It's funny how as soon as you move into a new technical domain, there is a corresponding new set of jargon. For example, I've recently started working at the National Museum of Australia, and am learning heaps about information management, and data interchange. These guys have forgotten more about managing large semi-structured and non-structured datasets than most IT people ever learn!
(Sidenote: The sheer number number of XML and non-XML dialects to describe different structures of information is quite staggering, for example. Finding anything "definitive" in terms of standards is really quite tough.)
Strategy documents need to outline two key things -- the objectives of the strategy, and the goals which are necessary to achieve these objectives.
Bob Lewis explained the difference between objectives and goals to me this way:
[An] objective [is] the point of it all, described from the perspective of business benefit. So if what's being proposed is a so-called CRM system (customer relationship management) the objective might be to increase revenue and decrease the cost of sales.
["Goals" are the] changes that will occur that will result in the benefits described as the objective. For the CRM effort, the goals might include designing a new sales process, selecting, configuring and implementing software that will support the process, developing and delivering a sales training program, and so on.
These quotes from Kelly Green caught my eye from an actKM discussion:
Information systems require clearly delineated properties. I think many people involved in this space would agree that this is an artificial boundary and that the boundaries in "real world" are more elastic.
...
Ontologies are good for illuminating subjects -- but they seem to also constrain them.
Maybe the Web world needs a space for "fuzzy categories" -- call them "associations" or "resemblances"? Where a topic can be 70% related to 'fluffy bunnies'?
I
This is old, but read this article. Now.
Takeaways:
(a) Microsoft plays hard ball.
(b) They really don't understand people very well.
The four key elements of modern enterprises are people, process, technology, and content.
Patrick Lambe has produced a fantastic diagram (p.15) which shows how many information-related disciplines (and many which people think are not related) can be placed on a visual diagram where the job's "attraction" to one of these poles is noted by how close it lies to that pole. (NB: Patrick uses the term "business" instead of "process".)
Thought for the day:
The term "ontology" isn't well-understood by lay people. Part of the confusion stems from its similarity to another term dealing with classification, the better-known "taxonomy". (There is a great primer document on the differences between ontology, taxonomy and classification available online.)
The word "ontology" is derived from Greek words meaning "the study of being or existance". Personally, I find it helps to think of ontology as the "science of thing-ness". So ontology asks the questions: What is this? What is that? And (critically) how does this relate to that?
The three largest Enterprise Architecture Frameworks are the Zachman Framework (developed by John Zachman for enterprises), the DoDAF (developed by the US military), and the TOGAF (a more technology-focused framework developed by The Open Group).
Apologies for the temporary disappearance of the site for the last couple of days.
I've been away on vacation and completely missed the emails reminding me that the domain was up for renewal ... *embarrassed*
Hopefully we won't have any further glitches!
GarrathE has posted a nice summary of SharePoint definitions, including terms such as server farm, web application, site collection, top-level site, site, lists, libraries, items and documents.
