple channels.
Not only do IPs have a tough time convincing users that searching effectively is paramount, they also have to make it clear to them that time, resources and IP skills are required to ensure that it is available in an accessible form on their desktop, that much of the information has to be paid for and that there is such a thing as copyright. On top of that, new ways of finding and managing information such as social networking and Web 2.0 initiatives are turning the world of information delivery upside down.
IPs are thus continually having to update their e-skills and re-evaluate their roles but, in the process of keeping up to date with technological changes and introducing them to the organisation, it is easy to lose sight of the business objectives of the organisation, which themselves may be changing.
This is where an information audit can be valuable. An audit is a formal, systematic examination of the issues, processes and practices surrounding the organisation’s information resources. The object is to ensure that the availability and use of information within an organisation reflects its business needs. It involves looking at the current services and products, examining information flows and processes and finding out users’ views as well as business requirements.
Why an information audit?
Undertaking an audit is not at first glance an exciting prospect, to say the least, and indeed some may argue that they are already providing the ‘right’ information service. After all, that is their job. Information staff and users are too busy to fill in yet more questionnaires or attend focus groups and, in any case, ‘it won’t change anything’.
However, three key factors need to be remembered:
- users’ expectations, requirements and information literacy skills change continually
- evidence suggests that there are still fairly dramatic inefficiencies in user searching methods
- there is increasing pressure to demonstrate value with hard data.
Passive development of a service, tweaking at the edges and introducing a new service here and there may not be enough. It may be necessary to sit back and take a look at the service as a whole, so that the bigger picture is not lost among the detail.
Statistics on the use of information in various sectors make sobering reading. For example, Outsell’s Information Industry Outlook of 20061 found that, in the corporate, government, academic and healthcare sectors, gathering and analysing tasks took an average of 13 hours per person per week – a fairly hefty percentage of one’s working week. However, the search (internet and intranet) failure rate was a staggering 31 per cent. Surely these figures by themselves are enough to demonstrate the need to look in detail at the way information is used and to make information-seeking more productive.
There are also indirect advantages of an audit. A well-run audit will engage people in the organisation, help raise the profile of the information service and demonstrate commitment of senior staff to supporting and valuing their information service.
A word of warning: the ultimate success of an audit will also depend on effective communication throughout the audit period and whether or not action is taken as a result of the audit. Interviewees expend time and emotional energy in responding to questions and it is vital that minor points as well as major concerns which arise should be addressed and respondents are given feedback. An audit often stimulates energy and enthusiasm among staff, who want to see a better information service, and unless this energy is harnessed nothing will change and everyone will be disappointed.
Audits can vary in their scope and can be tailored to specific objectives or issues. Audits can be regarded as stand-alone initiatives or as part of a project such as the implementation of a records management system. Examples of audit objectives in larger organisations include:
- to develop a single information service in a organisation with a number of small fragmented libraries
- to review and develop an information service as a result of a merger or a relocation
- to change from a traditional library to one with an emphasis on electronic resources
- to focus the library and information service on the most essential requirements as a result of downsizing.
In these projects it is necessary to look at the overall business objectives and to develop a new service based on these.
Smaller audits can focus on specific issues, such as:
- the perception that information and knowledge is not communicated and shared within a department
- information is not managed for effective retrieval and thus is lost, usually ‘somewhere on the network’
- the need to improve the quality of the content of the organisation’s intranet.
In these smaller projects the audit can investigate the use of specific information resources and can also focus on user behaviour and change management.
Audits can therefore last from around one month to one year. Small projects lasting a few days, which use some auditing methodologies, although not strictly audits, can also be of value. An example of this would be a project to identify and capture the tacit knowledge relating to a specific project.
The first step has to be to establish the scope of the audit and to specify clear objectives. The examples of different types of audit given above demonstrate the importance of focusing on the key issues and outcomes required.
At the same time, decision-makers and/or budget-holders have to be involved. The importance of buy-in from senior management cannot be over-emphasised. They have to allow time and resources for the audit to be undertaken, they have to outwardly support the project and have to be willing to consider carefully the results of the audit, which may involve a reorganisation of the function or the allocation of extra resources. All too often, when it comes to considering and implementing the recommendations, the difficult issues (usually managerial, budgetary or cultural) which will really effect change, are quietly ignored, while the quick wins or the less contentious recommendations are implemented.
* * * *
Cultural barriers to effective exploitation of information
Quotations from interviewees
‘I didn’t realise that my colleague in the next office had a customer database that I could use.’
Here not only was sharing non-existent but the idea that the information could possibly be useful to others did not occur to anyone. A culture of sharing and communicating has to be adopted and led by the information service.
‘Where is the library?’
‘ I didn’t realise that information staff could do searches for me.’
These comments illustrate the need for the information department to market, promote, re-package and re-brand in order to reach the users. Information staff have to change the way they see themselves and have to run their service as a business.
‘People should not be using the library during working hours.’
Oh dear. In this example of a scientific laboratory-based organisation there was a very ‘traditional’ culture among some of the staff, where qualified people were employed to do a specific job, full stop. However, the newer managers were much more up to date and recognised the importance of professional development, learning and information. ‘People cannot do their work without access to the library’ was also a comment from the same organisation. Phew!
* * * * *
Data collection
Data collection has three major components: identification of the information available; the use of information; and relationships within and outside the organisation. The methodologies include questionnaires, focus groups and interviews with individuals or groups – users and information staff. Desk research and contact with external colleagues will also help to build up a picture of the practice of comparative organisations.
Information available
Examining the information available and, indeed, producing an asset register or list of sources available can be a valuable exercise. Surprisingly, in many cases users are not aware of key resources, or do not realise for example that electronic versions are available. Sources can be internal as well as external, including electronic resources, and organisational ‘favourites’ in the internet. It is probably more practical in a large organisation to break this down into smaller parts and focus on a specific function or subject. Examining and listing such sources enables information staff to clarify and to a certain extent quality assure key information sources. Gathering this data can also be the basis for decisions on the content of the organisation’s intranet or information portal.
Using information
Discussions with users brings to light valuable information on how people use information and how they share it. This helps to build up a picture of the current situation and the future requirements. In particular it identifies barriers and gaps in information as well as good practice. Assumptions by information staff are often turned upside down. Sharing in some organisations has not been natural and has sometimes been discouraged, but this barrier has to be addressed. There is also good news in that, often, information professionals are not praised enough, but when discussing information use with users it often emerges that they think IPs should be valued more within the organisation. Hooray!
Relationships
Examining relationships within the organisation and identifying where the library, information or knowledge service can dovetail better with other functions is important and helps share knowledge and resources and avoid duplication. Functions such as IT, records or document management, PR and communications are examples of such functions. External influences – regulations, partners, suppliers and other organisations – also need to be investigated in order to position the information service and share knowledge. Benchmarking against similar functions in the same sector also helps to identify best practice, and this data often gives rise to intense interest from senior managers.
Outcomes
The overall outcome of an audit should be to develop a clear information policy and strategy which contributes to the business value. This will immediately raise the profile of the service and will demonstrate that it can and should contribute to the organisation’s decision-making processes, and that it means business.
Demonstrating value is essential and, although not always straightforward, can be undertaken as part of the audit. It involves combining data such as usage of data and time saved (and thus costs saved) with anecdotal evidence – case studies and stories of the value and benefit of specific types of information, and the cost or potential cost of not having the information. Examples of models developed within the information sector are those which use metrics,2 or establish a return on investment by measuring the tangibles and well as the intangibles.3
A comprehensive audit will bring to light an enormous amount of information that can be acted on. Longitudinal studies where certain metrics are gathered at regular intervals can be used to establish trends and measure effectiveness of specific interventions. A list or register of the information assets will also help to prioritise and identify content for, say, the intranet. Even as a simple but widely available asset list, it will have a considerable value in organisations where information is not normally readily shared.
Identifying relationships with all the stakeholders will clearly pinpoint where efforts should be channelled in order to improve the service. In many cases it serves to emphasise the wide-ranging projects or departments which have a connection with the information service.
How people search, use, value and share information is probably the key finding of an audit, which will immediately highlight the weaknesses in the flow of information throughout the organisation. Identifying the predominant cultures which prevent information being exploited effectively and then implementing a programme of change management is thus perhaps one of the most important outcomes of an audit. Addressing the needs of the new users – who have never been without instant access to a pick ‘n’ mix collection of information at their fingertips – as well as those who still want specific and evaluated information is a challenge that we are all facing now.
A formal audit can also unearth some new issues, which often come to light during focus groups or interviews when people have time to think laterally and feel they can talk freely. Sometimes, the facilitation by an external third party can stimulate new ideas and honest opinions.
Some quotations from users which reflect the more prevalent cultures which have to be addressed by the information service are given in the panel, left.
Recurring issues
While every audit is specific to the organisation, some issues have recurred in my work in both public and private sectors. Two of the most prevalent are:
- support from senior management at CEO or Director level is fairly limited
- technology-led projects such as the intranet have not been as successful as had been hoped, often because of problems relating to content.
Management
Directors or budget-holders of the information service often do not have a library and information background. Their views are fairly clear-cut: demonstrate value and I will provide the resources. Fair enough, but remember that they won’t necessarily be aware of the details of the work of the IP: the complex negotiations undertaken with suppliers of e-journals; the re-purposing of content to make it available with firewalls and passwords that have to be set up for access to external sources; the knowledge, skills and resources required to create a good intranet, with relevant taxonomies and metadata; and the subject knowledge required in order to undertake complex searches etc.
In order to secure more resources, management has to be clearly convinced of the value, and of the resources needed to provide that value. Metrics or evidence is the key, but so is the need to establish credibility of the profession and to market the service to the budget-holder. Marketing to the user is not enough – one has to manage and market upwards.
On one occasion an IT director vetoed a proposal for an off-the-shelf library management system because they were not really sure what it was, could not see the benefit and assumed that it would take up considerable resource from the IT department. On another occasion the director agreed that the library collection should be reduced in favour of electronic access to around 300 journals but expected that the budget would therefore be reduced and that one part-time library assistant would be able to deal with the selection, management and accessibility of, and negotiations for, all electronic material. Both these examples demonstrate the need to educate, manage and influence the line managers, often right up to CEO level.
Technology-led projects
Then what about our information cousins – IT staff, intranet content managers and knowledge managers, who develop their products and services in leaps and bounds but wonder why users cannot find the information they want on the intranet or, when they find it, it is out of date or of variable quality? In the battle for ownership of information-related initiatives I have found that information professionals are sometimes reluctant to push themselves forward and demonstrate their information skills and knowledge of the subject matter and of the organisation can play an important part in content management.
Being aware of, and indeed being early adopters of, the newer technologies should be a key attribute of the IP. IPs are still a little reluctant to embrace new developments such as collaborative tools.
In the two examples above, there was insufficient promotion and marketing to managers, potential collaborators and partners. Raising the profile of the information service and ensuring that there is a clear understanding of the profession’s function is essential. But I am not convinced that it is always being addressed with as much vigour as it should be.
Undertaking an information audit will help to provide a sound set of hard data on the use of information and sources exploited. The way in which information is used and shared will be identified as well as relationships with, and flows of, information between other parts of the organisation. Barriers and successes can be identified and the vast amount of information gathered will form an evidence-based platform for developing the service to meet the business demands. Having gathered the evidence it is necessary to prioritise and address the important issues. These may be the most difficult ones to tackle but, with the evidence base, this can be done with confidence, ensuring a successful future for the information service.
References
1 Outsell Inc. Information Industry Outlook: FutureFacts 2007. Vol. 2, September 18, 2006.
2 F. Ryan. ‘Providing the value of information services using metrics.’ Business Information Review, Vol. 23 (1), 2006, pp. 26-34.
3 B. Hendriks and I Wooler. ‘Establishing the return on investment for information and knowledge services.’ Business Information Review, Vol. 23 (1), 2006, pp. 13-25.
Shaida Dorabjee is an information consultant specialising in information audits and training in the management of information services in the private and public sector (sdorabjee@sdis.demon.co.uk).
Updated: 19 September 2007