Reflecting an Organization's Information and Communications Culture

By Michael Glueck, Mekong River Commission Secretariat/German Technical Cooperation
May 2001

Many organizations engage into Web activities after experiencing the use of an intranet. This has created information management attitudes and, hopefully familiarity with the use of ICT. However, the use of the Web requires different skills and capacities.

The following questions help to find some answers in managing both systems and try to focus on the integration of both system components, not in the sense of technical issues, but rather attitudinal and managerial aspects.

• Do we have two different systems (intranet and Internet)?

Many organizations experienced the use of an intranet before they engaged in Internet activities. This means that staff are used to ICT, at least technically. However using the Internet effectively needs a different mindset and approach. An intranet, or its content, can be rough and unpolished serving in-house information needs. However in-house attitudes towards information sharing and knowledge management, i.e., the culture of the organization, determine the way in which the organization communicates with the outside world.

• Are the two systems managed by two different groups of persons?

The management and operation of the Internet by the group of persons operating the intranet bears the danger of just "continuing" in the same manner. Ideally the organization's in-house information culture can be described as open and participatory, which supports future intranet engagements. On the other hand, restrictions and centralized structures will constitute constraints for any open and interactive Web design.

A new group and a different approach are needed. This has implications on the internal structures and processes for information generation and management. Cooperation and integrated approaches are needed.

• How far does the organization allow for delegation and decentralized decision-making and responsibilities concerning information generation on the intranet and Internet?

IT-based information management asks for decentralized content creation and management. This asks for a change of structures and processes. The challenge is to allow for the organization's modular structure to generate information but also ensure a cohesive presentation and provision of information contributing to the overall strategic objective.

• How are contributions assessed and how do they contribute to the achievement of the organization's strategic goals?

Information management and products of an organization should be targeted at the audience's specific information needs. The contents should be in line with the strategic goals of the organization. Therefore, decentralized information generation and its products should support the objective of the respective component of the organization, as long as it's in line with the organization's overall strategy.

• Do we allow for visible dialogue within the organization and its constituency?

Any organization has to decide if and to what extent it allows and uses the Web for dialogue. This involves open forum and dialogue with and between the constituency and the organization. The portrayal of a false unity to the outside world is not only misleading but also counter-productive to any proactive contribution of information from within and outside the organization.

• What kinds of awareness mechanisms and incentives are available to stimulate contributions?

This is one of the most discussed issues of information and knowledge management. Provided that the organization expects the voluntary provision of information, effective incentives have to be in place. Such incentives (systems) are very situation-specific and based on socio-cultural values and frameworks.

• Do we try to go the next step from information to knowledge management, and what are the implications for the Internet mechanisms used in-house and externally to provide support?

The step from information to knowledge management can be seen as an increment in terms of quality of the overall organization's operation and management of its assets. Contrary to a number of self-appointed experts, ICT is not knowledge management per se. ICT can only support knowledge management by linking people and experiences. Guiding knowledge seekers to the source of information, contributes to the knowledge creation of the recipient.

• How can we open up the organizational boundaries to allow for larger subject-matter groups, i.e., "communities of practice"?

Communities of practice are one example of opening up the boundaries between an organization, its components and its constituencies. Allowing for information flows between individuals of different organizations creates more public information and adds value to both sides, namely provider and recipient.

• How can we provide access to the organizational intellectual resources (in-house library)? And what kinds of mechanisms are needed to tap external information/knowledge?

In addition to communities of practice, organizations are considering opening up their intellectual resources. Restricted areas hidden in some intranets are increasingly integrated into Internet applications. In particular, organizations with public responsibility should consider serving a wider audience by allowing access not only to its own resources, but also the contribution of information by its constituency and peers.

• Can we open the system and rotate responsibility for selected components of our Internet mechanisms (forum, discussion groups, moderation, decentralized contents provision, responsibilities for topics, geographical areas, etc.)?

If we promote an open system and information sharing, any ICT system should provide structures/components to allow the audience to play an active role in providing contents and direction. Partnerships with sector organizations and groups of our constituency can, for example, transfer responsibilities for selected ICT components. The possibilities range from temporary or thematic to permanent geographical agreements.

The term partner is often used in a very careless way. What some consider partners is often not much more than a visitor who might leave a comment on your site. A partnership needs commitment, agreements and sharing of resources and responsibilities.

• How do we allow integration of our partners' information services and products into one system while keeping ownership and recognition?

Sharing a vision, resources and information products is one side of the coin, but how can we ensure our ownership over products and processes? We all need such things for our own justification or as results to receive support from donors. Our constituency expects a clear profile and outputs related to our work. So how can we find the right balance between optimal cooperation and still produce something that can be clearly identified with our specific inputs?

• Can we aim for a system with shared ownership, responsibility for operation, maintenance and contents provision?

A visionary concept is a Web site without a clear owner. Could we come to the point when all task and responsibilities are shared and rotated without having an overall coordinating organization? A kind of a Web cooperative?