1 - I would argue that most archival conventions are structured, or at least based, upon the examples set by the government (at least in the US context) for how information is managed and more specifically organized, throughout its lifecycle. Given that information resources are still being mismanaged by the government, and inefficiency abounds (150) are there other places we should be looking to set the stage for how we manage information, specifically thinking along the lines of archives and records management?
2- Just to say something slightly polemical - if many government agencies have their records management/retention coordinated by people in administration, how relevant are iSchools within this context? Not to argue that we don't need archivists and information managers, but more to argue if government agencies don't view these positions as integral to the success of their agency records management (until items get to NARA, that is) is this an ongoing assumption that also permeates the corporate and non-profit sectors? If so, how does one develop or apply for a job that isn't actively advertised, or considered to be its own, separate position?
1. On page 152, Hernon says, "Dissemination was defined as 'the active distribution of government information to the public,' and agencies were advised to 'actively distribute information, rather than merely respond when the public requests information.'" I think we can all think of examples where this is the case, from the USDA food pyramid to the National Terrorism Advisory System. But how might this principle be applied more broadly? Most government records are (at least theoretically) available to the public through FOI requests, other formal request processes, and, increasingly, websites providing information from databases. Where do government agencies draw the line between critical information dissemination and optional dissemination? How might we think about these same issues in regards to dissemination in our various fields (libraries, archives, corporate, educational, etc.)?
2. On page 15, the author asks, regarding the various IRM iterations being discussed, "That revision suggests that the number of stages varies but includes at least two--a beginning and end. Presumably the beginning is planning or design, but what comprises the end--demise?" Are these stages legitimate or translatable to other institutions? To an archivist, the necessity of "demise" is cause for alarm. Are all government records ultimately slated for "demise"? (I think not.) He goes on later to discuss the continued relevance of aeronautical engineering records from the first half of the 20th century. Even if these technologies were superseded, wouldn't these records and artifacts have continued historical value? Is not the Smithsonian part of the federal government? Obviously there will be numerous exceptions to any codified life cycle, even among government agencies.
3. I also wonder how the endemic budget strains of government could be factored into IRM. Hernon mentions budgetary concerns, but doesn't specifically address this. It seems like it might be especially pertinent to government information life cycles.
4. On page 165, Hernon introduces Sprehe's concept of managing data life cycles, which notes again how data and information are not synonymous; how then are data life cycles different from information life cycles? What other cycles (and their relationships) can we identify? Perhaps we should start by deeply considering these smaller, task-based roles and processes, identify "mini life cycles," and then work up toward a more "unified theory of information life cycles" that can better integrate all of these potential stages?
1. Burk and Horton note that “information content, not the medium, governs decisions on whether and when records will be archived or purged”. This is helpful to eliminate the unnecessarily duplicative and redundant reentry of source data already captured. But it also has the danger of missing the evidentiary information from the medium itself. Sometimes policy makers or lawyers can refer certain information purely from what kind of medium the information is presented.
2. Is there a clear boundary between different stages in the information lifecycle? Are all the steps important for knowledge management in government? And which stage is the most paramount to government knowledge management?
3. Does all the information in government go through the same stages in the lifecycle. Or will certain kind of information would skip one or two of the stages, or stop before the end stage? For instance the classified information in FBI V.S. the information that is public to the citizens in the first place.
1. On page 162, Hernon lays out two 'sample questions' to ask for Stage 4 of the information lifecycle: "How 'user friendly' is the dissemination or public access service? To what extent will the system provide browseability, simple interfacing capability, good organization of the subject matter, formatting to facilitate scanning and retrieving of information, physical access and availability when the user needs it?" To what extent will the system link the user to other information or other sources of information than what is stored in the agency's system?" Shouldn't they also be asking who these users are? who do these agencies have in mind will use what they provide when they design these interfaces? I feel that's something the government should have in mind when it provides sources online, especially since each agency has such different websites.
2. Does the seemingly dominant philosophy for government agencies of managing technology first explain the common case of having information no one can use because it's trapped on an out of date/extinct format, or stored on types of electronic storage no longer used? Would part of good management for both information and technology be to set distinct rules for a department as far as technology/information types go?
3. On page 166, the three following statements "There must be some flexibility but at the same time there must be continuity," "rational management dictates life cycle planning," and "they must better standardize the stages so that the life cycle becomes less of an abstraction, when applied to the management of government information." Would it make sense to revisit these laws in place, and revise them with different standards for the different agencies to adhere to? Because while all of them have different functions, if they are truly concerned about being use-friendly, a standard goes a long way to accomplishing that. Plus, if there was a set of rules down to follow, perhaps less concern over keeping up with technology would mean greater adherence to the information lifecycle.
1 - I think in the context of government records, the user base is probably pretty difficult to define in specific terms. If materials are being offered through an open access, online system, the only way user metrics can really be employed is to either 1) have the user complete a voluntary survey 2) monitor only the most basic information: what's being clicked on and from what country. Something tells me we'd have a big problem if the government attempted to monitor IP addresses or online access to its materials. It would be interesting to see how much of these resources are being used internally or by the general public, but as I said, I can't think of a way to monitor online access that wouldn't be considered an invasion of privacy, or rely on people opting in to complete a survey about what they're accessing and why.
1 on page 156, what's the difference between the management of those resources associated with information and the management of information treated as a resource?
2 How the information life cycle applied to practical problems solving when facing the government issues?
3 Why we care about information life cycle? As far as I see, we talk a lot about each stages of life cycle, like information creation and gathering; production, processing, publication; transmittal; retrieval and use; retention and disposition. Do we really care about the relationship of these stages? Or it just provides us an order of process when dealing with issues related information?
1. Hernon spends a good deal of time discussing the fact that information life cycles differ from one field to the next. Different organizations use different life cycles, and each life cycle serves a specific purpose. He states in the beginning of his article that “[a life cycle] is not an abstract concept; rather a life cycle is a practical plan for accomplishing a goal” (149). While in this instance Hernon is talking about life cycles as they pertain to the project or systems level, I’m still not sure whether saying that an information cycle is not abstract is correct. We spent a good amount of time in class discussing whether information life cycles just exist or whether we, information users, create them. Doesn’t that conversation alone prove that information life cycles are abstract? Can a life cycle be considered concrete at all – especially when, as Hernon claims, they differ so much?
2. Hernon later quotes Burk and Horton on the subject of information “disposition” (the ultimate archival or destruction of a piece of information). Burk and Horton state that “’information content, not the medium, governs decisions on whether and when records will be archived or purged’” (150). I agree that content is a huge determinant when deciding when it’s time for a record to “retire” – I recently listened to a librarian describe outdated medical books that could literally kill people – but should that be the only factor? This article was written before the advent of e-books and other modern electronic formats – would our current technological climate change Burk and Horton’s mind? Furthermore, does the fact that we have so much digital space in today’s world mean that no record should be destroyed, just archived?
3. Near the end of his article, Hernon returns to the discussion regarding whether it is technology or information that needs to be managed. Hernon is clearly in favor of information being managed, as he states, “technology is not an end to itself, and information/data/publications can exist independently of technology” (164). While I agree with Hernon that information resources encompass both information and technology, I believe it more a sweeping generalization to say that information can exist without technology. That’s certainly partly true – information via word of mouth will always be available with or without technology – it’s not completely the case. In order to create publications, technology is needed. In order to generate data, technology is needed. In order to store information so that it’s even available, technology is needed. So, does information really stand alone? Or have the two become inextricably intertwined – especially in our current society?
Your first question caught my eye. I was also struck by Hernon's assertion that the information life cycle is not an abstract concept. However, I kind of agreed with him:) That was- until I read your comments. I agree that our discussion of the life cycle last week alone proves that we can easily think of it as an abstract comment. Perhaps both Hernon and I simply agree that the information life cycle is most relevant and useful as a practical process.
1.In regards to the lifecycle of records, are there records about the destruction of records? Something that shows that an information resource is not available anymore? Obviously this would vary by institution, but if records are chosen to be deleted permanently, should there be a note or flag saying that “files were deleted or purged permanently,” so people don’t waste time looking for something that is not there?
2.On page 150, Burk and Horton say that “life cycle costing and (valuing) identifies the cost (and values) associated with each stage, arrays them over the lifespan of the information, and calculates a total cost and value.” Budgetary concerns are obviously a huge factor in archiving and records management, so I’m wondering how accurate are value assessments on records and how accurately can they be predicted into the future? Also, at what point does a piece of information “break even” or not cost anything in the life cycle, or does something always have to be paid for during the lifecycle?
3.On page 158 Hernon says that “because planning occurs throughout the life cycle, it is not treated here as a separate stage.” He follows with “planning addresses the mission, goals, objectives, and priorities of an agency, and ensures proper oversight of a program or service.” Planning sounds like it should be a part of the life cycle, perhaps at the beginning, because proper or improper planning will definitely have an effect on the actual lifespan of an item or collection.
1. Peter Hernon points out that the various government regulations for records management have not all described the information life cycle equally or not attempted it at all. Is there a reason why the acts did not describe the cycle, but instead left it up to each agency? Could it be that each agency would have a different life cycle based on their needs so they didn’t describe one model?
2. This article was published in 1994. What updates have there been in the government to improve agency records management? Have new acts or circulars been created? The article describes that each agency must come up with its own way to manage its records. Is this still the case or is there more centrality?
3. I liked how this article pointed out that the life cycle is more than a concept, but a blueprint for an organization to plan for its records management. I often find it difficult to connect the theoretical concepts that we have been talking about in class to real world scenarios. I think that the information life cycle would be a good starting point in a business that might be having documentation problems to systematically plan for a record’s life and to understand the costs for each step. I think this could be a useful tool for an information professional in a business setting to explain the time and cost of different information processes such as archiving or knowledge management to others in the company.
1) The article highlights the importance of the distinction between distribution/dissemination and retrieval (152), and notes that government IRM protocols initially did not draw this distinction. This helped clarify some issues from Taylor, because government information retrieval systems are an excellent example of the difference between user-centric retrieval systems and information- or expert-centric systems. I’ve been gathering information from various government agency websites for another class, and some agencies’ retrieval systems definitely seem to be set up mostly for internal use even though they are accessible to the public—they are good at disseminating information in making it publicly available, but not as good at making it easy to access. What steps could the government make to combat this issue, and what steps have they already taken?
2) After last week’s discussion on whether the information life cycle is descriptive or prescriptive (i.e. whether it describes an existing phenomenon or is a suggestion for efficient behaviors), it was interesting to see that Hernon comes down firmly on the side of the information life cycle being “a practical plan for accomplishing a goal.” (147) Do we agree with this? Does it depend on context?
3) I was interested in Hernon’s assertion that even non-confidential, publicly-accessible information can be used “to create new information, some of which might conform to the mosaic theory and merit protection.” As far as I can tell from outside sources, mosaic theory seems to be a tool used by intelligence agencies. Is Hernon worried about counter-intelligence here? What is an example of a public government information resource that could potentially be used to nefarious ends? How could this information be protected without hindering free access to information, especially by the press?
1. This article is speaking about using the information life cycle and applying it to government agencies to affect policies. One thing that we've learned is that the information life cycle is a fairly fluid system and can change depending on the organization that contains the information. I may have missed it but I didn't see if the author takes this into consideration when applying and researching the information life cycle to these government agencies. 2. “...agencies should plan to use information technology in ways that make the public’s dealing with the Federal government as ‘user-friendly’ as possible." The dissemination stage of the information life cycle in this case is referring to providing information to the public. Considering what I know about getting information from the government, this is an extremely simple sentence for such a complex issue. Even with the improvements since this article was written, this has obviously proven to be amazingly difficult to do. 3. "You plan for the information, and decisions regarding information technology flow from decisions regarding information; and not the other way around" What does an organization do if they are unable to make the decisions that are dictated by the information?
1. Throughout the article, the author focuses on the idea of dissemination. Seeing as this is the government, I could understand why dissemination of information is so important. But at one point he writes about how dissemination can be both within or without of the information life cycle. Wouldn't dissemination either be a part of the process or not? Is it then dependent on what the information life cycle is being used for?
2. Hernon lightly touches on the idea of public access at one point in the article. I am not quite sure how, in the realm of government, public access would be so different from dissemination of information. Essentially, the government already knows what it wants us to see and what it wants to keep hidden, so how are the two mutually exclusive?
3. Towards the end of the article, the author talks about the call for graphics explaining the information life cycle, so people can better see where their work falls in the life cycle and how they can better apply their skills. He even writes about life cycles within life cycles. With all of the visual representations that now exist for information life cycles, I wonder if they have actually contributed to a better understanding of what it is and how we use it, or, if 10 years later, we are not that much further along?
On page 155, Hernon says, “There seems to be two life cycles, one for information and the other for systems or technology.” He goes on to question whether or not they merge with one another and if this is appropriate. With the nature of information, as it stands now, incorporating technology on a daily basis wouldn’t it be best for the two cycles to flow with one another or does that simply create more confusion with two cycles?
Hernon asks the question of information life cycles in relation to scientific and technical information as instances where the end of the life cycle does not apply. Wouldn’t the same sort of justification used for scientific information, referencing and fundamentals, apply to other forms of information as well? I’m thinking of judicial instances and legislative referencing.
The Taylor article mentions thresholds and cost-benefit analysis as another aspect to using or accessing information and Hernon mentions this as well but specifically uses Buckland definitions of access which includes price to the user. Does he mean simply time or effort put in to accessing the information as the “price” a user is paying? And in that same vein wouldn’t the solution to understanding:cognitive access be paying a price as well for the time and effort?
1. I like this paper because it makes the concept information cycle no more abstract to us, by presenting the application of the information cycle in a specified area. However, this paper was written in almost twenty years ago and I believe the position and methods of information management in U.S government agencies have changed a lot. So, how is the case for now?
2. On page 16, Desanti raises a series of questions concerning the 5-stage framework of the life cycle model and I'm interested in the stage #5. This stage that includes retention and disposition is generally considered as the end of information life cycle. However, from the traditionally point of view, disposition is certainly a way to end the life cycle of information, while it may not be the case nowadays because the cost of information storage breaks down so quickly. For the government agencies, technically storing or achieving all the files in database for the further reference has not ever been a problem. Then, do we still need see disposition as a necessary way to end information life cycle?
3. In the paper, Peter mentioned that dissemination could not be an essential element in information life cycle, which might be true to some extent. For example, some archiving files of government nowadays would not be exposed within fifty years. In this case, the information hibernates in peace. However, In most of case, government agencies are responsible to convey the useful information from the agencies to public. At this point, does not dissemination stay in the key position of whole information life cycle?
1. I enjoyed Hernons quote: “[A life cycle] is not an abstract concept; rather, a life cycle is a practical plan for accomplishing a goal- the management of a record, information system, information technology, and so forth.” Should we discuss the life cycle of information in the abstract if a life cycle is really a practical system people created for information management and thus capable of infinite variations?
2. How has the government improved agency record management since 1994? Would our new technologies have helped the information life cycle become more standardized from agency to agency?
1. Just a thought - if this was all set out to be started on in 1980, why is it still a topic to be developed today? Transparency and paperwork reduction (improved processes, performance measures etc.) are all once again hot topics. Is it a continuance from the 80's or was there a lack of knowledge transfer from retired to new employees? Was nothing learned from then to transfer to today? Or is it a topic that comes up during and after every recession?
Apparently this article is a clear example of why Dr. Lease keeps talking about our industry/ profession needing to be involved with political and law making processes. I wonder what, if any, changes to the laws have been made since the article was written. Were they merely suggested but not implemented?
3. Besides the fact that electronic information was pretty new at the time of the article (internet, going online to distribute information, etc.), why does it need a more fluid process than any other information? The example the author gives can happen to any piece of information in any format, it doesn't make electronic information necessarily the exception.
3. Is retention a subpart of management? As per our conversation last week - certain pieces of knowledge, information or data have different disposal or destruction time frames.
1. Hernon wrote that "this does not suggest that each agency must necessarily include each stage and component. There must be some flexibility but at the same time there must be continuity." Can a single standardized evaluation method or process help agencies and their governing bodies determine which stage and component to keep out?
2. "...in large information enterprises, the information life cycle becomes "wheels within wheels, " or cycles within cycles." Can and should responsibility for a particular cycle ever shift from one agency to another?
3. Buckland used the word "price" instead of the word "cost" for the aspect of access that pertains to the user. Does this distinction matter in IRM the way it can matter in sales where talking about "price" nowadays frames the product or service in the abstract value of a commodity (price of grain, oil, etc) whereas "cost" frames the product or service in concrete value of opportunity lost or gained (the amount paid or traded compared to doing it yourself or ignoring the problem).
1. The author defines life cycle in the context of information systems as activities in all phases of the life of a system, from its conception to the point at which it is replaced. Should it be ‘destroyed’ instead of replaced here? Is the word replaced too abstract ? If an information has to be replaced, are there chances that it turned out to be invaluable?
2.Records management focuses on seven stages for the life cycle- Creation , Distribution , Utilization ,Storage(active),Transfer,Storage(inactive) and disposition. What is the difference between active and inactive storage here? Does active storage include curation and identifying important information for transfer?
3. Application of IRM principles and practices to the information life cycle begins with the planning process and the placement of individual creation and gathering decisions within a larger perspective. The planning process is not a separate stage as it happens in every step. Should there be an organizing process with planning in each stage to ensure that the information is accurately interpreted when placed on a larger perspective?
1. Hernon brings up an important point when talking about the information life cycle in that it requires human oversight, strategic planning, ongoing management, and historical documentation to ensure efficiency and proper utilization. While we have discussed the various aspects of information cycles, I am curious to learn more about information flow throughout each individual stage to the next, particularly within the context of an archive or records management field.
2. This article reminds me of a recently implemented unique identification number program (UIDAI) that is being implemented throughout India. The basis for the program is to collect information about every individual and to assign a unique ID which can then be used to help citizens register for bank accounts and various government programs. This would help to reduce the amount of paperwork and redundant information being collected about citizens but also comes with its own security and privacy nightmares. I am wondering what the full implications of a program like this are? Another question would be, can redundant information collection serve a useful purpose for privacy and security? More here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23867191
3. It is mentioned in the article that two life cycles are being talked about in the Circular A-130, one that deals with the information itself and the other that deals with the systems or technology that manage this information. Doesn’t it seem evident that these life cycles are heavily intertwined and therefore could not be managed independently? What are the working relationships that exist between information technology systems managers and information gatherers that enforce proper collection and long term management?
1. In my mind, the “a series of discrete steps for managers to follow…….” (Page 145) is more likely to be the procedure we should take to maintain the life cycle. Why is they regarded as the content of life cycle for IRM.
2. Storage; and deposition or permanent storage are listed as the elements of life cycle of official records the records management focuses on. It is easy to understand the relation between storage and deposition. But why is the permanent storage treated as the next step of storage.
3. It is not a question but an assumption that support the life cycle is created manually to take advantage of information. It is “A life cycle, therefore, can be viewed at different managerial levels of the organization and from different perspectives. It is not an abstract concept; rather, a life cycle is a practical plan for accomplishing a goal-the management of a record, information system, information technology, and so forth.”
1. ’The premise of the life cycle is that although records may skip a step or steps, they move toward disposition.’(p146) I cannot understand why records can skip a step or steps as they are in the so called ‘life cycle’. And I also don’t know the reasons why records should be disposed?
2. In table 2 in page 157, it shows us different policy instruments have different stages in the information life cycle. So why can they have different stages? As this article was written almost 20 years ago, is there a standard model of information life cycle now in the management of US government information resources?
3. ‘Are we managing information, or are we managing technology, and which comes first?’(p163) I think this is a good question. From my point of view, although we can manage information without technology, to some degree, technology can make the process of information management easier. At this point, maybe it is better to manage technology first. However, there are some problems. For example, technology changes fast, so we have to learn how to use it time after time to follow its step of development. What’s more, the cost of technology and staff training may be too much.
1. Generally speaking, I am a little surprised that the government/governmental agencies are not at the forefront of information management theory and practice. Considering that in this realm, managing information is often a primary practice and business, wouldn't it make sense for best practices and standards to come from this field? 2. As interesting at finding the interconnectedness between the information life cycle and the paperwork burden/information management would be--what exactly is to gain from doing this? Will it lead to a change in behavior? Will it result in more effective information management practice? Seeing that the article was published in 1994, has it? 3. Hernon suggests that there are two life cycles--one for information and one for technology, and that "the question becomes whether or not the cycles converge." I'm curious as to how that answer would have been answered at the time of this article's publication, and additionally how it would be answered today. Is this still relevant--and if so, how so?
1. Hernon spends a great deal of time discussing “information life cycles” within and around various agencies and government functions. These life cycles frequently include an eventual disposition. However, in the case of declassification, this seems to trigger a new and secondary life cycle. In the one sense the information has been “disposed” as no longer useful but does it then gain second life by entering the public sphere?
2. A great deal of government information requires security measures and careful handling. There have been multiple scandals in recent years with agents or agencies mishandling data that is meant to be secured. To what degree do these varying levels of security inhibit the full development of Information Resource Management?
3. As other papers this week discuss, our society is increasingly devoted to information or knowledge management. Hernon mentions that agency leadership often considers IRM to be very far from their duties. To what degree do we need to change these leadership roles to make information or knowledge management a centerpiece of an already complicated position?
1. I was interested in Hernon's understanding of the life cycle and his assertion that all records move toward disposition. He writes that "the premise of the life cycle is that although records may skip a step or steps, they move toward disposition (p. 146). None of the readings thus, in addressing the information life cycle, have seemed to acknowledge this concept. It made me wonder, is it true that no information exists which is in a sense hanging in limbo, not realizing this final step of the life cycle?
2. On page 147, Hernon claims that a life cycle "is not an abstract concept; rather, a life cycle is a practical plan for accomplishing a goal". This made me wonder, do we, when handling information, actively establish a plan for each stage of the life cycle. Is this "practical plan" more relevant in a government setting such as he's discussing, because to me, it seems as though we're not often conscious of the process of the information life cycle even as it occurs, but rather it's a sort of organic occurrence.
3. Once Hernon finally puts forth the stages of the life cycle (creation, production, transmittal, retrieval, retention), explaining them within the government setting, I came to realize that the stages as put forth here are rather straightforward and to my mind similar to the life cycle records go through in an archival sense. It's just interesting to compare the life cycle within different settings. I'd expect for there to be some sort of deviance within management of government resources, but it's rather straightforward.
1. In this article the author quotes Burk and Horton to state that it is the content of information and not the medium it is kept on that determines whether that information will be archived or destroyed. Do you think that with the advent of the information age and nigh unlimited storage that this statement is still true? 2. In this article the author discusses the various Paper Reduction Acts as examples of legislation that included definitions of the information life cycle. What is it about implementing a good version of the information life cycle that would lead to a reduction of paper in a government institution? 3. In this article the author examines several different pieces of legislation that try to define the various stages of the information life cycle. However, none of the document that the author examined can come to an agreement as to what are the steps of the information life cycle. Is it possible, since these policy instruments all have different steps of the life cycle, that the information lifecycle does not have discrete steps but instead is a continuum that contains several features?
1. On page 145, the author claims that There are life cycles for software development,information technologies,information systems, IRM, records management, and archival management. My first question is that do all life cycles listed have similar original stages? In other words, does a new life cycle begin as soon as a certain process happens, such as birth?
2. "A report of the Commission on Federal Paperwork noted that "the real culprit of the paperwork burden [on the public] is mismanagement of information resources." How is called mismanagement of information resources? I understand that this might be a huge question, so, it can be converted as what aspects should we take into consideration when valuing a IRM?
3. In the part of STEPS of LIFE-CYCLE MANAGEMENT, the author presents a table of the stages as reflected in the policy instruments discussed. It seems that different policies have different ways of identifying stages. Later, in the "Framework for the Information Life Cycle", the author identifies five interrelated stages of the information life-cycle management. So, how and on what basis does he summarize these stages？And, do different structures of stages of information life cycle cause influences on information management?
1. On p. 151 Hernon mentions that different agencies may manage different stages of the information life cycle. This is commonly the case among large information institutions. I wonder about the communication between agencies or departments on the individual aspects of each stage of the life cycle and how this could affect information resources as a whole? We have read in other articles that state preservation can begin at creation with the preservation of metadata at creation. It would then seem that without an understanding of the stage of the life cycle an agency is handling and how it fits in the larger life cycle vital information could be lost for other agencies and profoundly affect later or earlier stages in the life cycle. 2. On p. 154 Hernon discusses officials having the ability to focus on parts of the information life cycle they want and later states on p. 161 that because of the many options for dissemination agencies no longer have to go through the GPO or NTIS and bypass federal depository libraries. This reminded me of the politicization of information and the affects of an individual or organization has on the information that is made permanently available to the public. Who should have this control and what measures should be taken to ensure that the public is given all the items considered educational and of public interest? 3. Later in the article Hernon presents the idea of life cycles within life cycles and furthered the idea that while organizations may be in charge of one stage of the information life cycle that stage may have a cycle within itself. This would make communication within and between agencies and departments about the stages of the life style extremely important. How much time and effort should organizations put forward to manage the demands of the different aspects of the information life cycle? Can this be something that is an afterthought to daily work demands of an organization or should this be built into the infrastructure of the flow of information within an organization? How much collaboration should be involved between agencies when it comes to the information life cycle?
1. In discussing the Circular A-130 on pg. 152, the “dissemination” phase of the life cycle is described as the “‘active’ distribution of government information to the public.” Hernon uses this fact to explain that “use and access issues do not exist separate from a larger framework.” What does he mean in this context?
2. Hernon brings up an interesting idea in regards to protection of public information resources. He explains, “In the electronic age, individuals can use public information to create new information, some of which might perhaps conform to the mosaic theory and merit protection.” This raises a number of questions for me. First of all, why does public information need protection? What kind of protection? Secondly, what is the mosaic theory? Thirdly, what is an example of an individual using public information to create new information? Does he use it as a source in a Wikipedia article or what?
3. I get pretty lost in the discussion of the Circular A-130. I could ask a specific question like, what does he mean when he quotes Sprehe asking whether “this… policy statement has shed its reactionary origins and is now a suitable foundation on which to base federal IRM in the 1990s,” but I feel like that would be getting lost in the details. I just in general don’t totally understand what we are supposed to glean from the author’s extensive coverage of the A-130.
1. Why security management, privacy protection, and quality control, like planning, are integral to each stage? I think they might have unique positions in information lifecycle in some cases. Even they could be integral to each stage, some stages, such as gathering or access, might also be integral to other stages.
2. Since the author addressed sample questions in every stage of the framework of the information life cycle, I wonder what roles these questions can be in every stage of information life cycle. Is it means we need to consider all these aspects when we manage one stage of information life cycle? Can these questions be aspects we need to ask ourselves when developing every part of an information system?
3. The author discussed the problem of “mini life cycle”, especially the “data life cycle”. He said we could find the data life cycles within the information life cycle. However, I wonder can the data in a data life cycle flow into another data life cycle in other stage of information life cycle. What the meaning of scholars to study the data life cycle? If we know more about the data life cycle, can we analyze data in a more efficient way?
1. In Table 1 the author gives examples of a variety of types of life cycles to support his claim that government agencies need to implement an information life cycle in order to manage their own information. In looking at the list, aren't those life cycles just as amorphous and hard to pin down as the systems he describes as currently being used by the agencies?
2. On page 149 the author refers to "secondary or scholarly policy literature." To what is he referring? If these are formal rules and guidelines for information management to which the government agencies have access, why wouldn't that be enough of a framework?
3. On page 153 the author mentions the "mosaic theory" when discussing how individuals might use public information to create new information that might require protection. What is mosaic theory and how does it apply to information studies?
1. This article reiterated to me a point that was brought up again and again in our discussions of the information life cycle in class last week--namely, whether the life cycle is a naturally occurring phenomenon or rather a set of instructions for how information is to be treated in a system. Even though the "life cycle" wasn't expressly mentioned in many of the memos and circulars, it was outlined for their readers. This implies, to me at least, that the life cycle is both a natural phenomenon and an IS construct--that we shape our procedures and policies on the natural ways in which information flows through a system.
2. How does dissemination, defined as the "active" distribution of government information to the public (152), differ from the ways in which we've discussed dissemination previously? On a non-governmental level, how does this active definition of dissemination relate to other areas in information science and management--say, libraries, for instance?
3. It would be interesting to see how the federal government has since responded to these types of calls to action--whether the information life cycle has made its way into the policies and practices of the many governmental agencies discussed in this article. How has the government changed the ways in which it creates, stores, disseminates, and destroys information since the article's publication in 1994?
1 - I would argue that most archival conventions are structured, or at least based, upon the examples set by the government (at least in the US context) for how information is managed and more specifically organized, throughout its lifecycle. Given that information resources are still being mismanaged by the government, and inefficiency abounds (150) are there other places we should be looking to set the stage for how we manage information, specifically thinking along the lines of archives and records management?
ReplyDelete2- Just to say something slightly polemical - if many government agencies have their records management/retention coordinated by people in administration, how relevant are iSchools within this context? Not to argue that we don't need archivists and information managers, but more to argue if government agencies don't view these positions as integral to the success of their agency records management (until items get to NARA, that is) is this an ongoing assumption that also permeates the corporate and non-profit sectors? If so, how does one develop or apply for a job that isn't actively advertised, or considered to be its own, separate position?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReposted due to bad formatting in OP.
ReplyDelete1. On page 152, Hernon says, "Dissemination was defined as 'the active distribution of government information to the public,' and agencies were advised to 'actively distribute information, rather than merely respond when the public requests information.'" I think we can all think of examples where this is the case, from the USDA food pyramid to the National Terrorism Advisory System. But how might this principle be applied more broadly? Most government records are (at least theoretically) available to the public through FOI requests, other formal request processes, and, increasingly, websites providing information from databases. Where do government agencies draw the line between critical information dissemination and optional dissemination? How might we think about these same issues in regards to dissemination in our various fields (libraries, archives, corporate, educational, etc.)?
2. On page 15, the author asks, regarding the various IRM iterations being discussed, "That revision suggests that the number of stages varies but includes at least two--a beginning and end. Presumably the beginning is planning or design, but what comprises the end--demise?" Are these stages legitimate or translatable to other institutions? To an archivist, the necessity of "demise" is cause for alarm. Are all government records ultimately slated for "demise"? (I think not.) He goes on later to discuss the continued relevance of aeronautical engineering records from the first half of the 20th century. Even if these technologies were superseded, wouldn't these records and artifacts have continued historical value? Is not the Smithsonian part of the federal government? Obviously there will be numerous exceptions to any codified life cycle, even among government agencies.
3. I also wonder how the endemic budget strains of government could be factored into IRM. Hernon mentions budgetary concerns, but doesn't specifically address this. It seems like it might be especially pertinent to government information life cycles.
4. On page 165, Hernon introduces Sprehe's concept of managing data life cycles, which notes again how data and information are not synonymous; how then are data life cycles different from information life cycles? What other cycles (and their relationships) can we identify? Perhaps we should start by deeply considering these smaller, task-based roles and processes, identify "mini life cycles," and then work up toward a more "unified theory of information life cycles" that can better integrate all of these potential stages?
1. Burk and Horton note that “information content, not the medium, governs decisions on whether and when records will be archived or purged”. This is helpful to eliminate the unnecessarily duplicative and redundant reentry of source data already captured. But it also has the danger of missing the evidentiary information from the medium itself. Sometimes policy makers or lawyers can refer certain information purely from what kind of medium the information is presented.
ReplyDelete2. Is there a clear boundary between different stages in the information lifecycle? Are all the steps important for knowledge management in government? And which stage is the most paramount to government knowledge management?
3. Does all the information in government go through the same stages in the lifecycle. Or will certain kind of information would skip one or two of the stages, or stop before the end stage? For instance the classified information in FBI V.S. the information that is public to the citizens in the first place.
1. On page 162, Hernon lays out two 'sample questions' to ask for Stage 4 of the information lifecycle: "How 'user friendly' is the dissemination or public access service? To what extent will the system provide browseability, simple interfacing capability, good organization of the subject matter, formatting to facilitate scanning and retrieving of information, physical access and availability when the user needs it?" To what extent will the system link the user to other information or other sources of information than what is stored in the agency's system?" Shouldn't they also be asking who these users are? who do these agencies have in mind will use what they provide when they design these interfaces? I feel that's something the government should have in mind when it provides sources online, especially since each agency has such different websites.
ReplyDelete2. Does the seemingly dominant philosophy for government agencies of managing technology first explain the common case of having information no one can use because it's trapped on an out of date/extinct format, or stored on types of electronic storage no longer used? Would part of good management for both information and technology be to set distinct rules for a department as far as technology/information types go?
3. On page 166, the three following statements "There must be some flexibility but at the same time there must be continuity," "rational management dictates life cycle planning," and "they must better standardize the stages so that the life cycle becomes less of an abstraction, when applied to the management of government information." Would it make sense to revisit these laws in place, and revise them with different standards for the different agencies to adhere to? Because while all of them have different functions, if they are truly concerned about being use-friendly, a standard goes a long way to accomplishing that. Plus, if there was a set of rules down to follow, perhaps less concern over keeping up with technology would mean greater adherence to the information lifecycle.
1 - I think in the context of government records, the user base is probably pretty difficult to define in specific terms. If materials are being offered through an open access, online system, the only way user metrics can really be employed is to either 1) have the user complete a voluntary survey 2) monitor only the most basic information: what's being clicked on and from what country. Something tells me we'd have a big problem if the government attempted to monitor IP addresses or online access to its materials. It would be interesting to see how much of these resources are being used internally or by the general public, but as I said, I can't think of a way to monitor online access that wouldn't be considered an invasion of privacy, or rely on people opting in to complete a survey about what they're accessing and why.
Delete1 on page 156, what's the difference between the management of those resources associated with information and the management of information treated as a resource?
ReplyDelete2 How the information life cycle applied to practical problems solving when facing the government issues?
3 Why we care about information life cycle? As far as I see, we talk a lot about each stages of life cycle, like information creation and gathering; production, processing, publication; transmittal; retrieval and use; retention and disposition. Do we really care about the relationship of these stages? Or it just provides us an order of process when dealing with issues related information?
1. Hernon spends a good deal of time discussing the fact that information life cycles differ from one field to the next. Different organizations use different life cycles, and each life cycle serves a specific purpose. He states in the beginning of his article that “[a life cycle] is not an abstract concept; rather a life cycle is a practical plan for accomplishing a goal” (149). While in this instance Hernon is talking about life cycles as they pertain to the project or systems level, I’m still not sure whether saying that an information cycle is not abstract is correct. We spent a good amount of time in class discussing whether information life cycles just exist or whether we, information users, create them. Doesn’t that conversation alone prove that information life cycles are abstract? Can a life cycle be considered concrete at all – especially when, as Hernon claims, they differ so much?
ReplyDelete2. Hernon later quotes Burk and Horton on the subject of information “disposition” (the ultimate archival or destruction of a piece of information). Burk and Horton state that “’information content, not the medium, governs decisions on whether and when records will be archived or purged’” (150). I agree that content is a huge determinant when deciding when it’s time for a record to “retire” – I recently listened to a librarian describe outdated medical books that could literally kill people – but should that be the only factor? This article was written before the advent of e-books and other modern electronic formats – would our current technological climate change Burk and Horton’s mind? Furthermore, does the fact that we have so much digital space in today’s world mean that no record should be destroyed, just archived?
3. Near the end of his article, Hernon returns to the discussion regarding whether it is technology or information that needs to be managed. Hernon is clearly in favor of information being managed, as he states, “technology is not an end to itself, and information/data/publications can exist independently of technology” (164). While I agree with Hernon that information resources encompass both information and technology, I believe it more a sweeping generalization to say that information can exist without technology. That’s certainly partly true – information via word of mouth will always be available with or without technology – it’s not completely the case. In order to create publications, technology is needed. In order to generate data, technology is needed. In order to store information so that it’s even available, technology is needed. So, does information really stand alone? Or have the two become inextricably intertwined – especially in our current society?
Your first question caught my eye. I was also struck by Hernon's assertion that the information life cycle is not an abstract concept. However, I kind of agreed with him:) That was- until I read your comments. I agree that our discussion of the life cycle last week alone proves that we can easily think of it as an abstract comment. Perhaps both Hernon and I simply agree that the information life cycle is most relevant and useful as a practical process.
Delete1.In regards to the lifecycle of records, are there records about the destruction of records? Something that shows that an information resource is not available anymore? Obviously this would vary by institution, but if records are chosen to be deleted permanently, should there be a note or flag saying that “files were deleted or purged permanently,” so people don’t waste time looking for something that is not there?
ReplyDelete2.On page 150, Burk and Horton say that “life cycle costing and (valuing) identifies the cost (and values) associated with each stage, arrays them over the lifespan of the information, and calculates a total cost and value.” Budgetary concerns are obviously a huge factor in archiving and records management, so I’m wondering how accurate are value assessments on records and how accurately can they be predicted into the future? Also, at what point does a piece of information “break even” or not cost anything in the life cycle, or does something always have to be paid for during the lifecycle?
3.On page 158 Hernon says that “because planning occurs throughout the life cycle, it is not treated here as a separate stage.” He follows with “planning addresses the mission, goals, objectives, and priorities of an agency, and ensures proper oversight of a program or service.” Planning sounds like it should be a part of the life cycle, perhaps at the beginning, because proper or improper planning will definitely have an effect on the actual lifespan of an item or collection.
1. Peter Hernon points out that the various government regulations for records management have not all described the information life cycle equally or not attempted it at all. Is there a reason why the acts did not describe the cycle, but instead left it up to each agency? Could it be that each agency would have a different life cycle based on their needs so they didn’t describe one model?
ReplyDelete2. This article was published in 1994. What updates have there been in the government to improve agency records management? Have new acts or circulars been created? The article describes that each agency must come up with its own way to manage its records. Is this still the case or is there more centrality?
3. I liked how this article pointed out that the life cycle is more than a concept, but a blueprint for an organization to plan for its records management. I often find it difficult to connect the theoretical concepts that we have been talking about in class to real world scenarios. I think that the information life cycle would be a good starting point in a business that might be having documentation problems to systematically plan for a record’s life and to understand the costs for each step. I think this could be a useful tool for an information professional in a business setting to explain the time and cost of different information processes such as archiving or knowledge management to others in the company.
1) The article highlights the importance of the distinction between distribution/dissemination and retrieval (152), and notes that government IRM protocols initially did not draw this distinction. This helped clarify some issues from Taylor, because government information retrieval systems are an excellent example of the difference between user-centric retrieval systems and information- or expert-centric systems. I’ve been gathering information from various government agency websites for another class, and some agencies’ retrieval systems definitely seem to be set up mostly for internal use even though they are accessible to the public—they are good at disseminating information in making it publicly available, but not as good at making it easy to access. What steps could the government make to combat this issue, and what steps have they already taken?
ReplyDelete2) After last week’s discussion on whether the information life cycle is descriptive or prescriptive (i.e. whether it describes an existing phenomenon or is a suggestion for efficient behaviors), it was interesting to see that Hernon comes down firmly on the side of the information life cycle being “a practical plan for accomplishing a goal.” (147) Do we agree with this? Does it depend on context?
3) I was interested in Hernon’s assertion that even non-confidential, publicly-accessible information can be used “to create new information, some of which might conform to the mosaic theory and merit protection.” As far as I can tell from outside sources, mosaic theory seems to be a tool used by intelligence agencies. Is Hernon worried about counter-intelligence here? What is an example of a public government information resource that could potentially be used to nefarious ends? How could this information be protected without hindering free access to information, especially by the press?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. This article is speaking about using the information life cycle and applying it to government agencies to affect policies. One thing that we've learned is that the information life cycle is a fairly fluid system and can change depending on the organization that contains the information. I may have missed it but I didn't see if the author takes this into consideration when applying and researching the information life cycle to these government agencies.
ReplyDelete2. “...agencies should plan to use information technology in ways that make the public’s dealing with the Federal government as ‘user-friendly’ as possible." The dissemination stage of the information life cycle in this case is referring to providing information to the public. Considering what I know about getting information from the government, this is an extremely simple sentence for such a complex issue. Even with the improvements since this article was written, this has obviously proven to be amazingly difficult to do.
3. "You plan for the information, and decisions regarding information technology flow from decisions regarding information; and not the other way around" What does an organization do if they are unable to make the decisions that are dictated by the information?
1. Throughout the article, the author focuses on the idea of dissemination. Seeing as this is the government, I could understand why dissemination of information is so important. But at one point he writes about how dissemination can be both within or without of the information life cycle. Wouldn't dissemination either be a part of the process or not? Is it then dependent on what the information life cycle is being used for?
ReplyDelete2. Hernon lightly touches on the idea of public access at one point in the article. I am not quite sure how, in the realm of government, public access would be so different from dissemination of information. Essentially, the government already knows what it wants us to see and what it wants to keep hidden, so how are the two mutually exclusive?
3. Towards the end of the article, the author talks about the call for graphics explaining the information life cycle, so people can better see where their work falls in the life cycle and how they can better apply their skills. He even writes about life cycles within life cycles. With all of the visual representations that now exist for information life cycles, I wonder if they have actually contributed to a better understanding of what it is and how we use it, or, if 10 years later, we are not that much further along?
On page 155, Hernon says, “There seems to be two life cycles, one for information and the other for systems or technology.” He goes on to question whether or not they merge with one another and if this is appropriate. With the nature of information, as it stands now, incorporating technology on a daily basis wouldn’t it be best for the two cycles to flow with one another or does that simply create more confusion with two cycles?
ReplyDeleteHernon asks the question of information life cycles in relation to scientific and technical information as instances where the end of the life cycle does not apply. Wouldn’t the same sort of justification used for scientific information, referencing and fundamentals, apply to other forms of information as well? I’m thinking of judicial instances and legislative referencing.
The Taylor article mentions thresholds and cost-benefit analysis as another aspect to using or accessing information and Hernon mentions this as well but specifically uses Buckland definitions of access which includes price to the user. Does he mean simply time or effort put in to accessing the information as the “price” a user is paying? And in that same vein wouldn’t the solution to understanding:cognitive access be paying a price as well for the time and effort?
1. I like this paper because it makes the concept information cycle no more abstract to us, by presenting the application of the information cycle in a specified area. However, this paper was written in almost twenty years ago and I believe the position and methods of information management in U.S government agencies have changed a lot. So, how is the case for now?
ReplyDelete2. On page 16, Desanti raises a series of questions concerning the 5-stage framework of the life cycle model and I'm interested in the stage #5. This stage that includes retention and disposition is generally considered as the end of information life cycle. However, from the traditionally point of view, disposition is certainly a way to end the life cycle of information, while it may not be the case nowadays because the cost of information storage breaks down so quickly. For the government agencies, technically storing or achieving all the files in database for the further reference has not ever been a problem. Then, do we still need see disposition as a necessary way to end information life cycle?
3. In the paper, Peter mentioned that dissemination could not be an essential element in information life cycle, which might be true to some extent. For example, some archiving files of government nowadays would not be exposed within fifty years. In this case, the information hibernates in peace. However, In most of case, government agencies are responsible to convey the useful information from the agencies to public. At this point, does not dissemination stay in the key position of whole information life cycle?
1. I enjoyed Hernons quote: “[A life cycle] is not an abstract concept; rather, a life cycle is a practical plan for accomplishing a goal- the management of a record, information system, information technology, and so forth.” Should we discuss the life cycle of information in the abstract if a life cycle is really a practical system people created for information management and thus capable of infinite variations?
ReplyDelete2. How has the government improved agency record management since 1994? Would our new technologies have helped the information life cycle become more standardized from agency to agency?
1. Just a thought - if this was all set out to be started on in 1980, why is it still a topic to be developed today? Transparency and paperwork reduction (improved processes, performance measures etc.) are all once again hot topics. Is it a continuance from the 80's or was there a lack of knowledge transfer from retired to new employees? Was nothing learned from then to transfer to today? Or is it a topic that comes up during and after every recession?
ReplyDeleteApparently this article is a clear example of why Dr. Lease keeps talking about our industry/ profession needing to be involved with political and law making processes. I wonder what, if any, changes to the laws have been made since the article was written. Were they merely suggested but not implemented?
3. Besides the fact that electronic information was pretty new at the time of the article (internet, going online to distribute information, etc.), why does it need a more fluid process than any other information? The example the author gives can happen to any piece of information in any format, it doesn't make electronic information necessarily the exception.
3. Is retention a subpart of management? As per our conversation last week - certain pieces of knowledge, information or data have different disposal or destruction time frames.
1. Hernon wrote that "this does not suggest that each agency must necessarily include each stage and component. There must be some flexibility but at the same time there must be continuity." Can a single standardized evaluation method or process help agencies and their governing bodies determine which stage and component to keep out?
ReplyDelete2. "...in large information enterprises, the information life cycle becomes "wheels within wheels, " or cycles within cycles." Can and should responsibility for a particular cycle ever shift from one agency to another?
3. Buckland used the word "price" instead of the word "cost" for the aspect of access that pertains to the user. Does this distinction matter in IRM the way it can matter in sales where talking about "price" nowadays frames the product or service in the abstract value of a commodity (price of grain, oil, etc) whereas "cost" frames the product or service in concrete value of opportunity lost or gained (the amount paid or traded compared to doing it yourself or ignoring the problem).
1. The author defines life cycle in the context of information systems as activities in all phases of the life of a system, from its conception to the point at which it is replaced. Should it be ‘destroyed’ instead of replaced here? Is the word replaced too abstract ? If an information has to be replaced, are there chances that it turned out to be invaluable?
ReplyDelete2.Records management focuses on seven stages for the life cycle- Creation , Distribution , Utilization ,Storage(active),Transfer,Storage(inactive) and disposition. What is the difference between active and inactive storage here? Does active storage include curation and identifying important information for transfer?
3. Application of IRM principles and practices to the information life cycle begins with
the planning process and the placement of individual creation and gathering decisions within a larger perspective. The planning process is not a separate stage as it happens in every step. Should there be an organizing process with planning in each stage to ensure that the information is accurately interpreted when placed on a larger perspective?
1. Hernon brings up an important point when talking about the information life cycle in that it requires human oversight, strategic planning, ongoing management, and historical documentation to ensure efficiency and proper utilization. While we have discussed the various aspects of information cycles, I am curious to learn more about information flow throughout each individual stage to the next, particularly within the context of an archive or records management field.
ReplyDelete2. This article reminds me of a recently implemented unique identification number program (UIDAI) that is being implemented throughout India. The basis for the program is to collect information about every individual and to assign a unique ID which can then be used to help citizens register for bank accounts and various government programs. This would help to reduce the amount of paperwork and redundant information being collected about citizens but also comes with its own security and privacy nightmares. I am wondering what the full implications of a program like this are? Another question would be, can redundant information collection serve a useful purpose for privacy and security? More here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23867191
3. It is mentioned in the article that two life cycles are being talked about in the Circular A-130, one that deals with the information itself and the other that deals with the systems or technology that manage this information. Doesn’t it seem evident that these life cycles are heavily intertwined and therefore could not be managed independently? What are the working relationships that exist between information technology systems managers and information gatherers that enforce proper collection and long term management?
1. In my mind, the “a series of discrete steps for managers to follow…….” (Page 145) is more likely to be the procedure we should take to maintain the life cycle. Why is they regarded as the content of life cycle for IRM.
ReplyDelete2. Storage; and deposition or permanent storage are listed as the elements of life cycle of official records the records management focuses on. It is easy to understand the relation between storage and deposition. But why is the permanent storage treated as the next step of storage.
3. It is not a question but an assumption that support the life cycle is created manually to take advantage of information. It is “A life cycle, therefore, can be viewed at different managerial levels of the organization and from different perspectives. It is not an abstract concept; rather, a life cycle is a practical plan for accomplishing a goal-the management of a record, information system, information technology, and so forth.”
1. ’The premise of the life cycle is that although records may skip a step or steps, they move toward disposition.’(p146) I cannot understand why records can skip a step or steps as they are in the so called ‘life cycle’. And I also don’t know the reasons why records should be disposed?
ReplyDelete2. In table 2 in page 157, it shows us different policy instruments have different stages in the information life cycle. So why can they have different stages? As this article was written almost 20 years ago, is there a standard model of information life cycle now in the management of US government information resources?
3. ‘Are we managing information, or are we managing technology, and which comes first?’(p163) I think this is a good question. From my point of view, although we can manage information without technology, to some degree, technology can make the process of information management easier. At this point, maybe it is better to manage technology first. However, there are some problems. For example, technology changes fast, so we have to learn how to use it time after time to follow its step of development. What’s more, the cost of technology and staff training may be too much.
1. Generally speaking, I am a little surprised that the government/governmental agencies are not at the forefront of information management theory and practice. Considering that in this realm, managing information is often a primary practice and business, wouldn't it make sense for best practices and standards to come from this field?
ReplyDelete2. As interesting at finding the interconnectedness between the information life cycle and the paperwork burden/information management would be--what exactly is to gain from doing this? Will it lead to a change in behavior? Will it result in more effective information management practice? Seeing that the article was published in 1994, has it?
3. Hernon suggests that there are two life cycles--one for information and one for technology, and that "the question becomes whether or not the cycles converge." I'm curious as to how that answer would have been answered at the time of this article's publication, and additionally how it would be answered today. Is this still relevant--and if so, how so?
1. Hernon spends a great deal of time discussing “information life cycles” within and around various agencies and government functions. These life cycles frequently include an eventual disposition. However, in the case of declassification, this seems to trigger a new and secondary life cycle. In the one sense the information has been “disposed” as no longer useful but does it then gain second life by entering the public sphere?
ReplyDelete2. A great deal of government information requires security measures and careful handling. There have been multiple scandals in recent years with agents or agencies mishandling data that is meant to be secured. To what degree do these varying levels of security inhibit the full development of Information Resource Management?
3. As other papers this week discuss, our society is increasingly devoted to information or knowledge management. Hernon mentions that agency leadership often considers IRM to be very far from their duties. To what degree do we need to change these leadership roles to make information or knowledge management a centerpiece of an already complicated position?
1. I was interested in Hernon's understanding of the life cycle and his assertion that all records move toward disposition. He writes that "the premise of the life cycle is that although records may skip a step or steps, they move toward disposition (p. 146). None of the readings thus, in addressing the information life cycle, have seemed to acknowledge this concept. It made me wonder, is it true that no information exists which is in a sense hanging in limbo, not realizing this final step of the life cycle?
ReplyDelete2. On page 147, Hernon claims that a life cycle "is not an abstract concept; rather, a life cycle is a practical plan for accomplishing a goal". This made me wonder, do we, when handling information, actively establish a plan for each stage of the life cycle. Is this "practical plan" more relevant in a government setting such as he's discussing, because to me, it seems as though we're not often conscious of the process of the information life cycle even as it occurs, but rather it's a sort of organic occurrence.
3. Once Hernon finally puts forth the stages of the life cycle (creation, production, transmittal, retrieval, retention), explaining them within the government setting, I came to realize that the stages as put forth here are rather straightforward and to my mind similar to the life cycle records go through in an archival sense. It's just interesting to compare the life cycle within different settings. I'd expect for there to be some sort of deviance within management of government resources, but it's rather straightforward.
1. In this article the author quotes Burk and Horton to state that it is the content of information and not the medium it is kept on that determines whether that information will be archived or destroyed. Do you think that with the advent of the information age and nigh unlimited storage that this statement is still true?
ReplyDelete2. In this article the author discusses the various Paper Reduction Acts as examples of legislation that included definitions of the information life cycle. What is it about implementing a good version of the information life cycle that would lead to a reduction of paper in a government institution?
3. In this article the author examines several different pieces of legislation that try to define the various stages of the information life cycle. However, none of the document that the author examined can come to an agreement as to what are the steps of the information life cycle. Is it possible, since these policy instruments all have different steps of the life cycle, that the information lifecycle does not have discrete steps but instead is a continuum that contains several features?
1. On page 145, the author claims that There are life cycles for software development,information technologies,information systems, IRM, records management, and archival management. My first question is that do all life cycles listed have similar original stages? In other words, does a new life cycle begin as soon as a certain process happens, such as birth?
ReplyDelete2. "A report of the Commission on Federal Paperwork noted that "the real culprit of the paperwork burden [on the public] is mismanagement of information resources." How is called mismanagement of information resources? I understand that this might be a huge question, so, it can be converted as what aspects should we take into consideration when valuing a IRM?
3. In the part of STEPS of LIFE-CYCLE MANAGEMENT, the author presents a table of the stages as reflected in the policy instruments discussed. It seems that different policies have different ways of identifying stages. Later, in the "Framework for the Information Life Cycle", the author identifies five interrelated stages of the information life-cycle management. So, how and on what basis does he summarize these stages？And, do different structures of stages of information life cycle cause influences on information management?
1. On p. 151 Hernon mentions that different agencies may manage different stages of the information life cycle. This is commonly the case among large information institutions. I wonder about the communication between agencies or departments on the individual aspects of each stage of the life cycle and how this could affect information resources as a whole? We have read in other articles that state preservation can begin at creation with the preservation of metadata at creation. It would then seem that without an understanding of the stage of the life cycle an agency is handling and how it fits in the larger life cycle vital information could be lost for other agencies and profoundly affect later or earlier stages in the life cycle.
ReplyDelete2. On p. 154 Hernon discusses officials having the ability to focus on parts of the information life cycle they want and later states on p. 161 that because of the many options for dissemination agencies no longer have to go through the GPO or NTIS and bypass federal depository libraries. This reminded me of the politicization of information and the affects of an individual or organization has on the information that is made permanently available to the public. Who should have this control and what measures should be taken to ensure that the public is given all the items considered educational and of public interest?
3. Later in the article Hernon presents the idea of life cycles within life cycles and furthered the idea that while organizations may be in charge of one stage of the information life cycle that stage may have a cycle within itself. This would make communication within and between agencies and departments about the stages of the life style extremely important. How much time and effort should organizations put forward to manage the demands of the different aspects of the information life cycle? Can this be something that is an afterthought to daily work demands of an organization or should this be built into the infrastructure of the flow of information within an organization? How much collaboration should be involved between agencies when it comes to the information life cycle?
1. In discussing the Circular A-130 on pg. 152, the “dissemination” phase of the life cycle is described as the “‘active’ distribution of government information to the public.” Hernon uses this fact to explain that “use and access issues do not exist separate from a larger framework.” What does he mean in this context?
ReplyDelete2. Hernon brings up an interesting idea in regards to protection of public information resources. He explains, “In the electronic age, individuals can use public information to create new information, some of which might perhaps conform to the mosaic theory and merit protection.” This raises a number of questions for me. First of all, why does public information need protection? What kind of protection? Secondly, what is the mosaic theory? Thirdly, what is an example of an individual using public information to create new information? Does he use it as a source in a Wikipedia article or what?
3. I get pretty lost in the discussion of the Circular A-130. I could ask a specific question like, what does he mean when he quotes Sprehe asking whether “this… policy statement has shed its reactionary origins and is now a suitable foundation on which to base federal IRM in the 1990s,” but I feel like that would be getting lost in the details. I just in general don’t totally understand what we are supposed to glean from the author’s extensive coverage of the A-130.
1. Why security management, privacy protection, and quality control, like planning, are integral to each stage? I think they might have unique positions in information lifecycle in some cases. Even they could be integral to each stage, some stages, such as gathering or access, might also be integral to other stages.
ReplyDelete2. Since the author addressed sample questions in every stage of the framework of the information life cycle, I wonder what roles these questions can be in every stage of information life cycle. Is it means we need to consider all these aspects when we manage one stage of information life cycle? Can these questions be aspects we need to ask ourselves when developing every part of an information system?
3. The author discussed the problem of “mini life cycle”, especially the “data life cycle”. He said we could find the data life cycles within the information life cycle. However, I wonder can the data in a data life cycle flow into another data life cycle in other stage of information life cycle. What the meaning of scholars to study the data life cycle? If we know more about the data life cycle, can we analyze data in a more efficient way?
1. In Table 1 the author gives examples of a variety of types of life cycles to support his claim that government agencies need to implement an information life cycle in order to manage their own information. In looking at the list, aren't those life cycles just as amorphous and hard to pin down as the systems he describes as currently being used by the agencies?
ReplyDelete2. On page 149 the author refers to "secondary or scholarly policy literature." To what is he referring? If these are formal rules and guidelines for information management to which the government agencies have access, why wouldn't that be enough of a framework?
3. On page 153 the author mentions the "mosaic theory" when discussing how individuals might use public information to create new information that might require protection. What is mosaic theory and how does it apply to information studies?
1. This article reiterated to me a point that was brought up again and again in our discussions of the information life cycle in class last week--namely, whether the life cycle is a naturally occurring phenomenon or rather a set of instructions for how information is to be treated in a system. Even though the "life cycle" wasn't expressly mentioned in many of the memos and circulars, it was outlined for their readers. This implies, to me at least, that the life cycle is both a natural phenomenon and an IS construct--that we shape our procedures and policies on the natural ways in which information flows through a system.
ReplyDelete2. How does dissemination, defined as the "active" distribution of government information to the public (152), differ from the ways in which we've discussed dissemination previously? On a non-governmental level, how does this active definition of dissemination relate to other areas in information science and management--say, libraries, for instance?
3. It would be interesting to see how the federal government has since responded to these types of calls to action--whether the information life cycle has made its way into the policies and practices of the many governmental agencies discussed in this article. How has the government changed the ways in which it creates, stores, disseminates, and destroys information since the article's publication in 1994?