What should we be looking for in an information management system?

The answer to this question is potentially complicated but it doesn’t have to be. First a little history. If you look back over the past 10 to 15 years you will see that programs have experienced a HUGE shift in how they manage their data. You may have noticed that checkers at food markets are no longer just entering prices and calculating your total food bill but rather are now essentially entering all the data needed to electronically manage store inventory (that’s why they need the code and not just the price when the tag has fallen off an item you are trying to buy!). In a similar fashion, social agencies are now needing to go well beyond a simple head count of the clients they serve, or a set of paper file that can be reviewed once and a while for research purposes.

Excel sheets provide some functionality but are seriously limited (especially as they are located on a single computer and can only be worked on by one staff member at a time. 10 Years ago, if agencies had computers they were likely castoffs, donated from businesses and already dated. The past decade has seen a huge jump in the general availability of new computers within agencies along with current editions of software and reliable internet access. This has opened the door to companies developing and marketing (usually internet based) information management systems for use by social agencies. It is my opinion, based on my 15 years experience as a program evaluator, that there was an unfortunate disconnect in those early system development years between agency and program capacity and the range of information management systems available. Specifically, funding organizations got the word early in the game that they were about to face a large number of requests from programs and agencies for funding to support the development, implementation and related training involved in constructing their own information management systems.

To head off those potentially large costs funders responded to the early pitches they got from system developers (like CORI/HOMES) by buying into the sort of internet based “kitchen sink” information management systems as a way of providing functionality to programs without having to pay for them program by program. While this sort of solution worked very well for funders, and, truth be told, for some agencies and programs as well, it effectively slammed on the development of data management capacity within programs and agencies. It fostered a disconnect between the management of one’s own program data and the meeting of funders’ data requirements. Instead of seeing agency staff go from developing basic computer literacy and embracing it as part of their work and then moving on to program information literacy and the ownership not only of one’s data but of the capacity to reflect upon and to use that data as a central part of practice and program development, program staff tended to feel quite alienated from the data management process often being unclear as to the purposes behind much of the data collection and system entry they were engaged in. Likewise agencies that could have been collaborating in their data management strategies and working toward painting big picture views of specific populations and sub-populations they were jointly serving were limited to having quiet side discussions about what they did not like about the latest funder requirement or CORI/Homes development. The opportunity to grow towards a strong ownership position in relation to one’s own programs process and outcome data was missed by many many programs as a result of the top-down process taken by the dominant information management enterprises.

So, the demise of CORI/HOMES provides a challenge but it also provides a huge opportunity for programs and agencies to take steps to expand their information management capacity and ownership and essentially catch up to where their computer hardware and software makes it possible for them to be in terms of their control of their own data, outcome models and future planning. With this in mind I would like to offer a few suggestions about how agencies and programs can utilize this powerful capacity building opportunity.

First, at a minimum develop a simple plan from getting your data out of CORI/HOMES. While it may well be that the CORI/Homes system may continue to be available after the proposed March 31 cessation date I bet you would feel better if you knew your data was safe on one (or better 2 or three ) of your own hard drives while you work out just what sport of solution you will utilize for meeting your information management needs.

Second, conduct an audit of the information management needs all of your programs and agency activities. What information do you HAVE to collect, want to collect, or wish you could collect. What do you need to know about your programs to run them and monitor the practices within them? What outcome indicators do you collect or should you collect? What information do your funders require (and pay particular attention to the form they want that information in, for example, what age breakdowns do they want your client data reported by)? Be sure and think a bit about what information you might want if you think it is important to be able to relate your program activities to a particular sector of the population in your community. For example, what information would you need to be able to talk about the proportion of a particular immigrant population your program has contact t with or what proportion of the urban aboriginal population your program connects with?

Third, consider, through talking to other programs staff, reading this blog, or enlisting the assistance of a consultant (who can discuss things from YOUR perspective) what level of sophistication you would most benefit from in an information management system. What sorts of things would it need to do to address your information management needs? What sorts of reports will your require? How much access to basic data would you like to have (as that access will allow you to engage in more detailed planning and to ask more questions about your program dataset and history)? What expertise in terms of data management and exploration do you have in house? What capacity would you like to move towards through staff training, strategic hiring and/or collaboration with other programs gathering data similar to your own?

Fourth, have a look some of the available information management systems and see which ones look like they would meet your needs. Again this blog site may be of assistance in this regard but you can also talk to other agencies about what they are considering and why.

Some things to consider when looking at the information management systems out there include:

Cost - get a clear picture of the costs both of access to the system and any additional, one time transition costs.

Longevity – does it look like the system and its related support will be around for a while? Keep in mind that if you take advantage of this opportunity to develop some in program capacity in this area the prospect of potentially having to change to another system down the road will be far less daunting. If the system you use is a tool allowing you to accomplish your information management goals then your understanding of that process will make it easier to pick up a new tool down the road if the one you are using is no longer supported or meeting your needs.

Security – while any system looking for social service clients would be foolish not to ensure that program data is secure and names are safe it is worth conforming that this is true.

Customizability or “Locally Friendly” functionality – One of the biggest drawbacks of the CORI/Homes system was that there was a LOT of functionality on the site that was irrelevant to any particular program or user – a whole forest when all you needed was a tree or two. Ideally, each user (and each program even within a larger agency) would only see in the system, the functionality they need (according to the information management audit you conducted as suggested above). This level of essential simplicity (only seeing that which you actually need) will greatly reduce your training costs and will usually make it possible for you to conduct most of your staff training in-house without having to wait for or to pay for the services of a trainer associated with the developer of your information system.

Reporting Functionality and Report Development Potential – Does the system provide you with the ability to supervise the quality of the data your staff is entering into the system? Does it produce the reports you regularly require simply by setting a date range and clocking the appropriate button? Does it provide you with opportunities to “play with” your data? That is, what about those times where as you reflect upon your program and its activities and where questions occur to you that can be answered by data you know you have been collecting but for which there is not currently a report for getting it out of the system. Can you download relevant data top excel sheets and muck around with it or do you have to request and then pay for a programmer to do it for you?

Aggregation – Does the system allow you to roll youir data up across the programs that you manage?

Sharability - How easy would it be to pull information out of your system and compare it to similar information from other programs’ systems (for regional planning purposes or service coverage discussions)?
Future Development – If you add programs or program components how much work will it be to build the necessary changes into your information system? Could you do it yourself or would you need to toss another big chunk of development money at the system developer?

Of course, there are many other potential issues to consider but these give you a place to start. Please feel free to add any additional criteria in the comments section below this post or feel free to take issue with my suggestions regarding process. As always, the more discussion that is generated about these challenges and opportunities the better the transion to a different information management system will go.

Mike Boyes