Micro-blogging website Twitter has managed to secure a "significant round of funding" from five investment firms, as was revealed through the blog post of its co-founder Evan Williams.

The new funding has reportedly come from two new investors Insight Venture Partners and T R Price, as well as its existing funders Institutional Venture Partners, Spark Capital and Benchmark Capital.

There are two problems to start with. First is that Williams was not as candid about the exact amount of investment because the investors want the deal to be a private affair. Isn't web 2.0 all about sharing information and encouraging transparent and candid conversations? Internet has liberated information and has always preached professionals to provide information. Shouldn't it apply the same rules to itself?.

Unless social media companies including Facebook - which is also known for shying away from sharing plans, projections and security measures - come out in the open, it is hard for information professionals who want to capitalise on these tools to chart out their plan or realise the potential.

Amid tight budgets, it's extremely important for marketers too to define the return on investment and unless there is more information, it is hard to define ROI. The lack of information also hinders discussion on whether the amount of investment was right in the first place. And it does not set a basis to evaluate other social media technologies.

Also presumably, Twitter has secured the funds and valued itself on the basis of its whopping 45 million users in its three-year history and expecting this to grow exponentially.

Twitter is planning to roll out adverts and even provide companies with initial insight and market reaction. But the second problem is that because information on web2.0 applications are user-generated, scattered across multiple platforms and at different times, professionals and advertisers would find it difficult to target the right information for the right set of audience.

There has to be more collaboration of content in the social media technologies before any plans to leverage on them take to the sky. And there definitely needs to be more engagement between users and social media companies.

Posted by P. Williams | October 16, 2009 Company & Financial Information, Information Management | Permalink  | Comments (0)  

Technology is amazing and we all love it. Only when it works and only when we have it.

When it doesn't work it is more than useless and redundant. It makes life and task more painful than it would have been without the help of "the damn thing in the first place".

Why do we loathe it so much when it goes wrong? Surely the answer is our dependence on it. For most of us it would be a "terrible day" if we forgot our mobile phones before venturing out. Make it a "dreadful day" if it was a smart-phone and one was "on the move" the whole day.

Making technology work is all equations and mathematics. A software works only if the code is right, a site is accessed only if the password is accurate. Our brains have become administrators and house-keepers. Today, we do not know the information per se, but we know where to find that information from.

It is a mobile phone's task to remember the number of our loved ones. It is the sat-nav's task to remind us where to take the next right and it is Microsoft Calendar's task to remember our appointments and "alert" us.

Let's take it a bit further- we don't really have to remember all the spellings- there is an inbuilt auto-correction tool; while searching for a phrase, we do not really need to type the whole phrase, artificial intelligence prompts us to "drag and drop", we do not need to rewrite or reword an article, there is "copy and paste".

It is all good- real time communication, blurring geographical boundaries, liberating information, empowering humankind and creating, managing and organising intellectual property and so on.

The newer and more novel the innovation, the harder we fall for it. Second-gen devices and applications are very attractive and addictive.

I am not patronising life without technology, but it would be interesting to pause and think how much we have started depending on even secondary technological devices and innovations such as faster broadband, plastic money, wi-fi, catch-up television, text-to-voice transcriber, file-sharing, social networking, digital radio, Skype, Second Life, communication devices.

It feels wiser to take pain in remembering (and forgetting) the birthdays of our loved ones genuinely than rendering information technology a more charismatic personality.

Because, sometimes, natural stupidity is more charming than artificial intelligence.

Posted by P. Williams | August 14, 2009 General, Information Management, Professional Development | Permalink  | Comments (0)  

...Or is our digital consumption, marked by a classic characteristic of jumping on the bandwagon? Asks Archana Venkatraman

On one hand, Ofcom research suggests that people are willing to give up on celebrations and routine pleasures such as meals out and holidays to hold on to communication services, if a choice has to be made. That fits in with the EC's digital competitiveness report found that two in every three Europeans under 24 years of age use the internet every day.

But almost exactly at the same time, another research report from social media analytics company Sysymos analysed over 11 million Twitter accounts and found that about over 85% of Twitter users post less than one update a day and that 21% of users have never posted a Tweet. In addition, the social networking site Friends Reunited is sold off for a fraction of what it was worth in 2005.

Arguably, the reason for the burgeoning success for Facebook as against Friends Reunited could be attributed to its free access as against a subscription model, which was eventually dispensed with. Similar trend was spotted by the EC's report where it said that a third of young people would not pay for online services such as music and video downloads.

Have we assumed that most internet services we use will remain free and that we just have to factor the hardware costs? Media baron Rupert Murdoch has just shaken this belief to its core.

We haven't yet sorted out our digital behaviour and our inability to put a value to our digital services. We embrace digital services- general search engines, social networking sites, news sites, email accounts, YouTube and numerous download sites - that are free, without assessing their real value and importance to us. We all know of people who have opened a Twitter account to obtain a desired URL before it is too late.

The real question is how many of us would actually give up on holiday and dining-out to keep Facebook and Twitter and Skype if all three were in fact subscription-based? In such a scenario, people willing to keep communication services would have to pay for the devices, internet connection and individual websites.

It is time we start putting a price on the communication technologies we use and choose more selectively. Web 2.0 has certainly revolutionised the way we live and communicate but if we do not exercise our discretion then the companies providing these services will gain revenge, either by charging or disappearing.

Posted by P. Williams | August 7, 2009 General, Information Management, Market Research Information, News & Reference | Permalink  | Comments (0)  

It is time to see social networking sites as just that. Networking sites. Says Archana Venkatraman

Two incidents earlier this week took the paranoia around networking tools to an absurd level. One was when MI6 chief Sir John Sawers's personal life became public when his wife innocently uploaded their holiday photographs to her Facebook account. The other was concerns expressed by UK intelligence agencies that Facebook and other social networking tools ruin the spy industry, as finding new recruits without an online trail has become nearly impossible.

In the first instance, Sawers faces a probe, and in the second, consultants are saying that having a Facebook profile is like "opening up a Pandora's box of online traceability that one can't ever truly close". The message from security experts is loud and clear - maintain a low profile at all times.

That means having no images in the public domain, or being associated with any person or organisation. What we need to understand is that while the latter is in people's control, the former is not. In today's internet age, it is hard to control information that is visible and searchable in the world wide web.

For instance, the MI6 chief was unaware of the availability of information while his wife did not consider the implications of her enthusiastic and seemingly harmless activity. Even if she had been careful with the security settings, his friends could have published the photographs and "tagged" friends' friends and so on, or he could have featured in other holidaymakers' pictures.

High profile officials must indeed have Facebook and Twitter accounts as information coming from them is fast, first hand and extremely useful. It also is important for the info pros of the future as references while documenting an event.

Instead of making them digital outcasts, they and their loved ones must be informed about the security aspects of these websites. More importantly, instead of controlling the prolific adoption of these inevitable sites, experts must advise search engines and those who run social networking sites to stop crawling through their pages for easy find-ability and to stop presenting a vast amount of information to random web search-ers.

It is the technology that has to become smarter with sensitive personal information, not people.

Posted by P. Williams | July 8, 2009 Electronic Document & Records Management, General, Information Management, News & Reference | Permalink  | Comments (1)  

Information professionals with an interest in privacy issues will be following the data trials and tribulations of social networking phenomena with some interest. The story so far goes something like this. A couple of weeks ago the company released an updated terms of service but then on February 18 decided to revert to the previous version. Why? Because Facebook has apparently received complaints from some users that revised terms appeared to imply that the company would keep personal data even if the account had been deleted. So the old terms were out back while a redrafting process took place.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg used his blog to explain what was going on. This issue has clearly caused some soul searching. Now Facebook says it is "reaching out to respected organizations to get their input" and Zuckerberg reckons that much of the language is "overly formal and protective so we don't plan to leave it there for long".
With Facebook such a dominant force in the social networking space the outcome of this episode is bound to leave its mark.
Zuckerberg wrote: "Our terms aren't just a document that protects our rights; it's the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service."
It would be interesting to know where information professionals on Facebook agree with Zuckerberg. Would privacy issues cause them to stop using Facebook or use it in a different way? Or is this just part of the price you are prepared to pay for using the tool?

Posted by P. Williams | February 18, 2009 Electronic Document & Records Management, Information Management, Legal, Tax, Regulatory & Patent | Permalink  | Comments (0)  

I was going to wait until tomorrow's keynote on Search before blogging about this, but I understand that the session will now count Andrew Kanter, Chief Operating Officer from Autonomy as a panellist.

As one of the senior figures at Autonomy it is going to be revealing what he has to say about search and what plans the organisation has for its technology. If you are involved in Enterprise search or just interested in semantic developments, this will be a must see.

With search guru Stephen E Arnold moderating the session I have a feeling that the panel will get a thorough grilling.

We will be blogging from the session so if you can't make it check back here around mid afternoon for a round up.

Posted by dgriffin | December 3, 2008 Company & Financial Information, Electronic Document & Records Management, Enterprise Content Management, Enterprise Search, Information Management | Permalink  | Comments (0)  

We all hear a lot about how Web 2.0 is applicable to all areas of life, both at work and at play. The education sector is certainly no exception with the library poised to play a crucial role in what is offered to scholars.

Professor Anne Morris, from Loughborough University examined the technology surrounding libraries and the service they provide in Higher Education. What they want to offer students is a richer learning experience.

The key thing with 2.0 tech is that the more people use it the better it gets, as far as libraries are concerned, she said.

Morris gave us a quick run through of what is on offer and its potential for helping students learn better.

Blogs - encourage the development of communities, they facilitate communication among librarians (Stanford University being a very good example).

Wikis - Offer an easy way to create lists and tips as well as the easy ability to comment on LIS services. There are of course issues with trust and security, but then that is true of any wiki.

Instant Messenger (IM) - Has been used for reference management, training and immediate online assistance.

One example that Morris gave us was the offering from the OCLC or QuestionPoint as it is known to its users. It's a good example of library's spreading the burden of information sharing and works well with a group of libraries using this technology.

Podcasts - a wide choice of material is made available to students whether as a lecture, interview, conference or tutorial. The list is substantial.

Social Networking - can be applied to recommendations, listings of popular materials and the opportunity to work in groups. The Virtual bookshelf available on Face Book is a nice idea to highlight the favourites in your collections and offer recommendations and reviews.

What the Pilkington Library have done at Loughborough is adopt a range of these ideas, such as a podcast introducing the library, a blog, RSS feeds on either all new material that comes in or a specific subject area.

What did the students think about all this? Had they even heard of the concept of Library 2.0? The research that Morris and her team conducted on the Information Department students showed that less than half of the scholars knew what the library 2.0 term actually meant. More worrying was that over 70% hadn't even used the tools or knew that they existed. However when asked if they would find receiving updates about their specific needs useful over 70% expressed a positive interest.

The general conclusions that Morris came across were mildly positive views of Library 2.0 tech. The most welcomed technology came from RSS feeds, podcasting, IM and professional reviews of books. There was little faith that fellow students would contribute much in the way of their own recommendations. The key thing to consider is that whatever technologies you are thinking of adopting, make sure they are user-centric, specific to their course needs and of course wanted in the first place.

Posted by dgriffin | December 3, 2008 Arts, Humanities & Social Science, General, Information Management | Permalink  | Comments (0)  

Do We Have a Profession?
The somewhat controversial sounding title of this morning's session was posed to us by Natalie Ceeney, head of The National Archives (TNA) and as of last night, IWR's Information Professional of the Year.

"We are now living in an 'information society'" said Ceeney, whether that is through the daily use of tools such as Google to Wikipedia and a host of social networking services. During her 8 years in the profession she has seen the importance of information rise in the organisation from that of the outsider to of critical importance.

Information of course is the life blood of public services, it has a fundamental impact on the education system said Ceeney. Information is now a mainstream issue in British politics and recognised as such at the most senior level.

What has been driving Ceeney however is her quest to get us all to consider how much of an asset information is to business and to get that recognised by the most senior decision makers. Just as importantly it's about getting recognition for those who actually work with information and the skills they bring.

Ceeney explained how a report from Cap Gemini released in March this year, found that by not exploiting their information assets, the cost to organisations equated to lost opportunities of approximately £46bn in the private sector and £21bn in public sector.

Where does this all sit for information professionals? For Ceeney, it's about how the info pros define themselves. The culture is such that "we define ourselves by our sub professions - librarians, record managers, archivists she said, "The problem is because everyone has a different job description there is a lack of a cohesive identity for info pros among the organisation." Because of that definitive description, the due recognition is amiss in their organisation.

"If we sub-divide ourselves too much there is a risk that jobs are given to other departments as they don't fit properly at the moment." "Why do we think we are so different from other departments in the organisation?" Ceeney asked, murmurs of consent rippled around the room.

Ceeney outlined her own experiences within government as an example such as her role in the data handling review, getting the acknowledgement of information as an asset. The crux of her point was that these ideas are less for the profession and more for the eyes of senior management.

In making information management mainstream, Ceeney gave us the example of her Digital Continuity project that meant a joined up strategy of information management across government rather than each department trying to achieve it themselves and the great cost each would generate.

The biggest challenge we have got is getting senior people to realise that this matters and less the information professional.

Posted by dgriffin | December 3, 2008 General, Information Management | Permalink  | Comments (0)  

First day of Online Information always has a special buzz about it and yesterday was no exception. The conference was crowded and at some points during the day it was standing (or sitting on the floor) only in some of the tracks. The exhibition was also buzzing with the usual range of meeting by chance of old friends and contacts, as well as the fulfilment of carefully planned meetings and briefings.
The IWR stand was particularly busy with the December issue in great demand (no surprise there). If you haven't seen a copy or you want to join or rejoin the circulation list, then come by the stand and leave your business card.
There is no doubt that much of the conversation at the conference and the exhibition revolved around how the profession would cope in a downturn. I think the answer is pretty positive. The profession is brimming with ideas and initiatives to help organisation do what they have to do better and there are a seemingly endless stream of new products and tools which should help to harness the brain power.
And yesterday's business pages in The Times agree with my assessment. Discussing Reed Elsevier the report suggested the information business is not "overly sensitive to the economic cycle".

Posted by P. Williams | December 3, 2008 Company & Financial Information, General, Information Management | Permalink  | Comments (0)  

IWR would like to offer their congratulations to Natalie Ceeney (CEO of The National Archives) who has just been announced as Information Professional of the Year 2008.

Having met and interviewed Ceeney soon after I joined IWR, I was quickly aware of her passion for information and the role it has to play in government. Hearing her speak on various occasions since it is clear that passion also applies to the people who are involved in that profession.

Although Natalie had a prior engagement this evening and couldn't pick up the trophy in person, well done from all of us here.

To hear more from Natalie, she will be addressing the conference tomorrow morning in her session "Do We Have a Profession?"

More then.

Posted by dgriffin | December 2, 2008 General, Information Management | Permalink  | Comments (0)