|
|
Knowledge management and the Parliamentary Library: Trust and prophylactics? Sandra Jones, Manager, Research and Analysis Branch, Parliamentary Library, Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand. Phone: 64 4 471 9212 Fax 64 4 471 9619 E-mail: sandra.jones@parliament.govt.nz The views expressed are purely the author’s and may not reflect the view of the Parliamentary Library or Parliamentary Service. Abstract 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: 1. Is Parliament getting the information it needs to carry out its duties as efficiently and effectively as possible? 2. How can and should technology influence the access to and availability of information? 3. What counts as knowledge and not just speculation? 4. What and who is the knowledge generated by the Parliamentary Library for? 5. Are we structured as a Library as well as we could be? 6. 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.
|
