Metadata Standards and Organizational Resource Allocation

A Case for the Effective Management of Digital Assets

Portfolio Presentation (draft) by Camille MathieuIS 400, Fall 2014

01 December 2014

Digital Assets

Sink or Swim?=

malleability of enterprise data and

digital assets

organization

A costly (and persistent) “knowledge deficit”

1999: “...Fortune 500 companies would lose $12 billion [in 2000] as a result of intellectual rework, substandard performance, and inability to find knowledge resources...” (Feldman and Sherman 2000)

2009: “...an average of $8,200 per person per year is spent on content management activities which include searching, verification, organization, back-up and security...” (Widen 2009)

Enterprise Data/ Digital Assets“digital intellectual assets” held in different commercial “enterprise content management” (ECM) systems; manipulated by “knowledge workers”

Hot Topic: “67% of respondents indicated budget for content management initiatives was increasing by an

average of 15-20%” (Gleanster 2013)

...numerous, redundant, and expensive.

Enterprise content management systems seek to integrate “the management of structured, semi-

structured, and unstructured information, software code embedded in content presentations, and metadata

together in solutions for content production, storage, publication, and utilization in

organizations” (Päivärinta and Munkvold 2005)

Association for Information and Image Management AIIM, 2014:

60% of information managers are “firmly of the view that automated analytics in content management systems are the only way to improve classification and tagging to make their

content more findable”

● ECM costs are increasing

Summary of Current Issues● Enterprises require fast, reliable access to digital assets, but have a hard time achieving

this; resulting inefficiency wastes resources

● Organizations feel the only course of action is to keep investing in new ECM systems

Organizations should prioritize the development and implementation of consistent metadata standards

● optimize existing ECM systems (data findability and interoperability)

● cut investments in new ECM systems ● ensure greater data accessibility and longevity

Proposed Solution

what “metadata standards” means?

why is this the best solution?

how would enterprises implement solution?

“core metadata” that is specific to the enterprise and allows for the interoperation

of data from different ECMs

Structural/TechnicalDescriptive/Human-Readable

what “metadata standards” means?

Proactively: start-up criteria, content migration

Retroactively: human + automated curation, data modeling

---Standards could be adopted or spontaneously generated

how would enterprises implement solution?

1. Schema level - top down2. Record level - bottom up

3. Repository [ECM] level - both(Mai Chan and Lei Zeng 2006)

how would enterprises implement solution?

… enterprise metadata standardization could be completely customized to maximize organizational efficiency.

Case Study: JPL Internal Search

To be added when content is approved for sharing

Association for Information and Image Management AIIM, 2014:

(60% view ECMs as “only way”)

Less than 20% of organizations surveyed have “a metadata standard across different repositories”

why is this the best solution?

Metadata in the Organization

Define business rules

Inform analytics

Populate taxonomies

Interact with search

Determine data quality and lifetime

Organizational metadata standardization could:

● Improve enterprise efficiency by facilitating search, retrieval, and analytics

● Increase cohesion and understandability of organizational information in the long-term

● Optimize existing content management systems

why is this the best solution?

… low(er)-cost, internal curation solution.

Challenges to Organizational Metadata Standardization

● Investment in personnel training and taxonomy maintenance; difficult to prove ROI

● Metadata standardization is not a cure-all● How exactly do we do it?

Metadata in the Organization

Define business rules

Inform analytics

Populate taxonomies

Interact with search

Determine data quality and lifetime

Digital Assets

Standardized organizational

metadata =

Smoother sailing

organization

Conclusion

Questions or Comments?email at cemathieu@ucla.edu

ReferencesDublinCore. 2014. "Metadata Basics." http://dublincore.org/metadata-basics/.

Duval, Erik. 2001. "Metadata Standards: What, Who & Why." Journal of Universal Computer Science 7, no. 7: 591-601.Feldman, Susan, and Chris Sherman. 2001. "The High Cost of Not Finding Information:

An IDC White Paper." International Data Corporation.Gleanster. 2013. "Deep Dive: Future-Proof Your investments in Dam." Gleanster LLC.Mai Chan, Lois, and Marcia Lei Zeng. 2006. "Metadata Interoperability and Standardization – a Study of Methodology

Part I." D-Lib Magazine 12, no. 6.Miles, Doug. 2014. AIIM Industry Watch Search and Discovery - Exploiting Knowledge, Minimizing Risk. Silver Spring, MD: AIIM: The

Global Community of Information Professionals.Nilsson, Mikael, Pete Johnston, Ambjörn Naeve, and Andy Powell. 2006. "Towards an Interoperability Framework for Metadata

Standards." International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications: Proceedings 2006.Päivärinta, T., and B. E. Munkvold. 2005. "Enterprise Content Management: An Integrated Perspective on Information Management."

HICSS '05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2005. 10.1109/HICSS.2005.244

Pereira, F., A. Vetro, and T. Sikora. 2008. "Multimedia Retrieval and Delivery: Essential Metadata Challenges and Standards." Proceedings of the IEEE 96, no. 4: 721-44.

Widen, Mark. 2009. "Getting to a Digital Asset Management ROI." http://www.widen.com/blog/getting-to-a-digital-asset-management-roi

Backup Slides

“re-use of digital content (73%), workflow (70%),

and improved search results (67%)” (Gleanster 2013)

“top three” ROI motivations

Enterprise Data/ Digital Assets“digital intellectual assets” held in different “enterprise content management” (ECM) systems; manipulated by “knowledge workers”

Enterprise Metadatainformation about enterprise data that both describes structures and guides human users

Gleanster, 2013:

“67% of respondents indicated budget for content management initiatives was

increasing by an average of 15-20%”