Whenever the topic of metadata comes up in conjunction with organizing information, one of the biggest challenges identified is that users won’t put in the effort. But then I think about how many challenges exist with users putting documents into the proper folders and the argument falls flat in my opinion. How many times have we spent hours creating folder structures only to have users circumvent the entire system by creating a new folder called “Snoopy’s stuff” or “Project X” on their desktop?
At one of my jobs the shared network drive folder structure was modeled after the records classification scheme. This was not successful for a number of reasons. During a migration project we discovered that it was a common practice for the admins to recreate the entire folder structure, or their version of it, underneath the ADMIN – GENERAL folder. It was never understood how this practice got started, but the biggest issue from a RIM perspective was that the general folder had the shortest retention period (CY + 1).
The point is challenges exist with a folder approach, a metadata approach or a combination of the two. So why not focus on the change management required to switch over to a metadata approach instead of repeating the same mistakes with folder structures. Sometimes the “user effort” challenge interferes when proposing a metadata approach and it hinders us from trying something new because we think the users won’t go for it. And in reality, users don’t always go for folder structures either.
As an information professional I’m always wearing two hats: the professional and the user. As the professional I see the need for filling in metadata fields, or even drilling down 7 levels to put one document in the right folder, or creating a special folder for only one document so that I don’t have orphans. But if I look at all this work solely from the user perspective, I would also complain because these practices have no context in the immediate moment.
Perhaps if we employed a different approach to impress upon users the importance of metadata, they would realize the benefits and start putting in the effort. If users are told to add metadata and to put things into a folder, this is sending a mixed message to them. The concept of a folder is well understood by users that it’s a place you put things to aggregate “like” with “like”. If they’re instructed to put a document in a folder and fill in metadata, the connection between the two is not clear. So what can we do to make this more apparent?
One option could be to train users differently. Start by demonstrating the end result, rather than the work involved to get there. Set up some sample sites to illustrate the benefits of the metadata for searching and retrieval. Show users examples from the real world where metadata is used to assist in searching, such as online retail sites, photo-sharing apps, or even searching for items at the public library. Or set up some sample sites to show users the disastrous effects of not following the process.
Another option could be to gamify the process and create rewards or incentives for applying metadata properly. This could also be a way to start changing the culture so that users feel peer pressure to do things. Maybe the RIM department could create quarterly search challenges and ask users to retrieve documents, or report search results on queries run against metadata elements, for the chance of winning a small prize. This could be a way to engage users to see the benefits of using metadata while also performing a clandestine audit on the process.
Just something to think about.