Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0268-4012/$ - se
doi:10.1016/j.iji
�CorrespondE-mail addr
International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 150–160
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt
The information audit: Theory versus practice
Steven Buchanan�, Forbes Gibb
Graduate School of Informatics, University of Strathclyde, 26 Richmond Street, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK
Abstract
This paper presents and discusses five information audit (IA) case studies, which tested the application and usability of an IA
methodology. The studies also trialled an IA scope matrix and incorporated process modelling. The main strengths of the IA
methodology were found to be the logical structuring of stages, provision of a comprehensive toolkit, and the flexibility to remove stages
not relevant to the client brief. A limitation of the methodology was found to be its lack of instructional depth. The IA scope matrix was
successfully trialled, and process modelling proved extremely valuable, encouraging participant involvement by focusing on readily
understandable aspects of day-to-day work, and providing an organisational model of information flow.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Information audit; Information resource management; Information strategy; Information systems; Process modelling
1. Introduction
This is the final paper in a series of three providing acomprehensive review of the information audit (IA). Thefirst paper in this series (Buchanan & Gibb, 2007) examinedrole and scope, while the second (Buchanan & Gibb, 2008)reviewed key methodological approaches. This paperpresents and discusses case studies from the field, focusedupon application of the Buchanan and Gibb (1998) IAmethodology. This methodology has five main stages:
1.
Promote: communicating the benefits of the audit,ensuring commitment and cooperation, and conductinga preliminary survey of the organisation.2.
Identify: top-down strategic analysis followed by identi-fication of information resources and information flow.3.
Analyse: analysis and evaluation of identified informa-tion resources and formulation of action plans.4.
Account: cost/value analysis of information resources. 5. Synthesise: reporting on the audit and development ofthe organisation information strategy.
The case studies are presented in two stages: firstly, twostudies conducted by the authors, which tested comprehen-
e front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
nfomgt.2007.09.003
ing author.
ess: [email protected] (S. Buchanan).
siveness and applicability of the methodology; andsecondly, three further studies conducted by independentparties to test usability. This paper is, in part, a response toBotha and Boon’s (2003) call for more methodologies to betested in practice.
2. Stage one methodological testing
Two audits conducted by the authors are presented hereas suitable test cases. It should be noted that neither studywas conducted solely for the purposes of methodologicaltesting as in both instances the organisations had requestedIAs. As a consequence, the scope of the IA was dictatednot by the auditor but by the brief provided by theorganisation, with the methodology and approach thentailored accordingly. While this removed the opportunityto establish a controlled test case it ensured that the IA metthe requirements of the participating organisation andmaintained confidence in test results by removing theopportunity for the auditor to scope the IA to suit themethodology, rather than the requirements of the partici-pating organisation.The tool utilised for scope setting was the IA scope
matrix (Buchanan & Gibb, 2007), which identifies two keydimensions to IA scope: firstly, component, which identi-fies the key orientations of an IA based upon Earl’s (2000)information strategy taxonomy (information management,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Management Technology Systems Content
Strategic
Process
Resource
Fig. 1. The IA scope matrix (Buchanan & Gibb, 2007).
S. Buchanan, F. Gibb / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 150–160 151
information technology, information systems, informationcontent1); and secondly, perspective, which identifies therequired organisational view (strategic, process, resource).
2.1. Study one
Case study one was conducted within a Universitydepartment consisting of 37 staff, 50 researchers, and 340students. At the time, the department was responding to auniversity wide directive to better manage informationresources. In consideration of this directive, the sponsorwanted to know what his information resources were, howeffective information flow was within the department, andwhat was required to improve information flow. However,when discussing the scope and stages of the IA at the initialmeeting (facilitated by the IA scope matrix), the sponsoralso indicated that he would like to conduct a strategicreview of the department’s overall goals and objectives,and wanted to involve staff as much as possible in thisprocess. To meet these requirements the IA was scoped to apredominantly strategic orientation, but to include bothprocess and resource elements (see Fig. 1). Describedanother way, the IA would focus on strategic objectives,and then on those information resources and informationflows key to the achievement of those objectives. Duringthis meeting the sponsor also stated that he did not requirecosting of information resources and that the IA was to becompleted in 12 weeks across the summer academic recess.
The IA methodology was tailored to these requirementsby removing the account stage, and establishing a workinggroup to participate in a series of strategy-oriented work-shops during the identify stage, supplemented by interviewswith further members of staff during the analyse stage tovalidate working group output and to explore furtherinformation resource use and flow.
2.1.1. Promote
There are three steps to this stage: firstly, conference orseminar to communicate the purpose of the IA to staff;secondly, passport letter to staff from sponsor encouragingcooperation; and thirdly, preliminary organisational surveyby auditor. Largely due to the previously noted timeconstraints, this IA bypassed step one and went straight tostep two, which it was felt could substitute for step one to alarge degree. Step three occurred as per the guidelines.
The sponsor sent out a passport letter, via email, to allstaff, introducing the auditor, outlining the purpose andbenefits of the IA, and providing a high level summary ofthe schedule (effectively combining steps one and two byproviding much of the information that would have beencommunicated by step one). The email also invitedvolunteers to participate in the working group. Initialmeetings with potential working group members, supple-mented by early discussions with the sponsor, acted as the
1Adapted from ‘information resource’ as per Gibb, Buchanan, and Shah
(2006).
preliminary survey step, which allowed the auditor to makea valuable preliminary assessment of the level of awarenessand value of information among staff. The survey foundevidence of poor organisational cohesion (the departmentappeared to work in small, very loosely coupled groups),and staff alluded to disparate administrative systems andprocedures.
2.1.2. Identify
There are six steps to this stage, which were completed inworkshops with the working group: definition of mission,environmental analysis, definition of organisational struc-ture, cultural analysis, identification of general informationflow, and identification of information resources.With regard to recommended tools, Abell (1980), Porter
(1980), Pellow and Wilson (1993), and PEST analysis wereall successfully utilised to: define the business of theorganisation, review objectives, and conduct environmen-tal analysis. The department’s mission was confirmed aspart of this exercise, which was described as: ‘‘to producehigh calibre graduates through the best available standardsof education, founded on a base of excellence in theory andpractice of the subject, and advancement of knowledgethrough research’’. The mission statement provided overallstrategic direction to guide more detailed objectives, andalso described the department’s main activities and keyvalues.The next step was to define the organisational structure,
which is, according to Buchanan and Gibb (1998), thestep where process modelling can substitute for moretraditional mapping of organisational structure. While anorganisational structure is necessary to define reportinglines and to organise physical assets, an overemphasis onorganisational structure can create barriers to effectiveinformation flow and inadvertently encourage staff tooperate in silos, thereby constraining the overall value thatcan be generated by the enterprise. A process viewtranscends these structural boundaries as it forces theenterprise to look at ‘‘end-to-end’’ work and informationflow, illustrating how discrete areas must co-operate inorder to achieve end goals and/or overall customersatisfaction. It was therefore deemed desirable to adopt aprocess view of the organisation; however, althoughBuchanan and Gibb (1998) identify process modellingas an approach, they do not recommend any particulartool or approach. As a consequence, Ould’s (1995)STRIM process modelling methodology was identifiedand (successfully) utilised.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Objectives, critical success factors (CSF) and measures
Objective: provide a course portfolio taking account of the dynamic and
diverse requirements of stakeholders
S. Buchanan, F. Gibb / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 150–160152
One of the initial steps in STRIM is to establish anoverall picture of the organisation. Workshop participantsidentified seven high-level processes within the department(classified according to Ould, 1995):
CSF Measure
1. Undergraduate teaching (core)Funding SFC, grants, sponsorships, studentships
2. Post graduate teaching (core)Industrial links Sponsorships, placements, projects,
3. Research (core) employment, student prizes 4. Consultancy (support)Course relevance Course reviews, graduate employment
5. Administration (support) figures 6. Facilities management (support)Graduate knowledge Graduate employment figures, graduate
tracking (alumni)
7. Strategic management (management)Market knowledge Competitor figures, market trends,
recruitment trends
Professional accreditation Accreditation bodies
Course range Applications, entry standards
The next step would be to map each process from startto finish, identifying individual activity and associatedinputs/outputs. However, this can be a time consumingactivity (Ould, 1995) and as previously noted, the IA was tobe completed in 12 weeks. Consequently, it was recom-mended by the auditor that a key process should beidentified and prioritised with the possibility of one ormore follow on exercises for the remaining processes, eitheras a continuation of the IA, or conducted internally bymembers of the working group.
In order to prioritise a process, there were three impo-rtant considerations: the current and potential contributionof each process towards achieving the departments mission(e.g. core value-adding processes versus support processes);the resources consumed or utilised by each process(e.g. does the resource requirements or utilisation ofresources give cause for concern); and the time, cost, andmanagement commitment required to model each keyprocess (e.g. given a choice, start big or small?). Theprioritised process was undergraduate teaching. As well asbeing a core process of the department, a number ofproblems had already been identified by workshopparticipants during earlier discussions.
The objectives, critical success factors (CSFs) andmeasures for the prioritised process were then identified.Table 1 provides an example for the ‘‘provide a courseportfolio taking account of the dynamic and diverserequirements of stakeholders’’ objective.
The next step was to develop a lifecycle model of theprioritised process identifying the sub-processes within(see Fig. 2). The model was developed and refined(iteratively) in four stages: identification of processes,identification of linkages between processes, identificationof key inputs and outputs, identification of process owners.For the purposes of the IA, information flow was capturedas part of this modelling step in a manner similar to Orna’s(1990) flow-based approach through the identification ofkey information inputs and outputs.
Workshop participants were then asked to describe thefunction and key activities of each sub-process, and toidentify any problems they associated with the sub-process.This information was captured on a process descriptiontemplate, which was developed by the auditor during thisstudy (see Table 2). These textual descriptions provided
definition for each sub-process, identified issues, and couldsubstitute for, or to be used as the basis for, more detailedprocess modelling (decomposition) at the next level.It should be noted that no database was developed for
the preliminary IR inventory associated with this stage asthe development effort was felt to outweigh the benefits(inventory was collated as simple MS Word tables).
2.1.3. Analyse
There are four steps to this stage, which were completedthrough combination of survey, workshop, and auditoranalysis: evaluation of information resources, productionof detailed information flow diagrams, production of thepreliminary report, and formulation of action plans.Identified process owners were surveyed (interviews) to
discuss and validate the process model, to identify morecomprehensively key information resources (based on thepreliminary inventory), and to model information flow forsub-processes. Participants were also asked to assign avalue on a scale of 1–5 to each identified informationresource according to its relative strategic importance orcontribution to the associated process:
5:
the information resource is critical to the process. 4: the information resource provides significant benefits oradds value to the process.
3: the information resource contributes directly to thisprocess but is not essential.
2: the information resource provides indirect or minorsupport to this process.
1: the information resource is not presently used or has noperceived benefits.
Information flow is illustrated in Fig. 3 for the coursedevelopment sub-process. The values assigned to eachinformation resource are the mean values. The diagramswere developed based upon simple input/output modelssimilar to Orna’s (1990) flow based approach, as perBuchanan and Gibb’s (1998) recommendations.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Process description (illustrative): 1.1. Develop course
Process: 1.1. Develop course
Purpose/function of this process
1. To develop a full specification of a course from market need and
statement of goals, to class descriptors and regulations, within
identified constraints (e.g. resources)
2. To modify the design of an existing course following output of a
review, or modifications to market need, or course constraints
Key activities (or sub-processes) performed as part of this process
1.1.1. Propose course structure
1.1.2. Develop detailed course design
1.1.3. Produce course specification and regulations, etc.
Problems/difficulties associated with this process
Obtaining industry partners
Complex interactions with other courses
Uncertainty of market assessment, etc.
1.2. Market
Course
1.6. Recruit
Students
1.1. Develop
Course
1.4. Manage
Course
Resources
1.5. Support
Students
1.7. Develop
Teaching
Material
1.13. Review
Course
1.11. Hold
Exam Board
1.9. Deliver
Course
1.8. Manage
Student
Records
1.10. Assess
Students
1.3. Validate
Course
1.12. Confer
Awards
Note. Process numbers are for referencing purposes only
Fig. 2. Process model: 1. Undergraduate teaching (refined for illustrative purposes).
S. Buchanan, F. Gibb / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 150–160 153
Analysis of information flow with process owners madeit possible to evaluate information use, informationrequirements, and gaps in information (for example,
information gaps were identified with both market course(lack of market knowledge) and review course processes(lack of student employment knowledge)).The next step was to collate and evaluate the problems
identified by process owners in order to identify the keyinformation problems experienced by the department(captured as textual descriptions/statements). These were:complex and disparate information systems; duplicatedeffort, unnecessary data entry, and inefficient data proces-sing; knowledge gaps; lack of standardisation includingseveral ad hoc or informal processes; no formal policystatement, procedures, or operational guidelines for themanagement of information resources; and a predomi-nantly paper culture.The preliminary report was then prepared and distrib-
uted to the working group in preparation for formulationof action plans to improve identified problematic situa-tions. Buchanan and Gibb (1998) refer to Checkland andSchole’s (1990) soft systems methodology as a methodto deal with complex, unstructured, or poorly definedsituations, but this was not adopted firstly because it wasfelt that, through the previous stages the problem had been
ARTICLE IN PRESS
UG
Director
Course
Co-ordinator
INPUTS OUTPUTSPROCESS/OWNER
5Standards &
routes to
registration
4Staff loading
schedule
5
SFC funding
5
SAAS
funding
5
EPSRC
funding
5
Course
review
report
5
Course
approval
4Staff loading
schedule
5
SFC funding
5
SAAS
funding
5
EPSRC
funding
5
Course
review
report
Develop
Course
Fig. 3. Information flow: 1.1. Develop course.
S. Buchanan, F. Gibb / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 150–160154
well documented and defined; and secondly, that afterextensive process modelling the working group would nothave welcomed another modelling exercise. Instead an adap-tation of force field analysis was adopted for this final work-shop, as recommended by Buchanan and Gibb (1998), butmore commonly associated with a previous stage of the IA.
Force field analysis (Lewin, 1947) was used to visuallyhighlight the positive or negative impact each CSF had on itsassociated strategic objective. Three steps were as follows:
1.
Each objective was positioned on a scale of 0–100%according to approximate group estimates of currentachievement of the objective.2.
Associated CSFs (see Table 1) were identified as eitherstrengths or weaknesses based on evaluation of thepreviously identified process and information problems.For example (see Fig. 4), for the ‘‘provide a courseportfolio taking account of the dynamic and diverserequirements of stakeholders’’, professional accredita-tion was considered a strength, but market knowledgewas considered a weakness.3.
For each CSF, a shaded bar identified its relativestrength or weakness.Finally, each weak CSF was then examined to determine:
�
Why it is a weakness (referring to the identifiedproblems).�
How important an influence it is on the objective(identifying priority). � What action is required (formulating action plans).The output of this step (particularly the action plans)was recorded for incorporation in the final synthesise stage,conducted by the auditors.
2.1.4. Synthesise
The main output of this IA was the IA report, whichincluded: revised strategic objectives and goals, a detailedprocess model for undergraduate teaching, a series ofassociated information flow diagrams, and the identifica-tion and evaluation of key information resources.The key IA recommendations were: to establish an
information policy, to initiate systems analysis to rationa-lise and manage disparate administrative database andinformation systems, and to establish an intranet/contentmanagement system.The IA was completed on schedule within the allocated
12-week period. Four members of staff participated in theworkshops and a further nine in interviews. Twenty-twoattended the post audit meeting. In total, the resourcerequirement for the participating organisation was 22full time equivalent (FTE) days (not including postaudit meeting). Auditor time for this IA amounted to 15FTEs.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Provide a course portfolio taking account of the dynamic and diverse requirements of stakeholders.
Current Position (estimate)
0% 100%
STRENGTH WEAKNESS
Funding
Graduate Knowledge Industrial Links
Market Knowledge Course Relevance
Course Range & Level
Professional Accreditation
�
Fig. 4. Force field analysis.
S. Buchanan, F. Gibb / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 150–160 155
2.1.5. Participant feedback and auditor observation
Sponsor and participant feedback was extremely posi-tive. A post audit meeting was held with the working groupand sponsor, which explored participation and perceivedvalue of IA output. The strengths of the IA, as stated byparticipants, were as follows:
�
Staff benefited from the facilitated workshop approach.The structured top-down process-based approach (andtools/techniques adopted) was simple to follow, greatlyincreased participant understanding of department goalsand requirements, and helped illustrate the role ofeffective information management. � Through the working group, wider interviews andregular communications, staff felt involved at all stages.
�2Summaries for each of these respective stages will not be repeated
(see Sections 2.1.1–4).
The short timeframe facilitated quick results, and limitedthe impact on staff. Focusing on a prioritised processshortened the project duration, and demonstrated max-imum value by focusing on the area of greatest perceivedimpact. Process descriptions for sub-processes substitutedfor more time-consuming process modelling.
Notably, systems support staff immediately recognisedthe value of IA output to systems analysis, particularly theprocess models and information flow diagrams. This alignswith the authors’ recommendations for greater synergy inthis area (Buchanan & Gibb, 2007).
2.2. Case study two
For case study two, the participating organisation was apublic body within the arts sector consisting of 90 staff.The agency had recently undergone an external review,which had identified, at a high level, several issues with themanagement and processing of information and had beencritical of their core management information system. Thereview had recommended that the organisation: becomemore transparent and accountable, reduce time to processapplications, streamline evaluation and approval processes,and improve communication between stakeholders.
The sponsor wanted the IA to further explore theseproblems and produce a series of recommendations whichcould be incorporated into a planned change managementprogramme. The organisation’s business strategy was to betaken as a given, as outlined in their Corporate Strategydocument; however, given that two of the four recommen-dations from the organisational review related to processissues, it was agreed that major processes should form thebackground to the IA prior to more detailed analysis ofinformation usage and flow. Similar to case study one, thesponsor stated that he did not require costing of informa-tion resources. The audit was to be completed in eightweeks so as not to delay the planned start date for thechange programme.To meet these requirements the IA was scoped to be
primarily resource orientated but to include the processperspective (see Fig. 5).The IA methodology was tailored to these requirements
by once more removing the account stage. In-depthinterviews followed by a structured survey were the maindata gathering methods.
2.2.1. Promote2
The sponsor sent out a passport letter via email to allstaff, introducing the auditors, outlining the purpose andbenefits of the IA, and providing a high level summary ofthe schedule of activity. The initial meetings with potentialparticipants to explain the IA process, supplemented byearly discussions with the Director, once again acted as thepreliminary survey step of this stage. The survey foundstaff frustrated with information flow, organisationalcommunication, and ICT provision.
2.2.2. Identify
As per the brief, business strategy was to be taken as agiven with no strategic analysis required. This removed theneed for the initial two steps of this stage. However, it
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Management Technology Systems Content
Strategic
Process
Resource
Fig. 5. The IA scope matrix (Buchanan & Gibb, 2007).
S. Buchanan, F. Gibb / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 150–160156
should be noted that the auditor did conduct key documentanalysis to confirm strategy and to provide overarchingstrategic direction, and that this is a recommended step inthese instances.
This stage, which as per the brief, would focus oninformation use and flow, was completed primarilythrough in-depth interviews and a structured survey. Initialinterviews were held with two senior managers to discussgeneral information use and flow (e.g. initial exploratorydiscussion), and to identify processes at a high-level.Fourteen key processes were identified, discussed andclassified:
1.
Administering funding applications (core) 2. Administering grants (core) 3. Developing arts strategies (core) 4. Performing advocacy (core) 5. Disseminating information (core) 6. Servicing customer enquiries (core) 7. Performing audits and compliance (management) 8. Developing corporate strategy (management) 9. Managing estates (support)10.
Managing financial resources (support) 11. Managing human resources (support) 12. Managing information resources (support) 13. Performing research (support) 14. Providing secretarial support (support)Processes were captured, but not modelled, as this wasnot part of the brief. The focus was on capturing processinformation rather than process modelling, which wouldhave been impractical regardless given the limited time-frame. Similar to case study one, Ould’s (1995) methodol-ogy was followed, although adapted to describe rather thanmodel process (and proving amendable to this adaptation).
Follow on interviews with a further 11 (representative)members of staff were semi-structured open-ended discus-sions framed around the following questions:
1.
What information do you use in your job? 2.Table 3
What are the key barriers to obtaining and sharing thisinformation?Process description template
3. What do you do with this information?Process:
4. What information do you supply to colleagues? Description: 5. Lifecycle:How could your job be made easier from an informationperspective?
Inputs: Outputs:
Issues:
6. What works well: what are examples of best practice inthis area that could be built upon?
Opinions and issues gathered during the interviews weremapped to the process with which they were mostassociated, rather than simply to the functional units fromwhich the interviewees were nominated (interviewees wereprovided with the list of processes in advance). Processinformation was captured (which included verification ofthe processes) and subsequently documented according to:description of process, inputs, outputs, and associatedissues. The template used (see Table 3) was an evolution ofthe one developed for the first case study (see Table 2),capturing more descriptive information than its predeces-sor in lieu of detailed process modelling (including theprocess cycle or sub-process of the process, which wouldfacilitate later modelling if required). Information flow wasalso captured textually through definition of process inputsand outputs.Interviews were then followed by a questionnaire, which
was distributed to all members of staff. The questionnairefocused on the following aspects of user role andinformation use:
1.
Main responsibility 2. Other important activities 3. Distribution of activity (talking to people, using acomputer, handling paper)
4. Contacts 5. Importance and accessibility of sources of information 6. Proportion of information that is sent out frominternal and external sources
7. Proportion of information that is received frominternal and external sources
8. The usefulness, frequency and difficulty experienced inreceiving information
9. The usefulness, frequency and difficulty experienced insending information
10. Serious barriers when using or sharing information 11. Quality of information 12. Current and future preferences 13. Awareness of information related policy and proce-dures
Respondents could complete the questionnaire on screenand return it via email, or print it out and return it viainternal post. Thirty-eight of the 90 questionnairesdistributed were completed and returned (a 42% responserate).As previously discussed, information use was to be pri-
marily identified through in-depth interview and structured
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 4
Identifying common themes
1. Dissemination of information (internal)
Issues Requirements
� Too much e-mail is distributed on a
scatter-gun basis.
� E-mail is often distributed without
guidance on how it should be
handled.
� People are unaware of certain key
developments (both internal and
external).
� Different versions of documents can
exist.
� Director requires key figures to be
pushed to desktop.
� Content and structure of intranet
and web-site needs to be agreed.
� Better targeting of
e-mail.
� E-mail etiquette.
� Understanding of costs
to receiver need to be
demonstrated.
� Online alerts.
� Automatic posting of
new documents and
proposals on intranet.
� Key statistics on
applications, grants,
overall financial
position, etc.
� Comprehensive coverage
and commitment of
departments.
Recommendations
1. Corporate information policy document required which, interalia,
defines how e-mail should be used, and establishes clear accountability
and ownership of information.
2. An intranet should be established as a matter of priority.
3. An e-bulletin or news area should be a feature of the intranet where
key developments could be announced.
4. An EIS should be considered which extracts figures from underlying
systems.
S. Buchanan, F. Gibb / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 150–160 157
survey. In practice, the interviews provided an opportunityto identify and explore processes in more depth, while thestructured survey provided more detailed data regardinginformation use, flow, and value, which was then statis-tically analysed and graphically presented in the finalreport. In combination, the interviews and survey provideda comprehensive profile of information use and flow.
2.2.3. Analyse
As previously noted, information flow was captured aspart of the process descriptions, the analysis of whichnaturally preceded the evaluation of information resources,as process provides valuable context, and respects the top-down nature of the Buchanan and Gibb (1998) methodo-logy. One other variation from Buchanan and Gibb’smethodology is that no preliminary report was produced,purely due to time constraints (but key findings wereverified). It is also important to note that although a degreeof quantitative data was provided by the structured survey,this stage predominantly involved qualitative data analysis.Miles and Huberman (1994) identify three major phases toqualitative data analysis: data reduction, data display, andconclusion drawing and verification, which were incorpo-rated into this stage.
Analysis of the findings from the in-depth interviews andsurvey identified several shared issues and requirements,which through the process of data reduction, were groupedand categorised as follows:
5. Web content should include: corporate information, policy
information, news information, jobs information. key external links,
funding information, publications and administrative documents, plus
1. Dissemination of information (internal) facilities to register, provide contact information, and complete 2. Dissemination of information (external) applications forms and audit forms online. 3. Information management and organisation6. The intranet should have similar coverage (but including documents
4. Information acquisition for internal circulation only) plus access to underlying systems.5.
Research and query handling 6. Funding 7. Organisational issues 8. ICTEach category of findings was displayed in tabularformat as illustrated in Table 4. The complete sets of tableswere discussed with a representative selection of partici-pants as part of the conclusion drawing and verificationstep (substituting for one of the key purposes of thepreliminary report, e.g. confirmation of findings). Findingswere accepted and verified, all emergent conclusions agreedwith.
2.2.4. Synthesise
The key outputs of this IA were: identification, descrip-tions and classification of key organisational processes;process-based analysis of information flow, an inventory ofkey information resources; and detailed action plans andrecommendations. The recommendations were then furtherextrapolated and categorised according to Earl’s (2000)taxonomy of information strategy components to providean overarching strategic framework and to be traceable to
the IA scope for this IA (see Fig. 5). In summary, theserecommendations were:
�
Managemento Create an enhanced information serviceo Develop a corporate information policyo Define information processes and accountabilityo Create a Chief Information Officer (CIO) role atsenior management level�
Contento Specify an information architecture to organise andnavigate informationo Enhance research and monitoring of the externalenvironment and make accessible to staff andstakeholders
o Define information flows and processes integral tocore and peripheral functions
�
Systemo Two new related database components are requiredto support critical data requirements: one to manage
ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Buchanan, F. Gibb / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 150–160158
contacts, and one to hold statistical data for detailedanalysis, decision support, and responding to externalmandatory requests
o Create mechanism for completing grant applicationsand audit forms online (including website upgradedto an extranet)
o Develop a content/document management systemo Establish a single contacts application accessibleto all
�
Technologyo Create a central intranet, accessible to all, based onclear ownership and accountability for documentso Technologies should be implemented which facilitatebrowser-based intranet access to extract informationfrom underlying systems
o Establish an extraneto Create an electronic log form on the intranet
The IA was completed on schedule within the allocated8-week period. Fifteen members of staff participated ininterviews and a further 38 completed the questionnaire.Eighteen attended the post audit seminar. In total, thisIA required approximately 12 FTEs from the auditor,and 5.75 FTEs from the participating organisation(not including the post audit meeting). A notable observa-tion was the significantly reduced resource requirement(from 22 FTEs to 5.75 FTEs) for the participatingorganisation where interviews replaced workshops(and strategic analysis was out of scope). However, thetime saving for the auditor was less dramatic (from 15 to12) as some workshop savings were offset by the need toprepare for and conduct multiple interviews.
2.2.5. Participant feedback and auditor observation
The overall IA experience could once again be describedas positive. Interviewees appeared comfortable with the IAprocess, and welcomed the opportunity to consider ways inwhich to improve organisational processes and informationmanagement. In the post-report seminar, which wasprovided for the senior management team (the majorityof which had participated in the interviews), there were twonotable points of feedback:
�
Staff expressed confidence in the methodological processundertaken to conduct the IA, considering it to be bothunderstandable and comprehensive. � Staff appreciated the two levels of recommendations,and the use of Earl’s taxonomy to structure and simplifythe information strategy.
The shift from in-depth process modelling to capturingprocess descriptions for all organisational processesworked well and is recommended. The only exceptionwould be where participating organisations include re-quirements in their brief which call for process modelling;for example, resolving specific process-related problems,automating manual processes, etc.
3. Stage two usability trials
Three usability trials were conducted in total. All threeauditors had no previous IA experience, but all hadsuccessfully completed post-graduate level studies inInformation Management and were about to embark oncareers within the information profession (two wereemployees of the audited organisations). All were volun-tary participants invited to participate through an onlineUniversity forum, which described the proposed research.For the usability trials, volunteering organisations wereinvited to participate through a letter and/or email to theappropriate head of business, explaining the proposedresearch and outlining the IA process. Similar to the stageone studies, IA scope and approach was dictated by thebrief provided by each organisation. Scope was set byauditor and client utilising the IA scope matrix.The author adopted an observational, non-participatory
role throughout each trial. Once each trial was completed,semi-structured interviews were held with each auditor todiscuss the general IA experience and usability of the IAmethodology.For the first of the usability trials, the participating
organisation was a public body in the education sector. Theorganisation had recently completed a small, high-levelknowledge audit, as a precursor to the development of aknowledge strategy, which had highlighted several generalinformation management problems and shortcomings. Inparallel to the knowledge audit, the organisation was alsoinitiating a process-reengineering project to look at newways of developing new products and services, with thedual goals of promoting greater reuse of existing products/services, and reaching markets faster with new products/services. The findings of the knowledge audit had seriousimplications for the success of this new process, so moredetailed investigation of information flow and require-ments was called for.In the initial scoping session, the sponsor confirmed that
the IA should focus on the product and service develop-ment process, and identify and evaluate associatedinformation resources (a process oriented IA). The sponsorviewed the IA as a follow on activity from the knowledgeaudit, which had included strategic analysis; consequently,the sponsor felt there was no need for this activity as partof the IA identify stage. The sponsor also did not requirethe account stage. The primary means of investigationestablished by the auditor was in-depth interviews,supplemented with a follow-up questionnaire, and includ-ing analysis of key documents provided by the sponsor.The final output was the information report for theprioritised process, which included: the product and servicedevelopment process model and sub-process descriptions,process-based information flow models, key informationresources, issues and requirements, and recommendations.For the second usability trial, the participating Uni-
versity department was only 12 months old and had beenformed from the merger of five existing non-academic
ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Buchanan, F. Gibb / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 150–160 159
service departments (the merger had arisen from therecommendations of an organisation wide review whichhad called for increased synergy and coordinated effortacross the five departments). The sponsor was primarilyfocused on issues of integration, most notably to createsynergy across individual units and to improve organisa-tional communication and information flow. In the initialwalkthrough session between auditor and sponsor, aprocess-oriented approach was agreed as most appropriate,including mapping of information flow for core processes.The sponsor felt this should take priority over detailedinformation resource inventory and analysis, and did notfeel the need for the account stage. The sponsor acknowl-edged the importance of the promote stage and wished toinvolve staff as much as possible in the IA processes.Again, the primary means of investigation was in-depthinterviews, supplemented with follow-up questionnaire,and including analysis of key documents provided bythe sponsor. The final output was the IA report, whichincluded: organisation process model and process descrip-tions; process-based information flow models; key asso-ciated information resources; and recommendations.
For the third and final usability trial, the participatingorganisation was a private sector legal firm. The sponsorconfirmed that the IA should focus on a single departmentwithin the organisation (the corporate library), and identifyand evaluate information services and associated informa-tion resources. In contrast to the previous organisations,which had all recently undergone either change or review,this organisation was experiencing neither. The organisa-tion simply wished to review its core information service.
The sponsor felt there was no need for strategic analysisas part of the IA identify stage, or for costing ofinformation resources and/or associated services, whichconsequently removed the need for the account stage. Thesponsor indicated a preference for selected individualinterviews over workshops, as this was considered easierto manage from a resource and cost managementperspective. It was also agreed that an online structuredquestionnaire would be developed for wider participationand feedback. There was no requirement for an informa-tion strategy. The final output was the IA report, whichincluded: service model, key information resources, serviceevaluation, and recommendations.
In all three trials, selection of the Buchanan and Gibb(1998) methodology by the auditors was based onperceived flexibility of approach and incorporation ofcomprehensive tools and techniques to support each of theIA stages. Tailoring of the methodology proved to be astraightforward task with none of the auditors conductingthe usability trials noting any problems. The methodologyproved extremely flexible in this respect, allowing theauditors to tailor to individual requirements, with all threetrials adopting a similar tailored approach: promotecompleted in full, identify streamlined, analyse completedin full, account omitted, and an IA report produced butno information strategy produced. The dominant tools/
techniques for data gathering in all cases were interviewsand questionnaires, which aligns with the findings fromprevious published case studies (Buchanan & Gibb, 2008).The IA scope matrix proved to be extremely useful whentailoring the methodology as it helped the auditors tounderstand and focus the scope of the audit; and secondly,to identify appropriate tools and techniques to select foreach of the stages (e.g. strategic analysis tools and/orprocess modelling tools).However, while methodological flexibility was proven,
problems were noted by all three auditors regarding thetools and techniques provided to support each of thestages. The first auditor commented (Kassenova, 2005):
The author would recommend Buchanan & Gibb toexpand the level of details, as currently it is asummarised version and not easy to use, especially forthe people new to the information audit. All key stageswould benefit from templates, examples and case studiesto support and explain how to use them y
The second auditor commented (Roussakis, 2005):
The significance of the (Buchanan & Gibb, 1998)methodology is the initiation of tools and techniquesto be followed during the stages of the IA process. Theauthor feels the need to remark that it would have beenmore useful during the whole process if there wereinformation concerning the use of the tools and thebenefits of using them, in the IA process. y It isstrongly believed that y for the benefit of the IAprocess (there is) publication of further research,including analytic descriptions of tools and techniques.If this occurs, then the author believes that themethodology can provide a standard approach toinformation auditing.
The third auditor commented (Martin, 2005):
Were Buchanan & Gibb able to outline each of theseexternal models within the text of their own methodol-ogy, and how best to tailor it for the information auditrather than for the more specific situations for whichthey were designed, this would result in a more self-contained methodology. This would, in turn, make theextra reading an option rather than a requirement, andpermit the more time-constrained auditor the option ofa more comprehensive audit.
The main limitation of the methodology, from a userperspective, was its lack of instructional depth, particularlywith regard to tools and techniques; ironically considered astrength by each auditor during initial selection of themethodology. The auditors highlighted a particular needfor further guidance regarding: strategic analysis; interviewpreparation; process modelling; and qualitative dataanalysis. It is also highly likely that the account stagewould have presented similar challenges had it beenrequired by any of the participating organisations.
ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Buchanan, F. Gibb / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 150–160160
4. Conclusions
The main strengths of the Buchanan and Gibb (1998)methodology are the logical structuring of stages, provisionof the toolkit, and the flexibility to tailor the methodologyto the brief. A weakness of the methodology is its limitedinstructional depth; however, aside from process model-ling, direction is provided to appropriate tools andtechniques for each of the stages/steps.
The Buchanan and Gibb (2007) IA scope matrix hasproven extremely useful. Process modelling has also provenextremely valuable, encouraging user involvement byfocusing on readily understandable aspects of day-to-daywork, and providing an organisational model of informa-tion flow. Earl’s (2000) IS taxonomy can also be used tostructure recommendations and provide traceability backto the IA scope matrix.
A notable observation was that none of the participatingorganisations felt the need for the account stage. As aconsequence this stage remains untested, but it also raisesthe question as to whether or not formal accounting isrequired for the purposes of information auditing. Whilethis research has not been extensive enough to beconclusive on this matter, the evidence gathered thus fardoes suggest that a formal account stage is not alwaysnecessary, and that simple value tables can substitute inthose instances (aligning with the methodological ap-proaches of both Orna (1999) and Henczel (2001)).
References
Abell, D. F. (1980). Defining the business: The starting point of strategic
planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Botha, H., & Boon, J. A. (2003). The information audit: Principles and
guidelines. Library Review, 53(1), 23–38.
Buchanan, S., & Gibb, F. (1998). The information audit: An integrated
strategic approach. The International Journal of Information Manage-
ment, 18(1), 29–47.
Buchanan, S., & Gibb, F. (2007). The information audit: Role and scope.
The International Journal of Information Management (in press).
Buchanan, S., & Gibb, F. (2008). The information audit: Methodology
selection. The International Journal of Information Management
(in press).
Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action.
Chichester: Wiley.
Earl, M. J. (2000). In D. A. Marchand, T. H. Davenport, & T. Dickson
(Eds.), Mastering information management (pp. 16–22). London:
Financial Times Prentice-Hall.
Gibb, F., Buchanan, S., & Shah, S. (2006). An integrated approach to
process and service management. International Journal of Information
Management, 26, 44–58.
Henczel, S. (2001). The information audit: A practical guide. London:
K.G. Saur.
Kassenova, A. (2005). Information audit at the British Council. Unpub-
lished MSc dissertaion, University of Strathclyde.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concepts, method, and
reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human
Relations, 1(1), 23–32.
Martin, E. (2005). Information audit at MacFarlanes Law Firm.
Unpublished MSc dissertation, University of Strathclyde.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd
ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Orna, E. (1990). Practical information policies: How to manage information
flow in organisations. Aldershot: Gower.
Orna, E. (1999). Practical information policies (2nd ed.). Aldershot:
Gower.
Ould, M. A. (1995). Business processes: Modelling and analysis for
re-engineering and improvement. Chichester: Wiley.
Pellow, A., & Wilson, T. D. (1993). The management information
requirements of heads of university departments: A critical success
factors approach. Journal of Information Science, 19(6), 425–437.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analysing
industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
Roussakis, C. (2005). Information audit at the Office of Marketing
and Communication. Unpublished MSc dissertation, University of
Strathclyde.
Steven Buchanan is an Information Systems Lecturer in the Graduate
School of Informatics, University of Strathclyde. He has carried out
extensive consultancy work and research in the areas of information
strategy, enterprise architecture, information systems, and information
audits. He has worked across Europe and throughout Australasia for a
number of public and private sector organisations, spanning telecommu-
nications, finance, education, government, and microelectronics.
Forbes Gibb is a Professor of Information Science in the Graduate School
of Informatics, University of Strathclyde. He has been involved in several
major EU funded research projects (SIMPR, STAMP, AUTOSOFT,
MIND) and teaches in the areas of information strategy, service
management and content management.
