27 Sep 2011
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
------------------------------------
1. What is this FAQ about?
This FAQ relates to the need and relevance of NCSI in the present day.
2. But isn't it a fact that NCSI was set up to disseminate information
and now with the availability of Internet and databases made
available through consortia, that need has withered away and NCSI has
become irrelevant?
No. NCSI was set up to cater to the public dimension of the knowledge
economy. Yes, ensuring equitable access to information was indeed one
of the key themes on which NCSI was founded. This was also required to
avoid too much duplication and wastage of research activity. But this
is just one part of that 'public dimension': there are other areas
to be taken care of.
3. But isn't that passe? This whole talk of 'public dimension' would have
been valid if the centre was still funded by UGC. But now that it is
no longer so and is part and parcel of IISc, should it not serve
the interests of the Institute?
Sure, but think of it: is the Institute itself not set up to serve
the public dimension? And in any case, with so many developments and
alternate educational models emerging, do you think the Institute
stands a realistic chance of retaining the present status by
turning a blind eye and detaching itself from public concerns? This has
become even more important due to several unhealthy trends afflicting
the Institute and may be universities as a whole.
4. Unhealthy trends? What are they?
Oh.. several of them. The culture of knowledge hoarding and secrecy,
the undue focus on publications, the dependence on big industrial
money, the patenting culture, the conversion of these temples of
learning to credential mills amongst others. A young professor
once commented that the Institute had become a paper producing factory-
the anguish writ large on his face.
5. But surely these are not specific to IISc? All leading research
universities in the world, including the Americans, follow this path.
Aren't these unavoidable? We are only emulating them.
Ah.. therein lies our problem! The Americans lay down the rules that
suit them, we follow them blindly and then lament that we are
nowhere amongst the top rankings in the world.
6. What is the alternative then?
Bring in elements that counterbalance the unavoidable (at least in the
immediate future) and that negate the negative traits in the present
system by converting IISc into a learning organization.
7. Learning organization- what is that?
In a learning organization, questioning,reflecting,learning and
modifying is conducted all the time. It is a constant state of mind
within an organization's culture and all its systems. Learning allows
for mid-course correction, in the understanding that goals will
shift as activities progress and knowledge deepens. Learning
organizations nurture ways of thinking where people are continually
learning to see the whole together.
8. But is that not what we researchers are doing? What's new?
Individually and in small groups perhaps, collectively no! No
researcher thinks in terms of the glory of the department. The
individual is concerned with his/her glory: any glory to the department
is only a spin-off of the summation of individual glories. The
institute as a whole relies on this spin-off effect for its reputation.
Rules and incentives have evolved around this basic premise.
9. Can you elaborate?
In the present scheme, credit is apportioned to researchers primarily
based on their publications. This encourages individualism and
secrecy: researchers are forced into their shells zealously guarding
their thoughts and work lest fellow colleagues steal the march over
them. And we talk of interdisciplinary research!
10.So what is it in a learning organization that will change all these?
A learning organization will have systems and practices in place
that will facilitate building bridges across disciplines and
departments. Data and knowledge generated in one lab will be
accessible in all other labs. All kinds of knowledge generated
in projects will be captured for re-use in other projects.
A learning organization will have systems that facilitate a two-way
learning with external stakeholders such as research users and
citizen scientists. Students will be able to tap a much wider pool of
sources of knowledge. Administrators will be able to rely on
quality information and knowledge for decision making.
11.But how will this negate individualism and secrecy? After all, the
researchers have to co-operate to make the systems work?
I agree. Putting systems in place will not suffice: incentives
will have to be built in to encourage researchers and other
stakeholders to freely share knowledge. That would mean overturning
the traditional undue focus on publication in journals.
12.But our Institute will be gauged by papers published!
In this era of real-time Internet publishing, the importance
accorded to traditional journal publications will gradually wane
away. There is a crying need to reward participation in PROCESSES that
eventually lead to knowledge production and dissemination.
Efficient processes will lead to greater knowledge production and
better dissemination- the 2 basic objectives of an institute like IISc.
13.So what you are implying is -do not focus on the output viz.papers
published, right?
Absolutely! Focus on making the Institute a learning organization:
everything else will follow. The 'output' will not then necessarily
be papers published.
14.But then how do we measure individual performance and the performance
of the Institute as a whole?
The EFFECTS of greater knowledge production and better dissemination
will be evident in myriad other ways- we can develop rough metrics for
these 'other' ways. As I have mentioned, the number of publications or
citations received as a means of measuring performance has several
drawbacks that are an impediment to the performance of the Institute
as a whole. Participation in processes such as knowledge sharing that
lead to knowledge production and dissemination should be the primary
yardstick in gauging individual performance. New priorities such
as knowledge integration are a different ballgame altogether: these
require different processes and associated incentives.
15. But will only 'rough' metrics do?
Yes, but the right kind of rough metrics. The focus should be on
strengthening the enabling systems and practices that will lead to
greater knowledge production and dissemination, not on tightening the
bureaucratic stranglehold in the Institute. We need just enough metrics
to give us a sense of where we are and how we could keep improving. An
'Institutional Research' mechanism can facilitate this process. The
same applies to individual performance: there is no need to wield the
stick in an Institute like ours. If it is given that people joining
the Institute are genuinely interested in their respective areas,
performance can hardly be improved by denying them their due.
In fact, it can only have a demoralizing effect impinging on their
productivity and ultimately that of the Institute as a whole.
16.So what you are implying is a major change is needed in our
priorities and attitudes?
Very much. I concede that 'change' is an ongoing process: an
undergraduate program has been started (and I think that was a very
good step), the Centre for Contemporary Studies has become a meeting
ground for people from all disciplines including the social sciences
and humanities and a few mechanisms have been put in place to take
care of patenting and industry interaction. A few interdisciplinary
centres have also been set up. But if interdisciplinary centres are
considered as just another department and managed as such, the whole
purpose gets lost.
17.What more is needed then?
If we are striving to constantly adapt and improve through change,
there is need for a professional approach to what may termed 'change-
management'. Change management at the present time primarily implies
the management of information and knowledge in all its dimensions.
18.And that can be achieved by focusing on converting the institute
into a learning organization, right?
Yes. This would involve re-examining the flow of information
and knowledge throughout the Institute, conducting a detailed
knowledge audit to identify the gaps, identifying the useful
sources of information and knowledge, culling out intelligence in a
proactive manner, tapping into collective and group knowledge,
delivering just-in-time and other contextual services, building
performance support systems and conducting knowledge based studies to
inform provision of services amongst others.
19.The 'learning organization' route appears to take a holistic view of
things. Is that a valid statement to make?
Most certainly. There have been other related initiatives as well:
the development of open access repositories, a thesis repository,
setting up of an archives cell, a database of publications. These are
admirable and we have to see how they can be made use of. To my mind,
that's the crucial part: we have to go beyond mere access capabilities
and discover how these form part of a changed system that can
contribute to enhancing the productivity of the Institute as a whole.
The field of 'knowledge management' evolved out of the need to bring
all the dispersed elements of information and knowledge together and to
take advantage of the INTEGRATIVE character of knowledge.
20. You mean we need to tie up the different information and knowledge
related elements together?
Right. And then you will discover that the whole is greater than
the sum of the parts. We will then begin to think in terms of tying
'documents' to 'learning', of exploring ways of converting explicit
knowledge contained in documents to tacit knowledge, of capturing
tacit knowledge and converting into the explicit form. We then begin
to talk in terms of developing an integrated knowledge management
architecture, of deciding what knowledge resources to invest in and
those that are not worth the cost and effort. We also begin talking
'collaboration' and 'outsourcing'.
21. Talking of outsourcing, cannot the whole 'change management' be
outsourced? We already have the Institute tying up with the IIM
for intellectual property and product development management. And
then we have the IISc Alumni Association coming up with their
'Knowledge Exchange' program for students..
Does not the Institute have an in-house library? An in-house
gymkhana? An in-house swimming pool? For the same reasons, the
management of information and knowledge cannot be outsourced
wholesale. It is not a one-time affair. As I have mentioned,
learning organizations nurture new ways of thinking where people
are continually learning to see the whole together. It is the
equivalent of questioning, reflecting, learning and modifying
all the time. It is not like a forensic mortician: it is more
like a doctor checking the pulse, diagnosing the condition,
prescribing for prevention, remedy and enhanced performance.
This is apart from the fact that we need to approach management
of knowledge from an integrated perspective, not adopt a piecemeal
approach. So yes, only an institutionalised in-house mechanism can
ensure this.
22. But where is the time for professors who have teaching and research as
their core interests to indulge in this kind of activity?
I agree. For many years, NCSI apart from the library, has been the
centre most closely associated with information and knowledge
management in the institute through provision of appropriate services.
All other departments are basically academic ones involved in
research and teaching. They are involved in knowledge production
and do not have the mandate, time or inclination to take care of
issues such as productivity improvement of the Institute as a whole.
A clear vacuum exists that only a centre like NCSI can fill.
23. But NCSI is made up of people trained in information science. Why
should they get involved in issues such as productivity improvement
and change management?
Information science is an interdisciplinary area made up of sociology,
psychology, technology and economics.('Library science' is one planet
in the 'information science' solar system). In practical terms, this
area is also known as information management. There is a direct
correlation between 'information' and 'knowledge'. The information
explosion has resulted in greater attention to better information
usage rather than just information access: of converting 'information'
to 'knowledge'. Information management thus metamorphosed into
knowledge management. Knowledge management is related to productivity
improvement and, in the present times, to change management.
24. So information scientists can claim to be true knowledge managers?
They are not the only ones to stake claim to the domain
of knowledge management. Since this is an interdisciplinary area,
there are other groups as well. But let us not forget that librarians,
and by extension information scientists, have been amongst the oldest
professional groups to identify knowledge as a distinct entity
and put the 'management' of this vital resource into actual practice
by focusing on document retrieval. Information scientists have always
dealt with an entire knowledge system: a science and engineering
library has documents from ALL areas that constitute this domain.
25. Are you implying that information scientists have an overview of the
entire knowledge system in ways that others from individual
disciplines don't?
Absolutely. Knowledge is a positional good: the value of a piece
of knowledge cannot be determined without knowing how many people
have access to it, and how many other pieces of knowledge they have
access to. If knowledge is a positional good, then its value is
continually changing in ways that may not be apparent to the average
researcher, who typically lacks an overview of the entire knowledge
system. Let me give an example: tracking the citation patterns of
journal articles has enabled information scientists to sketch the
narrative that members of a discipline are COLLECTIVELY telling. Based
on examining such patterns across disciplines, one may even be able
to project subsequent turns in the collective tale.( Refer: Fuller, S. 2002.
Knowledge Management Foundations. Woburn: Butterworth- Heinemann.)
26. Wow! That sounds interesting..
Sure, it is. Don't forget that information scientists are the ones
who trace the contours of fields of knowledge and design maps for
inquirers to navigate in and around them. It is time for information
and knowledge management professionals to be more proactive than their
self-image as facilitators would suggest.
27. But will all that not mean that professors will have to give up
part of their control? Information scientists a la knowledge managers
a la change managers will be seen as a threatening group that would
wield considerable influence?
Not at all! After all, our continued focus on better information and
knowledge management will only lead to increased individual
productivity and the productivity of the Institute as a whole.
28. So you think this is the best way to cope with change?
Very true. Coping with rapid change necessitates setting up of
new mechanisms. The Institute cannot even aspire to be
amongst the best if it runs solely on professorial talent.
Others need to be given due importance. The times demand it:
just imagine how much more performance levels will increase if
knowledge based processes in every department are made much more
efficient, inter-departmental knowledge flows made much smoother
and the right kinds of incentives and policies are in place. The
task is no doubt daunting: very much like ensuring that every single
citizen in the country gets a unique identification number(UID). But
the payoff will be huge.
29. Thank you!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Manu Rajan
National Centre for Science Information (NCSI)
Indian Institute of Science (IISc)
Bangalore 560 012
email: manu.rajan134@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment