Butcher, D., & Rowley, J. (1998). The 7R's of information management. Managing Information, 5(2), 1-5.
The authors attempt to define information management by proposing a simple model to summarize the essential processes. The model is a cycle of seven steps divided into two sets. One set is 4 functions performed by an individual, the other is 3 functions performed by an organization. This process reviews the inputs and outputs of each step.
Reading (individual examines relevant knowledge and collects information), Recognition (individual uses their “cognitive framework” to create subjective knowledge from the information), Re-interpretation (individual presents the subjective knowledge in an easily communicated form, called public knowledge), Reviewing (outside sources review the public knowledge through review and evaluation to produce validated knowledge), Release (general release of the validated knowledge, to the public or to the internal staff of an organization, places it into the common knowledge domain to be drawn upon by other individuals), Restructuring (organizations collect this information in a format they find useful and provide routes of access to it, or to specialized items within the knowledge domain, creating a resource bank), and Retrieval (individuals approach the resource bank with differing objectives and withdraw their relevant knowledge). This model clearly shows how information produces information and has two separate functions for the review and arrangement (including deselection) of this information.
Hickerson, T. (1990). Standards for archival information management systems. The American Archivist, 53(1), 24-30.
Presents elements of an archival information system, compiled from several organizations. Notes that all these models were unable to find vendors to establish a system, so notes the need for design to be developed in-house or as an extension of existing systems. System components are: Appraisal (documents valuation process & establishes audit trail), Processing (documents the analysis, description and cataloging process), Space Management (records the status, description & use of storage units: links data between storage & items), Preservation Management (records condition, needs, assigned staff & changes), Disposal Management (records authorization, notification, review & disposal of items; tied to review in Appraisal segment) and Reference (provides public access to descriptive info, records loans & exhibitions). Variations found from diff organizations include evolution of specific functions within the system to full components, design of the system based on existing environments or design based on exclusion of common functions (financing, staffing, etc). From the models analyzed, it appears all these organizations are working from the same principles. The author suggests that more detailed standards may not be useful due to specific institutional constraints, but may serve as a useful guideline for individual development.
Wegner, E., & Hayashida, C. (1990). Implementing a multipurpose information management system: Some lessons and a model. The Journal of Long Term Care Administration, 18(1), 15-21.
Long term care facilities require efficient info systems mgmt due to the need to coordinate multiple services from different professions, with continual reassessment of client needs and available providers. As the range of available services increases, the system must be able to maintain comprehensive and current client info while assessing the effectiveness of various programs. This article deals with a specific computer-based IMS designed to serve the non-financial info needs of long term care providers.
This model developed with the appearance of networked systems capable of multi-user access; it is only functional with constant up-dating of info from various workers and departments.
This IMS was designed to address the needs of multiple groups with distinct sets of needs (physicians, nurses, phys therapists, social workers, etc) while allowing improved coordination of care. Modifications, such as condition, medications, etc, can be recorded and immediately made available to multiple personnel. These records are also available to administrators to monitor the effectiveness and costs of these programs, and to researchers who can utilize the data pool for sampling and measurement.
The system was broken down into 5 files: Maintenance (client master list; permanently tracks clients thru programs), Assessment (medical info; continually updated, used as data pool for comparative analysis), Service Utilization (tracks services used; also continually updated, can be used for cost estimates on types of clients), Administrative Report (quarterly program summaries; includes general data on clients and treatment, used for efficiency studies) and Service Evaluation (quarterly evaluations; info is culled from client feedback).
The applications for this system were designed by in-house programmers; the systems themselves were designed by programmers or data clerks more than twice as often as by project managers. Quarterly staff evaluations were used to redefine aspects of the system to increase functionality and ease-of-use. However, different reactions were seen from diff segments of the workforce; Clerical staff and data workers saw immediate improvement in the workflow and were most accepting of it. Administrative staff were not so positive, but this can be seen as being due to the time lag between implementation and the point when sufficient data is acquired to build a database usable for their purposes. Clinical staff was least positive, as there is an implicit distrust of automation from workers who are trained to use clinical judgements. Also, the specialized software required for their purposes takes the longest to design and implement, so they saw the least immediate benefit from the system. Problems associated with the implementation of the system are initial costs, collection/processing of information (another burden on the clinical staff), record confidentiality, internal information politics & differing information needs throughout the organization.
In all of these models, we see an attempt to standardize the information flow. Segments are established based on a division of labor, whether theoretical or practical. The process is generally designed to be self-correcting, so that each segment not only has access to the data established or entered by another segment, but ideally should have the ability to review the correctness of the data. In the more practical plans (such as the long-term care model), the review is limited by the necessity to maintain a correct record. However, since this model is established more along the lines of handling created data (as opposed to found data, like in the first theoretical model), this is not an issue.
The long-term care model shows the inherent weakness of this type of process modeling in practical applications. When the process must deal with actual data, outside forces such as the legal ramifications of data handling and internal organizational politics have a tendency to pull the model apart. However, this type of theoretical modeling does show it’s value in the standardization of information flow, which can be used as the basis for the design of individual information management systems.