Information Management in the Government of Canada: The Business Problem Assessment
Archived information
Archived information is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject à to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Appendix B: IM Problems
Over 480 IM-related problem statements were harvested from a cross-section of authoritative documents (see references), which were rationalized into the 55 problems presented below. The problems are numbered for ease of reference; numbers do not reflect any priority ranking.
- Publication of information is sometimes untimely: The push of information out to those who need it sometimes comes later than they need it or are able to make the best use of it.
- The quality of some information is inadequate: Some information, when it is available, is of a quality that is below the requirements of those who use it in terms of clarity, consistency,
completeness, or accuracy.
- Searching for information is more difficult than it should be: Sometimes it is difficult to access or use services that find information, which adversely impacts the ability of those who
seek information to obtain it.
- Search results can be inconsistent across navigation paths: Depending on the path or manner used to find information, a client seeking information will get different results, leading to
confusion, frustration, a lack of trust, and/or misinformation.
- Information sharing is limited: The exchange and sharing of information across programs or across organizational boundaries for legitimate reasons is hampered by the way the information is
managed.
- Some information cannot be found: Information retrieval sometimes fails because the information has been lost, or it is there but cannot be accessed because of the way it is managed.
- Retrieval of information is sometimes slow: The time it takes to get information from where it has been stored to the client who needs it sometimes exceeds what it needs to be and/or how
long the client is able or prepared to wait.
- Government is not able to manage its information resources effectively: The government is not fully living up to its commitment to steward the information assets entrusted to it and that it
generates through its activities.
- Duplicate information exists: The same information exists in more than one place in the information management domain. This is not considered a problem if the duplication is managed for a
purpose (e.g., for backup or distributed physical access). It is considered a problem when the duplication is not managed or causes other problems such as confusion or loss of synchronization.
- Departments often do not know what they have or what records contain: Some government institutions lack information on their information holdings and where to find certain information, to
the extent that they cannot say with any authority what information they do have or whether they do not have particular information. This means they cannot make management decisions about their
holdings with any certainty.
- There are real and perceived cases where some records have been deliberately altered, hidden or destroyed: Either someone is deliberately altering, hiding or destroying information they
should not, or somebody thinks someone is doing so.
- Poor IM causes personal stress: Information management problems or poor practices create unnecessary stress on individuals such as undue effort required to find information, or frustration
from being unable to find information.
- Poor availability of government record information reduces government accountability: Because of poor information management practices, the government is sometimes unable to produce
reliable information that documents decisions and processes, thus reducing the openness and accountability of government leading to weakening of public trust.
- Poor availability of management information impedes good program management: Good management of government programs is impeded by poor availability of quality information needed to support
decision-making, policy development and operations.
- Poor availability of information content impedes delivery of services: Government programs are unable to achieve their program outcomes due to poor availability of quality information that is
consumed or used in delivery of their service outputs.
- Information is collected, stored, processed and defined in silos: Information is often organized in application specific structures, intended and optimized for local use by specific
business lines. Vertical design does not allow for horizontal sharing of information with potential business partners.
- Inadequate means to share info within Service Canada: Information is often organized and managed in application specific structures, intended and optimized for division or unit specific
business use and is not accessible to other divisions or units within the same department.
- Guidance and information on best practices is inadequate: Some people who must manage information or design systems for information management are unable to do so effectively because there
is missing, incomplete or poor quality instructional information available on how to go about doing it and/or best practice examples of what others are doing.
- IM practices are inconsistent across departments: How information is handled (everything from what metadata is assigned, to when a record is destroyed) is not the same from one department
to another, or even in some cases, between units within a department or agency. Rules, procedures, organizational design, and activities vary from unit to unit, leading to inconsistent achievement of
outputs. Enterprise-wide practices are lacking in certain critical areas, such as how long to keep employee records after retirement.
- IM legislation is inadequate: Legislation dealing with some areas of information management practices is weak, missing, unclear or insufficient to set the ground rules for good information
management practices within the GC.
- IM standards are inadequate: Standards dealing with aspects of information management are missing, unclear or insufficient.
- Data and metadata definitions are inconsistent across systems: Definitions in different systems for the same data or metadata item are not the same, affecting other IM or usage.
- Difficulty aligning info and business processes amongst service delivery partners (e.g., in Service Canada): Information formats and business processes are not aligned across service
partners, making it difficult to collaborate. For example, when life cycle stages of information in a given process are different than those for the same information in another, or if business rules
for moving the “file” or case from one status to another are different, service delivery relying on such processes is difficult. Delivering services on behalf of many organizations where business
processes and information management principles have been developed independently compounds this problem, and constitutes a major challenge for organizations like Service Canada with a mandate to
deliver services on behalf of different partners across the GC.
- Rules and processes employed to protect privacy and security are, in some cases, inadequate to guarantee the required level of information security: Defined rules and documented business
processes may allow for information to travel from one business environment to another. Business environments may differ in the strictness with which they apply such business rules. In addition,
processes may change or evolve with time and within a business context. With such constant change, the degree of privacy and security protection demanded by applicable government legislation and
policies are not always reviewed to ensure full compliance or adjusted for the evolving or current business context.
- IM practices for electronic information are inconsistent with IM practices for paper records: Information is not being managed independent of media. Well-developed IM practices for
records on paper media have not been translated to the burgeoning digital world with the result that large amount of electronic information is poorly managed compared to paper-based records.
- Governance frameworks for the IM program are weak, inconsistent and fragmented across government: Governance, roles, responsibilities, ownership, organizational design, and accountabilities
for IM outcomes and activities are either poorly implemented, badly defined, unclear, incomplete, in conflict, misunderstood, ignored, or any combination thereof. Critical elements of governance
frameworks that do exist are not the same in different areas of the government. There is no clear enterprise-wide standard framework for governance.
- IM leadership is weak: There is no clear champion influencing the behaviour of others towards GC IM objectives. Potential champions are not adequately supported in fulfilling this role
and/or those who could benefit from this leadership do not recognize the need for it.
- IM Program design and planning is inadequate: People who must manage information or design systems for information management are unable to do so effectively because there is missing,
incomplete or poor quality information available on architecture, strategies, plans, organization, policies, standards and directives governing the practice of IM.
- IM strategy and directions are inadequate: Strategies and plans dealing with information management are weak, missing, unclear or insufficient to be effective in implementing good
information management within the GC.
- Incompatible IM tools and technology limit information access and sharing: Information, which could be accessed or shared, is not accessed or shared, sometimes because of incompatible
design or implementations in the underlying technical infrastructure.
- We are not building enough common solutions and shared services: There are too many stovepipe systems in the technical infrastructure underlying information management. This prevents
greater interoperability and with that, efficiency gains and better outcomes.
- Public servants do not possess the relevant IM education, skills and expertise: Some in the government who must manage information are unable to do so effectively because they do not
possess the necessary skills. IM knowledge is missing from the work force and IM training to develop the necessary skills is either inadequate or not available.
- There are real or perceived legal and policy barriers to information sharing: Laws and policies either unintentionally prevents the beneficial and desirable exchange of shareable
information, or misguided interpretations of the laws and policies cause individuals to resist sharing information. (Legislated intentional prevention of sharing is not considered part of this
problem).
- The IM standards that do exist are poorly implemented: Standards dealing with aspects of information management are badly implemented or ignored.
- Some information is destroyed before it should be, or is kept longer than it should be: Some information is destroyed before its legal expiry date. Some information is kept beyond the time
designated for its legal destruction. These are violations of rules. Other information is destroyed before all need for it has expired or it is kept well beyond any reasonable need for it. These
undermine service and efficiency.
- Some information that should be captured is not always captured: Some information that is supposed to be captured for potential use later is not captured. 'Not Captured' means that
the information exists but is not acquired to be managed as an information asset.
- Metadata is sometimes incorrect or incomplete: Some metadata has been incorrectly assigned, or required metadata is missing (required either by rules or for desired retrieval and other IM
activities).
- Quality assurance for information is not always effective and/or implemented: The effort to ensure the quality of information (i.e., its clarity, consistency, completeness, timeliness, and
accuracy) is not actually reaching the desired level of quality, or no effort for quality assurance is being expended.
- Some information is inadequately protected vis-à-vis privacy and security: Privacy and security are being compromised in some situations by people who are not following the rules while
handling information.
- Poor IM causes network congestion: Information management problems or poor practices sometimes create an unnecessary load burden on information networks. For example, too much information
is being stored or stored inefficiently, or too many attempts are required before the right information is obtained.
- Clients face unacceptable repetition and duplication of information entry and processes: Properly trained personnel should not need a client to retrieve information already captured and
existing in GC repositories.
- Departments lack information and human resource strategies to develop IM skills and abilities in staff: Some institutions do not take into consideration information management skills and
abilities in their HR planning and activities, either through oversight or because they lack the necessary tools to determine what they are and address them.
- There is insufficient IM staff in the current work force: In some units and departments, there are not enough IM practitioners or IM-knowledgeable people for all the IM work that must be
done.
- Demand and expectations are overwhelming current IM capacity: In some units and departments, the human and system capacity for managing information is being outstripped by increasing demand
for this capacity, and by increasing expectations for needed information management activities. Without intervention, this gap will grow wider.
- Funding for IM is not sufficient: Financial resources directed at achieving IM outcomes are not sufficient. This means that other needed resources (time, manpower, systems, physical
resources, services) cannot be obtained.
- The tools provided to protect information vis-à-vis privacy and security are not always adequate: A comprehensive and flexible tool kit does not always support the degree of privacy and
security protection demanded by applicable legislation and policies. Dedicated tools do not keep up with continuously evolving threat of misuse of private information or possible breach of security
- A culture of IM does not exist across government: Government programs, organizations and people have not integrated good information management into their patterns of behaviour.
- There are cultural barriers to information sharing across government: Government programs, organizations and people resist sharing information with others, and this resistance has become
ingrained in their patterns of behaviour.
- Some information users lack confidence in IM: Some clients of information management are unwilling to use the services of IM or to believe that information management will meet their needs.
- Focus on IT impedes implementation of good IM: In designing IT systems to support IM practices that fulfill business needs, more attention is given to potential technological capabilities
than to real information management requirements. 'Attention' can mean resources, prominence, or measurement. Many IM projects are treated and understood to be IT projects, and at present, many
of these “IT projects” don’t systematically identify IM requirements.
- Poor IM wasting money: Value-for-money is not what it could be. Inefficiency; duplication; tasks requiring too much effort because of the way they, or the systems supporting them, are
implemented—all have a negative impact on the bottom line. Money could be saved by better IM practices.
- Some government institutions have fragmented, ad hoc, and informal approaches to IM: The governance, approach and attitude towards information management in some institutions is haphazard,
lacks planning, gets little attention, and is inconsistent in terms of the practices that are in place, with the result that there are disparate pockets of IM practice, weak practices, or IM is
missing where it should be present.
- IM Policy has been poorly implemented: Policies on information management that exist have not been fully implemented, or have been implemented in a way that does not achieve the intentions
of the policies.
- The process by which standards are developed lacks coordination, alignment and clarity: The process through which standards dealing with aspects of information management are developed is
vague, unclear and badly implemented. Separate bodies attempt to develop standards without clear authority, and with little or no alignment or coordination of their efforts. In the GC, it is
unclear who has authority for IM standards development.
- It is hard to articulate a clear business case for IM: Government programs, organizations and people do not understand why good information management matters to them because it is
difficult to make a clear, solid case.
- Date modified: