Notes from an Open Life

How to make yourself indispensable – inside an organization, or working with an organization

What do organizations do?

They try to hire the best and smartest people they can to address their core business.

As an information professional, will you know more than they do?

No, probably not. 

Will you know more ‘broadly’ than they do?

Yes, probably.

Can you think differently and bring value to them?

Yes.

So what do you do?

• You get a request or a project.
• If at all possible – if it’s of interest to you and to them – you meet with them.
• You talk with them.
• You get interested.
• You understand their challenges, issues, interests, goals more broadly.
• You become a part of the team.
• You trust yourself to provide information that is relevant.
• You then do so.

What then?

• You listen to them.
• You meet whom they are meeting with.
• You listen to those people.
• You get interested.
• You understand their challenges, issues, interests, goals more broadly.
• You trust yourself to provide information that is relevant.
• You then do so.
• You become a part of that team.
• Repeat.

The tactical and strategic discussion - again

As a preface: 

This is one of those posts I have held on to for a couple of months. Why? 

• First, I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to use some of the language I use here. Yes, I've used the language occasionally before, but I wasn't sure if it was appropriate with this topic. 
• Second, I wasn't sure what the reaction would be to the sentiment expressed. I truly do believe in what I'm saying here - but I also found myself second-guessing whether I should express myself. 

I decided, in the end, that it is important to state my true opinion, and to see what happens. 

So here we go: 

So I was sitting in a meeting today with several high-level people in information work, and as we went around the table, I heard several people talk about 'moving from tactical to strategic' work. 

Which is the same fucking theme everyone's been talking about for years. 

And I started to wonder - why is that? Why are we still talking about moving from tactical to more strategic work? Why haven't we moved? 

First, I want to recognize that there is no escape from the tactical. Daily life is tactical. Eating lunch is tactical. There are always going to be tactical things that we need to do, in our lives and in our work. Let's accept it.

But to build on that - if you're doing tactical work and complaining about not being 'strategic', it's because you're choosing to be tactical. You are continually putting yourself in that mode. 

I'm guilty of this just as much as anyone. 

Here's the thing. Being strategic is not inherently in the nature of who we are, as 'information professionals' or librarians. We will never be strategic due to the very way we typically define ourselves. We are transactional by our very nature. By our training. By the roles we accept. 

I would claim that we often intentionally back away from being strategic - from providing perspective, analysis, interpretation. We don't feel comfortable or right saying what we think. We're afraid of taking the leap and not sticking by the data. We feel most comfortable sticking by the data. 

So how do we get out of this conversation? What is the way forward? 

• Let's examine and understand our expertise. Let's own what we do, and then let's apply what we do and be willing to stand by our knowledge - not the data, but our knowledge and understanding of that data. 
• Let's stop having the 'tactical vs. strategic' conversation among ourselves. Please. 
• Let's try giving up our defensiveness about our profession. We either own what we do and do a good job of it and push it forward, or we don't, and the profession goes away naturally. 
• Let's think about this: what if our profession is a mindset and a skillset that can actually be applied in new, interesting and useful ways? What if we're actually intelligent people who can have a conversation with, say, a VP of Strategy or a team trying to forecast the future? What if we can create new information and new understanding? How awesome would that be? 
• Finally, let's stop thinking we're not strategic and go out there and be strategic. 

Gee, that wasn't so bad after all. 

Data visualizations that matter

So I'm toying around with the idea of infographics and data visualization. I was recently inspired by this Mashable article about Jer Thorpe, who is 'Data Artist in Residence at the New York Times' - an awesome title he made up himself. 

Here's one of the key things that struck me about this interview:  

What's your advice for people aspiring to get into design and specifically data visualization?

It's the same thing with almost everything. There are so many people who I hear from who are like, 'I really want to do this, what are some books, what should I read?' You just have to do it. And, the sort of underlying secret about data viz is that it's not that hard. We're doing a very simple act, we're taking (usually) a number, and we're mapping it to something, whether that's mapping it to a color to a size or to a position on the screen. Anybody can take a set of numbers and think about ways you would draw that on a piece of paper. The two things that I always tell people is that: First you need to just get started with it, and admit that the things that your first projects are gonna suck, and that's okay. Y'know, you can't expect to make something beautiful the first time. My first data visualization was terrible.

The second thing I tell my students is to think about something that's close to you, something that's personally relevant to you. If it doesn't resonate with you, you're not gonna do a good job with it. We live in a really cool world right now where there's a lot of data that's accessible to us, whether that's your location data over time, your email transactions.

The reward of data visualization comes from discovery, and if you're not doing something where that discovery is going to feel like a revelation of some kind to you, then you're not gonna get it.

I LOVE THIS. Why? Because it takes the fucking mystery out of it. 

Many years ago when my researcher colleagues and I at Sun Microsystems were interested in getting into competitive intelligence, it felt the same way. CI was this practice shrouded in mystery - none of us could really get at how one did it. We took some courses, we joined SCIP, we read books, but we still seemed stuck when we thought about actually doing it. 

I finally went to a pre-conference workshop at a SCIP conference, and I don't remember a lot of what was taught at that. But the key turned for me at the outset of the workshop. The instructor, Ken Sawka, said simply: "Competitive intelligence is information plus insight."

The light went on. I suddenly felt like the veil had been lifted and it all didn't seem so intimidating any longer. 

I got back and I decided to jump in. I went to one of my long-term clients and I said, 'would you be willing to work with me on a CI project?' He enthusiastically said yes, and so began my competitive intelligence career. 

I've been feeling the same way about data visualizations. Ultra cool, would love to do that. But how? 

Thank you, Jer - for the insight, the removal of the mystery and the permission to create at least a few crappy visualizations. It kind of feels like the birth of punk - you get instruments and you just start playing. It's horrible at first, but sometimes something great emerges. 

So what to visualize? The idea for a first visualization popped into my mind when I was conducting research on chronic conditions in the United States - diabetes, heart disease, hypertension. I came across some information (that I've since lost track of and need to track down again) about how many people in the US - adults and children - are on anti-depressants. It was a striking number, in the millions. IN THE MILLIONS. 

This is data that meant something to me. So I'm going to track it down again and see what I can do with it to make it more visually meaningful. 

In the meantime, I was looking at statistics on suicide in the US. I was struck again by the information I found.

• Since at least 2007, suicide has been the 10th leading cause of death in the US.
• It is the 7th leading cause of death for men in the US.
• It is the 3rd leading cause of death for people ages 15 - 24. 

• Men are four times more likely to successfully commit suicide, but women attempt suicide two to three more times than men. 
• Older Americans are disproportionally more likely to die by suicide, especially white men over the age of 85. 

 These are heartbreaking. But let's look at some other numbers. 

• In 2011, 38,285 people died by suicide in the US - more than twice the number of deaths by homicide. 
• For every death by suicide there are 11 attempts. If we do the math, that means there were 421,135 attempts in 2011. 

So, using these numbers, here's my first visualization - on suicide. 

 

 

Simple graphic. I tried to get the proportions about right.

Maybe not so crappy for a first attempt.

I think it's these kinds of numbers and this kind of information that make visualizations powerful. What could you draw from this? 

• That's a shit ton (I'm pretty sure that's the clinical term) of suicide attempts. 
• There are a shit ton more attempts than successful suicides. 
• These are scary numbers. I think we have an issue on our hands. 

My little visualization won't change the world. But it gives me a different way to grasp the issue. That, to me, is the true power of visualizations. 

Thanks again, Jer. I'm glad you put a guitar in my hands. 

Your Klout score and why you shouldn't give it a second thought

I just had a conversation with Brent Mills, a friend and new information professional, about Klout and the whole Klout score thing. (Justin Bieber has a "perfect" Klout score, did you know that? And I am childishly not going to link to him. Nyah.) Brent was asking, "as a social media guru" - a phrase I cringe at - "what do you think about Klout scores?"

And the guru's opinion is - don't worry about it. Don't give it a second thought. 

A disclaimer: I looked at Klout a while ago when it was first emerging, and I haven't really seriously looked at it since. I haven't found it worthwhile to look at, to be honest.

And in looking at Klout on my Chrome browser this morning, I see their tagline is "The Standard for Influence." Which is exactly the key to why you shouldn't worry about it. 

Klout REALLY WANTS TO BE the Standard for Influence. So does every other social media property, measurement method, marketing firm, etc. etc. etc. Why? Because everyone is chasing the Holy Grail of social media measurement and is obsessed with finding some kind of "standard." Ultimately, the goal of these companies is to MONETIZE that.

And as far as I can see, there is no current standard, and there never will be one standard. I can't see how one number can capture ANYONE'S social media presence or influence. Because there IS no one way to use social media effectively. That's exactly the beauty of it. It's a creative space. Some people use it well, some don't. Two people or companies in the exact same industry can use social media very differently and still both be equally "influential" and effective. 

I'm sure the Klout people would have a rebuttal to this, and I would be open to hearing that. But what I encourage YOU to think about is this:

Would you want someone to put some kind of number on your social skills? Do you want someone to assign a ranking to you as to how "influential" you are in the community? What the hell would that even mean? 

Social media is first and foremost about people. And I will always stand up for people first. I'm for compassionate, fun, interesting, open, and thought-provoking people, and I expect the same of my social media. A number will never, ever capture anything like that. 

If a company is going to discount you in some way because your Klout score is too low, well, you're probably a whole lot better off not working at that company. Period. 

End of guru lesson for today. 

The Future Ready 365 initiative - what's "future-ready" to you?

Current SLA President Cindy Romaine has kicked off an ambitious new project, called Future Ready 365. In my view (and drawing from the aims of the blog), it's an effort to illustrate and provide a forum for the many voices inside the information profession, and to draw in insight and perspective from across industries. It's an exercise in collaboration, sharing experience, and helping each other be more resiliant and forward-looking in a changing profession and a changing world.

The entries so far have been very good. After I posted my entry earlier this week, I heard from someone who said she wanted to see "more specific examples of how knowledge professionals have transformed themselves with the changing needs of business."

While I can certainly share my own experience - and hopefully I will have a chance to post again this year, but I don't want to take anyone's spot - I would encourage you, if you're reading this, to consider contributing your voice to the blog. How do you see the world changing? How are you adapting to it? How have you transformed yourself and your skills to create new opportunities for yourself?

If you'd like to participate, see the information for submitting a post here. I know I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say!