Informatics and Knowledge Management?

Informatics is a broad, interdisciplinary field encompassing artificial intelligence, cognitive science, computer science, information science, and social science.

Knowledge management (KM) comprises a range of practices used in an organization to identify, create, represent, distribute, and enable adoption of insights and experiences among target populations. Such insights and experiences are embodied in individuals or embedded in organizational processes, practice, documents, databases, and other media. KM practitioners argue that KM is not about technology. However, few argue enterprise KM can be successful without the application of technology. The theoretical tools of artificial intelligence, cognitive science, computer science, information science, and social science enable knowledge management.

Business informatics is a term commonly used in Central Europe to describe the combination of information technology, informatics and management concepts into one discipline. Like KM, BI seeks to harness informational synergies from the integration of business administration concepts and computer science technology. Similarly, Health informatics, Health care informatics or medical informatics is the intersection of information science, computer science, and health care. It deals with the resources, devices, and methods to optimize the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of information in health and biomedicine. Health informatics tools include not only computers but also clinical guidelines which can be embodied in individuals or embedded in organizational processes, practice, documents, databases, and other media, as well as formal medical terminologies, and information and communication systems. Health informatics is applied to the areas of nursing, clinical care, dentistry, pharmacy, public health and (bio)medical research.

Can synergies among these related approaches to similar problems be better leveraged?

e-Discovery and Social Media?

I met the Honorable Lee Rosenthal from the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas in December. She and Larry Stuart discussed “The Future of Litigation and the Impact of e-Discovery on Your Business” at Rice University. Judge Rosenthal is on the Board of Governers at Rice and chairs the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. The committee supervises the rule-making process in the federal courts and oversees and coordinates the work of the Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Evidence and of Civil, Criminal, Bankruptcy and Appellate Procedure, including amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Many interesting topics were discussed. The following points provide a framework for understanding eDisovery as it relates to document retention efforts:

• The topic of e-discover is fraught with anecdotal information. Consequently, the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) conducted survey research to understand the impact of technology on the rules associated with e-discovery. (The statistics quoted here were attributed to the FJC.)


• “Information is intensely durable and intensely fragile”.


• Due to changes in technology, the rules around e-discovery have been changed more than any other on the books.


• 70% of cases with an e-discovery component experience no problems in implementing current rules or driving to a reasonable conclusion.


• Less than 50% of federal cases have discovery.


• Only 1/3 of documents subject to discovery are electronic.


• Having a responsible e-discovery, retention, and destruction policy is imperative. Ten years after an incident, you should be prepared to explain why data is not available.


• “Rule 16 (c)” pertains to pretrial conferences. These “meet and confer” opportunities are where legal council meets with the judge and discusses what is reasonably subject to discovery. However, in may not be customary to leverage Rule 16 in all districts. Rosenthal encourages getting the court involved and use Rule 16 – even where it is not customary to do so.

Judge Rosenthal suggested the US federal court viewed a responsible e-discovery, retention, and destruction policy as key. Responsible document retention soberly considers relevance. Her recommendation is to decide early on what media (social or otherwise) has a place in data retention strategy and be prepared to describe and defend that policy – even years after the fact.