Phillip C. Bantin (2002). Records management in a digitial world. EDUCAUSE, Research Bulletin, 2002(16).
This article described three common systems for managing electronic records: OLTP, DSS, and EDMS. Each of these systems was analyzed in terms of the five goals of e-record management: capturing records, keeping records immutable and secure, keeping records usable, automating retention or destruction, and preserving records. According to the authors, OLTPs, DSSs, and EDMS, all fall short of meeting these five goals, although the systems do have strengths.
These five goals would also apply to physical record management, but with e-records, there are new issues. Many more people have the ability to view, edit, and combine records, so security and organization of different versions within the system becomes an issue. Additionally, hardware and software deterioration and incompatibility requires a different preservation strategy than paper records. Records also come in new forms, such as e-mail or multimedia.
A takeaway message is stated by the authors early on: records are assets of a corporation, and the glue of an enterprise. Effective record management is more than just a handy feature of technology; it should be the essential focus of a company's technology.
Discussion question: I had trouble thinking of examples of the different systems. Would a database or e-library be considered an EDMS? Also, if these five goals are recognized, why have systems not updated to meet them? Are there technological or storage space or cost barriers to this goal?
Sherry Owen (2006). Electronic Document Management Systems: A Case Study. Arkansas Libraries, 63(1). 22-25.
This article described one company's implementation of am EDMS. The company had many of the same concerns outlined in the Bantin article, and the model they followed for selecting a system was similar to the SDLC waterfall discussed in past week's reading. Focusing on one company highlighted the realities of adopting an EDMS system: choosing a vendor, selling the idea to senior management, representatives from IT and user departments working together.
A takeaway message was how different corporate needs are from academic libraries. I was surprised that 40 vendors were contacted; I thought that sounded like a lot of options. The article also discussed the typical flow of business records usage: frequent at first and then sharply declining. I also was unaware of corporation's need for a system to automate legal compliance.
Discussion question: The author mentioned that the corporation still keeps track of paper records alongside electronic records. What should be the fate of paper records systems? Should they be standardized as a backup system? Completely discontinued to save money and time? Or should paper be gradually phased out, allowing individuals or departments to keep records, but not managing the process?
Gary P. Johnston, David V. Bowen, (2005) "The benefits of electronic records management systems: a general view of published and some unpublished cases." Records Management Journal, 15(3), 131-140.
This article began by describing the difference between documents and records, and also the difference between EDMSs and ERMSs (although some systems can function as both). Another crucial difference discussion in the introduction is between ERMSs and other types of information systems: the former stores different versions of a record as it is changed over time, while the latter values storing only the most recent version for efficiency and accuracy.
Benefits to users, organizations, and society were outlined convincingly. One surprising benefits is that ERMSs should be able to prevent fraud. This article also outlined some specific cost comparisons for ERMS versus paper storage. A takeaway message is that e-storage is not necessarily cheaper. The authors suggest that 3 uses should be the benchmark: more than this, store it electronicly, but if the record is rarely needed, keeping it as paper should be cheaper.
Discussion question: The authors state that ERMSs can manage paper records, but not databases. How can this be?
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
9/14 readings
C. N. Mooers (1960). "Mooers' Law or, Why Some Retrieval Systems Are Used and Others Are Not." Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 23 (1), 1996. (via ProQuest database).
Mooers' Law had actually come up in discussion in 557 last week, so it was great to read the original article that has influenced all facets of library & information science. Mooers' Law is simple and seems obvious once it's been pointed out, but is crucial for information professionals to keep in mind. Most people who choose library science as a career do so because they love information and see the benefits it brings our society, so it is hard for us to understand the reverse point of view.
Before reading this article, I had trouble thinking of examples of how information could be troublesome, which goes to show how much I need to keep Mooers' Law in mind. "Ignorance is bliss" is a common truism, but this usually applies to people who are unaware of harsh facts of life, or of the dark pasts of people around them. This sort of information is unlikely to be encountered in a library search. I thought that a person researching information on a disorder they've been diagnosed with could be troublesome or painful, but surely remaining ignorant would be more trouble or pain for them ultimately.
The example given of workplaces where speed is valued over accuracy is a more realistic setting for Mooers' Law to occur. One takeaway message is that librarians need to understand the community they serve; is access to information too difficult or is there a larger cultural problem to be overcome?
Discussion question: Do you think companies are less likely to regard information as troublesome and painful today than in the 1960s?
M. Cutts (2005). "How Does Google Collect and Rank Results?" Google's Newsletter for Librarians.
Tito Sierra, Joseph Ryan, and Markus Wust (2007). Beyond OPAC 2.0: Library Catalog as Versatile Discovery Platform. Code4lib.
As Web 2.0 features, such as rss feeds, user feedback, and search corrections, become more commonplace, some technology experts are trying to predict what's coming next. One emerging trend is mobile technology, and I was happily surprised to see that libraries were keeping up with technology, to the point that a library catalog was designed for cell phones 4 years ago. This article did a good job summarizing some of the issues with Mobile catalogs: smaller displays, bandwidth restrictions, compatibility with various platforms.
This article also challenged some of my basic assumptions about library systems, suggesting that libraries should have two different systems for searching, one for known items and another for browsing. This idea had never crossed my mind; because libraries have always had one catalog, I thought there was likely a reason for it. Perhaps it would be confusing for some patrons to learn two different search systems which need to be used at different times, but if the catalogs were designed with usability, it should be possible.
One takeaway message was the difference between platforms and applications; that is, platforms are adaptable to specific needs where applications need to stay as the designers release them. As technology changes at increasing speeds, platforms will become more cost-effective and necessary.
Discussion question: What is an issue you often encounter with library catalogs you would like to see addressed?
Mooers' Law had actually come up in discussion in 557 last week, so it was great to read the original article that has influenced all facets of library & information science. Mooers' Law is simple and seems obvious once it's been pointed out, but is crucial for information professionals to keep in mind. Most people who choose library science as a career do so because they love information and see the benefits it brings our society, so it is hard for us to understand the reverse point of view.
Before reading this article, I had trouble thinking of examples of how information could be troublesome, which goes to show how much I need to keep Mooers' Law in mind. "Ignorance is bliss" is a common truism, but this usually applies to people who are unaware of harsh facts of life, or of the dark pasts of people around them. This sort of information is unlikely to be encountered in a library search. I thought that a person researching information on a disorder they've been diagnosed with could be troublesome or painful, but surely remaining ignorant would be more trouble or pain for them ultimately.
The example given of workplaces where speed is valued over accuracy is a more realistic setting for Mooers' Law to occur. One takeaway message is that librarians need to understand the community they serve; is access to information too difficult or is there a larger cultural problem to be overcome?
Discussion question: Do you think companies are less likely to regard information as troublesome and painful today than in the 1960s?
M. Cutts (2005). "How Does Google Collect and Rank Results?" Google's Newsletter for Librarians.
This article was fascinating! It was described at a beginner's level, including suggested student activities, but it still assumed intelligence on the reader's part. I've read articles in newspapers and magazines about why and how Google is so good as what it does, but it was great to hear Google's own take on it's methodology.
Certainly a lot has changed since 2005: the proliferation of Google mail, reader, documents, + and other similar features, and the autocomplete ability of the search bar. I was surprised that the user's preference didn't factor into PageRank, perhaps that has also been introduced more recently than 2005. I wish I remembered more clearly if different results were returned 6 years ago.
One take away message is that Google uses some similar methods to searchable databases: giving higher rank to articles containing the search term in higher frequency or in the title. However, the page rank index and the incredible speed are only possible because of the tremendous computer power owned by Google (at least to the best of my understanding.)
Discussion question: Did you know that Google had a newsletter for librarians? Does that mean they see us as allies in the information age? Did librarians ask Google so many questions they decided to answer us en masse?
Tito Sierra, Joseph Ryan, and Markus Wust (2007). Beyond OPAC 2.0: Library Catalog as Versatile Discovery Platform. Code4lib.
As Web 2.0 features, such as rss feeds, user feedback, and search corrections, become more commonplace, some technology experts are trying to predict what's coming next. One emerging trend is mobile technology, and I was happily surprised to see that libraries were keeping up with technology, to the point that a library catalog was designed for cell phones 4 years ago. This article did a good job summarizing some of the issues with Mobile catalogs: smaller displays, bandwidth restrictions, compatibility with various platforms.
This article also challenged some of my basic assumptions about library systems, suggesting that libraries should have two different systems for searching, one for known items and another for browsing. This idea had never crossed my mind; because libraries have always had one catalog, I thought there was likely a reason for it. Perhaps it would be confusing for some patrons to learn two different search systems which need to be used at different times, but if the catalogs were designed with usability, it should be possible.
One takeaway message was the difference between platforms and applications; that is, platforms are adaptable to specific needs where applications need to stay as the designers release them. As technology changes at increasing speeds, platforms will become more cost-effective and necessary.
Discussion question: What is an issue you often encounter with library catalogs you would like to see addressed?
Sunday, September 04, 2011
8/31 readings
Kochtanel and Matthews (2002). Ch 1. The evolution of LIS and enabling technologies. In Library Information Systems, pp. 3-12.
This article provided a useful history of Library Information Systems over the decades. The general trend described was mechanization which led to automation and finally led to integration. Mechanization and automation benefitted patrons by increasing the efficiency of cataloguing, locating, and circulating materials in the library.
Integration in libraries benefits patrons to a far greater degree; the Internet, ILL, and digital collections not only improve efficiency for local documents but allow patrons access to a far greater collection of materials around the globe than was previously possible.
One take away message is that the Internet can be considered not a single revolutionary technology but a collection of multiple applications. In addition to libraries integrating their documents with those from other institutions, different web applications must also be integrated, such as eBooks, online databases, and a library's own searchable catalogue.
Discussion question: What position should libraries take when embracing new technology? Bleeding edge, leading edge, in the wedge, trailing edge? Do different kinds of libraries require different approaches to technology?
Arnold Hirshon (2008). Environmental scan: A report on trends and technologies affecting libraries.
The previous article focused on the history of technology in libraries, and this article focuses on the present trends, and what is likely to develop in the near future. The author acknowledges that predicting the future is difficult, especially the further into the future you go. He recommends looking to the past for patterns. He also encourages an open-minded attitude towards new technology by embracing the bothersome and dismantling our strongest conclusions.
A good example of a bothersome technology is the eBook and eJournal, which has already changed the basic role of bookstores, publishers, newspapers, and libraries. Those institutions which dismiss the eBook as a bothersome invention are sure to become obsolete, while those which adapt to include the new technology will continue, albeit in altered forms. Barnes & Noble developed their own brand of eReader; Borders did not.
The author predicts that librarians' role will shift away from collection management, as information becomes more easily accessible, and towards a service role, maintaining both online and physical spaces that allow patrons to collaborate.
One take away message is Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns, which predicts that technology change happens at an increasingly fast rate. He calculated that their will be more technological change in the next 100 years than in the previous 2000. Staying relevant will be more challenging, and the digital divide is also expected to increase. Mobile-based technology and applications have exploded in the past couple years, so those who primarily use a laptop are already behind, not to mention those with limited access to older computers.
Discussion question: What new technologies do you think will be developed in the next 5 years? The next 20 years? How will libraries be able to utilize them?
This article provided a useful history of Library Information Systems over the decades. The general trend described was mechanization which led to automation and finally led to integration. Mechanization and automation benefitted patrons by increasing the efficiency of cataloguing, locating, and circulating materials in the library.
Integration in libraries benefits patrons to a far greater degree; the Internet, ILL, and digital collections not only improve efficiency for local documents but allow patrons access to a far greater collection of materials around the globe than was previously possible.
One take away message is that the Internet can be considered not a single revolutionary technology but a collection of multiple applications. In addition to libraries integrating their documents with those from other institutions, different web applications must also be integrated, such as eBooks, online databases, and a library's own searchable catalogue.
Discussion question: What position should libraries take when embracing new technology? Bleeding edge, leading edge, in the wedge, trailing edge? Do different kinds of libraries require different approaches to technology?
Arnold Hirshon (2008). Environmental scan: A report on trends and technologies affecting libraries.
The previous article focused on the history of technology in libraries, and this article focuses on the present trends, and what is likely to develop in the near future. The author acknowledges that predicting the future is difficult, especially the further into the future you go. He recommends looking to the past for patterns. He also encourages an open-minded attitude towards new technology by embracing the bothersome and dismantling our strongest conclusions.
A good example of a bothersome technology is the eBook and eJournal, which has already changed the basic role of bookstores, publishers, newspapers, and libraries. Those institutions which dismiss the eBook as a bothersome invention are sure to become obsolete, while those which adapt to include the new technology will continue, albeit in altered forms. Barnes & Noble developed their own brand of eReader; Borders did not.
The author predicts that librarians' role will shift away from collection management, as information becomes more easily accessible, and towards a service role, maintaining both online and physical spaces that allow patrons to collaborate.
One take away message is Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns, which predicts that technology change happens at an increasingly fast rate. He calculated that their will be more technological change in the next 100 years than in the previous 2000. Staying relevant will be more challenging, and the digital divide is also expected to increase. Mobile-based technology and applications have exploded in the past couple years, so those who primarily use a laptop are already behind, not to mention those with limited access to older computers.
Discussion question: What new technologies do you think will be developed in the next 5 years? The next 20 years? How will libraries be able to utilize them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)