[Alastair COOK]

On 15/07/2021 at 10:25, Matthew West said:

Hi @Anne I am not aware of any existing standards to identify information requirements systematically (but there are lots of standards, so I might have missed one). Current practice is generally to ask users what their information requirements are. This can be hit and miss because users will tend to focus on what is an issue at the moment, and perhaps forget what works well and does not cause a problem. This is good for the consultant because if information requirements are missed, then it is the users fault for not telling the consultant what they were.

We have done quite a bit of work within the IMF team to take stock of existing standards.  Some of this has been published (e.g. the TLO survey) and it is ongoing.  If we had come across an existing standard that was systematic to identify information requirements we’d have taken a close look at it but I haven’t seen any.

[Alastair COOK]

On 15/07/2021 at 10:20, Helena said:

Hi @Al_ and @Matthew
I have a question which was asked during your presentation on the Gemini Call last week @Al_. Could different process modelling tools be used at different levels of aggregation? e.g. a space-time macro diagram and a BPMN to expand sub-processes?

Hi @Anne, Yes, in a sense.  The activity modelling is used to identify decisions that require information relating to material (actual) participants in those activities.  If done rigorously there should be no need for any other information (I’ll add that risk management is also an activity and so you can identify information that you may need given some circumstances that there may be uncertainty about).  Once done it is then straightforward to map to notations like BPMN (that, itself, may involve aggregation).  BPNM is aimed at process execution semantics for business processes and they are an important part of an activity lifecycle but can’t be used to derive a spatiotemporal view without doing a s-t analysis.

[Alastair COOK]

On 15/07/2021 at 10:02, Anne GUINARD said:

Hello @Al_and @Matthew, further to the presentation at the Gemini call on the 06/07, a question was asked about how the proposed approach to identify information requirements fits with existing approaches / standards. It would be great to hear your thoughts on this.

Hi Anne, I remember seeing that question.  It is interesting to me that quite a bit of what we are doing is not (yet) covered by existing standards.  However, we do have some strong standards to build from or complement.  Examples include the ISO 8000 Data Quality series, the ISO 9000 series on quality management systems and ISO 15926 series that @Matthew was involved with.  We do need to address the areas that are new as a result of our work to enable large (national) scale, integrated data interactions between information systems.  The Activity based information requirements and the 4-step methodology are an example of work that isn’t yet available as a standard.  Much of what is developed within the IMF will also be worth considering for standardisation.  Our aim is to draw upon standards where we can and develop new ones where there is a gap to be filled.

[Alastair COOK]

On 15/07/2021 at 10:07, HenryFT said:

Information Requirements are clearly key to unlocking value (of all kinds)in the lifecycle of assets. @Al_ and @Matthew I think the spatiotemporal approach in the space time diagram is a great idea. 

How do you think we can trace value but specifically for this question the return on investment from Information Requirements development? How important do you think it is to do that?

Hi Henry, Recognising that there is value in having data at the right quality is important.  Good quality management practices should be applied, including identifying key performance indicators on how well the information management practices are performing (Plan, Do, Check, Act cycle).  It can be very hard to measure the value of data that is not at the right quality, although it is possible to look at issues resulting from it (this can provide some motivation for addressing data quality in the first place).  However, once you know what your requirements are, and what it takes to meet them, it is also good practice to look at what improvements are expected as a result of doing this and determine metrics.  Continuous improvement is then built in to the information management lifecycle and matched to the lifecycle of the assets that require the information to be managed well.

[Alastair COOK]

On 15/07/2021 at 10:02, Catherine Condie said:

Would it be possible for you to explain how the proposed approach to capture information requirements fit with other components of the Information Management Framework (in particular, the Foundation Data Model and the Reference Data Library…)?

Hi Catherine, Yes, the Information Management Framework is being created to allow organisations to manage their, and other’s, data so that it is fit for its intended purpose (to support decisions).  However, it can’t do the job of knowing what an organisation’s information requirements are.  The activity modelling approach allows organisations to work out what their information requirements are in a way that can map directly to the parts of the IMF.  The Activity modelling work to identify the information required to support decisions is the first part of a 4-step process to ensure that the data created and managed is consistent with the FDM, RDL and the interfaces for integrated exchanges of data that the IMF provides.