Knowledge management in a library, even a specialist
one such as a Parliamentary Library, can conjure up images of one large
catalogue, listing the complete collection and managed by librarians
mediating the information into a politically acceptable form. As ever,
the truth is more complex. There are about fifteen different collections
within the New Zealand Parliamentary Library. Only some parts are
catalogued. Access to collections in other parts of New Zealand and
across the world means that the information sources available to the 120
Members of the New Zealand Parliament and their staff are therefore
vast. The key to the translation of this information lies in the heads
of librarians and analysts who can turn this information into ‘MP
relevant’ form i.e. knowledge useful for the political process. The
paper addresses six questions regarding knowledge management in this
political context and suggests some ways in which these processes are
already working in New Zealand to ensure the best ‘fit’ of services for
MPs and their staff.
Introduction
To a librarian, knowledge management may be the equivalent of whistling
in the dark, a hopeful sign that the overwhelming amount of information
coming their way can be “managed” – catalogued, not catalogued, thrown
out, put into electronic form, and then dealt with. In consultancy
terms, knowledge management has been defined as a system of information
resources which promote more efficient and effective working. This
definition assumes a paradigm of business where efficient and effective
working is both measurable and measured. Not so in Parliament (what does
an efficient democracy look like?) or the Library which serves a major
part of its information needs. So, for the moment, I shall define it as a
process of translating information into resources which serve
Parliament in its day to day and longer term needs.
Also at the start, note the difference between knowledge and
information – many learned articles have been produced on the
differences between them – for the purposes of this paper knowledge is
defined as information that is in a form that can change something or
somebody, or allows that change process to be considered. It gives
history, context and meaning. In carrying out its duties, the
Parliamentary Library must produce the knowledge – and then trust that
it will not be manipulated by the political process. At the same time, a
healthy scepticism about politics demands a prophylactic, risk averse
approach to the handling of such knowledge, and the interaction between
the Library and its clients.
Six questions
Knowledge management (KM) in a Parliamentary setting covers a range of
issues – the use of knowledge in a democratic process, efficiency and
effectiveness given the necessary split between Parliament and the
Executive, and the perhaps less necessary split between various branches
of the Parliamentary Service, the impact of budgetary constraints and
resource allocation decisions. The division of Parliamentary agencies
and the Executive, the blurring of these boundaries over the past few
years, who generates and utilises the knowledge, whose knowledge
paradigm has credibility (who is listened to and who ignored) all have
their place in consideration of the issues in a political environment.
While not attempting to encompass all aspects of the debate, I want to
address a series of questions which are relevant to the provision of
information from a Parliamentary Library to Parliamentarians, their
staff and (often forgotten) the political research units which serve
them.
The six questions are as follows:
- Is Parliament getting the information it needs to carry out its duties as efficiently and effectively as possible?
- How can and should technology influence the access to and availability of information?
- What counts as knowledge and not just speculation?
- What and who is the knowledge generated by the Parliamentary Library for?
- Are we structured as a Library as well as we could be?
- Who owns the information, and who pays?
I do not attempt to give definitive answers, but to add to the debate. The approach is discursive, rather than analytical.
Question 1. Is Parliament getting the information it needs to carry out its duties as efficiently and effectively as possible?
What does Parliament need to fulfil its obligations? Presumably,
information on which to base its legislative decision making, and to
meet its accountabilities to voters. The information can be just that –
statistics, analysed data from various sources – or can be turned into
knowledge through deeper research and contextualiseing results.
Looking at what the Parliamentary Library actually produces , it appears that Parliament needs:
- Personalised and confidential responses to questions from MPs and their staff
- Electronic portals to key subject areas – pushing information relevant to MPs onto their desktop.
- An overview of each Bill introduced into the House and reported back from Select Committees
- Research papers varying from short, electronic only I-briefs (2
pages maximum) to Background Papers – our latest on climate change over
100 pages
- Media monitoring – in a limited way
(These outputs are very similar across western Parliamentary
democracies generally, so it’s not just New Zealand which thinks this is
what MPs need.)
The Library attempts at all times to personalise the service – our
own research into MPs needs has told us that each MP has specific
preferences for the information wanted, how they process it (if at all),
and how they want information delivered. Feedback shows that the
individual, speedy and confidential response is the most highly regarded
service the Library performs.
We also keep a watching brief on issues as they develop – MPs who are
opinion leaders ask individual questions which can often lead to
questions in the House, media releases and ‘issues of the day’.
Information supplied by the Library as answers to questions can later
become the basis for updating an electronic subject portal, or a short
I-brief, available to all. It could be argued that this ‘democratisation
process’, the spreading of knowledge, is one of the key, although often
unnoticed, services that the Library provides .
While some MPs are major users of the Library, and utilise the
information gathered from specific questions to develop their parties’
policies – the free good of research allows them to spend in other areas
– others rarely if ever ask questions or use other library services.
Maori MPs are also noticeable by their absence from many user
statistics. There is much work still to do in matching our services with
individual needs.
One area of research work that is developing rapidly in New Zealand’s
Multi Member Proportional voting (MMP) environment is the greater role
of Select Committees. This more prominent role was freely predicted at
the time of the first MMP election in 1996, but has taken time to
develop. Select Committees have major information needs. Their analysis
of draft legislation, and their increasingly proactive role in
instigating their own inquiries – cannabis, tertiary education, organic
agriculture are a few of the most recent – has put a huge research
workload onto Select Committee staff. Research requirements for Select
Committees, while they may not be addressed directly by Library staff,
will imply further work for the Library, given the collection resource
and experience within the Library. (The average tenure of Select
Committee clerks is now down to 14 months).
So, to return to the question, this is what we think they need. What
though, do MPs really want? This is where the nature of oppositional
politics makes itself felt. Want is about discrediting the government
(if in opposition),
“ I want the electoral roll for Wellington Central” – (to discredit
the Minister apparently residing at two different addresses and owning
four houses).
Want is about looking good, keeping up with the story of the day – or
hour – having information that noone else has. Knowledge in a political
environment is therefore less about objective, factual information than
about timing and scarcity value.
In a political environment, we need to be very aware that knowledge
is created through received paradigms, often competing. We in the
Library also have our own beliefs, values, stories, and ‘received
wisdom’, not all of which is still relevant or even true. Paradigms also
shift, often confusingly fast, especially in the area of national
economic performance, one of the key subject areas for MPs’ questions.
How we can translate ‘objective information’ through a political
paradigm which speaks directly to MPs needs, while still preserving our
reputation for an apolitical stance, is a key issue in developing our
approach to research.
We need to be able to understand not only their information needs,
but how this information is used – turned into knowledge – and then
anticipate this process, and put it into context.
The ‘whole picture’ is often not apparent, especially at the time the
issue is ‘hot’. MPs in this environment often exist on a meagre diet of
fragments of information, corridor exchanges, and what as been called a
‘cottage industry of miscellany’ produced through debatable and
unfocused research (Not the Library’s!). There is therefore a place for a
cooler look at an issue, a research paper on a topic that hit the
headlines but is now relegated to the inside pages. (Whether it is then
read is another matter – a paradox between what MPs want, and what they
need for their decision making through legislative processes).
Most of the Research and Analysis Branch’s work is focussed on
economic issues and the statistical information around education,
health, social policy and crime. To that extent, Parliamentarians are
well serviced. However, we probably know more about possums than the
family (Possum control Background Note 00/2)!, and no, we haven’t done a
research paper on family issues, although specific topics, such as
migration, youth suicide and welfare benefits all took the family as a
starting point.
So our clients get what they want, usually. What they probably need
is better social policy information, hopefully no longer subject to the
vagaries of government interference – such as the hapless researcher who
used the term ‘poverty’ in his research in Muldoon’s time , or the
attempts at qualitative social research during the 1990s. Also, a better
understanding of constitutional issues and the political cycle; our
Background Note on the New Zealand constitution is still a winner,
despite being around for nearly three years now.
After all this matching of MPs needs and wants to Library services,
let us not get carried away in thinking that our research might drive
the political process – short time horizons and a lack of understanding
of much contextual information, plus values and beliefs drive this as
clearly as ever (issues such as the cannabis and hemp inquiries,
superannuation and the ‘brain drain’ being cases in point.) The best we
can do is to build and maintain the trust of MPs that our research
replies and papers are well analysed, are as objective as possible, and
that we guard against the taint of political bias. The rest is up to
them.
Question 2: How can and should technology influence the access to and availability of information?
The Library is currently putting much of its resource into developing
subject portals, and other electronic access to information, including
commercial databases, mostly from the USA. In addition, the Internet is
becoming one of the key information databases for MPs and librarians
alike. The message is very much “search here before asking us a
question”. The proliferation of information sources may be a factor in
the decline in questions being asked of the Library – but not in the way
guessed at. We had assumed that the more difficult questions, which
would take longer to answer, would become the norm. Not so. MPs who
asked for particular documents continue to do so. Those who had asked
the more analytical questions on statistical and economic information
continue to use the Library as their policy development resource. What
has happened is in the middle ground, where political research units in
particular, are asking for information not available on the Internet, or
a variety of aspects of a particular issue is requested from overseas
journals.
The plethora of technologies, and their rapidly changing nature, has
led to problems which are only recently being acknowledged. We cutback
our daily newspaper ordering, given the services – originally free – of
such electronic access services as Stuff and Newsroom . Now Stuff will
be ‘pay as you go’., and their archives are hardly wonderful. Infotrac
has access to over 3,000 serials for us, but they are overwhelmingly US
in provenance, there is only full text access to some of them and you
can’t see where they sat on the page of the original journal. However,
the ease of access to this particular database may well tempt a harassed
librarian with a 1pm deadline not to search further for more local
commentary or more relevant analysis of the issue.
Technical problems abound with the increasing reliance on rapidly
evolving technology. The oversize floppy disk with no PC drive available
means that some electronic storage media may now be unreadable.
Microfilm tapes may no longer fit the current spoolers, librarians can
spend all day in front of a PC not using the collection, especially
those items in the lower basements. Who knows how to use microfilm
readers – how do you even switch them on? A recent power outage left
people at a loss – how to work without electronic resources? Meanwhile,
the older parts of the collection continue to deteriorate, making it
even less likely that anyone would attempt to take the books off the
shelves, let alone use them to search for historical context.
The digital divide is not just about those with access to electronic
resources being better able to take part in society. MPs are
overwhelmingly paper and people people. Many of them use their computers
only for email, for keeping in touch with people. While we may be able
to serve their needs using electronic means, and increasingly they will
be able to this for themselves, the technology must not be allowed to
become the message. We need to be aware of the limitations to the
information we (and they) can access by electronic means. There are
people around Parliament with more relevant information in their heads
than could ever be found on the most expensive database, or the best
Internet search engine. I will come back to this point, but for the
moment, beware of technology! Time in front of a computer may more
usefully be spent browsing the stacks or talking round the water cooler.
Question 3: What counts as knowledge and not just speculation?
In a political environment, credibility is often gained by who said it.
In the same way, the Parliamentary Library is frequently cited in
Hansard and in Select Committee as a shorthand for ‘reliable and
objective’ information. There are some more notorious MPs who can arrive
at the wildest conclusions from the small pieces of information gleaned
from us – and issue it as a Press release. We have few defences in this
case, but most parties are careful in their attribution to the Library.
The authority of the Library is its best prophylactic, and we must
ensure that ‘safe km’ practices are practised in order to guarantee that
protection. These include written quality control procedures that are
understood and adhered to, a culture of questioning and checking
information before accepting its validity, and developing a culture of
knowledge sharing that rewards the sharer, and not just the user of that
knowledge. The process of sharing knowledge also flushes out the
speculative assertion from the facts, an extremely useful process in a
political environment.
Question 4: What and who is the knowledge generated by the Parliamentary Library for?
This may seem a strange question. Our services are specifically for
Parliamentarians, although our International collection of documents
from such institutions as the United Nations and the World Bank are also
available to members of the public.
But Parliamentarians use the services in different ways which can
raise some eyebrows – questions which start “We’re developing policy on
xxx – please give us analysis on the subject in a form that we can use
to formulate the policy” Or “we’re not getting officials to give us the
information we need – can you help us?” We may be straying into the area
of contestable advice, which we have never been keen to enter, seeing
ourselves traditionally as objective deliverers of information rather
than knowledge disseminators, or decision influencers.
But as the world becomes more complex, and the sheer weight of
available information doubles every few months, the need for advice and
guidance, based on knowledge, and not just information, will grow. The
Library through its research is already providing this knowledge base,
and there is no reason to expect that the need will diminish. In fact,
since the Christine Rankin case, (where a Departmental Chief Executive
took the State Services Commissioner, her employer, to the Employment
Court), this has become more noticeable as a trend.
Our Prime Minister recently stated as a result of this case, that
while officials would still be expected to give free and frank advice to
their Ministers, it would from now on be in a “more formal setting” .
There appears to be a growing gap in the provision of advice that is
trusted, especially from government officials. It is an area which the
Library is aware of, but is careful to protect itself from any hint of
‘advice giving’ other than contextualiseing the information provided. A
definite need for prophylactics in this type of environment, especially
now we are giving oral briefings to MPs where we are asked “well, what
do you think?”
The most used and valued aspect of the Library is its answers to
individual questions. These are dealt with on a confidential basis, but
are also recorded on a reference database. Similarly, the statistical
information analysed for a particular question is kept on a series of
spreadsheets, now numbering in the hundreds. From time to time, this
information is updated, ‘recycled’ and issued as a research paper to all
MPs. This is seen as a reasonable method of efficiently using the
information gleaned for one person for a wider audience. Most topics so
far used in this way are ‘old faithfuls’ like student loans and crime
statistics. The personalised service has in effect become ‘democratised’
by its provision to all.
Coming into an election year also poses the question of who is it for
– or perhaps, why is it needed? While our colleagues in the UK
Parliamentary Libraries shut down their services in the weeks leading up
to an election, in New Zealand we contribute information to parties
busily putting together an election strategy, and next year (an election
year) we are developing new Electorate Profiles – a service with
current electorate MPs specifically in mind. Whether this gives them an
unfair advantage over other candidates is moot – but we also hope to be
able to put the Profiles on the Internet, so a levelling process should
mean that the information is available to all candidates in time for the
run up to next year’s election.
Our research also serves a wider audience. The appearance of research
papers including Bills Digests on the Web in the next few months
signals that we believe our work serves electorates, and the interested
voter, as well as MPs and their staff. We are working with the Office of
the Clerk to better integrate our research with their Select Committee
process, again signalling a closer ‘fit’ between the Library and other
Parliamentary agencies. We have wider horizons than the 120 MPs in the
chamber.
Question 5: Given all the above, are we structured as well as we could be?
Last year, the Library was restructured for the first time for many
years – the process was difficult, as all restructurings are, with the
added problem of an organisation unused to change. The aim was to move
the focus of the Library from the collection, and its internal clients,
to our external clients (MPs and their staff) and to develop new, in
particular electronic, services for them. At the same time, the research
side of the library was given a higher profile, getting its own manager
for the first time.
We are becoming generally more client focussed, although the physical
distance of the Library from the rest of Parliament is still a major
barrier. The shift of resources away from hard copy to electronic
resources, with the cancellation of many tens of journal subscriptions
over the past 12 months has been difficult. The fact that the journals
have been rarely used still does not lessen the feeling of loss when the
subscription comes to an end. It is difficult to know whether they were
rarely used because they were not known about, or whether they were
genuinely useless to the Parliamentary process. The catalogue of serials
was tricky to navigate, (especially for a non-librarian). There is no
central repository of this info – it’s often in individual’s heads.
While we can therefore ask colleagues where things are, it is easy to
overlook some of the straightforward information sharing processes which
we could use instead – documented systems, written descriptions of
where to access particular parts of the collection, and who to go to for
information on a particular subject, a filing system and shared drive
that is used by everyone.
In this way, the formal structures of the Parliamentary Library would
become less relevant, especially in the move to ‘cross-Library’
projects. This will put pressure on the ‘library culture’ with its rules
based approach to the provision of information towards a freer, more
client centred culture where new ways of interacting can be tried and
tested.
Question 6: Who owns and pays for the information?
This is not just a question of copyright, despite the large copyright
notices on each photocopier. (Our copyright law differs from that in
Australia and means, for example, that we are constrained by law in our
dissemination of press cuttings, one of our most requested services).
While the Library owns the information generated, and a copyright
notice appears on each research paper, research and analysis is seen as a
free good by most clients. One of the smaller political parties frankly
admitted they used the Library as their research unit so they could
spend their research dollars on expanding their Web pages. While we have
to cut back on serials to pay for electronic developments, we are
becoming of necessity more canny in expanding resources and services
without expanding the budget.
There is a growing feeling within the Library that it is cutting to
the bone its collection services, but is still able to maintain its
‘motherhood and apple pie’ image with its clients. How can this paradox
be? Are we working smarter, or are our clients’ expectations very low?
Do they not know us very well? If so, as we get to know them better
through the client management programme, our rating level may well fall.
Such are the vagaries of political life. There may well be a shift in
MPs perception of the Library as an institution (motherhood) to
individuals who are delivering the service (the equivalent of ‘ones
mother’ with all her quirks and human failings). The institution is
wonderful. One’s mother probably less so.
The idea of user pays has not gained much leverage in the Library,
and with the advent of Internet access, it is even less likely to be an
issue. Taxpayer funds will continue to be our only income for the
foreseeable future. However, as we work increasingly closely with other
agencies, such as the Office of the Clerk, access to and paying for
information and knowledge resources will surely become an issue. At the
same time, there may be efficiencies which can be made as we work across
boundaries within the Parliamentary environment.
Knowledge management in context – the challenges in a political environment
Essentially Parliament is a people based environment. Knowledge as a
resource still rests primarily in people’s heads. Good knowledge
management would look to me like experienced and trusting researchers
working closely with their clients, in Select Committees. While
proficient in electronic accessing of material, researchers would need
the back up of other staff with good knowledge of the collection as a
whole, including the historical volumes. The researchers would be the
‘forward scouts’ who, through working directly with MPs, would fully
understand the needs and processes of the Parliamentary environment. The
culture of the Library would ensure the free flow of information and
knowledge across both researchers and collections specialists.
The Library building would be the base for librarians and researchers
who really understand the collection – all of it, not just the
electronic databases and the Internet, and can give not only current hot
news from Stuff, but can delve into the history of the issue from the
(paper) archives. Perhaps there need to be as many historians as
librarians?
Knowledge needs to include the context. While MPs may ask for a
snappy answer to a question, they (and the Library!) may also need the
protection of the implications of this answer. If they want to know the
number of teenage single mothers in Pororua, they not only need to have
the figure but also the answer to “compared to what?” – national
figures, last ten years, other mothers, other jurisdictions? They may
also need to know whether other MPs have used this information in the
past – from the Hansard record – or whether a Select Committee has
produced a report on the same topic.
Library staff also need protection given the closer links with
clients. Research is not immune from the political interference. The
closure in 1938 of the first social sciences research bureau prevented
publication of information that contradicted received wisdom of the
first Labour government, about the welfare of dairy farmers . The rise
and fall of the Public Health Commission and the NZ Planning Council act
as reminders that independent research needs to be carefully guarded.
We cannot be complacent, not only of the role of the Library, but how
easily confidence in its services can be lost, and how political issues
need to be taken into account, while guarding against over enthusiasm.
The rise of ‘green’ issues, following the election of seven Green Party
MPs, is a case in point. While enthusiastically researching new areas of
political debate, such as ethical investment of Government funds, or
growing hemp, we need to guard against assuming that some of these
issues will form part of mainstream policy development. (the minor
parties ask over 30% of reference enquiries). Good knowledge management
can differentiate between knowledge which is valuable over time (good
‘shelf life’ for research papers, for example) and which is valuable
only in the moment.
The nature and sources of information are changing and the public
sector is less a monopoly provider of information to Parliament. There
is now a wide availability of tools and acknowledgement of ‘spin’
stories, posing as information. A good example of this is the ACT (a
minority, right wing) party whose Web pages are probably at the
forefront of political technology, stating that it wanted to become “the
political Web portal for all New Zealanders” . Its pages extol the
virtues of freer trade (is this possible in NZ?), education vouchers,
right wing US think tanks, and other assorted ideological standpoints,
interspersed with opinions on issues of the day.
While user friendliness democratises knowledge by ensuring its easy
flow, at the same time there is a weariness generally in New Zealand
with the huge volume of information, more soft news and less analysis
and contextualiseing of information together with a growing cynicism
about the political process. There are therefore some risks in using the
wide variety of sources available – and a greater need for cool
analysis, with Library staff able to differentiate between fact and
opinion.
Library staff are not immune from the engulfing wave of information.
The plethora of sources and time constraints can lead to a problem
solving approach rather than challenging paradigms and providing
context. Short time frames – the “I need it now” request, limits the
proper management of knowledge. While there have been efforts in the
Library to harness the results of answering queries through the use of a
questions/answers database, use of this has gone down from 80% of
questions and answers being put on the database to around 30% in the 18
months since it was set up. Lack of time is given as the key reason,
although there may also be a lack of acknowledgement that this recording
of information is a great storehouse of knowledge for future use.
KM is not formally accounted for: the purchase agreement is primarily
about counting research reports and answers to questions – about 170
and 14,000 respectively in 2000/1. We may appear to measure our work,
manage our knowledge, by counting things. A review of reporting and
monitoring processes to focus on these keys aspects of our work is
ongoing.
Poor standards of behaviour from MPs, and the ‘dirt digging’ approach
to information gathering can lead to cynicism in library staff having
to do research which they know will be a weapon for political and
personal abuse. There can also be a poor standard of analysis from the
recipients – we did a piece of work for an MP who immediately put out a
Press release stating the complete ineffectiveness of a trade agreement –
without taking into account the downturn in world markets at the time.
These problems are not just with MPs and library staff. The
technology gatekeepers within Parliament have a lot to answer for also –
understanding little about business processes, they can be oblivious to
the fact that the technology is there to serve the process, and not for
itself. There are the concomitant problems of quickly outdated
technology also – lost records, broken data series and information
trails, often due to storage of electronic records rather than paper
based files. (This is a common problem, not just within the
Parliamentary Service).
And finally, there is poor recognition of the Maori environment for
the development of much research. There is a noticeable lack of use of
the library by Maori MPs – we have much to catch up on here, in
providing as excellent a service to Maori as we do to their colleagues.
One way in which this is happening currently is by recruiting Maori
librarians who can work directly with the Maori Select Committee, or
Maori caucus, to elucidate their information needs.
All is not lost! The Parliamentary Library has some major advantages:
- Historical tradition – we are unlikely – although we need the prophylactic approach here – to lose the library
- We are known for authoritative research, from senior and experienced researchers and librarians
- Our analysis is comprehensive, as objective as we can make it, and
we stand by our work (sign it off individually in all circumstances)
- We are prepared to experiment – we’ll try new ideas and are flexible to tailor our services
- We are collaborative – we do share information, albeit informally.
- We have good neighbours in Australia with excellent information services relevant to our own
Conclusion
KM practices rely on good information, accurate contextualisation, an
appreciation of the world view of the recipients of the knowledge, and a
level of trust which means that a risk averse approach within the
Library becomes less necessary over time.
These practices depend on the trust of staff for each other’s
information resources and values, the sharing of information whenever
possible, and the opportunities to do so. There is a pivotal role here
for the experienced librarian and analyst, with their understanding not
only of the formal Parliamentary processes, but also of the shifting
sands of the political world. The political arena is governed by norms
which are the very antithesis of good knowledge management.
Having nurtured good practice within the Parliamentary Library, we
will still need a prophylactic approach as we venture outside its
environs, in a fairly alien culture for most library staff, where
knowledge is closely guarded, shared with noone, traded, or used as a
weapon. Out there, we need all the protection we can get. Perhaps the
last question should be, how do we get good knowledge management within
the political system? The answer to that one, like miracles, takes a
little longer.
