ARCHIVED - Management of Government Information Holdings (Review Guide) - November 11, 1995

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Planning a Review of Management of Information

General Issues

A review of the management of information may include any or all of the following components: management and coordination (Chapter 3); information planning (Chapter 4); collection, creation, receipt (Chapter 5); organization, transmission, use and retrieval (Chapter 6); storage, protection and retention (Chapter 7); and disposition through transfer or destruction (Chapter 8). A review of the management of information could also be part of a larger review, where it is a subset of a review of many other management issues.

In addition to the components covered in Chapters 3 through 8, it is important that a review of the management of information also consider the quality of people (human resources) and the adequacy of equipment (physical resources) involved. Further, the attributes of information (discussed in Chapter 1) can be used as a basis to analyze and comment on the management of information.

Some of the general issues and questions that can be addressed in a review are listed below, along with a reference to the relevant chapter of the Guide.

Planning and Scoping Issues

Terminology

The terminology used in this Guide is consistent with that of the Treasury Board information management policies. However, this terminology may differ from that used within individual government institutions. Therefore, users of this Guide are reminded that titles, activity descriptions and other terms within their institutions may be defined differently. For example, the terms "computer support," "informatics" and "information systems management" may be used by different organizations to mean the same thing. Clarity in the meaning of titles and terms will be important when planning a review of the management of information.

Diversity of Information-Based Functions and Information Media

Management of information involves many functions as well as various media. Each information-based function has its own detailed practices and procedures. Also, characteristics of the storage media are quite different. For example, practices for storage, protection and transmission of microfilm are quite different from those for electronic media.

The issues to be examined and the level of detail required, depend upon the context of the review. A review might look at some issues in the context of the MGIH policy across various functions and media. For example, information retrieval could be reviewed across all information-based functions and media. Alternatively, a review might look at detailed issues pertaining to a particular function or to a particular medium. For example, a review of the library function might look at specific aspects of the handling of books and periodicals. This may require a much more detailed and specific set of review objectives, criteria and questions/practices in order to supplement those set out in this Guide.

It will be useful to identify which functions and which media will be included in the scope of a review. A review of MGIH might cover some or all of the following:

• Corporate policy and planning
• Data management
• Telecommunications
• Office systems and computer support
• Records management
• Library services
• Information collection
• Public opinion research
• Forms management
• Access to information
• Privacy
• Security
• Ministers' offices (refer to MGIH Guideline 9 and the National Archives Act)

If managed outside the above-mentioned functions, a review of MGIH will include the management of records or published material in the following media:

• paper
• maps
• photos
• films
• plans
• videos
• microfilms
• tapes

Type of Review Performed

The Guide does not differentiate between "self assessment," "internal audit" or "program evaluation" issues. It is left to reviewers to decide whether or not to cover specific issues and in what context this will be done. The review of some issues will, however, be viewed as critical by National Archives for purposes of its evaluation and reporting responsibilities under the MGIH policy. Specifically, National Archives is concerned with the identification, organization, storage, conservation, retention and disposal of information holdings. Hence, institutions should discuss the scope of their reviews with National Archives before undertaking them. Likewise, where reviews will cover published materials, institutions should discuss the scope of reviews with National Library before undertaking them.

Magnitude of Information-Based Functions

Particularly in large departments, a review of the management of information may or may not include all components of the functions under review. A review should examine those components of a function, or issues, which are important to the institution as indicated by the reviewer's risk assessment or analysis. Consequently, reviewers may choose to include only certain aspects in a particular review.

Thus it is important to identify the scope of the review so that readers of the review report will understand what is included and excluded. Presumably, other major components of the function which are excluded from a current review would be included in some other review(s).

Level of Focus

A review can be conducted at different levels within an institution. It might examine only centralized functions (at headquarters), or only decentralized functions (in the regions), or both. Similarly, a review might cover only the corporate level or the branch level, or both. An additional dimension is whether a review would be performed on the basis of an institution's organization chart or whether the review would be conducted on a functional basis (i.e., functions which cut across the organization chart). The scope of a review should be clear as to the level of focus, so that users of the review report will understand the review results.

 

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page