The Informationist Revisted

Blogging over several years can be an interesting experience. 

You have an idea, you explore it for a bit, and then you move on.  But, thanks to the wonder of search engines, people still can stumble on your post as though it was written yesterday, and comment with an entirely new perspective.

Such is the case with one of my more popular (as opposed to infamous) posts -- Are You An Informationist?

Back in November of 2006 (!) I thought that we would be seeing a new set of skills and behaviors emerge as we all started to grapple with the unique dynamics of this stuff called information -- an entirely new source of wealth, costs and risks.

And -- to this day -- people are still finding the post, and occasionally comment. 

So, what's changed since 2006?

The Basic Premise

It's a pretty simple argument, at least to me:

• information is becoming the single most important asset in most organizations
   
• we do not inherently have the skills, the background or the mindset to inuitively understand how to best protect, manage and share this new asset
   
• as a result, we will see more and more demand for people who think more like informationists, rather than technologists.

Over the last few years, I've come up with a few anecdotal examples to help explain the difference between an informationist and a technologist.

For example, a technologist can tell you the best way to secure a particular class of information in a particular context. 

By comparison, an informationist can tell you why that's important, how the information is captured and used in multiple contexts, exactly what risks need to be protected against, where the tradeoff point might be between costs and benefits, and how that perspective might have changed in the last six months.

Big ideas are plentiful out there in the blogosphere.  Some are good, some are great, some are just plain misguided -- but all are useful.  Some might have some merit, but were just a bit too early in the discussion to be useful.

The jury is still out on this one :-)

So, what's changed?

The Data Management Professional As A Proto-Informationist

We're all probably familar with data management initiatives that strive to get a consistent view of important structured data items like products, customers, orders and the like.  Multiple systems arise naturally in large organizations, each with their own syntax and semantics, and at some point the Babel-like chaos has to be addressed to move the business forward.

For EMC, this especially comes up in the context of large Documentum implementations -- especially as it involves forays beyond traditional structured databases into semi-structured and unstructured content, interactions between these domains, and the clear mandate for multiple agendas involving the same information.

Besides our own internal data management efforts at EMC, I occasionally get to meet people who are doing this work in other large organizations.  Occasionally, we get into a real interesting discussion where their eyes light up as they share that they're probably the only people in the organization who understands -- end to end -- how crucial information elements get captured, used and managed across multiple organizations.

I keep imagining a future TV series where these new data forensics specialists swoop in and solve important problems, rather than the made-up world we see where someone types a random name into a screen and discovers everything that needs to be known in about 2 seconds of plot time. 

Yeah, right.  I can't even find that email from last week :-)

On a more serious note, these people tell me that they're getting invited to more meetings by the backup team, the archiving and records management team, the security team, the legal compliance team, the financial compliance team, the marketing team, and so on and so on. 

Their rather geeky fascination with data sources and flows is turning out to be a pretty popular skill set.  They find that they're the only people who can speak with authority about information and how the company uses it.

I guess that makes them informationists, at least in my book.

The eDiscovery Specialist As A Proto-Informationist

You probably know that EMC has a rockin' eDiscovery suite -- designed, sold and supported by people with legal backgrounds -- and it's enjoying some good traction in the marketplace.

But this development has caused a fascinating result: when it becomes far easier to search, find, categorize and produce information across the entire enterprise in the context of a legal action, certain people get extremely proficient and focused about the nuances.  Recently, I believe that this new capability has elevated the discussion quite considerably.

I've had the pleasure of meeting people who are comfortable with these new environments, and -- as a result -- they can go into fascinating detail as to where useful information can hide, what needs to be legally shared vs. not, how those learning have resulted in new policies about what's kept and what's not, impact on intellectual property protection, and so on.

I struggle to keep up with their new (and very intense) stream-of-conciousness. 

Something rather magical has happened: these people have become informationists.

The BI Specialist As A Proto-Informationist

We've had powerful BI and DW in the industry for some time -- and they keep getting faster, and cheaper, and easier to use.  Recently, EMC invested in helping customers do more with these burgeoning environments, simply because there seems to be an insatiable appetite for more data, more analysis done even faster and more cost-effectively.

The BI specialists I meet are classic information junkies -- they know where the data comes from, how it's been transformed, many of the nuances that aren't written down anywhere -- and (most importantly) why certain data elements are extremely important to the business. 

I sometimes think they're a little light on the security and risk-avoidance disciplines, as well as the cost efficiency side of things, but they've got the value discussion down cold.

With a little broadening in their perspective, these people would make excellent informationists.

The Consumer As A Proto-Informationist

OK, I don't have to make a case that we've all figured out the incredible value of transparent access to information in our personal lives.  I have to occasionally explain to my kids how we did things before the internet, powerful computers, mobile phones and home storage -- and it's a bit like explaining how stone tools were used. 

But, more recently I think we're seeing more focus on the risk aspects of information value.  New concerns like backing it up so it's always there.  Or wanting to have more control over who gets access, and who doesn't.  EMC's Iomega and newly formed Decho (Mozy) divisions are clearly representative of this consumer trend.

I think it's a safe argument that -- generally speaking -- we're all becoming a bit of an informationist in our personal lives.

And A New Top-Down Mandate Is Forming

There are probably more people who -- in the course of their day-to-day jobs -- are finding themselves more proficient with handling information in all of its aspects.  I'm not forgetting the storage people, or the backup people, or the DR people, or the security people, or any of the other IT disciplines that are standing at ground zero of the information big bang.

Inevitably, these people will find themselves drawn more into discussions around information, rather than technology.

But I think it's also important to shine some light on the top-down pressures that will cause more people to think and act like informationists -- regardless of their job titles.

One obvious industry discussion is GRC -- governance, risk and compliance.  If you think that the regulatory environment is complex today, just wait a few years.  All signs point to dramatically increased regulations about how information is gathered, protected and used.

I see GRC as fuzzily-defined category that's just emerging.  That doesn't mean it isn't important today, and will be moreso in the future.  We see different flavors of the GRC discussion pop up in the enterprise, and it's not going away, and we've got a great set of capabilities today.  My view is that all GRC roads point to new roles that can understand the true nature of the information in their organizations, and will demand the tools and processes to manage it effectively.

But there's a bigger framing of the trend which I endorse. I strongly believe that GRC -- despite its importance and complexity -- is only one leg of a three-legged stool that includes creating value from information, as well as minimizing the costs associated. 

I (and a few others) have started to use the term "information governance" to describe this higher-order construct.  It's not about risk, or value, or cost -- it's about all three.  And, surprisingly, I meet more organizations that have started to do something like this.

I've offered a strong argument that we'll see more information governance functions emerge in organizations in the coming years, simply because getting the tradeoffs right between risk, cost and value are becoming so important, and there's no clear organizational "owner" for these issues.

Whether it's GRC, or the broader concept of information governance, the trend is pretty clear to me: there will be an increased need for executives and business leaders to get their heads wrapped around the complex and thorny issues of this stuff called information. 

And they will want people helping them who are experienced and skilled in an inherently ambiguous environment where the questions and answers keep changing.

So Where Does That Leave Us?

Pretty much where we started, but with an interesting progress report.

I (and EMC) argue that we're becoming an information economy: information is becoming the most important asset in our professional lives, and increasingly so in our personal lives as well.

As in any economic transition, we're not automatically prepared for what's happening around us.  There are new issues, new challenges and new opportunities at every turn.  We'll need new skills, new mindsets, new roles and structures, and new tools to cope and thrive.

Some people will see what's happening, and invest accordingly.  Others may be at an evolutionary disadvantage, so to speak.

But, as I asked several years ago -- the key question is still:

Are you an informationist?

Comments

[Luther]

Chuck,

I would add one more role to your list: The Storage Architects As A Proto-Informationist

It seems that storage architects are being asked to come up with highly justified and detailed answers to the question "Where can I put my data?" from their users.

In order to come up with that answer, storage architects can no longer say that they will just put their data on an array in the data center. They need to know retention periods, DR requirements, performance attributes, charge-back vehicles, data owners, access requirements, physical location (i.e., which data center), growth rates, backup/archive model, assessed business value, etc. In most cases, deriving this answer requires correlating many different inputs from various parts of IT and the business. Once this data (or should it be called metadata) has been fully processed, the storage architect now possesses some very useful information… And they may have indirectly become one of the most informed wardens of the information in question.

This only helps to further blur the lines separating who manages storage, who manages data, who manages information.

[Chuck Hollis]

Yes, Luther, you're right, it's bleeding obvious ...

An informed storage manager is poised to ask the great questions such as "what kind of data is it?" and "where did it come from?" and "how is it used?" and so much more ...

What a great world it would be if more storage admins saw themselves in this way!

Thanks for the comment!

[Dave Vellante]

Love the vision Chuck, really. How you turn GRC into a business capability is still unclear to me but I continue to be impressed with EMC's unwavering commitment to an information-centric ethos. It sets you apart.

Here's a challenge I hear from Wikibon users. Risk and value are counterpoised. Risk mitigation has been pursued by shoving everything into a centralized archive using technology designed for document workflow. Works well as a business value/productivity enabler but risk is inherently distributed; and this knee jerk reaction to regulation, changes to the FRCP and litigation isn't cutting it. As a result, the third leg of your stool, cost is out of line.

I think it comes back to a vision EMC put forth several years ago and shied away from lately (for good reason imo-- but maybe it's time to revisit) and that's ILM.

Users I speak with are pushing for a new breed of technology that enables them to defensibly segment and manage their information along with tools that allow the active lifecycle management of information wherever it resides.

I can point to many parts of your strategy that support this goal but the 'wherever it resides' piece is unclear. Is that because: a) it's too difficult; b) it's fundamentally incorrect or c) it's there and I'm just missing it? Thanks. -Dave from Wikibon.org

[Chuck Hollis]

Hi Dave --

As far as your first point, we think there are some interesting pathways to turn GRC into a business capability, but it's definitely early days.

As far as your comments regarding the interesting duality between risk and value, I couldn't agree more. One part of the business wants to mitigate risk. Another part wants value from that same information.

The challenge (opportunity?) is that we believe the same technology capabilities can do both -- once information is discovered, indexed, managed, etc. -- the heavy lifting is done, and both can be achieved (including cost optimization, while we're at it).

Connecting those dots in large enterprises will be difficult, though achievable in the longer term. I remember the whole learning curve around globalization.

It started with "let's save money on labor" and quickly morphed into "wow, these are really talented people".

ILM had its strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion, though, its applicability was limited simply because it was mostly an IT-centric discussion around addressing IT's concerns.

I believe that a business-centric discussion was missing at the time-- there was no business mandate crying "we need to get a handle on our information" to drive the evolution of ILM thinking.

Hence my (and EMC's) interest in the recent trends towards information governance, GRC, information assurance, et. al.

The "wherever it resides" piece is essential, and is emerging in several seemingly unconnected threads, not all of which are entirely public at this juncture :-)

Of course, then there's our historical challenge of actually telling the story, even if we have all the pieces ...

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, as always!

-- Chuck

[Stephen Ashley]

A great post Chuck as always. I think you/we have to be careful about declaring everyone in your categories to be a potential proto-informationist. There will always be the individuals who will remain the technologist, which is good because we need them, but a few will get it and begin to understand the business impact of the information and systems they manage. I guess that brings up the question can you become an informationist without a technology background or do they have to evolve from a given technology swamp?

As far as ILM goes I think it is still a valid concept and part of the total picture. It links into both value and GRC. The importance, ownership and use of information will vary throughout its life meaning potential shifts in the relative importance of the legs of the stool