10-3 Taylor, Robert S. Value‐Added Processes in the Information Life Cycle. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 33.5 (1982): 341-346.
1 - On page 343, Taylor discusses how information requires context in order to be valuable, and that the user brings the context. In archival practice, the finding aid exists to provide historical and social context for the collection, but it is not supposed to editorialize (e.g. "Ms. Johnson ran a non-profit organization designed to increase educational opportunities for children" instead of "Ms. Johnson engaged in a lot of vital work improving the lives of children through her brilliant educational policies") I'm wondering how much context can be provided in a useful way without some form of interpretation, and if providing context to the user either limits or enhances their research.
2 - Taylor's primary issue relates to how relevant information is (or isn't) provided to users, and he uses the reference interview as a structure for what needs to take place on a consistent basis. In most smaller institutions, both non- and for-profit, the reference interview is usually conducted by people with other job titles (Processing Archivist, Subject Specialists, Cataloguers) because limited funding prevents the creation of a full-time reference position. With so many people playing the same role with varying degrees of competency/people skills, is this somewhere that keyword searches and databases, once correctly configured, can out-perform humans? I don't necessarily endorse this for places like public libraries, but I've met many people whose reference shifts consist of telling people where the bathroom is or how to reset their UT EID password, and not actually performing any in-depth reference services.
1. On page 342, Taylor, in his discussion of the knowledge pyramid, states, "There is no other choice except to coin to new words, a process for which the field is not yet ready." We're still early in the readings (this one, like many in the past few weeks, is from 1982), but I wonder what new terms have been coined. We've probably already heard some of them and haven't put it together yet that they are directly derived from these academic discussions. Also, I'd be very interested to use our group time to discuss our ideas about what new terms might be appropriate or useful.
2. The author identifies three types of information environments: geographical, organizational, and social/intellectual/cultural. These designations encompass large user groups, especially the last one, but what other information environments might we identify? Are there any information environments that are too changeable to be thus categorized? How might those be addressed within the framework Taylor advances in this article?
3. How does Taylor's discussion of products vs. services (pages 344-345) relate to (or complicate, or answer, or agree with) Levitan's discussion of information "goods" in last week's reading? Taylor concedes that the distinction between information products and services may become blurred as interactivity increases. Has this been the case? In what sense are products and services still distinct within libraries or archives?
1. The approach the author suggests in designing information systems is quite similar to user centered design. User eXperience (UX) designer identifies the user’s needs using an iterative process, which may go beyond the geographical, organizational and social/ intellectual/ cultural elements. For example, UX designers will consider what time would one product be used and how long it has been used, and then design the system accordingly.
2. As for the three types of information environments: Geographical, Organizational, Social/ Integllectual/ Cultural, should the information system designer examine all these environments? And is there general sequence of priority among these three?
3. Though the author's value added model is quite useful, I think the value may be added in other paths as well, especially from "Informing Knowledge" to "Productive Knowledge". I think information is not only for decision making. It can also evoke emotions, and has aesthetic values. For example, Google Maps and Apple Maps both provide the same navigational information for me to make decisions when driving. But from a personal stand point of view, Apple Maps is more aesthetically pleasing, and thus contains more values (at least to me) than Google Maps.
1. On page 342, Taylor writes the following passage: "This is not an effort to redefine knowledge. Because of the poverty of the vocabulary in this field, it is necessary to use what seem appropriate terms from the English language, fully cognizant that these terms may carry meaning beyond the intent of this article. There is no other choice except to coin new words, a process for which the field is not yet ready." Why was no real effort made to coin new terms to organize the hierarchical differences when clearly other individuals aside from Taylor considered this an issue early on? Have any efforts been made SINCE this article's publishing date?
2. On page 344, a couple of paragraphs state this: "The public library branch has the inhabitants of a particular neighborhood as clients, and it needs to understand the makeup and dynamics of that neighborhood...We need to know the level of information literacy, the sophistication of information usage, and awareness of information availability and options." Is this why library culture can find it difficult to succinctly and simply advocate for themselves? It's often difficult to run a cohesive campaign platform on broad messages.
3. On page 345: "Such information literacy also implies that heavy users of information will of necessity develop defenses against overload, filters that allow them to better sense the benefits and costs within their own contexts. Information systems designers and information providers will need to help build such literacy. This means that the information professions... must have a better sense of the processes for meeting information demands in economic and benefit-cost terms." Wouldn't this be an early prediction that the largest problem we have with the Internet isn't so much information overload but one of filter failure? Because it sounds obvious to me people were looking at how much data and information was already being created in the pre-World Wide Web era of the 1980s and suggesting we prepare ourselves for, essentially, an onslaught. Could it just be that we've now reached the threshold of our designs of the past and are now in a time where we need to build a better filter system, or are we relegated to just having to deal with bombardment since at this stage with the Internet 2.0 oversharing/multiple social media platforms have become something of a cultural norm.
1. The approach that Taylor had in this article was different in respects to the other information life cycle articles we have read thus far. It seemed more like he used the idea of a value added process to determine whether or not information was worthwhile. As if the information didn't meet certain criteria, then it wouldn't be accepted. But in using the value added approach, couldn't one lose sight of the fact that some information is inherently worth more than other information?
2. At one point in the article, the author introduces the idea of creating new words to define information systems (pg. 2). He says how this is something that will need to be done in the future to better understand information systems. Seeing as how this article was written in the early '80s, I wonder how many new words have been created in relation to this field of study and if they have actually yielded a better understanding of the field, or simply an easier way to communicate what it is that information systems do?
3. Towards the end, Taylor writes about services vs. products in the value added process. But I don't see how these two concepts are mutually exclusive. Every service has a product they're pushing. He claims that products are tangible and service intangible, but I don't find that satisfying. Maybe I just don't quite understand the distinction between the two, but what role do they play in the value-added process? Or are they just a tool in doing a cost-benefit analysis and have no real part in the value-added process?
1. On page 343, the author puts some approximate things about the concept of value. In all of them, one says that a message is given value by a "user" who sees its "usefulness" because he sits in a particular environment and can relate the message to the problems and tasks of that environment. However, it seemed like contradicting my experience of reading. In most of time, reading for me is not for a specified purpose or a given problem. I read books because I like reading itself and the "messages" in the books I read has nothing to do with my environment or the problems I need to solve. However, the messages that the books carried with still have their value and might have me felt in some day. My question is if a message has its value only when it helps its users just in time?
2. Back to the basis of this article, Robert talked a lot about information systems as a mechanism of adding value of information. In truth, I would not doubt the conclusion for it match the common sense that an organized information structure enhances the efficiency. However, how much value is added in the process is a question worth discussing. Is there a reasonable and approximately accurate way to assess the value of information before and after it is processed?
3. This paper is written in the year of 1982, almost 30 years ago. In this case, some of the cut concepts of information system in the paper seemed pretty familiar to nowadays information students. My question is if the thesis in the paper concerning information life cycle is confirmed after information systems are wildly applied in our daily lives?
1 The article talks about viewing information system with information use instead of technology and content, focusing on criteria derived from users and their environment. And the author gives five elements to consider this. But how does this realize in a quantity way? Where is the boundary or standard?
2 On page 345, the author gives distinction between information products and information services. Information product is a piece of tangible thing and is always mass-produced with little variation. Information service, while, is intangible and inseparable from their production. Information product is in the lower level of value-added spectrum and information service is at the upper level. As a system, can we say it is both information product and information services based on the definitions of them above? Then how could view this system in add-value way?
3 Is that really necessary to bring this value-added method when evaluating a system? It is admittedly that we should consider user's experience that is related to their information literacy and costs and benefits, however, is that kind of fundamental purpose of the system when we design it?
1) This article asserts that information systems have previously been set up to accommodate the information itself rather than to facilitate user retrieval and use of the information. I had trouble visualizing what the differences would be between an information-centric and user-centric information system, so I was hoping for some concrete examples of how these systems would appear and behave differently. For instance, how would a library be set up to accommodate the information rather than the user, and what would need to change about its system in order to become user-centric?
2) The article acknowledges that the human element is always a complicating factor when organizing information, because “human organizations simply cannot be made… machine-like.” (344) This seems to be an overarching issue in many of our readings, especially those for last week. Information retrieval systems are necessarily going to be systematic and mechanized to some degree, while human creators and users of information are likely to retain idiosyncrasies or make errors. How can information systems adapt to the human element without making themselves prohibitively difficult to use?
3) I was interested in Taylor’s argument that information systems have historically been set up for people who are already experts in the field they are researching, as opposed to being set up for relative laymen who need to solve a concrete problem but do not have the means of knowing which existing information may help them. How would Taylor suggest overcoming this obstacle? What are some practical ways that an information system could be set up to help accommodate the research needs of non-experts?
1 - A prime example of information vs. user centered organization is archival arrangement. In keeping with the principle of original order, archival records should be arranged according to the context established by their creator, meaning that the records of XYZ Company would be organized according to XYZ company's standards: e.g. financial records, hr records, and so on. However, that's not always the most user-friendly arrangement: what if I, as a researcher, specifically want all records dealing with Jane Doe's employment? I could start with HR records, but her check requests would be in financial records, and then there's her email, and any emails sent about her that could be dispersed throughout the organization - which means lots of slogging through records to find one specific person's name. I used to work at a public library that organized children's books according to a color-coded system instead of the Dewey Decimal System, which is another example of aiding users vs. the information. Arranging according to the DD system can be useful and productive for people that are searching for specific topics, but for kids or little ones who are just learning to read, a color coding system is awesome because it gives them a visual indicator of a book that might be appropriate for their level. The main issue with the user vs. information organization schema is that it assumes all users want/need the same things from their records, which is clearly not the case. Multi-layered organization might help accommodate more users, though it's a tricky idea and I haven't heard of any archives actually putting this into practice.
1. While Taylor does concede that there is a “problem” with defining value (341), he presents a list describing what value “does” or “is”. First on his list is that “value is not inherent in nor is it carried by a message” (343). Reading further in the list, we find that Taylor believes value is not inherent because it is the user who determines the value or lack of value of a message. While I can see where Taylor is coming from, I wonder if it’s really true that messages have no inherent value. A person does have to read a message and determine if it has value, but did the person really put the value there? Wasn’t it valuable to begin with? Wouldn’t this be the case with someone who reads a message and decides that he personally does not find value in it, but knows that it is valuable to someone else? Is the value really nonexistent just because it wasn’t valuable to that particular person?
2. Taylor argues that it is an organization’s environment that determines what kind of information system it needs. While he does claim that “this article suggests that more attention be paid to the user and to the environment in which he sits” (343), I feel that his focus is much more on the environment than the actual user. Is this wise? While it’s true that certain environments are going to have largely the same kinds of people (libraries will have librarians), are those people going to be similar enough that one information system will suit all of them? The article brushes on the “level of informational literacy” of people in an environment (344), but what if they are not all on the same level? How should an information system deal with that? Should the development of information systems depend more on people than on their environments?
3. When describing the organization of environments, Taylor states, “organizations today are quite different than those of fifty years ago” (343). His article deals with the “modern” information needs of environments. However, this article was written in 1982 – 20 years ago. Is this information relevant to our environments and organizations today, or has it, as other authors have suggested, “died”? Can we take anything away from Taylor’s ideas about how information systems should be developed? Do you feel that modern systems have developed in the way that Taylor suggested?
1. On 341, Taylor writes that information systems are “a series of formal processes by which the potential usefulness of specific input messages being processed is enhanced.” How exactly is usefulness judged? Is it by user satisfaction or ease of retrieval or access to information? Something else?
2.Taylor writes on page 342 that informing knowledge is “contextual and nutritional but not immediately useful or productive knowledge.” Is productive knowledge then the exact moment when one chooses to make a decision about something and follow through with that decision? Or is productive knowledge just when you mentally decide that information can be of practical use to you if you choose to implement it?
3. On 343: “Despite the plethora of studies on information use over the past 20 years, we have not been successful in developing a coherent picture of information use.” I think this is because you really can’t ever be successful in that venture because acquiring information is a personal thing which varies greatly from user to user. There are too many variables of human beings and their needs/experiences/thoughts/etc, which get in the way of building a “fruitful and cumulative structure upon which we can build formal and scientifically productive studies of information use.” A very large and important part of the information field is that institutions have certain clientele who are looking for certain things. Information institutions will help people to the best of their ability because it will always be impossible to please everyone. Creating a “coherent picture of information use” will always be a work in progress.
1. Taylor breaks down knowledge into productive and informing knowledge, each providing information for different purposes. Does is make sense to separate knowledge in these ways? Does Taylor clearly describe the differences between these?
2. On page 344, Taylor writes that information systems must be designed in a way to interpret what the user is looking for, and it might not always be a straight forward “what” question, but a more complicated problem. He says that librarians and information specialists perform this job well in the reference interview. Is it possible to design a system that can ask these questions, or will people always be needed to help filter down how to search in the system?
3. Taylor argues that most information system design has been technologically driven with less consideration of the needs of the users. Is this true? Between technology and understanding what our users want, which is the limiting factor? Do we know what our users want, but we are behind technologically in building systems that can do this? Or have we been focusing on developing technology, without pausing to see if it is valuable to our users?
1. What did author mean “Message”, is it similar to information or a small unit of information? Can massage be created by customers such as writing a comment? If an user added value to a message when he selected or organized it, would this message be more useful and valuable to other users who might not use it? In a word, the concept of “Message” is confusing, and it might be advantageous for the author to demonstrate it clearly.
2. Does information have to be knowledge? The author said “to become useful or productive, information must go through several more steps before it can become knowledge”, however, information, which reflects the relationship among data, is useful in many cases. Since the concepts of DIKW are always confusing, so I ignore it and try to understand the model in Figure 1. I guess the author (who lived in 1982) tried to apply wizard design into a user-oriented way in an information system to help people find what they want. The process of value-added is also a process of filtering. A shopping system could realize a judgmental process when users, who follow by the system's guidance, narrow their demand into a category.
3. It seems like one of the author’s expectation is users could find things they want directly without obtaining relevant information. However, I think most users have no idea about what do they want exactly. On the other hand, relevant information is good for users in most cases. Thus, the wizard design in a system is good, but it is not suitable to become users’ only choice when we consider various users demand. Instead, it is cool to add a “guide me” button as a part of the whole system.
1. "This article suggests that if we can temper present system design with criteria derived from users and their environments, then we should be able to develop systems that are more responsive to the variety of needs and problems 'out there'." I understand that this article was written in 1982 but I thought that user centered design was developed at least as a concept prior to 1982. I briefly looked into when UCD began as a concept but was unable to find anything that stated a time period of when it emerged. 2. The author makes two differentiations between two types of data, informing knowledge and productive knowledge. It seems like the author is saying that the difference is based on the context within which the information is evaluated. This is a good thought but the information itself does not actually change, only the role in which the information plays in specific situations changes and therefore the value to the user. 3. "All long-term information systems -- those that acquire, process , store, and disseminate messages -- are essentially a gamble that in the next minute, next day, or next year these messages will be useful." While I don't completely disagree with this statement, it seems fairly short sighted when considering things like archives. Considering archives plan to store information far beyond one years time does the gamble turn into a certainty?
I agree that the difference between informing knowledge and productive knowledge seems to be based on the context of evaluation. In fact, using a terms like "informing usage" and "productive usage" seems closer to what he had meant. The terms informing knowledge and productive knowledge themselves seem to be "content"-driven rather than user-driven.
Taylor names three “types of information environments” and chose to group Social/Intellectual/Cultural rather than separate them out individually. Would it make more sense to separate out each of these in an effort to better understand the flow of information?
Last week we discussed instances of IC/IP that begin in an informal setting and the life cycle they follow under the guidance of management. In this article, Taylor mentions the use of informal information systems as a sort of integral part of even formal information systems. I know several well known companies have spaces or protocols designed for just this purpose and I’m left wondering, are these protocols the result of natural occurring instances of these informal systems or does another informal system exist outside of these bounds as well?
In the Levitan article from last weeks discussion we talked a bit about how pay walls enter into the picture with the idea that information needs to be continuously used or available to a wide range of classes. In this article Taylor mentions that the cost benefit aspect of information can mean users have an intellectual threshold as well. Isn’t it the job of the system or “human interpreters or intervenors” (345) to increase a user’s threshold?
1. Taylor is quite the soothsayer. I like his discussion of information environments or information centers as businesses that must work to understand and serve their users. Over the past 30 years, have organizations such as archives and libraries worked to make the user central to their goals? Or are technology and content still placed above people?
2. I was also interested in Taylor’s comment that “all long-term information systems...are essentially a gamble that in the next minute, next day or next year these messages will be useful.” How do you feel that this statement relates to acquisition and collection development? Do archivists and librarians “gamble” with their chosen resources?
3. Taylor also discusses the necessity of “informal communication” in business. The way we communicate in every sphere of our life has changed dramatically since 1982. How have our perceptions of formal and informal communication been altered by social media, email, texting, etc.? Can you define any one communication media as either essentially formal or informal?
1. The objective of the author is to make systems that are compleltely customizied to the client and environment where each one is built specially for that client. Though this is a user-center focus methodology, I don't believe it economically feasible. These are complicated information systems and would have very customized work flows. Is there a common ground that all these systems could start at and then just customize from there? Building each indiviudally seems a daughting task with limited reach. 2. As technology has advanced since this article was written the seperation between information services and informaiton products has blurred or come as a package. You buy the service to have it provide you with the products. Also these services many be running in the background and at a moments notice be able to provide with a product, making the the two all the more seemless. Also these products don't necessary need to be massed produced, but rather customized products to the demand. 3. I am confused by second of Taylor's two interpretations of value "the potential value of the information/knowledge content of the message, and the value of the service that provides the message". p. 342 Is he saying that the service that provides the message adds value to it? Can I get an example of what he is meaning here.
1. Taylor’s article is a breath of fresh air in looking at an information life cycle in terms of isolating its ultimate use and value to the end user. With this in mind, how could information system usability testing help to address the information value in a specific context?
2. Taylor brings up a significant point about the reality that information systems always require a level of informal communication between operators and users or clients. Has there been any significant research into how an institution or organization communicates about the information system in play? Addressing these needs may be a great way to see where an information life cycle is struggling and subsequently may lead to an insight into improving information flow.
3. The claim is made in this article that within 20 years we will be interacting with our information systems in rapidly different ways, including the ability to tap into other systems where they may be beneficial. While this seemed optimistic, I am wondering if the question about availability in the context of copyright and open access needs to be addressed before information systems can evolve to further its uses. Do you feel that this issue is closely tied to the information system problem?
1. In this article, it is mentioned that ’These messages are sought by or automatically routed to other people who may or may not make use of them in variety of ways’. Since we all face the problem of information overload, why can’t we improve the information delivery system in order to only the useful message will be sent?
2. The information is divided into two categories: informing knowledge and producing knowledge. However, the description of these two concept in this article is so blurred that it raise a question. Is the relationship between these two kinds of knowledge is vertical or horizontal?
3. Robert define that usefulness means that a person has chosen a particular message: (a) in order to make some immediate use of it, or (b) to store it in some way because he sees potential utility in the future. The argument is when we cannot see the potential values of message, can we still think it is useful?
1.To become useful or productive, information must go through several more steps before it can actually become knowledge. Knowledge is a human phenomenon. So does this mean that there has to be a step for human intervention in the information life cycle? Is that feasible?
2.The three types of information environments are geographical,organizational and social/cultural. Environments are set of variables that affect the flow of messages into, within or out of any definable organization or a group of clients and that determine the criteria by which value of the information messages will be judged in that context. How can these environments efficiently control the flow of messages? Are there chances of messages getting lost while it is passed through these variables?
3.According to Neelameghan, information needs of planners and decision makers are not structured according to ‘subjects’ in usual sense of the term but are essentially function or task oriented. To establish decisions it is essential that the information they seek is task oriented. But should the ‘subject’ also be taken into consideration in certain situations to make the decision making process more effective?
1. This article talks about the value-added processes in the information life cycle. The value-added processes focus on the interaction among messages, users and environments. The author assumes messages themselves are valueless and don’t carry value. The value will be added when users put messages into some specific context to solve problems. The environment is something that can affect the information flow and can determine the judgment criteria of messages in that context.
2. The author states that ‘utilization of formal knowledge will depend not only…but also on the degree of fit between the knowledge provided and the information environment…’ (p342). But sometimes we make decisions without considering the context. For example, I just want to learn something about HCI no matter what the environment is. It is really something subjective.
3. The author gives us the definition of value-added processes as those:’ (a) can signal this potential, and/or (b) can relate the potential to the needs of a specific environment’. So how can we decide whether there is a potential and what the potential is. I think different people will signal different potentials and a potential for someone may be not fit others.
1. In the figure 1, the author divides knowledge into two levels: informing knowledge and productive knowledge, according to their properties or functions. Does it mean that productive knowledge can only be created from informing knowledge, and all informing knowledge would become productive knowledge at last?
2. On page 343, the author defines three information environments: geographical, organizational, and social/intellectual/cultural, then, he categorizes five descriptive elements: organizational; people; problems; information products, services, and systems; user costs and benefits. But which elements belong to which environments? Or, all the elements here only go for organizational environment? If so, what elements should the other two environments have?
3. From my point of view, this article is a good literature review, as it introduces many definitions and theories. However, I think it should offer more examples and practices. Like, he keeps using the phrases "we need to know..." when he talks about the descriptive elements, but why should we know these variables? And, what should we do after knowing them?
1. I really appreciated the introduction of axiology and the concept of examining value systems in relationship to knowledge, data, information systems (p. 342). Thus far in the semester, I have felt as though this has been a missing, yet necessary, part of what we've been talking about. Value is clearly appropriated within the knowledge hierarchy and within the field of IS. I think it is important to at least acknowledge that and be forthright about what kind of value system is being used. 2. On page 345 Taylor discusses an anticipated "diversification of formats and systems" and "rise in information literacy." Here, I'm interested in what exactly these "diverse" formats are, and if they represent the diverse needs of diverse clientele/users. Additionally, as information literacy continues to grow, will it reflect this diversification? What would be lost if it didn't? 3. In discussing user benefits and costs to information systems, Taylor suggests that "at some point, the benefit from acquiring additional information does not cover the additional costs." How does this relate back to information overload--is it more or less the same thing?
1. Taylor was writing in the early 1980s and posited an extreme in which “...each paper (ie datum) would have all possible enhancements and surrogates to allow any potential user with minimum effort to decide whether the item was of value to him?” (342) To what degree do our modern and emerging practices of metadata come close to representing this “extreme?”
2. The paper discusses human elements as necessary parts of the information life cycle, in receiving and interpreting messaging in order to fit the value of a piece of information into a larger framework. Has this changed substantially since the time the paper was written?
3. On 345, Taylor discusses how “...people stop searching before their information is complete. The reason is that at some point, the benefit from acquiring additional information does not cover the additional costs.” Given the articles we have read previously about information overload and the current burden facing the legal industry, has this situation worsened since the writing of this paper? Are we facing a crisis of incomplete information in the face of an embarrassment of messages?
1. We already discussed through the DIKW models and the definitions of DIKW for several weeks and I am not a big theories fan. So I am thinking what are the practical/applicable meanings by discovering the DIKW relationship and the information life cycle? I mean before we have all of these theories noted down, people have already started to process information like it is described in the article, so who is the target audience of these articles?
2. In this article, the author incorporates the content of information with the information environment and emphasizes the value of information in a specific context. When listing some approximate things about the concept of value, he states one point - "Usefulness" means that a person has chosen a particular message to store it in some way because he sees potential utility in the future. So my question is how long the system manager need to store the message? What the criteria the system manager uses to make the decision? How to assess the potential utility in the future?
3. The author mentioned three types of information environments - Geographical, Organizational and Social/Intellectual/Cultural. So among the three environments, does the information life cycle remain the same? If not, what distinctions are needed to highlight?
1. Taylor writes that all long-term information systems "are essentially a gamble that in the next minute, next day, or next year these messages will be useful" (p. 342). He goes on to refer to the concept of value-added being a future-oriented risk. Is his concern here cost, as in time and effort and money exerted?
2. Taylor does not really make explicit at what point, or how, informing knowledge becomes productive knowledge, except to say it's a "judgmental process". Is the transition from informing knowledge to productive knowledge similar to the value-added process discussed further along in the paper in regards to a user determining "usefulness"?
3. I think it's interesting that in this article, written in 1982, the author mentions "the poverty of the vocabulary" in the field, seemingly referring to the terms still frequently in use today in discussing information science. Is this a naive statement or is the language still lacking?
1. In this article the author separates knowledge into two types that he came up with on his own. These types are informing knowledge and producing knowledge. How do these two types of knowledge compare with the tacit and explicit knowledge discussed in the Kebede article? Are they similar in any way? If not which do you think are a better subset of knowledge? 2. In this article the author describes the Value-Added Spectrum of data information and knowledge. This spectrum has five parts data, information, informing knowledge, producing knowledge, and action. The final part of the spectrum, action, is not one we have traditionally seen in an information hierarchy. Do you think that the addition of action to this spectrum is a good fit? Does this spectrum seem more like an information hierarchy or an information life cycle? 3. The author of this article describes 5 different “elements of description” of an information system. These elements are organizational, people, problems, Information products, and user benefits and costs. Of these five he seems to think that the user benefits and costs is the most important of the five elements. Do you agree that the benefits and costs that apply to the user are the most important element of an information system or do you agree that all five of these elements are equally important and that they work together to create a good information system?
1. In discussing the use of the word “knowledge,” Taylor remarks that, “there is no other choice except to coin new words, a process for which the field is not yet ready.” This article was published in 1982. It doesn’t seem to be the case that we came up with new terminology for the concept of knowledge in the field. Why didn’t his prediction come true? Would new terminology have helped us better than the DIKW hierarchy in understanding the components of information science?
2. Taylor claims that “usefulness” can be judged by its immediate value to a user, or its potential value. If its value is merely potential, it is stored away for later. But how is this a distinguishing feature when it seems a common problem with managing a collection is judging whether an item will have value to someone in the future? When the default is to save and archive things on the basis of its potential usefulness, don’t we swell the collection in way that can ultimately be counterproductive?
3. Taylor mentions that “organizations today are quite different from those of fifty years ago; and it is the utility, effect, and perception of knowledge/information in those entities that… signal and describe this change.” What are these changes? And since this article was written thirty years ago, it’s obvious that there have been significant changes since. How do these changes, like the ubiquitous use of the internet, affect Taylor’ project?
1. Taylor states that “there are no accepted or standardized ways of approaching the value of information” (p. 342). He then divides the value of information into two sections, the potential value of information and the value of the services to provide that information. I wonder what if anything is lost in dividing the two? How is potential for information determined if the service is not provided to see the potential realized? If not realized or discovered what would it really be worth? How can the two truly be separated? 2. When looking at the information environments p. 344 states that in order to have a responsive information system we must know characteristic of the user population, for instance level of information literacy. How can organizations with large and diverse populations and a range of backgrounds prepare their information systems for their users? I think of large academic libraries who serve everyone from an incoming freshman, the general public, graduate students, and faculty members. What obligations do they have to prepare their information systems or what value is lost by trying to adapt the system for this diverse population? 3. I found the section on user costs and benefits interesting because I had not really thought about the costs associated with a user not being able to efficiently find information. This reminded me of the short records created for materials that may not be fully cataloged to provide a basic level of access. In one way we are limiting access to making it less likely to be found compared to a fuller record, but in other ways we are making it available in some form for patrons to discover and use. I wonder how organizations decided what value to give to the description and access to materials if it is considered a value added service?
1. In reading Taylor's article, I kept thinking that much of the article's content is, or should be, intuitive. Of course, to provide the highest level of service, one must understand his user group. I understand that this article was published thirty years ago, but how revolutionary, really, was this line of thinking in 1982?
2. Taylor suggests that we, or the systems we create, change the question from "What information do you need?" to "How do you need information?" or "Why do you need information?" On one hand, I can understand this shift toward crafting an information product or service of a higher order. However, in certain information fields, like libraries, I feel that this might move into an ethical grey area. Like the user seeking information, there comes a point where the cost of continuing outweighs the potential benefit of undiscovered resources. So, too, I feel that the benefits of providing these hand-tailored products and services and responding to higher-order information requests could come at too high a cost--namely, the privacy of the user.
3. Taylor concludes with a prediction that in 20 years--among other things--there will be a rise in information literacy across the board, that people will be better equipped to navigate a variety of information systems. Do we as a class feel that this has happened? With the advent of the Internet, surely people have faster access to more information that previously possible at any point in history. Does this alone make them "better" consumers of information?
1. Taylor does not give specifice examples for his claim that "most work on the design and improvement of systems has been concentrated on internal aspects, i.e., the work has been content or technology-driven" (p.341), but it sounds true. According to http://www.computerhope.com/history/198090.htm for instance, the command line operating system MS-DOS came out in August 1981, and Apple did not release the first computer with a GUI interface for commercial use (Lisa) until 1983. Can anyone disprove Taylor's claim?
2. Would anyone from archives be able to argue against Taylor's claim that "All long-term information systems...are a gamble that in the next minute, next day, or next year these messages will be useful"? Is there a sentiment in libraries or archives that the usefulness of all messages never expires?
1. This article is the first I've seen that refers to "informing knowledge" and "productive knowledge." The author seems to feel that the two are mutually exclusive. Is this true? Is the fact that we haven't seen these terms used anywhere else due to the fact that they miss the mark?
2. Taylor states that "products are situated in the lower part of the value-added spectrum" and that services are "located in the upper part." Does this mean that services have more value than products? Why would this be the case?
3. Under the section User Benefits and Costs, the author claims that a user must analyze "how much initiative and and effort" he must invest in order to get the information he needs. Wouldn't those "costs" be built into the system itself in the form of dissemination to the user?
1 - On page 343, Taylor discusses how information requires context in order to be valuable, and that the user brings the context. In archival practice, the finding aid exists to provide historical and social context for the collection, but it is not supposed to editorialize (e.g. "Ms. Johnson ran a non-profit organization designed to increase educational opportunities for children" instead of "Ms. Johnson engaged in a lot of vital work improving the lives of children through her brilliant educational policies") I'm wondering how much context can be provided in a useful way without some form of interpretation, and if providing context to the user either limits or enhances their research.
ReplyDelete2 - Taylor's primary issue relates to how relevant information is (or isn't) provided to users, and he uses the reference interview as a structure for what needs to take place on a consistent basis. In most smaller institutions, both non- and for-profit, the reference interview is usually conducted by people with other job titles (Processing Archivist, Subject Specialists, Cataloguers) because limited funding prevents the creation of a full-time reference position. With so many people playing the same role with varying degrees of competency/people skills, is this somewhere that keyword searches and databases, once correctly configured, can out-perform humans? I don't necessarily endorse this for places like public libraries, but I've met many people whose reference shifts consist of telling people where the bathroom is or how to reset their UT EID password, and not actually performing any in-depth reference services.
1. On page 342, Taylor, in his discussion of the knowledge pyramid, states, "There is no other choice except to coin to new words, a process for which the field is not yet ready." We're still early in the readings (this one, like many in the past few weeks, is from 1982), but I wonder what new terms have been coined. We've probably already heard some of them and haven't put it together yet that they are directly derived from these academic discussions. Also, I'd be very interested to use our group time to discuss our ideas about what new terms might be appropriate or useful.
ReplyDelete2. The author identifies three types of information environments: geographical, organizational, and social/intellectual/cultural. These designations encompass large user groups, especially the last one, but what other information environments might we identify? Are there any information environments that are too changeable to be thus categorized? How might those be addressed within the framework Taylor advances in this article?
3. How does Taylor's discussion of products vs. services (pages 344-345) relate to (or complicate, or answer, or agree with) Levitan's discussion of information "goods" in last week's reading? Taylor concedes that the distinction between information products and services may become blurred as interactivity increases. Has this been the case? In what sense are products and services still distinct within libraries or archives?
1. The approach the author suggests in designing information systems is quite similar to user centered design. User eXperience (UX) designer identifies the user’s needs using an iterative process, which may go beyond the geographical, organizational and social/ intellectual/ cultural elements. For example, UX designers will consider what time would one product be used and how long it has been used, and then design the system accordingly.
ReplyDelete2. As for the three types of information environments: Geographical, Organizational, Social/ Integllectual/ Cultural, should the information system designer examine all these environments? And is there general sequence of priority among these three?
3. Though the author's value added model is quite useful, I think the value may be added in other paths as well, especially from "Informing Knowledge" to "Productive Knowledge". I think information is not only for decision making. It can also evoke emotions, and has aesthetic values. For example, Google Maps and Apple Maps both provide the same navigational information for me to make decisions when driving. But from a personal stand point of view, Apple Maps is more aesthetically pleasing, and thus contains more values (at least to me) than Google Maps.
1. On page 342, Taylor writes the following passage: "This is not an effort to redefine knowledge. Because of the poverty of the vocabulary in this field, it is necessary to use what seem appropriate terms from the English language, fully cognizant that these terms may carry meaning beyond the intent of this article. There is no other choice except to coin new words, a process for which the field is not yet ready." Why was no real effort made to coin new terms to organize the hierarchical differences when clearly other individuals aside from Taylor considered this an issue early on? Have any efforts been made SINCE this article's publishing date?
ReplyDelete2. On page 344, a couple of paragraphs state this: "The public library branch has the inhabitants of a particular neighborhood as clients, and it needs to understand the makeup and dynamics of that neighborhood...We need to know the level of information literacy, the sophistication of information usage, and awareness of information availability and options." Is this why library culture can find it difficult to succinctly and simply advocate for themselves? It's often difficult to run a cohesive campaign platform on broad messages.
3. On page 345: "Such information literacy also implies that heavy users of information will of necessity develop defenses against overload, filters that allow them to better sense the benefits and costs within their own contexts. Information systems designers and information providers will need to help build such literacy. This means that the information professions... must have a better sense of the processes for meeting information demands in economic and benefit-cost terms." Wouldn't this be an early prediction that the largest problem we have with the Internet isn't so much information overload but one of filter failure? Because it sounds obvious to me people were looking at how much data and information was already being created in the pre-World Wide Web era of the 1980s and suggesting we prepare ourselves for, essentially, an onslaught. Could it just be that we've now reached the threshold of our designs of the past and are now in a time where we need to build a better filter system, or are we relegated to just having to deal with bombardment since at this stage with the Internet 2.0 oversharing/multiple social media platforms have become something of a cultural norm.
1. The approach that Taylor had in this article was different in respects to the other information life cycle articles we have read thus far. It seemed more like he used the idea of a value added process to determine whether or not information was worthwhile. As if the information didn't meet certain criteria, then it wouldn't be accepted. But in using the value added approach, couldn't one lose sight of the fact that some information is inherently worth more than other information?
ReplyDelete2. At one point in the article, the author introduces the idea of creating new words to define information systems (pg. 2). He says how this is something that will need to be done in the future to better understand information systems. Seeing as how this article was written in the early '80s, I wonder how many new words have been created in relation to this field of study and if they have actually yielded a better understanding of the field, or simply an easier way to communicate what it is that information systems do?
3. Towards the end, Taylor writes about services vs. products in the value added process. But I don't see how these two concepts are mutually exclusive. Every service has a product they're pushing. He claims that products are tangible and service intangible, but I don't find that satisfying. Maybe I just don't quite understand the distinction between the two, but what role do they play in the value-added process? Or are they just a tool in doing a cost-benefit analysis and have no real part in the value-added process?
1. On page 343, the author puts some approximate things about the concept of value. In all of them, one says that a message is given value by a "user" who sees its "usefulness" because he sits in a particular environment and can relate the message to the problems and tasks of that environment. However, it seemed like contradicting my experience of reading. In most of time, reading for me is not for a specified purpose or a given problem. I read books because I like reading itself and the "messages" in the books I read has nothing to do with my environment or the problems I need to solve. However, the messages that the books carried with still have their value and might have me felt in some day. My question is if a message has its value only when it helps its users just in time?
ReplyDelete2. Back to the basis of this article, Robert talked a lot about information systems as a mechanism of adding value of information. In truth, I would not doubt the conclusion for it match the common sense that an organized information structure enhances the efficiency. However, how much value is added in the process is a question worth discussing. Is there a reasonable and approximately accurate way to assess the value of information before and after it is processed?
3. This paper is written in the year of 1982, almost 30 years ago. In this case, some of the cut concepts of information system in the paper seemed pretty familiar to nowadays information students. My question is if the thesis in the paper concerning information life cycle is confirmed after information systems are wildly applied in our daily lives?
1 The article talks about viewing information system with information use instead of technology and content, focusing on criteria derived from users and their environment. And the author gives five elements to consider this. But how does this realize in a quantity way? Where is the boundary or standard?
ReplyDelete2 On page 345, the author gives distinction between information products and information services. Information product is a piece of tangible thing and is always mass-produced with little variation. Information service, while, is intangible and inseparable from their production. Information product is in the lower level of value-added spectrum and information service is at the upper level. As a system, can we say it is both information product and information services based on the definitions of them above? Then how could view this system in add-value way?
3 Is that really necessary to bring this value-added method when evaluating a system? It is admittedly that we should consider user's experience that is related to their information literacy and costs and benefits, however, is that kind of fundamental purpose of the system when we design it?
1) This article asserts that information systems have previously been set up to accommodate the information itself rather than to facilitate user retrieval and use of the information. I had trouble visualizing what the differences would be between an information-centric and user-centric information system, so I was hoping for some concrete examples of how these systems would appear and behave differently. For instance, how would a library be set up to accommodate the information rather than the user, and what would need to change about its system in order to become user-centric?
ReplyDelete2) The article acknowledges that the human element is always a complicating factor when organizing information, because “human organizations simply cannot be made… machine-like.” (344) This seems to be an overarching issue in many of our readings, especially those for last week. Information retrieval systems are necessarily going to be systematic and mechanized to some degree, while human creators and users of information are likely to retain idiosyncrasies or make errors. How can information systems adapt to the human element without making themselves prohibitively difficult to use?
3) I was interested in Taylor’s argument that information systems have historically been set up for people who are already experts in the field they are researching, as opposed to being set up for relative laymen who need to solve a concrete problem but do not have the means of knowing which existing information may help them. How would Taylor suggest overcoming this obstacle? What are some practical ways that an information system could be set up to help accommodate the research needs of non-experts?
1 - A prime example of information vs. user centered organization is archival arrangement. In keeping with the principle of original order, archival records should be arranged according to the context established by their creator, meaning that the records of XYZ Company would be organized according to XYZ company's standards: e.g. financial records, hr records, and so on. However, that's not always the most user-friendly arrangement: what if I, as a researcher, specifically want all records dealing with Jane Doe's employment? I could start with HR records, but her check requests would be in financial records, and then there's her email, and any emails sent about her that could be dispersed throughout the organization - which means lots of slogging through records to find one specific person's name.
DeleteI used to work at a public library that organized children's books according to a color-coded system instead of the Dewey Decimal System, which is another example of aiding users vs. the information. Arranging according to the DD system can be useful and productive for people that are searching for specific topics, but for kids or little ones who are just learning to read, a color coding system is awesome because it gives them a visual indicator of a book that might be appropriate for their level.
The main issue with the user vs. information organization schema is that it assumes all users want/need the same things from their records, which is clearly not the case. Multi-layered organization might help accommodate more users, though it's a tricky idea and I haven't heard of any archives actually putting this into practice.
1. While Taylor does concede that there is a “problem” with defining value (341), he presents a list describing what value “does” or “is”. First on his list is that “value is not inherent in nor is it carried by a message” (343). Reading further in the list, we find that Taylor believes value is not inherent because it is the user who determines the value or lack of value of a message. While I can see where Taylor is coming from, I wonder if it’s really true that messages have no inherent value. A person does have to read a message and determine if it has value, but did the person really put the value there? Wasn’t it valuable to begin with? Wouldn’t this be the case with someone who reads a message and decides that he personally does not find value in it, but knows that it is valuable to someone else? Is the value really nonexistent just because it wasn’t valuable to that particular person?
ReplyDelete2. Taylor argues that it is an organization’s environment that determines what kind of information system it needs. While he does claim that “this article suggests that more attention be paid to the user and to the environment in which he sits” (343), I feel that his focus is much more on the environment than the actual user. Is this wise? While it’s true that certain environments are going to have largely the same kinds of people (libraries will have librarians), are those people going to be similar enough that one information system will suit all of them? The article brushes on the “level of informational literacy” of people in an environment (344), but what if they are not all on the same level? How should an information system deal with that? Should the development of information systems depend more on people than on their environments?
3. When describing the organization of environments, Taylor states, “organizations today are quite different than those of fifty years ago” (343). His article deals with the “modern” information needs of environments. However, this article was written in 1982 – 20 years ago. Is this information relevant to our environments and organizations today, or has it, as other authors have suggested, “died”? Can we take anything away from Taylor’s ideas about how information systems should be developed? Do you feel that modern systems have developed in the way that Taylor suggested?
1. On 341, Taylor writes that information systems are “a series of formal processes by which the potential usefulness of specific input messages being processed is enhanced.” How exactly is usefulness judged? Is it by user satisfaction or ease of retrieval or access to information? Something else?
ReplyDelete2.Taylor writes on page 342 that informing knowledge is “contextual and nutritional but not immediately useful or productive knowledge.” Is productive knowledge then the exact moment when one chooses to make a decision about something and follow through with that decision? Or is productive knowledge just when you mentally decide that information can be of practical use to you if you choose to implement it?
3. On 343: “Despite the plethora of studies on information use over the past 20 years, we have not been successful in developing a coherent picture of information use.” I think this is because you really can’t ever be successful in that venture because acquiring information is a personal thing which varies greatly from user to user. There are too many variables of human beings and their needs/experiences/thoughts/etc, which get in the way of building a “fruitful and cumulative structure upon which we can build formal and scientifically productive studies of information use.” A very large and important part of the information field is that institutions have certain clientele who are looking for certain things. Information institutions will help people to the best of their ability because it will always be impossible to please everyone. Creating a “coherent picture of information use” will always be a work in progress.
1. Taylor breaks down knowledge into productive and informing knowledge, each providing information for different purposes. Does is make sense to separate knowledge in these ways? Does Taylor clearly describe the differences between these?
ReplyDelete2. On page 344, Taylor writes that information systems must be designed in a way to interpret what the user is looking for, and it might not always be a straight forward “what” question, but a more complicated problem. He says that librarians and information specialists perform this job well in the reference interview. Is it possible to design a system that can ask these questions, or will people always be needed to help filter down how to search in the system?
3. Taylor argues that most information system design has been technologically driven with less consideration of the needs of the users. Is this true? Between technology and understanding what our users want, which is the limiting factor? Do we know what our users want, but we are behind technologically in building systems that can do this? Or have we been focusing on developing technology, without pausing to see if it is valuable to our users?
1. What did author mean “Message”, is it similar to information or a small unit of information? Can massage be created by customers such as writing a comment? If an user added value to a message when he selected or organized it, would this message be more useful and valuable to other users who might not use it? In a word, the concept of “Message” is confusing, and it might be advantageous for the author to demonstrate it clearly.
ReplyDelete2. Does information have to be knowledge? The author said “to become useful or productive, information must go through several more steps before it can become knowledge”, however, information, which reflects the relationship among data, is useful in many cases. Since the concepts of DIKW are always confusing, so I ignore it and try to understand the model in Figure 1. I guess the author (who lived in 1982) tried to apply wizard design into a user-oriented way in an information system to help people find what they want. The process of value-added is also a process of filtering. A shopping system could realize a judgmental process when users, who follow by the system's guidance, narrow their demand into a category.
3. It seems like one of the author’s expectation is users could find things they want directly without obtaining relevant information. However, I think most users have no idea about what do they want exactly. On the other hand, relevant information is good for users in most cases. Thus, the wizard design in a system is good, but it is not suitable to become users’ only choice when we consider various users demand. Instead, it is cool to add a “guide me” button as a part of the whole system.
1. "This article suggests that if we can temper present system design with criteria derived from users and their environments, then we should be able to develop systems that are more responsive to the variety of needs and problems 'out there'." I understand that this article was written in 1982 but I thought that user centered design was developed at least as a concept prior to 1982. I briefly looked into when UCD began as a concept but was unable to find anything that stated a time period of when it emerged.
ReplyDelete2. The author makes two differentiations between two types of data, informing knowledge and productive knowledge. It seems like the author is saying that the difference is based on the context within which the information is evaluated. This is a good thought but the information itself does not actually change, only the role in which the information plays in specific situations changes and therefore the value to the user.
3. "All long-term information systems -- those that acquire, process , store, and disseminate messages -- are essentially a gamble that in the next minute, next day, or next year these messages will be useful." While I don't completely disagree with this statement, it seems fairly short sighted when considering things like archives. Considering archives plan to store information far beyond one years time does the gamble turn into a certainty?
I agree that the difference between informing knowledge and productive knowledge seems to be based on the context of evaluation. In fact, using a terms like "informing usage" and "productive usage" seems closer to what he had meant. The terms informing knowledge and productive knowledge themselves seem to be "content"-driven rather than user-driven.
DeleteTaylor names three “types of information environments” and chose to group Social/Intellectual/Cultural rather than separate them out individually. Would it make more sense to separate out each of these in an effort to better understand the flow of information?
ReplyDeleteLast week we discussed instances of IC/IP that begin in an informal setting and the life cycle they follow under the guidance of management. In this article, Taylor mentions the use of informal information systems as a sort of integral part of even formal information systems. I know several well known companies have spaces or protocols designed for just this purpose and I’m left wondering, are these protocols the result of natural occurring instances of these informal systems or does another informal system exist outside of these bounds as well?
In the Levitan article from last weeks discussion we talked a bit about how pay walls enter into the picture with the idea that information needs to be continuously used or available to a wide range of classes. In this article Taylor mentions that the cost benefit aspect of information can mean users have an intellectual threshold as well. Isn’t it the job of the system or “human interpreters or intervenors” (345) to increase a user’s threshold?
1. Taylor is quite the soothsayer. I like his discussion of information environments or information centers as businesses that must work to understand and serve their users. Over the past 30 years, have organizations such as archives and libraries worked to make the user central to their goals? Or are technology and content still placed above people?
ReplyDelete2. I was also interested in Taylor’s comment that “all long-term information systems...are essentially a gamble that in the next minute, next day or next year these messages will be useful.” How do you feel that this statement relates to acquisition and collection development? Do archivists and librarians “gamble” with their chosen resources?
3. Taylor also discusses the necessity of “informal communication” in business. The way we communicate in every sphere of our life has changed dramatically since 1982. How have our perceptions of formal and informal communication been altered by social media, email, texting, etc.? Can you define any one communication media as either essentially formal or informal?
1. The objective of the author is to make systems that are compleltely customizied to the client and environment where each one is built specially for that client. Though this is a user-center focus methodology, I don't believe it economically feasible. These are complicated information systems and would have very customized work flows. Is there a common ground that all these systems could start at and then just customize from there? Building each indiviudally seems a daughting task with limited reach.
ReplyDelete2. As technology has advanced since this article was written the seperation between information services and informaiton products has blurred or come as a package. You buy the service to have it provide you with the products. Also these services many be running in the background and at a moments notice be able to provide with a product, making the the two all the more seemless. Also these products don't necessary need to be massed produced, but rather customized products to the demand.
3. I am confused by second of Taylor's two interpretations of value "the potential value of the information/knowledge content of the message, and the value of the service that provides the message". p. 342 Is he saying that the service that provides the message adds value to it? Can I get an example of what he is meaning here.
1. Taylor’s article is a breath of fresh air in looking at an information life cycle in terms of isolating its ultimate use and value to the end user. With this in mind, how could information system usability testing help to address the information value in a specific context?
ReplyDelete2. Taylor brings up a significant point about the reality that information systems always require a level of informal communication between operators and users or clients. Has there been any significant research into how an institution or organization communicates about the information system in play? Addressing these needs may be a great way to see where an information life cycle is struggling and subsequently may lead to an insight into improving information flow.
3. The claim is made in this article that within 20 years we will be interacting with our information systems in rapidly different ways, including the ability to tap into other systems where they may be beneficial. While this seemed optimistic, I am wondering if the question about availability in the context of copyright and open access needs to be addressed before information systems can evolve to further its uses. Do you feel that this issue is closely tied to the information system problem?
1. In this article, it is mentioned that ’These messages are sought by or automatically routed to other people who may or may not make use of them in variety of ways’. Since we all face the problem of information overload, why can’t we improve the information delivery system in order to only the useful message will be sent?
ReplyDelete2. The information is divided into two categories: informing knowledge and producing knowledge. However, the description of these two concept in this article is so blurred that it raise a question. Is the relationship between these two kinds of knowledge is vertical or horizontal?
3. Robert define that usefulness means that a person has chosen a particular message: (a) in order to make some immediate use of it, or (b) to store it in some way because he sees potential utility in the future. The argument is when we cannot see the potential values of message, can we still think it is useful?
1.To become useful or productive, information must go through several more steps before it can actually become knowledge. Knowledge is a human phenomenon. So does this mean that there has to be a step for human intervention in the information life cycle? Is that feasible?
ReplyDelete2.The three types of information environments are geographical,organizational and social/cultural. Environments are set of variables that affect the flow of messages into, within or out of any definable organization or a group of clients and that determine the criteria by which value of the information messages will be judged in that context. How can these environments efficiently control the flow of messages? Are there chances of messages getting lost while it is passed through these variables?
3.According to Neelameghan, information needs of planners and decision makers are not structured according to ‘subjects’ in usual sense of the term but are essentially function or task oriented. To establish decisions it is essential that the information they seek is task oriented. But should the ‘subject’ also be taken into consideration in certain situations to make the decision making process more effective?
1. This article talks about the value-added processes in the information life cycle. The value-added processes focus on the interaction among messages, users and environments. The author assumes messages themselves are valueless and don’t carry value. The value will be added when users put messages into some specific context to solve problems. The environment is something that can affect the information flow and can determine the judgment criteria of messages in that context.
ReplyDelete2. The author states that ‘utilization of formal knowledge will depend not only…but also on the degree of fit between the knowledge provided and the information environment…’ (p342). But sometimes we make decisions without considering the context. For example, I just want to learn something about HCI no matter what the environment is. It is really something subjective.
3. The author gives us the definition of value-added processes as those:’ (a) can signal this potential, and/or (b) can relate the potential to the needs of a specific environment’. So how can we decide whether there is a potential and what the potential is. I think different people will signal different potentials and a potential for someone may be not fit others.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. In the figure 1, the author divides knowledge into two levels: informing knowledge and productive knowledge, according to their properties or functions. Does it mean that productive knowledge can only be created from informing knowledge, and all informing knowledge would become productive knowledge at last?
ReplyDelete2. On page 343, the author defines three information environments: geographical, organizational, and social/intellectual/cultural, then, he categorizes five descriptive elements: organizational; people; problems; information products, services, and systems; user costs and benefits. But which elements belong to which environments? Or, all the elements here only go for organizational environment? If so, what elements should the other two environments have?
3. From my point of view, this article is a good literature review, as it introduces many definitions and theories. However, I think it should offer more examples and practices. Like, he keeps using the phrases "we need to know..." when he talks about the descriptive elements, but why should we know these variables? And, what should we do after knowing them?
1. I really appreciated the introduction of axiology and the concept of examining value systems in relationship to knowledge, data, information systems (p. 342). Thus far in the semester, I have felt as though this has been a missing, yet necessary, part of what we've been talking about. Value is clearly appropriated within the knowledge hierarchy and within the field of IS. I think it is important to at least acknowledge that and be forthright about what kind of value system is being used.
ReplyDelete2. On page 345 Taylor discusses an anticipated "diversification of formats and systems" and "rise in information literacy." Here, I'm interested in what exactly these "diverse" formats are, and if they represent the diverse needs of diverse clientele/users. Additionally, as information literacy continues to grow, will it reflect this diversification? What would be lost if it didn't?
3. In discussing user benefits and costs to information systems, Taylor suggests that "at some point, the benefit from acquiring additional information does not cover the additional costs." How does this relate back to information overload--is it more or less the same thing?
1. Taylor was writing in the early 1980s and posited an extreme in which “...each paper (ie datum) would have all possible enhancements and surrogates to allow any potential user with minimum effort to decide whether the item was of value to him?” (342) To what degree do our modern and emerging practices of metadata come close to representing this “extreme?”
ReplyDelete2. The paper discusses human elements as necessary parts of the information life cycle, in receiving and interpreting messaging in order to fit the value of a piece of information into a larger framework. Has this changed substantially since the time the paper was written?
3. On 345, Taylor discusses how “...people stop searching before their information is complete. The reason is that at some point, the benefit from acquiring additional information does not cover the additional costs.” Given the articles we have read previously about information overload and the current burden facing the legal industry, has this situation worsened since the writing of this paper? Are we facing a crisis of incomplete information in the face of an embarrassment of messages?
1. We already discussed through the DIKW models and the definitions of DIKW for several weeks and I am not a big theories fan. So I am thinking what are the practical/applicable meanings by discovering the DIKW relationship and the information life cycle? I mean before we have all of these theories noted down, people have already started to process information like it is described in the article, so who is the target audience of these articles?
ReplyDelete2. In this article, the author incorporates the content of information with the information environment and emphasizes the value of information in a specific context. When listing some approximate things about the concept of value, he states one point - "Usefulness" means that a person has chosen a particular message to store it in some way because he sees potential utility in the future. So my question is how long the system manager need to store the message? What the criteria the system manager uses to make the decision? How to assess the potential utility in the future?
3. The author mentioned three types of information environments - Geographical, Organizational and Social/Intellectual/Cultural. So among the three environments, does the information life cycle remain the same? If not, what distinctions are needed to highlight?
1. Taylor writes that all long-term information systems "are essentially a gamble that in the next minute, next day, or next year these messages will be useful" (p. 342). He goes on to refer to the concept of value-added being a future-oriented risk. Is his concern here cost, as in time and effort and money exerted?
ReplyDelete2. Taylor does not really make explicit at what point, or how, informing knowledge becomes productive knowledge, except to say it's a "judgmental process". Is the transition from informing knowledge to productive knowledge similar to the value-added process discussed further along in the paper in regards to a user determining "usefulness"?
3. I think it's interesting that in this article, written in 1982, the author mentions "the poverty of the vocabulary" in the field, seemingly referring to the terms still frequently in use today in discussing information science. Is this a naive statement or is the language still lacking?
1. In this article the author separates knowledge into two types that he came up with on his own. These types are informing knowledge and producing knowledge. How do these two types of knowledge compare with the tacit and explicit knowledge discussed in the Kebede article? Are they similar in any way? If not which do you think are a better subset of knowledge?
ReplyDelete2. In this article the author describes the Value-Added Spectrum of data information and knowledge. This spectrum has five parts data, information, informing knowledge, producing knowledge, and action. The final part of the spectrum, action, is not one we have traditionally seen in an information hierarchy. Do you think that the addition of action to this spectrum is a good fit? Does this spectrum seem more like an information hierarchy or an information life cycle?
3. The author of this article describes 5 different “elements of description” of an information system. These elements are organizational, people, problems, Information products, and user benefits and costs. Of these five he seems to think that the user benefits and costs is the most important of the five elements. Do you agree that the benefits and costs that apply to the user are the most important element of an information system or do you agree that all five of these elements are equally important and that they work together to create a good information system?
1. In discussing the use of the word “knowledge,” Taylor remarks that, “there is no other choice except to coin new words, a process for which the field is not yet ready.” This article was published in 1982. It doesn’t seem to be the case that we came up with new terminology for the concept of knowledge in the field. Why didn’t his prediction come true? Would new terminology have helped us better than the DIKW hierarchy in understanding the components of information science?
ReplyDelete2. Taylor claims that “usefulness” can be judged by its immediate value to a user, or its potential value. If its value is merely potential, it is stored away for later. But how is this a distinguishing feature when it seems a common problem with managing a collection is judging whether an item will have value to someone in the future? When the default is to save and archive things on the basis of its potential usefulness, don’t we swell the collection in way that can ultimately be counterproductive?
3. Taylor mentions that “organizations today are quite different from those of fifty years ago; and it is the utility, effect, and perception of knowledge/information in those entities that… signal and describe this change.” What are these changes? And since this article was written thirty years ago, it’s obvious that there have been significant changes since. How do these changes, like the ubiquitous use of the internet, affect Taylor’ project?
1. Taylor states that “there are no accepted or standardized ways of approaching the value of information” (p. 342). He then divides the value of information into two sections, the potential value of information and the value of the services to provide that information. I wonder what if anything is lost in dividing the two? How is potential for information determined if the service is not provided to see the potential realized? If not realized or discovered what would it really be worth? How can the two truly be separated?
ReplyDelete2. When looking at the information environments p. 344 states that in order to have a responsive information system we must know characteristic of the user population, for instance level of information literacy. How can organizations with large and diverse populations and a range of backgrounds prepare their information systems for their users? I think of large academic libraries who serve everyone from an incoming freshman, the general public, graduate students, and faculty members. What obligations do they have to prepare their information systems or what value is lost by trying to adapt the system for this diverse population?
3. I found the section on user costs and benefits interesting because I had not really thought about the costs associated with a user not being able to efficiently find information. This reminded me of the short records created for materials that may not be fully cataloged to provide a basic level of access. In one way we are limiting access to making it less likely to be found compared to a fuller record, but in other ways we are making it available in some form for patrons to discover and use. I wonder how organizations decided what value to give to the description and access to materials if it is considered a value added service?
1. In reading Taylor's article, I kept thinking that much of the article's content is, or should be, intuitive. Of course, to provide the highest level of service, one must understand his user group. I understand that this article was published thirty years ago, but how revolutionary, really, was this line of thinking in 1982?
ReplyDelete2. Taylor suggests that we, or the systems we create, change the question from "What information do you need?" to "How do you need information?" or "Why do you need information?" On one hand, I can understand this shift toward crafting an information product or service of a higher order. However, in certain information fields, like libraries, I feel that this might move into an ethical grey area. Like the user seeking information, there comes a point where the cost of continuing outweighs the potential benefit of undiscovered resources. So, too, I feel that the benefits of providing these hand-tailored products and services and responding to higher-order information requests could come at too high a cost--namely, the privacy of the user.
3. Taylor concludes with a prediction that in 20 years--among other things--there will be a rise in information literacy across the board, that people will be better equipped to navigate a variety of information systems. Do we as a class feel that this has happened? With the advent of the Internet, surely people have faster access to more information that previously possible at any point in history. Does this alone make them "better" consumers of information?
1. Taylor does not give specifice examples for his claim that "most work on the design and improvement of systems has been concentrated on internal aspects, i.e., the work has been content or technology-driven" (p.341), but it sounds true. According to http://www.computerhope.com/history/198090.htm for instance, the command line operating system MS-DOS came out in August 1981, and Apple did not release the first computer with a GUI interface for commercial use (Lisa) until 1983. Can anyone disprove Taylor's claim?
ReplyDelete2. Would anyone from archives be able to argue against Taylor's claim that "All long-term information systems...are a gamble that in the next minute, next day, or next year these messages will be useful"? Is there a sentiment in libraries or archives that the usefulness of all messages never expires?
1. This article is the first I've seen that refers to "informing knowledge" and "productive knowledge." The author seems to feel that the two are mutually exclusive. Is this true? Is the fact that we haven't seen these terms used anywhere else due to the fact that they miss the mark?
ReplyDelete2. Taylor states that "products are situated in the lower part of the value-added spectrum" and that services are "located in the upper part." Does this mean that services have more value than products? Why would this be the case?
3. Under the section User Benefits and Costs, the author claims that a user must analyze "how much initiative and and effort" he must invest in order to get the information he needs. Wouldn't those "costs" be built into the system itself in the form of dissemination to the user?