New Age Competencies for Information Professionals

The paper discusses competencies for new age information professionals. Emphasis has been on the changes within LIS market during the last 2-3 decades, with a particular emphasis on the new roles LIS professionals have to assume in information and knowledge management positions in the corporate world. Management and functional competencies have also been explored, that would make LIS professionals relevant in the emerging market. The future is uncertain and ambiguous. However, there can be no denying that the future is shaped through today’s thought and action. What we find in today’s trends is an objective pointer to possibilities in the future. Newman, et al. (2001) predicted that no profession would undergo more radical changes between 2000 and 2010 than the information profession. Lettis (2000) asserted that the paradigm for today’s information centers has shifted from the modes of gathering, collecting, and protecting data to the modes of choosing, evaluating, organizing, and distributing information for maximum sharing potential. Now the information professionals need to be more businesslike, cultivating partnerships with business colleagues and IT professionals; capitalizing on innovation for growth and expansion; adding value to information through filtering, synthesizing, messaging, and packaging; and, using business metrics for proving value and worth. During the last few decades, LIS has transformed itself into an almost new field of practice. Changes in context, technologies, and organizational approaches have changed roles and functions of all types of LIS organizations. New roles demand fresh sets of competencies in those professionals who have to work in LIS organizations. This paper attempts to identify major trends in LIS practice that have brought new challenges and demands for LIS professionals. In order to have clear parameters for this discussion, certain terms have been operationally defined. When we are referring to new age, we will be generally confining ourselves to the developments during the last 2-3 decades since LIS organizations assumed leading roles in information management (IM) applications. Competencies are generally defined around knowledge, skills and attitudes or perceptions. These are significant distinctions for curriculum design and preparation of LIS professionals. Yet, for the purpose of this discourse, we will be treating competencies in their generic sense, referring to capabilities that the LIS professionals need to possess. Most importantly, the term information professional is not used in its generic sense, which would cover ICT, systems, media, and other information and knowledge roles and positions in organizations. We are using the term in a limited sense where we will be focusing on LIS professionals who are the products of LIS schools. Even within the domain of LIS, we will focus more on the changes that have introduced new roles for these professionals in the organizational context. It is assumed that one of the critical sectors with tremendous opportunities for LIS workforce is the expanding information market in the corporate world where new information and knowledge roles hold obvious opportunities. In this sense, we might have a biased treatment of this particular LIS segment, as it poses altogether new opportunities and challenges for the LIS professionals. These broad and general definitions used in this paper might not be as clear and bona fide, yet they help provide a framework for discussing issues with some clarity and focus. Developments in Information and Knowledge Management During the last two decades, library and information organizations had to assume new roles in the creation of databases, information systems, digitization, creation of virtual libraries, metadata, and development of intranets, extranets, and portals, which required new skills in information entrepreneurship, architecture, human-machine interface, connectivity, data warehousing, information packaging, and delivery. The exercise required collaboration with other key players in these activities–the IT professionals and those active in the business domain (Cortez, et al. 2004; Rubin, 2000; Tanner, 2001). Information professionals had the responsibility to provide a link between domain experts, content experts, and IT experts, requiring a high-order meta-knowledge (Choo, 1995). Rehman, S.U. (2006). New age competencies for information professionals. In C. Khoo, D. Singh & A.S. Chaudhry (Eds.), Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice 2006 (A-LIEP 2006), Singapore, 3-6 April 2006 (pp. 27-34). Singapore: School of Communication & Information, Nanyang Technological University. Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice, 2006 28 During the last 15 years, organizations have turned to knowledge management (KM) applications for gaining competitive edge. Since then, it has been discussed how LIS professionals could contribute to KM roles and responsibilities. A body of literature has emerged that explicitly addresses KM from the perspective of LIS professionals (Broadbent, 1997; Loughridge, 1999). TFPL noted that LIS profession had developed and changed significantly during the last decade in a way that affected the roles and opportunities for information professionals. They emphasized that KM presented a unique opportunity for LIS professionals, if they recognized the complete picture on which an organization worked and the role of LIS as partners with a number of other stakeholders. Relationship between IM & KM For any effective KM role, LIS professionals need to understand what knowledge is; what the nature and structure of organizational knowledge is and what makes it distinct from other forms of knowledge (Choo, 2000). Broadbent (1997) maintained that if libraries and information centers wished to be the key players in KM, they needed to understand the multitude of perspectives of other players. One major source of confusion within LIS community pertains to the relationship of IM to KM (Davenport & Cronin, 2000; Loughridge, 1999; Oxbrow & Abell, 2002; Southon & Todd, 2001a). There also exists a considered view that KM is at least partially reincarnation or resurrection of familiar library and information management processes and procedures (Koenig, 1996; Broadbent, 1998). Davenport and Cronin (2000) viewed that librarians in general were confused about the transition from IM to KM and they mostly took it as a semantic shift. Southon and Todd (2001a) also noted that the view of LIS professionals was fragmented as most of them focused on explicit pieces of knowledge and these were also seen in isolation to other functions, processes and personnel. They perceived IM to be well-defined, achievable technical processes, dealing with hard copy or digital resources, and system-based. KM was perceived to be complex, holistic, involving organizational issues and human and social processes. In a subsequent paper, based on the same research, Southon and Todd (2001b) identified what understandings were required if these professionals desired to have an effective KM role. They grouped them as knowledge about knowledge, organization, technology, people, and information. Loughridge (1999) maintained that KM differed significantly from the theory and practice of librarianship, information management, and information resource management, requiring new set of skills. Koenig (1999) noted that the areas of IT applications, corporate culture, business background, and knowledge organization were most significant for LIS professionals and he developed a checklist for the design of curricular content of LIS. Abram (1999) argued that only the knowledge environment could be managed and here LIS professionals could play a vital role as a key catalyst in the knowledge continuum. Abell & Oxbrow (2001) linked KM competencies to information management skills and observed that the professionals with information management expertise could add significant value to the creation of KM environment. Marouf (2004) investigated the perceptions of six leading corporate information managers about the contribution of their libraries/information centers toward KM initiatives in their parent companies. She noted that just a couple of these information centers were engaged in hardcore KM activities, making a significant contribution to the overall organizational initiatives. By and large, the others were primarily engaged in IM activities and services. IM & KM Competencies for LIS Professionals Features like taxonomies, indexing and classification, typically the domains of librarians, are being developed in all types of organizations. Here, the information professionals will have to work in teams with IT, OD and HR people. McInerney (2002) argued that effective KM in many disciplinary contexts must be based on the understanding of the dynamic nature of knowledge itself. Many of the information managers lacked the capabilities of journalist-like skills of capturing, recording, and reporting new knowledge. Prusak viewed that information professionals had to come up with drastically different understandings and outlook. They must be engaged in human networking, believing in the notion of ‘access to right knowledge at the right time.’ He noted the technology-centric KM would be a disaster and the notion of virtuality defied relationships and creativity, which are the essence of social organizations (De Cagna, 2001). Lamb (2001) also emphasized that LIS professionals needed to serve as infomediaries in organizations with the capability and expertise to connect people with the information they need in order to build a balanced and sustainable knowledge management program. Koenig & Srikantaiah (2002) analyzed the development of the field of KM and noted that it was now entering its third stage of content management. In this stage, LIS community can play a major role, but Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice, 2006 29 the corporate world does not recognize their competence in this area. They observed that KM maturation into this third stage might give librarians an opportunity to bridge the gap. Kabadse, et al. (2003) explained that one way of approaching the intellectual analysis of knowledge management and knowledge strategy was the use of knowledge mapping, which itself led to knowledge organization approaches (Stanford, 2002). Perez (2002) maintained that corporate libraries could play a substantial role in KM processes if they move away from the old paradigm of information service and delivery. It will involve intensive effort in communication and social interaction throughout an organization, as well as effective methodologies and facilitation in the capture, identification, synthesis, and recording of human knowledge and experience.