Developing an information strategy

The Guidelines did not attempt to define an ideal strategy; however the original guidelines identified six components which were the basis of a framework for an Information Strategy. The experiences of the pilot sites showed that in general terms these components worked, however in the light of that experience the components were amended into the following 5 iterative stages in the revised Guidelines:

1. Getting started - Secure senior management commitment, identify individuals and committees needed for the development of the Information Strategy, define the scope of the strategy and the approach to be taken. Understand the organisation, particularly its strategic direction, priorities, the challenges and opportunities (e.g. new technology)
2. Information needs - Establish the methodology and project plan for identifying information needs. Select an area and the people to involve. Collect and analyse data on information needs and the issues arising. Prioritise need
3. Implementation - Identify a prioritised list of projects to be implemented and put in place project management and change management programmes to promulgate the strategy, gain acceptance and understanding and change attitudes
4. Roles and responsibilities - Identify, understand and accept the roles and responsibilities of those involved in the creation or use and maintenance of information and the information strategy
5. Monitoring and review. - monitor effectiveness of strategy and review and update as necessary.

The Guidelines highlighted that there would be differences in the process for different institutions. Three main factors were likely to produce such variations.

The first was the decision-making process within the institution; The more devolved the arrangements, the more complex and time consuming the development process would be in order to ensure the set of attitudes sought for the institution genuinely pervade it.

Whilst there is a strong belief in the unique mission of the institution, first loyalties are often to the subject discipline, and innovations and good practice have largely developed at departmental level. General strategies are often viewed with some suspicion as not relevant to individual departmental experience.

Birkbeck Case Study

Interestingly the pilot and exemplar sites developing an Information Strategy were evenly split, whilst there were differences in approach, the information strategies approach worked well or not so well in both types of institution, the main differentiating factors appeared to be the level of senior management commitment and the amount of resources committed to the process.

The second decisive factor would be how much the institution had already developed the concept of Information Strategy (as defined in the Guidelines) for some institutions a number of the components of the framework would already be in place. Most of the pilot/exemplar sites already had some form of strategic planning for information systems/technology but recognised the need for an information strategy and applied to be pilot or exemplar sites.

Finally the size of the institution would impact on the process. The framework was devised with larger institutions in mind. Small institutions would be able to collapse some of the activities in the framework.

The evaluation report of the JISI (JISC 2001) highlighted that large HEIs generally had greater difficulty creating an Information Strategy than small institutions, because of the resistance to centralisation and turf wars between competing interests. On the other hand, larger HEIs generally had fewer resource problems in the creation and implementation of their strategy. The following are some of the comments from respondents in the report:

• Resource centres are at liberty to do what they want, it's difficult to enforce a top down strategy
• There are so many opportunities being presented at the moment that require a level of 'joined up' thinking when it comes to utilising the investment in our IT and other networks. Turf wars intervene and a greater understanding of what is good practice in other sectors would help us develop much faster
• We are relatively small so there are few strategic problems, its mainly practical issues. We have good backing from the senior management team