thesis defense - msiq program - december 2014

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCKInformation Quality Program

Information Quality and File System Management at the Department of Arkansas HeritageBY T.M. “SHELLEY” KEITH


IQ AND FILE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT AT DAH 2

Department of Arkansas Heritage

7 “arm” state organization, plus central director’s office◦ Each arm with its own mission, staff.◦ Some have their own regulatory requirements.

Identified issues with file system, email◦ Lack of naming conventions◦ Operational inefficiencies◦ Concerns about waste, archives, backups, resources

Digital photo storage◦ space, conventions, backups

Training

Step 1: Define Business Need and Approach



Approach Rationale Quantify issues

◦ Verify problems identified by leadership◦ What other problems exist that might be contributing to or more critical than what’s been

reported?

Prioritize ◦ Triage identified issues and begin understanding the source

Define improvement ◦ What is “better” for this organization?

Plan ◦ What will it take to start making progress toward “better?”



Project Approach Establish A Data Quality Baseline

◦ Step 1: Define Business Need and Approach◦ Step 2: Analyze Information Environment◦ Step 3: Assess Data Quality◦ Step 4: Assess Business Impact◦ Step 5: Identify Root Causes◦ Step 6: Develop Improvement Plans◦ Step 10: Communicate Actions and Results

Goal◦ Uncover problems◦ Determine which ones are worth

addressing◦ Identify root causes for high priority issues◦ Develop realistic action plans

McGilvray pp 242-243



Project Goals1. Assess the current ecosystem from an Information Quality perspective.

I. Primary DimensionsI. DuplicationII. Ease of Use & MaintainabilityIII. Data Specifications

2. Provide a set of formal recommendations for naming conventions.I. Folder names and file system organizationII. MetadataIII. File names

3. Provide a path to and structure for unified, consistent, file system governance.




Department of Arkansas Heritage

Director’s Office

MuseumsHistoric Arkansas Museum (HAM)

Delta Cultural Center (DCC)

Mosaic Templars Cultural Center (MTCC)

Old State House Museum (OSH)

Heritage Resource Agencies

Arkansas Arts Council (AAC)

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC)

Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (AHPP)

The Organization




DAH Network Access

Each agency has a dedicated network drive (T)

Each agency has access to a central shared drive (S)

Each user has their own personal network drive (U)

S:\

AAC

ANHC

Central

MTCC

AHPP

DCC

HAM

OSH

Step 2: Analyze the Information Environment



Project Plan & Tools Plan

◦ File System Review◦ Manual evaluation of the file names and folder structures across

the network.◦ Stakeholder Survey

◦ Understand perceptions across agencies and user types◦ Administrative, Professional, Leadership

◦ Identify issues throughout the organization◦ Uncover root causes

◦ File System Scan◦ Quantitative measurements for the health of the file system

Tools◦ MailChimp◦ Google Form◦ Microsoft Excel◦ DiskBoss Pro



Stakeholder Survey 37 question

◦ 46 input opportunities once broken down into survey tool◦ 5 required

112 responses of 213 employees emailed (53%) Questions specific to Leadership & IT staff

Applicable to:◦ Dimensions of Data Quality◦ Business Impact Techniques◦ Information Life Cycle◦ 10-Step Process

Organized by:◦ Theme◦ Employee type◦ Agency



Stakeholder Survey – IQ MapInformation Life Cycle

Business Impact Technique

Dimension(s) of Data Quality

10-Step Process Theme

Plan Usage Ease of Use Define Business Need & Approach

General information

Obtain Anecdotes Duplication Analyze Information Environment

Time spent on/frequency of encounters

Store & Share Cost of Low-Quality Data

Timeliness & Availability

Assess Data Quality Preferences

Maintain Process Impact Perception, Relevance, & Trust

Assess Business Impact

File storage behaviors

Apply Ranking & Prioritization Data Specifications Identify Root Causes Regulatory awareness

Dispose Develop Improvement Plans



Survey Responses – Agency Information

Arkansas Arts Council; 11; 10%

Arkansas Historic Preservation Program; 21; 19%

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission; 18; 16%

Delta Cultural Center; 3; 3%Director's Office; 19; 17%

Historic Arkansas Museum; 16; 14%

Mosaic Templars Cultural Center; 8; 7%

Old State House Museum; 16; 14%

RESPONSES BY AGENCY



Survey Responses – CategoryLeadership,

13, 12%

Administrative, 29, 26%

Professional, 70, 63%

EMPLOYEE CATEGORY

Director's Office, 19, 17%

Museums, 43, 38%

Heritage Re-source Agencies,

50, 45%

RESPONSE BY AGENCY TYPE



Survey Response – File Types

Word

ExcelPDF

Access

Publisher

JPG

Text

I nDesig

nTI F

Powerpoin

t

ArcGI S

PhotoShop

ArcM

apM

P3W

AVAASI S

Adobe Cre

ative Sui te

AutoCAD

e ma il

GI Fhobo

I l lust

rato

rKM

L

Micro

soft I n

foPa th

MOV

MXD

PageMaker

Past P

er fec t

PNGRAW

SAP AASI S

Sha rePoin

tSHP

102

75 71

26

19

14 14

7 7 6 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

File Types



Survey Responses – File Findability

1 2 3 4 5

107 8

2

1

2

6

4

1420

20

12

2

Ease - BY CategoryAdministrative Leadership Professional

Ordered Easy (1) to Hard (5)1 2 3 4 5

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

BY CATEGORY PERCENTAGEProfessional Leadership Administrative Average



Survey Responses – Time & Frequency 26%

reported recreating existing files because they couldn’t find the file they needed…

25% reported being unable to find the source file for an archive document type like PDF…

26% reported having to ask someone to email a file because they can’t find it or it’s stored where they don’t have access…

…at least once a month.



32% reported encountering files that were supposed to be current, but actually contained outdated or incorrect information…

23% reported discovering conflicting copies of the same file…

…at least once a year.

Survey Responses – Time & Frequency



Survey Responses – Time & Frequency

20 hours or more, 1, 1%Less than 10 hours, 7, 6%

Less than 20 hours, 3, 3%

Less than 5 hours, 98, 90%

TIME PER WEEK



Survey Responses – File Storage Behaviors

Local External0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes; 86%

Yes; 53%

No; 14%

No; 47%

STORING FILES ON NON-NETWORK DRIVES



Survey Responses – Regulatory Awareness

No; 33; 30%

Yes; 76; 70%

ORGANIZATION WIDE

No Yes

Administrative Leadership Professional0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

9

222

18

1147

BY CATEGORY

No Yes



Survey Responses - Preferences

No39%

Yes61%

PRESENCE OF FILE NAMING PREFERENCES EXAMPLES

[project number].[artifact_id]

[location]_[year]_[description]

[historic resource number]-[historic name]-[description]



File System Evaluation – Drive ScansMeasures Drives Totals

Agency T Drives

S Central AAC ANHC AHPP OSH MTCC HAM DCC

Wasted Space (GB) 9.2 0.33163 28.05 153.31 184.3 28.55 244.8 80.25 9.26 728.79

by last accessed 1-2 years 1-3 months 1-2 years 3-5 years 3-6 months 1-2 years 1-3 months 6-12 months

6-12 months

by user name Administrators Jessica.Crenshaw

Administrators Administrators Shelle Administrators bryan.mcdade Patricia

by file type JPG JPG JPG JPG JPG TIF TIF JPG TIF

Disk Space (GB) 305.54 38.04 147.37 1380 1690 388.02 754.64 418.68 55.03 5122.2

by last accessed 1-2 years 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-5 years 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-12 months

6-12 months

by modified 5+ years 2-3 years 2-3 years 5+ years 5+ years 5+ years 5+ years 5+ years 5+ years

by user name Administrators Administrators Scotty Administrators Administrators Administrators jaime

by file type TIF VHD JPG JPG JPG TIF MTS JPG TIF

% wasted 3% 1% 19% 11% 11% 7% 32% 19% 17% 14%

Number of Files 68739 16805 85890 387661 409190 60059 114067 140869 27018 1283280

by last accessed 1-2 years 1-2 years 3-5 years 3-5 years 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-12 months

by modified 3-5 years 5+ years 5+ years 5+ years 5+ years 5+ years 5+ years

duplicate files 9101 1046 11699 88089 56439 5080 8613 33555 3086 213622

% duplicate 13% 6% 14% 23% 14% 8% 8% 24% 11% 17%



Wasted Space

% wasted0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

3%

1%

19%

11% 11%

7%

32%

19%

17%

WASTED SPACE PER DRIVE

S Central Arts ANHC AHPP OSH MTCC HAM DCC



Duplicate Files

% duplicate0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

13%

6%

14%

23%

14%

8% 8%

24%

11%

PERCENTAGE OF DUPLICATE FILES ON EACH DRIVE

S Central Arts ANHC AHPP OSH MTCC HAM DCC



Network Waste

14%

Wasted Disk Space

17%

Duplicate Files



File System Age

1 year38%

5 Years34%

10 Years17%

Older11%

REPORTED AGE OF FILES

Wasted Space Disk Space Files0

1

2

3

4

5

6

LAST ACCESSED

< 1 year1-2 years2-3 years3-5 years5+ years



Stakeholder Support1

4% 25%

314%

429%

550%

VALUE PERCEPTION - ORGANIZATION



RecommendationsCreate agency-level working groups to steward the resource. Include IT.

a. Naming conventionsb. Folder hierarchiesc. Metadatad. Deletion/archiving plans

Create a central working group made up of agency stewards and IT.e. Formalize and support the work being done at the agency level. f. Establish “S” drive requirements for appropriate use, naming, and archiving.

Provide regular training on conventions, metadata, and the use of existing tools.

Continually scan network drives to identify areas of focus for working groups. Define and measure improvement.



Conclusion

InterviewSurveyScansRefineIterate

Sweeping change is not likely to render desired results. A non-invasive approach will allow agencies to establish conventions and protocols that work for their requirements while achieving the desired result of a cleaner, more efficient, more sustainable file system.



Future Considerations Digital Asset Management

Geodatabase

Sharepoint or other “intranet” type file versioning tool

thesis defense - msiq program - december 2014

Education