Information is representative of a resource which requires effective management and this led to the development of interest in the use of an IA.
[2] A definition for the Information Audit cannot be universally agreed-upon amongst scholars, however the definition offered by ASLIB received positive support from a few notable scholars including Henczel, Orna and Wood; “(the IA is a) systematic examination of information use, resources and flows, with a verification by reference to both people and existing documents, in order to establish the extent to which they are contributing to an organisation’s objectives” [3] In summary, the term audit itself implies a counting,[4] the IA being much the same yet it counts IR and analyses how they are used and how critical they are to the success of a given task.
Henderson took a cost-benefit approach hoping to draw focus from manpower-costing to information storage and acquisition which he felt was being overlooked.
Quinn took a hybrid-approach combining Gillman and Henderson’s methods to identify the purpose of existing IR and to position them within the organisation, as did Worlock.
These approaches had thus far had paid little attention to the needs of the user or in making structured recommendations for the development of a corporate information strategy.
[7] Therefore, here follows a brief outline and overall comparison of four published strategic approaches in order that one might understand the development of the IA methodology.
[8] Orna produced a top-down methodology in contrast to Burk and Horton, placing emphasis upon the importance of organisational analysis and aimed to assist in the production of a corporate information policy.
Again this method was criticised for lacking some practical application and in 2004 Orna revised the methodology once more to try to rectify this problem [8] In 1998, similarly to Orna's earlier publication, Buchanan and Gibb took a top-down approach, drawing techniques from established management disciplines to provide a framework and a level of familiarity for information professionals.
Theirs was a 5-stage process: This was the introduction of a new approach to costing the IR and had an integrated strategic direction, yet the scholars admitted that this method may be impractical for smaller organisations.
[9] Henczel’s methodology drew upon the strengths of Orna and Buchanan and Gibb to produce a 7-stage process:[10] Focus was made once more on the strategic direction of the organisation conducting the IA.
An early case study produced by Soy and Bustelo in a Spanish financial institution in 1999 aimed to identify the use of information resources for qualitative and quantitative data analysis due to the rapid expansion of the organisation within a six-year period.
[12] Although the methodology was not explicitly credited to any of the above-mentioned scholars, it did follow a strategic (post 1990's) IA process including gaining support from management, the use of questionnaires for data collection, analysis and evaluation of the data, identification and mapping of the IR, cost-analysis and outlining recommendations to assist with the establishment of an Information policy.
In addition this method was believed to be cost and time-effective to the two auditors involved and the organisation used the results of the IA as a marketing tool to promote services users may not have been previously aware of.
[13] In 2006 a paper testing the 'viability' of Henczel's methodology was published in the South African Journal of Library and Information Science.
It was reported that the methodology was flexible in its application as it provided a framework which could be adjusted to suit the needs of an organisation, that the scope could be easily expanded to cover more objectives and that guidelines for data collection and analysis were varied.
[15] Positively it had been viewed as cost-effective and depicted a snapshot of the use of information in the organisation, yet it had been a 'cumbersome' process with some repetition within the planning phases.
Recommendations were made by the auditor towards greater synergy and systems analysis and it was found that staff immediately recognised the value of this output.
[17] The second case study dealt with a public body within the arts sector with the objectives to streamline evaluation and approval processes and to improve communications between stakeholders.
The sponsor also specified that a list of recommendations were required to be incorporated into a change management programme and this aligns well to Buchanan and Gibb's strategic directional method.
[18] The main strengths identified in Buchanan and Gibb's methodology were its logical structuring of stages, provision of tools, inclusive process for stakeholders, adequate illustration of the role of effective Information Management within an organisation and much like Henczel, the flexibility to tailor the methodology.
As regards the applicability of this method, the costing stage was not included in either study and that this might suggest it is not required in an information audit.
[19] The conclusions of the case studies suggested that further development into the methodologies for IA was needed to include further explanation of tools, techniques, templates, interview preparation, process modelling and analysis.
"[22] Similarities between the knowledge and information audit methodologies can be noted however, as questionnaires, the development of an inventory, analysis of flow and a data map[23] are here again used.
The importance of this audit therefore is to understand the strategic significance of an organisation's knowledge assets to ensure management is focused to those areas it is specifically required.
A practical approach to information audit: case study La Caixa Bank, Barcelona Part 2.