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

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Management and Coordination

Framework for the Management of Information: Objective 1

The institution's management structure facilitates effective coordination of all information-based functions.

Criterion

1.1 Accountability and responsibility for the management of information are assigned across the organization to senior management, information-based function specialists, line managers and staff.

Questions/Practices

1.1.1 Have responsibilities for the management of information been included in formal organizational documentation such as policies, procedure manuals, position descriptions, etc? Are responsibilities clearly described? Are accountabilities clearly explained?

1.1.2 Do managers, information specialists, and staff take into account the mission and strategic priorities of their institution in establishing responsibilities for the management of information? Are they aware of, and do they understand, their respective responsibilities for the management of information holdings, i.e. can they explain their responsibilities in discussions or in response to questions?

1.1.3 Are users at all levels aware of their own responsibilities regarding information holdings? Do they have the knowledge, skills and tools to exercise these responsibilities? For example, is information management an element of the orientation for new employees? Do users have printed or on-line guides to institutional holdings and do they know how to retrieve information from them?

1.1.4 Does the delegation of responsibilities, and the related reporting relationships in the organization provide avenues for senior management to resolve conflicts or overlaps between information-based functions? For example, if the security group of an institution is in a different branch than the office systems and computer support group and a conflict arises between these groups on an information security matter, is it clear which senior managers will be involved - and have the authority to resolve the conflict?

1.1.5 Are reports on the progress of information-based functions towards achievement of their plans forwarded to senior management or to the senior official responsible for the management of information holdings?

Criterion

1.2 A senior official is designated to represent the institution to Treasury Board Secretariat and other central agencies for the management of information holdings. (MGIH policy, requirement 1.)

Questions/Practices

1.2.1 Is a senior official clearly identified and recognized across the institution as the person who is designated for purposes of the MGIH policy? Are the role and responsibilities of the senior "designated official" clearly articulated and communicated throughout the organization?

1.2.2 Does the delegation of responsibilities, and related reporting relationships within the institution permit the designated official to speak for all the relevant information-based functions? If some information-based functions do not have an organizational link or reporting relationship to the designated official, how does the designated official represent them to central agencies? Also, how, for the purposes of the Information Management Plan and related activities, does the designated official for information holdings coordinate actions with the designated official for information technology?

Framework for the Management of Information: Objective 2

The institution ensures coordinated management of all of its information-based functions - leading to improved services and better program delivery.

Criterion

2.1 Linkages and common goals/needs among information-based functions are identified.

Questions/Practices

2.1.1 Have corporate information managers developed an infrastructure of policy, systems and procedures for managing information effectively? Does the infrastructure link separate information management functions in order to provide for coordination of goals and services?

2.1.2 To what extent does the institution's Information Management Plan (IMP) cover its various information holdings, including non-electronic media? If some information holdings are not included in the IMP, what are the reasons?

2.1.3 To what extent are opportunities for sharing information, services, etc. identified among information-based functions? Are common information requirements, services provided, user audiences, etc. identified in order to avoid possible duplication or overlap?

2.1.4 Are all stages of the information life cycle considered in exploring linkages and common goals/needs among information-based functions?

Criterion

2.2 Plans are established for the support requirements of information holdings in all media.

Questions/Practices

2.2.1 How do plans for the management of information link with support requirements for corporate and operational information holdings? For example, do plans incorporate requirements to ensure the widest possible access and use of information by users?

2.2.2 Do information plans address restrictions on the use and disclosure of information in recognition of privacy and security considerations?

2.2.3 Do information plans include retention and disposal provisions relevant to the nature of the holdings?

Criterion

2.3 A corporate inventory is maintained for managing the institution's information holdings. (MGIH policy, requirement 1.)

Questions/Practices

2.3.1 Does the institution maintain a current, comprehensive and structured identification or classification system or systems which provide an effective means for organizing and locating information and, in composite form, comprise a corporate inventory for managing information holdings? When developing the corporate inventory, it may be useful for institutions to consult Management of Government Information Holdings: Technical Specifications for an Automated Corporate Inventory of Holdings.

2.3.2 Are the criteria that dictate what is in the inventory clearly defined? Is the corporate inventory kept up-to-date? How is this done? How often is it done? Does the inventory reflect the actual, current holdings of the institution?

2.3.3 Where the corporate inventory is a combination of systems, has the institution considered using a thesaurus function as a means to establish a more complete and effective linkage between the component systems? In some institutions, the implementation of a good thesaurus function has avoided the need to create a new corporate inventory. A good thesaurus function can link previously separate "islands of information."

2.3.4 Is there a periodic review of the relevance of the components of the corporate inventory? Who appraises the adequacy and need for particular information holdings and the related information technology? Are actions taken to eliminate unnecessary holdings and avoid duplication of holdings? Has the institution made information easier to share by encouraging greater compatibility among supporting technologies?

2.3.5 Does the corporate inventory include all information holdings under the control of the institution, including those held by individual managers and staff members? Where information is held by individuals, are the responsibilities and accountabilities for this information integrated with those for corporate information holdings - including the maintenance of the corporate inventory? In other words, does everyone understand what "under the control of the institution" means when applied to information held by individuals?

2.3.6 Do users find the corporate inventory helpful when they are looking for information? In other words, do they actually use the corporate inventory? Is there a system in place to measure user satisfaction?

2.3.7 How is information captured in order to maintain the inventory of information holdings? Does the system keep the inventory complete and up-to-date? Is information in all media captured, including electronic forms?

 

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page