The Glory of the Hunt

People care about their files. They are attached to the personal systems they put in place to find what they need, and become anxious if they are taken away. The file system is guarded territory, as fiercly protected as a parking stall.

It became clear years ago that it is not enough, as a records professional to build a pure filing system - elegant in design and intuitive to use. If I have not engaged the very human customers where they work and live, the system will fail.

Quoting google advanced help, "Search engines use a variety of techniques to imitate how people think and to approximate their behavior. As a result, most rules have exceptions. For example, the query [ for better or for worse ] will not be interpreted by Google as an OR query, but as a phrase that matches a (very popular) comic strip. Google will show calculator results for the query [ 34 * 87 ] rather than use the 'Fill in the blanks' operator. Both cases follow the obvious intent of the query." This means rather than being straightforward, search support services spend a lot of time getting inside the heads of searchers, to help them get the results they want (not what they say they want).


So how do we stow away and find things? It could be that our personal classification systems and style of hunting (foraging) are as established as our hunter-gatherer brains. Web and corporate Enterprise Content Management (ECM) systems have vastly extended our reach, but our searching instincts have not changed.

I will suggest that classifying and searching, tagging and recalling successful hunts, are part of our instinctive heritage. Steven Pinker in his book the Language Instinct, proposes fifteen instincts that are hard-wired in to all of us. Two of these instincts relate to searching and classifying:

4. Mental maps for large territories.


11. A mental Rolodex; a database of individuals, with blanks for kinship, status or rank, history of exchange of favors, and inherent skills and strengths, plus criteria that valuate each trait.

Imagining our forbear's steps, I imagined my ancestor following a familiar trail, noting edible plants along the way. She would retrace her steps later, when she knew the harvest would be ready; wild carrots in the summer, cattail tubers in the fall, and rose hips through the winter. She would have identified and classifed the edible plants, and remembered the trail to get there.

I couldn't find a comparable image on my google search, so I scanned my own, I did learn a little about the foraging habits of water pipits, larval green lacewings, and modern human urban foragers.   
So in many ways, classifying and searching is instinctive. We care about the results of the hunt, and not just for the practical purpose of getting the job done. This is personal.

You know what I am talking about. Anyone in our business will have hit a tough search that evades early detection. We dig in ever harder, searching out the obscure places where it might have been put. To place that record in our bosses hands, sweet.
The hunt is valued. A swift and successful hunt gives value to the organization. A hunter who provides consistent results is an asset; not just from an empirical, practical point of view, but at an instinctive, visceral level. I suggest again that if the GARP(C) principles were to be ranked, Availability is at the top. Not so say that the rest may be discarded. Together, they complete the framework for a robust records system.

When converting to a new file structure, be respectful of people's need to find their stuff. Anticipate the anxiety that accompanies change, and prepare for it. Make sure they have time to orient themselves to the new system, and reassure them that the materials they need daily will be at hand.

How long can it take...

How long can it take to get your movie tickets?

I had the opportunity to test out the efficiency of the movie ticket line versus computer carousel last night, and the electronic lost. My daughter and her family entered the (longer) traditional line the same time I joined the (shorter) carousel line. She got her tickets before I did. How could this be? I estimate my line was at least ten times shorter than hers. Could it all be blamed on my compatriots' relative computer illiteracy? I think not. They were as motivated to get through the line as quickly as I was.

This is important stuff, because as businesses incorporate larger electronic solutions, their expectation of course is that efficiency will follow. When I ponder the GARP© principle of "Accessibility", which I rate as the most critical, I am convinced that turnaround times are critical to success. People are sensitive to waiting times, as we can see as a ten-to-one preference for the longer line at the cinema. If the electronic "solution" hinders, people will find their human work-arounds. The possible consequence is failure or abandonment of the e-solution.

What went wrong?

First of all, I think we underestimate the efficiency of the human interaction. We have eye-contact with the ticket-taker. I smile ingratiatingly. I lean in to the hole in the plexiglas, "Twoforsexinthecity". She hears ....sexxxx.... and sees me hold up two fingers. A few practiced pecks on her screen, and the tickets spit out. In seconds we are sending and receiving a hundred signals at once. Sound, expression all play a part. The ticket-taker infers and fills in the gaps in context.

The computer carousel by comparison is a passive receiver. I must learn it's patterns and behaviors and adapt to it. Will it first ask me for my SCENE card, or which movie do I want to see? How and when will I fill in the amount? And is it adaptable enough to accept my bank card? I think with tweaks the computer carousel will become faster - if the cinema is motivated to reduce the human element in ticket sales. And I think it is.

The lesson for business is to pay attention to their turnaround times. What is the turnaround for the average human-orchestrated transaction? Does the electronic solution compete? Does the computer ask the questions in natural order? Check speed in testing, and tweak, tweak until the e-solution can match for speed.

I notice the cinema now offers print-at-home tickets, which I am ashamed to say I haven't tried yet. How much you want to bet they print out in color? My cartridge is gold, and I squander it for no man ... even in the interest of research.

Fast, Cheap, and Beautiful But Never All Three

So wrote a designer on planning a kitchen. You can build it fast and cheap, but it won't be everything you dreamed. You can build it fast and beautiful, but it won't be cheap. Or, you can build in everything you ever wanted and at a fair price, but it will be a long, slow process. I love this description because it warns the buyer that there will be compromises, but they still have the power to decide which way they want to go. (Here's a book on kitchen renovations that looks like it provides decent value for the money, Kitchen Redos, Revamps, Remodels, And Replacements: Without Murder, Madness, Suicide, Or Divorce )

Another favorite slogan of mine, from Shel Busey, home repair guru, is "Good, Better, Best". When offering solutions to a caller on his Saturday morning show, he gives them the good, better and best options, and what they get for their money. Again, the power is left in the consumer's hands, and they get a sense of what they are getting for their money.

I wonder as records and information management professionals, if we fail to engage our customer when we demand that the offered solution (such as an ECM implementation) have a perfect score. It may be that the consumer can settle for a less than perfect solution, if it meets their needs and budget. Which leads to the question, can we provide a heirarchy to the principles that an offered solution must meet up to?

I think we can, and while reviewing the eight principles of Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles (GARP), I propose the following order of criticality - Availability, Integrity, Protection, Retention, Disposition, Accountability, Compliance and Transparency.

Why did I pick availability as the most critical principle? At the end of the day, if you can't find what you need, you might as well pack it in. This is the reason businesses buy in to our solutions. But even within this principle, we need to engage our customer to find out what level of availability is critical. Can they tolerate delays in locating some types of information? How long can it be; seconds, minutes, hours? Very likely though, if some information falls in to the black hole of "never found again", the proposed solution fails.

About integrity of data, if we can't trust that what we put in stays the same, the system fails. I might point out that even in the paper world, we've never achieved perfect integrity. Check out files that have aged more than ten years. Check the quality of heat-sensitive paper like the receipts from the store, or ageing, brittle newspaper. We have coffee stains. We have bleeding markers. We have illegible handwriting, bad copies, ripped pages. If we have always lived with some degree of failure, can't we tolerate at least the same level of risk in the electronic world? Of course with data, errors loom large. A slip of a key and thousands of records can be lost.

All systems need some protection against unauthorized access. When I relate to levels of protection, I think of the various online registration processes out there. The general process is to provide your e-mail address, some personal information, and a password. Some verifying information is asked for, such as your mother's maiden name. An e-mail is sent to the provided address, confirming the person and place. When you respond by the link provided, you are registered. It is the registrant's responsibility to keep the password private. As hackers and 'bots have gained sophistication, new verifying elements have been added, such as those funny wiggly words.

I'm fairly comfortable in the e-world, and have registered and shopped all over the web. I've breezed through some registration processes, and wept bloody tears through the painful ones. If you would like to sample my pain, try out the Canada Revenue Agency registration process. You will be asked verifying personal information to a degree that reeks of paranoia. Can I even remember the name of my first love? Perhaps their degree of protection is justified. I wouldn't want my tax refund to go to someone else.

Applying Shel Busey's good-better-best principle, a consumer must evaluate their risk of exposure. If there is no money involved, and the personal information mundane (Harry registered for a fishing license), the level of protection does not need to be as secure.

I rated retention and disposition next, for the longevity of the system and protection of the organization in case of litigation. Contrary to the pack rat's base instincts, it is usually not in the organization's best interest to have random aged records hanging around. Once hit with litigation, all disposals are halted, and these bits and pieces of ancient history become potential evidence. Besides the high cost of managing, cataloguing, and referencing this old information, there may be bits of embarrassing comments buried in the muck. So there has to be a facility to retain records only as long as is needed for business purposes. As information professionals, we should be encouraging our businesses to develop simple retention schedules, easily applied. The simpler the schedule, the simpler the application developed to support it.

Accountability, compliance and transparency all have to do with the human element of managing a system. Here are the systems to make sure everyone knows what their responsibilities are and are doing what they are supposed to be doing. They are all critically important in supporting a high quality information management system. If these principles are critical, why did I rate them last? A consumer is not buying a product to be a watchdog on their own behavior. The assumption always is that everyone knows what they should be doing, and are honorable in fulfilling those duties. Checks and balances are there to catch the exceptions to the rule, the cheaters. Aside from audit logs, the checking of behavior is a matter of good written policy, consistently applied. Don't fault the system for a human failing. Businesses who are dealing with money, personal information, or attractive assets, must have more stringent checks and balances.

Selling the Hole

First Ethernet Cable

Starting my own consulting business had led me to view my services in a different light, as a marketer. On one of my business courses I was asked, “are you selling drill bits or the hole?”
After spending some time in deep thought about my profession, I believe businesses want to find what they need, quickly. If my profession fails them on this critical need, the rest is moot.

I admit to some reservations about the Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles (GARP) ©. I worry we are missing the boat (or the hole) by focusing on documentation. I continue to worry that we will not engage our customers enough in its design. If we only consult with ourselves, we will end up with a beautiful product, elegant, complete and only valued within our own community.

One of my strengths is a habit of “jumping the fence” and talking to people in other disciplines. I have my Information Technology (IT) buddies, my librarian friends, purchasers, facility managers, dentists, and entrepreneurs. They broaden my perspective on what information should be doing for them. I feel the pain of their unexpressed guilt if they are behind in their filing. Not that they can hide it. Just as a dentist reads the roadmap of inattention in a person’s mouth, I can gauge the state of a records program with a quick glance around the office and on the shared drives.

One of my IT buddies tells me that we (as Information Management professionals) need to de-mystify the process. Business managers do not have the time to absorb our terminology and methodologies. They need quick, one-page guides to get them to where they need to go. So I set about drafting some tip sheets. I quickly realized that it takes ten times as long to write something simply as it does to go the long way around. I also acknowledged that before there can be a simple process there needs to be some fundamental principles on how the whole system works. Like documenting who is responsible. Which led me back to GARP©

Now that I’ve come full circle, I figure the trick might be to treat GARP© as a necessary means to an end – secure management and fast finding of information for the business user. If the ultimate goal is kept in sight, this could be a valuable tool for the Information Manager and business.

I’ve included a picture of the world’s first Ethernet cable to show how demand forces simplicity. The first cable was engineered (over-engineered) to protect signals from all interference. However, the cable was nearly an inch thick! It could not be run for long distances, and it did not take corners very well. The new standard (Cat 5) compromises shielding to take care of these other factors. When building the fundamental principles that information management stands on, let’s be sure we engineer it for what is fundamentally needed and no more.