Experiencing Information Overload? Just wait...
"You ain't seen nothin' yet." So says an IDC report on the growth of information. The statistics cited by IDC included voice, radio, print and TV as they transition to digital formats. The number? 35 trillion gigabytes. That's 35 exabytes. An Exabyte being one thousand billion billion. But, how much, exactly, is 'too much' information? Is there really such a thing?
Consider that back in the 16th century, around the time when the printing press was invented, the world was undergoing an information explosion. People wondered, how could anyone possibly read all of those books? It was quickly determined that we didn't need to read all the books and what was needed was simply an index of all the available books. This evolved into today's library system where all books are accessible--if and when needed.
This so-called "information overload" problem will be solved in the same way - by creating lists, classification structures, bibliographies, reference materials and all sorts of dynamic, curated content. The best web sites have the capability of anticipating what users need and assembling that content dynamically - something we refer to as Content Choreography™ - the ability to coordinate, weave and present content into new information products and services based on the needs of a diverse set of users all operating on the site at the same time. And of course, to combine, curate, and choreograph content effectively requires metadata, taxonomies, consistent organizing principles tuned to audience, task and problem.
There are two aspects to this - one is the core architecture of the system - from a data management perspective. That means we need to have consistency across resources, be able to harmonize terminology, and be able to manipulate information sources to suit the needs of downstream users. This is a data management problem - one of Master Data Management. But there will always be ambiguity of terminology - when you and I use the same term to mean different things or use different terms to explain the same concept. The semantics need to be agreed upon so that we have consistent business language to explain and communicate ideas. This is a meaning problem - that of taxonomy management.
The intersection of the two - Taxonomy and Master Data Management - is the subject of our next webinar. Then, later this fall, we will be doing a series on dynamic content management and Content Choreography™ - which is the answer to information overload. That is, presenting the correct information to users when they need it, whether they are an engineer working on internal knowledge systems that support product development or a customer trying to buy things through a web site, or someone doing background research on their Blackberry or iPhone while traveling to the retailer. Stay tuned for more information about that-meanwhile join us this Thursday for Taxonomy & Master Data Management.
Send to friendAuthor
Learn More
Check out the Earley & Associates library of past webinars as well as the upcoming webinar schedule.
Information Overload does not exist!
The core assumption behind information overload is that the information we want is the same as the information we need or like. Therefore, we cannot with good reason cut back on the information we want, because it reflects stuff that is important to us. Hence, thanks to the web we are overloaded with needed information that we can’t help wanting. However, from the perspective of contemporary affective neuroscience, wanting and liking are NOT the same thing, and are governed by entirely different neural processes. Thus, what we want is different from what we need because wanting and liking represent distinctive neurological events. Therefore, the key underlying premise of information overload that everything we want is the same as everything we need is based on cognitive principles that have no basis in neural reality, and the concept of information overload must therefore be abandoned.
The linked article questions the concept of information overload by challenging this most elementary underlying assumption. Based on the work of the distinguished neuropsychologist Kent Berridge of the University of Michigan (who also vetted and endorsed it), it is simple, short, and uses a Boston Red Sox title run to make its very radical point. Hope you ‘like’ it or at the very least the Red Sox!
http://mezmer.blogspot.com/2012/02/searching-for-red-stockings-myth-of.html