“We put the Knowledge in Technology”
One of the most complicated elements in content management derives from the fact that each archive’s collection is different. This is due to the scale, scope, variety, and complexity of the archival collections. It also arises from the fact that there are a variety of contributing factors and specialized requirements. By leveraging our critical thinking and awareness of other successful archival systems, we put our professional knowledge into technology.
Regardless of the size and scope of a project, there are three key elements that require serious review and analysis. In fact, all archival solutions and best practice are influenced by three factors: People, Process and Technology. If you think of it like a Venn diagram, you’ll understand why we believe “Content lies at the intersection of people, process and technology.”
Content lies at the intersection of People, Process and Technology.
Professional archivists know that an awareness and understanding of archival standards helps define the deliverables and set reasonable goals. By focusing on the relevant elements and contingencies, archivists can help build a trusted digital archive that serves a variety of users and their needs. Solutions based on archival standards help connect relevant content to the specialized interests of its users.
Content Management and Archival Standards
The key component, obviously, is the content itself. As a result, it is critically important to observe people and analyze their processes carefully and non-judgmentally. Knowledge of archival standards, technical requirements and workflows make it easy to use the technology in ways that address the goals and objectives. More importantly, familiarity with other systems helps identify a Designated Community of stakeholders and super-users. This knowledge helps ensure that the technology used in the information ecosystem will deliver results that make assets accessible to the right people in the right format at the right time.
An information ecosystem is created by and dependent on its users, the software and the procedures. A clear understanding of goals and objectives allow archivists to leverage Technology, People and Processes in a way that sets up the institutional archive for success. A successful content management system is effective and efficient, and remains flexible enough for future growth and change. This creates a winning User Experience that ensures the archive is both useful and user-friendly.
Read More
DNI Testimony – Impeachment Inquiry (Part 4)
As we continue watching how the Impeachment Inquiry develops and plays out, we turn today to the DNI Testimony. We have ideated and designed a scorecard for informational appraisal. The Digital Archivy Scorecard evaluates information sources and information flows and provides grades in fjve different criteria: Assessment, Identity, Description, Priority, and Security Classification.
In this way, we can assess the value of content based on provenance, function, significance and accuracy. This relates directly to an assessment of the trustworthiness and significance. With that in mind, today we look at three additional pieces of information and evidence:
- in-person testimony of the Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI), James Maguire;
- letter written by Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), Michael Atkinson; and
- White House Memo of the Conversation.
Each ones of these information sources provides data that can be used to evaluate the entire ecosystem. This holistic perspective takes into consideration the content of the information as well as showing the relationships between the documents themselves, and the people involved in creating the information ecosystem. Of course, at present, we have not yet seen the “verbatim” transcript of the 33 minute phone call.
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY: DNI TESTIMONY OF ACTING DIRECTOR MAGUIRE
On September 26, Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testified before the House Intelligence Committee. He testified for more than three hours to discuss the complaint and the allegation of wrongdoing. The White House released a declassified version (the White House Memo) minutes before the hearing began. In his opening statement, Director Maguire described his experience and military service and also stated his support for the whistleblower and for protections.
Acting Director Maguire is new to the position. The phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President, which led to the whistleblower’s complaint, occurred on July 25, 2019. Three days after the phone call, on July 28, former DNI Director Dan Coats announced that he would resign in August. Coats was one of the longest serving national security members of the Trump Cabinet. Needless to say, with years of professional experience, his analysis often contradicted the President.
Maguire retired with three stars from the Navy. He was appointed Acting Director of the DNI in August. Prior to that, he spent less than eight months as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. His testimony revealed that he may actually have acted legally and properly. However, questions remain as to whether he had the required contextual knowledge of the phone call. Or more importantly, whether his experience in intelligence may have been skewed by his past career in the Navy. He appeared before the House Intelligence Committee on September 26. His short tenure undermined his efficacy and may have affected his perspective. Additionally, his prior experience in the Navy may have led him to execute before fully considering the facts and the evidence.
DNI ACTIONS
The DNI Office received the whistleblower complaint on August 12. Maguire began working on August 16, and at first he refused to share the complaint with Congress because he claimed he was answering to a higher authority. He then sought outside direction. That may sound like a good idea, but his actions raise significant issues about their effects. As Rep Adam Schiff (D-CA), Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, pointed out in questioning: Acting Director Maguire sought guidance on what to do about the whistleblower complaint, sequentially from two sources:
- first from the White House and
- then from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.
In other words, the Acting Director conferred with the two offices that were mentioned in the whistleblower’s complaint that was classified as an “urgent concern .” Consequently, Maguire’s judgement is questionable. In fact, his testimony revealed that his deference to Executive Privilege may have implicated himself in assisting in the cover-up!
DNI Testimony Grades
With that in mind, we grade his testimony based on his direct knowledge of the complaint, his role and responsibilities as Acting Director, and on whether or not his answers were forthright and honest.
He receives D grades in Assessment, Identification and Description due toe the fact that he only spent a few days in office prior to making his first significant mistakes (contacting the OLC and the AG’s office). Though he may have acted in good faith, his testimony reveals poor judgement in two key aspects. Maguire was appointed without confirmation. He has been Acting Director for less than two months. As an information source himself, he lacks credibility due to his short tenure Consequently, he is unable to speak persuasively about his office’s responsibilities.
Due to his lack of awareness, the Acting Director Maguire receives failing F grades in Priority and in Security Classification. He must recognize the impropriety of checking with both of the parties implicated in the whistleblower complaint. This directly affects the grades for assessment and identification.
Read More
Impeachment Inquiry: Whistleblower Complaint (pt 3)
As we join the nation in watching how the Impeachment Inquiry Whistleblower Complaint plays out, we have ideated and designed a prototype Digital Archivy scorecard for informational appraisal. The Digital Archivy Scorecard grades based on Assessment, Identity, Description, Priority, and Security Classification.
In this way, we can determine the value of content based on provenance, function, significance and accuracy. With that in mind, we will look at another piece of critical evidence: The Whistleblower Complaint. This will allow us to assess the accuracy and trustworthiness of the different data inputs that will be examined over the course of the next few weeks.
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY: WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT
The whistleblower filed his/her 9-page Whistleblower Complaint after the phone call between President Trump and Ukraininan President Zelensky. It is from August 12, 2019, and though it is unclassified, it has significant redactions. Further, though it is in PDF format, it is not text-searchable.
As we analyze the source, we examine its relevance and the provenance to gain a fuller understanding of its import. With this in mind, we gave significantly different scores for the Whistleblower complaint compared with previous blog entry (“Digital Archivy Scorecard on Information Appraisal (part 2)“).
In large part, this is due to the fact that we are confident in the identity of the sole author. We understand his perspective, and believe the accuracy and likelihood of his first-hand evidence. The clear language and thorough descriptions are all positive and could be used to support other sources. However, there are questions related to the document’s authenticity, provenance and chain of custody. Because there are redactions due to sensitive intelligence issues, the Description score suffers. This is a critical concern because accusations of a “mafia-style shake-down” are urgent and quite serious.
The priority of this source of information is very high, but it gets a B in Security Classification because parts of the complaint are redacted. This obscures and affects the complaint itself. Consequently, it also may change the meaning or message of the information itself.
However, on a whole, the Whistleblower Complaint is B-grade material. This information source is high-priority.
Stay tuned for Part 4.
Check out Part 1 on the Information Appraisal scorecard here.
Read More
Digital Archivy Scorecard for Information Appraisal (pt 2)
Digital Archivy Scorecard on Information Appraisal, part 2
As we join the nation in watching how the #ImpeachmentInquiry plays out, it is an excellent time for us to design a prototype Digital Archivy scorecard for informational appraisal. The Digital Archivy Scorecard will provide grades based on Assessment, Identity, Description, Priority, and Security Classification.
In this way, we can determine the value of content based on provenance, function, significance and accuracy. With that in mind, today we will look at one piece of critical evidence: The Transcript of July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukraininan President Zelensky. The 9-page transcript of the conversation has disappeared from public. It was replaced by the 5-page Memo of Conversation prepared and released by the White House. This piece focuses on the “idea” of the original transcript.
THE TRANSCRIPT
The transcript is a record of the phone call. As far as we know, there is no audio recording of it. There is a chance, of course, that the Ukrainian Government made an audio recording. Assuming there is no recording, this transcript was created by 12 employees who listen in on the call and jot down notes. Later these notes are compiled and combined by somebody, and then they are used to re-create the transcript. There is no guarantee that the final version is the most accurate representation.
You can see from the scores below, that it is lacking as a trusted source of information. By our score card, we give it straight C’s in five categories: Assessment; Identification; Description; Assign Priority; and Security Classification.
In the first stage, Assessment, we grade as a C because we cannot confirm provenance with regard to authorship. It may be collaborative, but it contains spelling errors (misspelling they’re as there). It also loses points due to the fact that editorial changes were made prior to public release.
Identification gets a B. This is not a unique (“smoking gun”) transcript, but its authorship is clear. Rather, it is one of many different calls between Trump and Zelinsky. There were additional conversations between Zelinsky and Trump, Mike Pence, Rudy Giuliani, and probably others.
Scorecard Descriptions
We give a C to Describe because the content itself is not complete. There are, for example, a number of sentences that contain ellipses. This indicates an incomplete transcript. Without knowledge of the call’s duration, the subject matter, or even the number of participants, we can not trust that this 5-page transcript is complete and accurate.
We grade Priority on this information source as a D. It is not authoritative and may serve other purposes. Also, it loses data integrity because it is an interpretation of an aural phone call. It is in a written format. This is key. Since we do not have access to additional supporting materials (e.g., complete notes or an audio recording) yet, this is a non-trusted source.
We give Security Classification an F. This document was declassified and semi-redacted and clearly serves political issues. In fact, the redactions serve to undermine the authority of the message. We cannot look at it as an unvarnished truth. Also, it is an interpretation of one of many phone calls in which the US Administration asked for a favor and withheld funds promised and approved by the Congress.
Conclusion
Read more about the transcript itself from The Washington Post’s. However, the article focuses more on the preparation of the MemCon (Memorandum of Conversation). The Post also warn us on its value: “Don’t rely on whatever transcript is released,” said a former staffer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment candidly. “Even if it’s unredacted; those transcripts are heavily edited by political leadership at NSC. I’ve seen substance deleted from these call ‘transcripts’ to delete either superfluous details or more substance.” Here’s an article from Quartz that addresses the “transcript” described herein. They state it is a full and unredacted, but it is “not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.”
Find out more about our clients and work.
Check out Part 1 on the Information Appraisal Scorecard here.
Stay tuned for Part 3 of this blog series.
Read More
The Information Appraisal Scorecard (pt 1)
Digital Archivy has developed an Information Appraisal Scorecard to assist clients. This blog entry is related to one practical modern-day example.
Many institutions including, evidently, the White House, face significant cyber challenges. First of all, they struggle to create effective information systems. They also struggle in implementing efficient workflows. So, with some awareness of needs, they would benefit from an information appraisal scorecard. Most notably, this helps capture and codify provenance, metadata, and value. Ultimately, it will also assist in measuring users and usage with metrics.
From the perspective of digital archivy and information management and other records management nerds, the Impeachment Inquiry will be riveting. It will also be an enlightening experience.
So, with this in mind, we address the extant evidence using information management practices– while the case unfolds before our eyes. As evidence is uncovered and de-classified and made available, we will appraise sources, assess the content, assign values. We aim to evaluate content to create a better information ecosystem. And we will build a system that tracks the evidential and informational value.
INFORMATION APPRAISAL SCORECARD CRITERIA
Because of this, we look at ways to quantify the data. We developed our scorecard to simplify this objective work. We began to look at the foundation, content, and data streams. Here are a few of our criteria:
- assess the media format or the source materials
- identify the content type
- describe the content itself
- assign the level of priority
- classify security levels as needed
We build on our experience appraising archives and advising on records retention schedules. As a result, we apply critical thinking and problem-solving. By examining and evaluating the information and evidence, we compare scores in the scorecard. This is useful for best practice. In addition, this helps us assign an information appraisal value that will
- determine if evidential or informational value
- consider the volume and quantity or frequency of data and digital assets
- evaluate the uniqueness, authenticity, accuracy and completeness
- assess complexity of data and information relevant to users and usage
- apply access restrictions and user permissions
As a consequence, and by using this criteria as baseline, we create a system to track values based on source and content and users of the documents.
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
Similarly, in advance of today’s (September 26) #ImpeachmentInquiry hearing, records were released. Consequently, they have different informational value. Further, in some cases, they have evidential value as well. It includes a variety of content and materials. Specifically:
- Transcript of phone call
- Whistleblower complaint
- Testimony of DNI
- ICIG’s Letter
- White House Memo of Conversation
- Record and notes from phone call by observers; and
- Audio recording of phone calls/conversations between POTUS and Ukrainian President
In addition, as we look at the network of connections to the left, we can map a new valuation. Next time we will introduce the information appraisal Scorecard. We will also show a sample with the July 25 Phone Call Transcript. Furthermore, you can access a copy of the IC IG’s letter here.
Above all, check out examples of some of our client work . They illustrate how we develop similar systems to create systems and metrics.
Read More