Southampton University Computing Services4/23/2014 Information Flow & the Institutional WWW Colin K. Work University of Southampton Computing Services.

Southampton University Computing Services 04/10/23

Information Flow & the Institutional WWW

Colin K. Work

University of Southampton Computing Services


Scope of DiscussionScope of Discussion

• the institution’s WWW based information service

– courseware; research data etc. not included

• technology independent


What is “Information Flow” ?What is “Information Flow” ?

• The movement of information objects from point of origin to “target” user over time.– simple objects may combine to form complex objects

– the object is modified along the way

– the object may be used at different points in the flow

– there is no “end user”

• ALL aspects of information provision should be considered, not just WWW


Managerial Attributes of Managerial Attributes of Information ObjectsInformation Objects

• Author: content of object• Owner (publisher): availability of object• Encoder/printer: data/text processing

• All objects should have a single “owner”, though they may have multiple authors/encoders

• There is also an implied attribute - the “Authority” of the object: if not made explicit, false assumptions may result


Information Flow & the WWWInformation Flow & the WWW

• A web page is a snapshot of the information flow– Where does it come from? Where is it going?

• Is the “snapshot” at the right point in the flow?

• Does the “snapshot” carry the required authority?

• Is ownership clear?

• Is the author & owner aware of all uses of the data.


Tools for Managing Information FlowTools for Managing Information Flow

• Information strategy: goal setting

• Information policy: methodology for achieving the goals

• Acceptable use policy: regulatory constraints

• Editorial board/Webmaster: enforces application of above

• Costs/charging: (real or notional)


How is the Flow Managed?How is the Flow Managed?

• No management

• Centralised management

• Distributed management


No Management - No Management - AdvantagesAdvantages

“our policy is not to have a policy”

• Rapid service growth• “Hot house” for development • minimal “Red Tape” • expediency & responsiveness


No Management - No Management - DisadvantagesDisadvantages

• institution lacks cohesive presentation• material may lack authority• uneven representation/presentation• navigational problems• contradictory material• maintenance issues• who is accountable?• inefficient use of resources


Centralised ModelCentralised Model

“the way we were”

Departments

Infoservicecentral

processing


Centralised - AdvantagesCentralised - Advantages

• little training/support required • consistency in style/presentation• good authority control• good quality control• good cost control/resource management• low risk• maximises efficient use of resources


Centralised - DisadvantagesCentralised - Disadvantages

• does not scale well (?)

• potential bottleneck to information flow

• perceived as restrictive - threat to academic freedom

• will tend toward conservative

• unresponsive


Distributed ModelDistributed Model

Faculty/Dept. WWW Faculty/Dept. WWW Faculty/Dept. WWW

E d i t o r i a l B o a r d

institution home pages -who is responsible?


Distributed - AdvantagesDistributed - Advantages

• distributes the workload

• reasonably responsive and flexible

• greatly improves institutional WWW “awareness”

• departments/groups “in control”


Distributed - DisadvantagesDistributed - Disadvantages

• less of efficient use of resources

• tends toward “no management” unless– good info policy/strategy– editorial board in place

• requires good inter-department liaison

• how is “institutional” WWW achieved?


Combined ModelsCombined Models

Distributed faculty/dept. web sites

Centrally managed institutional“top level” pages

“PersonalPages”

free fromeditorialcontrol withinacceptedconstraints(eg. AUP)

Ed

ito

ria

l Bo

ard


Impediments to Information Impediments to Information FlowFlow

• Lack of information processing resources• Lack of IT skills• Inadequate technology• Attitudes:

– territoriality - “this is MY information!”

– technophobia

– resistance to change - “but we always do it this way”

• Management tools may be real or perceived impediment


Prospectus - Hard CopyProspectus - Hard Copy

Departments course info

Faculty

Other info(PR, Accomm.)

Editor(s)“UNIVERSITY”

authority

Print


Prospectus - WWW Ver. 1Prospectus - WWW Ver. 1

Departments’ course info

Faculty


Editor(s)

“UNIVERSITY”

authority

Print

WWW

- reformatting- inappropriate design- inflexible- untimely




Faculty


Editor(s)

“UNIVERSITY”

authority

Print

WWW

“intercept”

- expedient- better format- flexible- no authority- quality control?




Faculty


Editor(s)

“UNIVERSITY”

authority

Print

WWW

Authority?Quality control?




Faculty


Editor(s)

“UNIVERSITY”

authority

Print

WWW

- resource?- expertise?


Role of the “Webmaster”Role of the “Webmaster”and/or Editorial Board

• Advise on “flow management”

• Authentication of information

• Establishing liaison links

• Enforcing policy

• Facilitating and enabling

• Promoting the service internally

• Matching service to available resources


In Summary ...In Summary ...

• Info strategy & policy is required to establish and/or clarify responsibilities

• Editorial board/Webmaster must be empowered to enforce policy

• Distributed / Centralised models of management have strengths and weaknesses - choice may depend on organisation of the institution.


Questions: Questions:

How much time/money do you think is being

spent in total across your organisation putting

up WWW pages?

What sort of a service do you think you could

develop if you could harness that resource?

Southampton University Computing Services4/23/2014 Information Flow & the Institutional WWW Colin K. Work University of Southampton Computing Services.

Documents

www slide

control slide

untimely slide

notional slide

technology independent

perceived impediment

aup editorial board

info pr