20110427 ARMA Houston Keynote Records Management 2.0
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•648 views
This luncheon keynote at the ARMA Houston Spring Seminar introduced Web 2.0 concepts and issues and provided attendees with specific steps for managing social content as part of the records program.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Similar to 20110427 ARMA Houston Keynote Records Management 2.0
Similar to 20110427 ARMA Houston Keynote Records Management 2.0 (20)
More from Jesse Wilkins
More from Jesse Wilkins (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
20110427 ARMA Houston Keynote Records Management 2.0
- 1. Managing Content Generated by Social Media Tools as Records Jesse Wilkins, CRM April 27, 2011
- 2. International - Members in 146 countries Independent - Unbiased and vendor neutral Implementation Focused - Processes, not just technology Industry Intermediary - users, suppliers, consultants, analysts, and the channel http://www.aiim.org About AIIM
- 3. Director, Systems of Engagement, AIIM Background in electronic records management, email management, ECM, and social technologies Director, ARMA International Board of Directors (2007-2010) Frequent industry speaker and author AIIM ERM Expert Blogger Instructor for AIIM Certificate Programs Jesse Wilkins, CRM 3
- 4. By the end of 2013, half of all companies will have been asked to produce material from social media websites for e-discovery. Source: “Social Media Governance: An Ounce of Prevention”, Gartner It’s just a fad….
- 5. Is a Facebook “like” a record?
- 6. Introduction to Web 2.0 Web 2.0 technologies Web 2.0 issues and challenges Managing Web 2.0 content as records Agenda
- 7. Introduction to Web 2.0
- 8. “Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them.” -- Tim O’Reilly, 12/10/2006 Web 2.0
- 9. “Enterprise 2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers.” -- Andrew McAfee, 5/2006
- 10. “Working where you want, when you want, and being able to conduct real business.” blognation Canada
- 12. Systems of Engagement Systems of Record
- 14. Blogs Microblogs Wikis Social networking Social sharing Types of Web 2.0 tools
- 15. Started as online diaries Today used more as lightweight CMS Hides complexity of Web publishing Generally arranged in chronological order, most recent at top What’s a blog? 15
- 16. Blogs
- 19. “It is part text messaging and part blogging, with the ability to update on your cell phone or computer, but constrained to 140 characters.” -- Ari Herzog, Ariwriter.com Defining microblogging 19
- 21. Announcements
- 23. Collaborative website Organized as linked articles Hides complexity of HTML from users Easy to add and link articles Easy to correct mistakes Wiki-wiki 23
- 24. Wikis 24
- 25. Source: Stewart Mader, www.ikiw.org How do you use a wiki?
- 26. Create agenda and minutes
- 27. Wikis are more archival than email, less process than Word. -- Mike Cannon-Brookes Co-founder and CEO of Atlassian
- 28. Social Networking Social Networking
- 29. Keep in touch
- 30. Network and announce events
- 32. Find your next job
- 35. Services dedicated to sharing particular types of information Often allow subscription to a particular user or keyword Often allow rating and adding to favorites Easy to link to and embed in other websites What is social sharing?
- 36. Social sharing
- 37. Use cases: social sharing
- 38. Use cases: social sharing
- 39. Use cases: social sharing
- 40. Social content management issues
- 41. How do you know it’s accurate? You don’t. It isn’t. But it’s self-correcting.
- 42. Security issues
- 44. The “Shadow IT department”
- 45. Boundary issues Friending your boss might be a career-limiting move NOT friending your boss might be a career-limiting move Should you friend your spouse? Teacher-student issues
- 46. Limited control over content
- 47. Professionalism of content Professionalism of content
- 48. Productivity issues Productivity issues
- 49. Privacy issues Privacy issues
- 50. Work updates
- 51. Other issues Unusual profile names or pictures Groups “Liberals/Conservatives for X” “I bet I can find X people who [insert belief here] Other “bad role model” stuff Pictures of alcohol use/abuse Sexually graphic or obscene materials Criticism of family, friends, current/past employers
- 52. Managing social content as records
- 53. Prohibition is not realistic
- 54. “…fully networked enterprises are not only more likely to be market leaders or to be gaining market share but also use management practices that lead to margins higher than those of companies using the Web in more limited ways…”
- 61. [Social content on external sites] will be archived and retained for the required period of time in accordance with the DIR Records Retention Schedule.
- 64. Whether the account is monitored for actionable content (screenshot)
- 65. Is the information unique and not available anywhere else? Does it contain evidence of an agency’s policies, business, mission, etc.? Is the tool being used in relation to an agency’s work? Is there a business need for the information? Does it document a transaction or decision? Is it a record?
- 66. Individual social network status updates or Tweets? The entire stream over a given period? Many of these tools do not lend themselves to metadata…. Policy and consistency are key What is the record?
- 67. Determine whether content is unique If it’s already being captured elsewhere, treat as a duplicate record or as a non-record A note about co-creation Duplication
- 68. Take a snapshot of record content
- 69. Archive entire stream locally
- 70. Records management in brief Archive selected items locally Use search queries and monitoring Store selected items locally using search queries or RSS
- 71. Use the native backup to store locally Store locally using built-in tools
- 72. Use a third-party service to store locally Store locally using third-party service
- 73. Store locally using API Store locally using APIs
- 74. Use e.g. Word to draft content updates and save *that* as a record Draft content locally
- 77. Web 2.0 is here Prohibition is not a realistic option Web 2.0 tools can add significant value to the organization And they can be managed as records Lead your organization to use them effectively Conclusion
- 78. Jesse Wilkins, CRM, CDIA+ Director, Systems of Engagement AIIM International +1 (303) 574-0749 direct jwilkins@aiim.org http://www.twitter.com/jessewilkins http://www.linkedin.com/in/jessewilkins http://www.facebook.com/jessewilkins http://www.slideshare.net/jessewilkins For more information
- 79. “How Federal Agencies Can Effectively Manage Records Created Using New Social Media Tools”, Patricia Franks, Ph.D., IBM Center for The Business of Government, 2010 “Electronic Records Management: Blogs, Wikis, Facebook, Twitter, & Managing Public Records”, Washington State Archives, September 2009 Additional Resources
- 80. “Managing Social Media Records”, U.S. Department of Energy, September 2010 http://cio.energy.gov/documents/Social_Media_Records_and_You_v2_JD.pdf “Best Practices Study of Social Media Records Policies”, ACT-IAC, April 2011 http://www.actgov.org/knowledgebank/whitepapers/Documents/Shared%20Interest%20Groups/Collaboration%20and%20Transformation%20SIG/Best%20Practices%20of%20Social%20Media%20Records%20Policies%20-%20CT%20SIG%20-%2003-31-11%20(3).pdf Additional Resources
- 81. NARA Bulletin 2011-02, “Guidance on Managing Records in Web 2.0/Social Media Platforms”, October 2010 http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/2011/2011-02.html “A Report on Federal Web 2.0 Use and Value”, National Archives and Records Administration, 2010 http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/resources/web2.0-use.pdf Additional Resources
- 82. Florida Social Media Toolkit http://sites.google.com/site/flsocmed/ “Friends, Followers, and Feeds: A National Survey of Social Media Use in Government”, NASCIO, September 2010 http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-SocialMedia.pdf Texas Dept of Information Resources Social Media Policy http://www.texas.gov/en/about/Pages/social-media-policy.aspx Additional Resources
- 83. Compliance Building Social Media Policies Database http://www.compliancebuilding.com/about/publications/social-media-policies/ 57 Social Media Policy Examples and Resources http://www.socialmediatoday.com/davefleet/151761/57-social-media-policy-examples-and-resources Web 2.0 Governance Policies and Best Practices http://govsocmed.pbworks.com/w/page/15060450/Web-2-0-Governance-Policies-and-Best-Practices Additional Resources
- 84. Social Media Governance policy database http://socialmediagovernance.com/policies.php “Analysis of Social Media Policies: Lessons and Best Practices”, Chris Boudreaux, December 2009 http://socialmediagovernance.com Additional Resources
Editor's Notes
- [twitter]Introduction to Web 2.0[/twitter]
- Now let’s turn to some definitions. And we begin with Web 2.0. The first references to Web 2.0 occurred as early as 1999, but it wasn’t until Tim O’Reilly’s inaugural Web 2.0 Conference in 2004 that the term really started to stick. Tim has redefined Web 2.0 on a number of occasions and seems to be happiest with this one. I won’t read the entire thing to you, but I do want to focus your attention on the last line: “Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them.” This really started with fax – the first person to buy a fax was pretty gullible, no? So was the second. But once that tipping point hit, fax became an amazing business tool that many companies today consider a critical part of their communications infrastructure. Amazon doesn’t work nearly as well without recommendations, and “People who bought this also bought…..”, and lists, and all the other social functionality embedded in it. Wikipedia with only one author is Microsoft Word with a bad user interface. [twitter]Tim O’Reilly’s definition of Web 2.0: build apps that get better the more people use them. http://is.gd/87biX [/twitter]
- Andrew McAfee is generally accepted to have coined the term Enterprise 2.0 in 2006. His definition has gone through a number of refinements; in May 2006 he came up with this definition for Enterprise 2.0 2.0 (his term). [twitter]Andrew McAfee: E2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers.[/twitter]
- It’s also true that Web 2.0 is profoundly changing the way we work. You can work on a computer at your work, home, or Internet café, a laptop at the airport, a tablet PC at the local starbucks, or on your iPhone in a pub. It generally requires Web access, though even this is starting to change, but the tools are lightweight enough and the computers are both mobile enough and powerful enough to let you “work where you want, when you want, and be able to conduct real business.“[twitter]Web 2.0:work where you want, when you want, and be able to conduct real business. – blognation Canada[/twitter]
- During my professional lifetime, I have seen at least 4 major enterprise IT transformations, and they seem to be occurring with increasing acceleration. When I first came into the workforce, the enterprise IT norm was centered on mainframe computers focused on batch-processed financial applications. This was the era of Burroughs and Univac and NCR and Control Data and Honeywell. This era was soon eclipsed by the rise of minicomputers.Minis were themselves eclipsed by the PC revolution, stitched together in Local Area Networks. Steroids in the form of the internet changed everything about how we connected PCs together distributed documents and information around our organizations. And then along came Google and our expectations about enterprise IT and simplicity of use morphed once again.
- The challenges here are enormous. Expectations of Enterprise IT are rising. The business, still reeling from the crash of 2008, is questioning the rigidity and cost of legacy systems. The focus of IT is changing from a traditional focus on standardizing and automating back-end manual processes – a focus on CONTROL – to a focus on empowering and connecting knowledge workers and improving knowledge worker productivity and innovation. in the world of Systems of Engagement – no one on the user side cares about any of this. However, because these systems are being used by enterprises, they will inevitably be subject to the same legal and social restrictions as traditional enterprise content, and therein lies the rub. Today that rub is significantly limiting endorsement and adoption of consumer-style communication and collaboration facilities around the world, and it will continue to do so until the content management industry and its customers develop protocols and policies to address its issues.
- Not just Twitter, but since it is by far the most successful at this point the examples for the first two sections will largely focus on it.
- Wikipedia: 3 million+ articles in EnglishMore than 13 million in 264 languagesWiktionary:1,306,000+ definitions in EnglishWikiQuote: 16,900+ quotationsWikitravel: 22,000+ destination guidesLyricwiki: 879,000+ song lyrics!
- Wikis are another really common example of Web 2.0 tools. Whereas blogs are designed for one-way broadcast-type communications, wikis are genuinely collaborative tools. The most well-known example of this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. As I noted earlier Wikipedia includes more than 13 million articles in 260+ languages. Compare this with the EncyclopediaBrittanica, which includes some 65,000 articles in its 35-volume set. Wikis make it easy to collaborate on a particular document or deliverable – click Edit, make your changes, click Save or Publish. Changes are tracked to the individual character level, and for private wikis, can be integrated into your Active Directory or identity infrastructure so as to prohibit anonymous changes.
- And finally, we come to social networking. This term describes sites that allow users to interact with other users. Individual users can update their status, add contacts, publish photos and blogs, share links, and do many other activities. Common examples of these include Facebook, which claims more than 400 million users world-wide; LinkedIn; Myspace; and any number of custom social networks. Here is ARMA’s custom social network, iConference. It’s built on top of the Ning engine, which supports more than 1.8 million social networks and adds more than 4,000 new networks every day. You can see here it supports photo sharing, event announcements and planning, blogs, and a forum. iConference has groups set up for specific topics including education, government, and energy. The forum also has a special area set up to ask questions of the 2010 candidates for the Board of Directors.
- Keep in touch with remote offices, colleagues, and even familyNetworking - personal, professional, career
- Learn new things. Lots of what folks post day-in and day-out is trivial. Then again, so is the RECMGMT-L listserv – and yet how many of you are on that and swear by the value you receive from it?
- 80% of companies use social media for recruitment – 95% use LinkedIn. And every recruiter and HR manager does due diligence on candidates using Google – and the top links for many are their profiles on LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.
- Because people are amazingly altruistic in a crisis. Not directly related but see Haiti relief effort: text = $10 donation to Red Cross. Quick, easy, Tweetable, FB-able, etc.
- Here is a screenshot of YouTube. You can see some of the social aspects of Youtube here, including ratings; the ability to mark it as a favorite; the ability to subscribe to updates either of the video or by the author; and the ability to share a video in a number of ways including sending a link or embedding it directly in another web application such as a blog or Facebook. Users can also comment on individual videos via text or by posting video responses. Most of the other social sharing tools offer similar capabilities.
- Social sharing tools, as the name suggests, are tools useful for sharing particular types of content. The most well-known ones include YouTube, for sharing video; Flickr, for sharing photographs; Delicious, for sharing bookmarks; Box.net, for sharing files; and Slideshare, for sharing presentations and other documents. I will be posting this presentation to my Slideshare account later this week. Here is a screenshot of YouTube. You can see some of the social aspects of Youtube here, including ratings; the ability to mark it as a favorite; the ability to subscribe to updates either of the video or by the author; and the ability to share a video in a number of ways including sending a link or embedding it directly in another web application such as a blog or Facebook. Users can also comment on individual videos via text or by posting video responses. Most of the other social sharing tools offer similar capabilities. [twitter]Screenshot of YouTube as example of social sharing tool. Others include Box.net, Slideshare, Delicious, and Flickr.[/twitter]
- This is delicious, which is used to share all kinds of bookmarks. It’s great for accessing your bookmarks from another computer such as an internet kiosk, but it’s even more valuable as a filter. As you see here, you can see bookmarks related to a particular topic and how many times it’s been bookmarked, which is one way to gauge its value to others. You can also post a link to your delicious page and others can access your bookmarks directly.
- [twitter] Web 2.0 considerations and issues[/twitter]
- Security issues are probably the ones most often cited. Every day seems to bring another high-profile data breach. It’s important to remember that in the overwhelming majority of these cases the breach is not due to third-party hackers – instead, it’s often done by someone on the inside such as a disgruntled employee or former employee whose access was not revoked. And the next most common avenue for breaking into an application is through social engineering – guessing users’ weak passwords like “password” or “12345”, etc. Many of the larger Web 2.0 services offer physical and logical security comparable to, if not better than, what the organization provides because there is no way for rogue employees to directly access the system, the database, etc. [twitter]Web 2.0 tools are perceived to be less secure but not always the case.[/twitter]
- It may seem obvious that a Web 2.0 tool requires internet connectivity to work, but organizations do not always think through the ramifications of that. An employee for an organization that moves entirely to Google Apps and Gmail, for example, would not be able to do any work on a plane and would have to either buy an air modem or buy or find Wifi internet access. And if connectivity should drop in the middle of drafting a long report, it is entirely possible that any unsaved work would be lost. Some services can work offline and synchronize, but these are still few and far between. [twitter]Web 2.0 tools have to be connected to work – no connection, no access.[/twitter]
- Technology often moves from the consumer space to the enterprise – consider everything from CDs to instant messaging. But often the technologies require very technology-savvy users, a bit of hacking about, and at least the tacit acceptance if not outright assistance of IT to implement. Web 2.0 is sometimes referred to as “Shadow IT” because it is so easy to implement and use without IT’s assistance. Many of these tools are free, or extremely low cost. The software that runs Wikipedia for example is open source (and therefore essentially free). It’s a complicated product – but if you don’t need that scalability and robustness, you can set up a very feature-rich yet intuitive wiki from pbWorks or Wikispaces for very low cost in about 15 minutes. And most of the other tools we discussed earlier are similar. [twitter] Web 2.0 is sometimes referred to as “Shadow IT” because it is so easy to implement and use without IT’s assistance.[/twitter]
- Photo uploadsLikesCommentsAdding to new Groups in FacebookLocation checkins- Anyone have a younger brother with an attitude?
- [twitter] Web 2.0 considerations and issues[/twitter]
- The first step many organizations take to manage Web 2.0 is to try to block them. This is unrealistic for a number of reasons.
- Moving into mainstream
- FacebookflickrYoutubeTwitterGet satisfaction
- TwitterFacebookFlickrYouTubeGet Satisfaction
- Categories…Administrative RecordsElectronic Data Processing RecordsPersonnel RecordsFiscal RecordsSupport Services Records
- The first step is to determine whether or not something is in fact a record. Just as we know that most email messages are not records, for most organizations their Facebook fan page updates will not be records either. In other words, we have to ask the same questions about these tools that we’d ask about any other type of information:Does it document a transaction or a decision? If it does, it’s probably a record. Is it captured in another form? This is the biggest reason why most social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter wouldn’t need to be captured as records – in most cases they are being used as another transmission mechanism for information stored elsewhere. Now, just because it isn’t a record doesn’t mean it couldn’t be discoverable or a public record and subject to FOIA-type laws. Again, same considerations here as for other types of information. [twitter]Determine whether something is a record or not according to its content and context.[/twitter]
- The next step is to determine exactly what is the record and must therefore be retained. Again, this will likely vary not just by content, but also by the nature of the tool. An individual social network status update or Tweet could rise to the level of a record, though I suspect this will be uncommon; in the case of a protracted discussion on someone’s wall or via Twitter, it might be the entire stream of updates on a particular topic or over a given period. This is analogous to determining when an instant message is a record. Many of these tools don’t really have metadata in the traditional sense. Twitter, for example, has the following public metadata: SenderMentions (the @ or DM it is addressed to, and could be more than one)A unique Twitter IDAn in-response-to Twitter ID if it uses the Twitter Reply capabilityA ReTweet ID if it was ReTweetedDate and time sentThe client used to send the update, if knownAny hashtags could be considered metadataBut note what there isn’t: No subject line or topic, no mechanism for filing it, no keywords (except maybe the hashtag). Other systems may offer more or less metadata but it is difficult to access some of that, even if it is retained by the system or commercial provider. The key is to have a records policy that is broad enough to encompass all of these tools and that stresses the content and context of information rather than its format. And as we noted earlier, just because it exists does not make it a record per se.[twitter] The next step is to determine exactly what is the record and must therefore be retained. [/twitter]
- Finally, there are enterprise versions of every Web 2.0 application. These enterprise versions are often available to be hosted inside the firewall, meaning that security is much more robust. Access can be secured to them much more effectively. They can be integrated into the organization’s identity infrastructure – whether Active Directory or something else – such that any change, post, comment, edit, update, etc. can all be tracked and, more importantly, tracked to a specific named user. No anonymous postings here. Of course, you have to pay for an enterprise version, but what you’re really paying for is a level of peace of mind. And you still get many of the same benefits – ease of use, familiarity with the type of tool, rapid and agile collaboration across geographical and time boundaries, etc. You’re just getting a more secure and robust version of it.
- At this point I’d be pleased to entertain your questions.
- In conclusion, Web 2.0 is not something coming down the road or over the horizon – it’s here today and is probably in your organization, whether you know about it or not. It is all but impossible to effectively prohibit them – and the tools can significantly improve an organization’s collaboration and knowledge sharing, thereby adding value to the organization. It is incumbent on records management professionals to step up and lead your organizations in the effective use and management of these tools.