trash. The office door closed even though the light within is on may be sending our colleagues a message “I’m here but don’t bother me unless it’s really important.”
In recent years, there has been discussion of human-information interaction (HII) in contrast to HCI21. In fact, arguments for a focus on information are not new. Fidel and Pejtersen (2004) asserted that the terms “human-information interaction” and “human information behavior (HIB)”represent essentially the same concept and can be used interchangeably. As such, HII-relevant discussions have been a long-standing mainstay in the field of library and information science (LIS) field22.
People. Information. Tools (and technologies). Three concepts connected (see Figure 1.2). An initial focus on people and information (in the spirit of LIS, HIB & HII) eventually brings us to a consideration of the tools and technologies by which this information is created and stored, sent and received. An initial focus on people and tools eventually causes us to think about the information that is being managed (sent, received, created, stored) through the use of the tools under study. For example, we might study a person’s use of a large-display device but without the broader perspective of PIM we might miss the sticky notes that encircle the display device.
Figure 1.2: The triangle of people, information and technology. A focus on the human-information interaction inevitably involves tools and technology (computer-based and otherwise). Likewise, a focus on the human-computer interaction inevitably involves a consideration of information.
1.3.4 KNOWLEDGE VS. INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VS. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, PKM VS. PIM
The study of information management and knowledge management in organizations also has relevance to the study of PIM23. Issues seen first at an organizational level often migrate to the PIM domain. The merits of various schemes of classification or the use of controlled vocabularies, for example, have long been topics of discussion at the organizational level24. But these topics may find their way into the PIM domain, as the amounts of personally kept digital information continue to increase. This migration has already happened in the area of privacy, protection, and security25.
Discussions often reflect an implicit ordering of the terms data, information and knowledge, i.e., information trumps data and knowledge trumps information. In a corporate/organizational context, information management came first as a field of inquiry, followed, beginning in the 1990s by discussions of knowledge management as a related but separate field of inquiry. Knowledge is, as O’Dell et al. said, “information in action” (1998, p. 5). Similarly, we might say that information is “data in motion”—data communicated, data sent or received with intention26.
Now, predictably, we have discussions of personal knowledge management (PKM)27, as a field of inquiry that relates to but is separate from personal information management (PIM). Elsewhere, I argue for the following28.
1. Information is a thing to be handled and controlled; knowledge is not.
2. Knowledge can be managed only indirectly, through the management of information.
3. Personal knowledge management (PKM) is, therefore, best regarded as a subset of personal information management (PIM)—but a very useful subset addressing important issues that otherwise might be overlooked such as self-directed efforts of knowledge elicitation (“What do I know? What have I learned? How can I best communicate this knowledge the people I am training?”) and knowledge instillation (i.e., “Learning what it is I need to know”).
1.3.5 TIME, TASK AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The terms “task” and “project” (and associated terms such as “task analysis,” “task management,” “project management”) mean different things to different people in different research communities29. Even within a single community such as the HCI community, the term “task” takes on different meanings in phrases such as “task management”30 and “cognitive task analysis31. Also, “project” and “task” are often used interchangeably.
For PIM, a useful distinction is made between a personal task and a personal project or, simply, task and project. For task, we can use a simple, intuitive definition: A task is something we might put on a “to-do” list.“Pay bills,” “Call mom to wish her a happy birthday,” “Make hotel reservations” are all examples of tasks. With respect to everyday planning, tasks are atomic. A task such as “Make hotel reservations” can be decomposed into smaller actions—“Search for hotels in downtown area,” “Select hotel,” “Search for room,” etc.—but there is little utility in doing so. A task can usually be completed in a single sitting but often stays on a to-do list of pending tasks for long periods awaiting the requisite information. We can’t make hotel reservations, for example, until we know the dates of the trip and the location of the meeting.
A project, in turn, is made up of any number of tasks and sub-projects. Again, the informal “to-do” measure is useful: While it makes sense to put tasks like “Call the real estate broker” or “Call our financial planner” on a to-do list, it makes little sense to place a containing project like “Buy a new house” or “Plan for retirement” into the same list (except perhaps as an exhortation to “Get started”). A project has an internal structure of inter-dependent sub-projects and tasks and can last for weeks, months or even years.
Task management as used in recent studies of human-computer interaction32 refers primarily to the management between tasks including handling interruptions, switching tasks and resuming an interrupted task. Project management, on the other hand, refers primarily to the management of various components within a project33. For the project to be successfully completed, many or most of these components must also be completed, in the right order, at the right time. In planning a family vacation, for example, it’s important to make plane reservations but not before travel dates and destination are determined.
The informal task and project management that people perform as part of their everyday practice of PIM frequently differ from the more formal “industrial strength” task and project management 34, which is done (sometimes by managerial fiat) in an organizational setting and done also on occasion by highly disciplined individuals. People may use tools like the task module of Microsoft Outlook 35 or the web-based remember the milk 36 application for task management. But tasks are more commonly managed through more ad hoc methods, for example, “in our heads” or through notes scribbled on paper or through self-addressed email messages37. Projects too are frequently planned in our heads (e.g., as we’re driving to work), or through notes quickly written to paper or an electronic document. Also, the folder structures people develop to hold project information can serve as a rough representation of project—its structure and current state of completion38.
There is an important point that may already be obvious to many of you: task/project management and information management are two sides to the same coin. We manage (or should manage) our information with an end in mind—how will this information be needed and used later?39 In some cases, a use is clear. We keep a slide presentation inside the “XYZ conference” folder because we’ll be presenting the slides at the “XYZ conference.” Folder organization in this case is a rough reflection of an anticipated reality. But this presentation may have other users later on that we don’t foresee. The presentation may, for example, form the basis for another presentation we’ll give later in the year at the “ABC conference.” And for other kinds of information
