ISSN 1566-6379 271 ©Academic Publishing International Ltd
Reference this paper as: Vo-Tran, H. “Adding Action to the Information Audit” The Electronic Journal Information
Systems Evaluation Volume 14 Issue 2 2011, (pp167-282), available online at www.ejise.com
Adding Action to the Information Audit
Huan Vo-Tran
RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
huan.vo-tran@rmit.edu.au
Abstract: The Information Audit (IA) has long been seen as an important tool within the Information Management
field, with its origins stemming from financial audits. It is used extensively in libraries as an improvement tool and,
although many have tried to define it, such as Guy St. Clair (1997), Orna (1999) and Henczel (2001a), there is
still no general consensus on a definition, or the steps taken to achieve it. Whatever form it may take, it is agreed
that to undertake such a task requires a structured approach. The following study will propose a hybrid approach
in which Henczel’s seven-stage Information Audit model will be coupled with the Action Research (AR)
methodology in order to assist a mid-sized architectural practice to manage their information throughout the
architectural design process, and, in particular, as they attempt to design a new academic building for a
prominent Australian university.
Keywords: information audit, information management, architectural design process, action research
1. Introduction
As organisations begin to create and accumulate information, they tend to lose sight of how to mange
it, and what information they actually possess. We are currently seeing this information being created
at an astonishing rate, and manifesting itself in many forms. Organisations such as architectural firms
are not only dealing with traditional paper-based documents, but are now also dealing with an
abundance of unstructured data such as emails, pictures from building sites, technical drawings,
formal documents from governing organisations, handwritten notes taken during interviews with
clients and even transcripts collected from focus group activities.
In order for an organisation to achieve high performance it is stated that, “effective information
management is the key” (Roglaski 2006), but the sheer amount of unstructured data being created by
these organisations present it with many challenges. Rogalski continues by stating that, “finding the
right information is difficult, information is not well leveraged among partners and it is not coming
together in ways that will yield useful new insights” (Roglaski 2006).
However, before an organisation can effectively and efficiently manage the information that they
create, possess and disseminate, they must first complete an audit of their current information
practices. An Information Audit (IA) can be seen as a tool that can be used to assist them with this
process. Botha and Boon (2003) suggest that an Information Audit can be defined as:
The systematic examination of the information resources, information use, information
flows and the management of these in an organisation. It involves the identification of
users’ information needs and how effectively (or not) these are being met.
The study will attempt to audit the information created by a mid-sized architectural practice as they
cycle through the architectural design process in order to design a new academic building for a
prominent Australian university. This will be done through the use of a hybrid methodological
approach in which Sue Henczel’s seven-stage Information Audit model will be combined with Kemmis
and McTaggart’s Action Research (AR) model.
2. Literature review
2.1 Information Audit (IA)
Over the last three decades there have been many attempts to define what an IA is, and what it
should encompass. Yet to date, there is still no universal consensus. Early IA definitions (Reynolds
1980; Burk & Horton 1988) tended to focus on more formal information sources with a strong
emphasis on document management, while recent approaches (Buchanan & Gibb 1998; Henczel
2001; Orna 1999) have moved away from this narrow approach to recognise and incorporate the
importance of organisational approaches and the broad range of information resources.
In order to demonstrate the differences in approaches and definitions of Information Audits a brief
examination of some of the definitions is provided:
Huan Vo-Tran
www.ejise.com 272 ISSN 1566-6379
LaRosa (1991)
… A systematic method of exploring and analysing where a library’s various publics are
going strategically, and determining the challenges and obstacles facing those publics.
The audit, which raises questions about where and when these publics find and use
information, gives the library a better understanding of the present and future needs of its
constituents which in turn helps the library determine its most appropriate strategic
direction.
St. Clair (1997)
A process that examines how well the organisation’s information needs and deliverables
connects with the organisational missions, needs and goals and objectives.
Buchanan and Gibb (1998)
Discovering, monitoring and evaluating an organisation’s information resources in order
to implement, maintain, or improve the organisation’s management of information.
Orna (1999)
A systematic evaluation of information use, resources and flows, with verification by
reference to both people and existing documents, in order to establish the extent to
which they are contributing to an organisation’s objectives.
Henczel (2001b)
Is a process that will effectively determine the current information environment by
identifying what information is required to meet the needs of the organisation. It
establishes what information is currently supplied, and allows matching of the two to
identify gaps, inconsistencies and duplications. The process will also facilitate the
mapping of information flows throughout the organisation and between the organisation
and its external environment to enable the identification of bottlenecks and inefficiencies.
As we can see from the definitions listed above, a majority focus on the organisations and the
management of their information. It is only LaRosa who makes reference to the end users of this
information, and only a few make reference to the use of Information Technology (IT) in their primary
definition of IA, which can now be seen as an essential part of every organisation and the way they
manage their information.
2.2 Approaches to information audits
Buchanan and Gibb (2007) describe the IA as being, “central to the effective organisational
management of information, however there is evidence from the field that IA is neither fully accepted
nor commonly practiced” (Buchanan & Gibb 2007). However, when an IA is executed by an
information practitioner it can be seen as a very costly exercise for an organisation due to the time
and resources that must be allocated for such an undertaking.
Currently there is no standard or agreed methodological approach within the field, and it is generally
left to the practitioner to sort through a myriad of academic and proprietary methods – some more
comprehensive than others. Once an appropriate methodology has been selected, the practitioner is
required to identify “the numerous tools and technique(s) required to support the methodological
process" (Buchanan & Gibb 2007).
Many may also argue that a standard for IA is not required, as each organisation needs to be treated
as a separate entity and requires a different approach. Buchanan and Gibb (2007) also suggest that
there is a, “lack of an agreed methodological approach” which in turn makes the selection of the
methodology somewhat challenging. To add to the complexity of methodology selection, there has
also been limited empirical evidence regarding the usability of the existing approaches.
In support of Buchanan and Gibb's (2007) argument, Botha and Boon (2003) concluded that, “more
research is required on the topic of information and more of the methodologies need to be tested in
practice” (Botha & Boon 2003), which in turn will allow both practitioners and academics to develop
more reliable IA methodologies that can be confidently used and re-used.
Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation Volume 14 Issue 2 2011
www.ejise.com 273 ©Academic Publishing International Ltd
2.3 Information audit methodologies
As stated in section 2.2 there has been a myriad of methodologies created and adopted. The table
below provides an outline of some of the major methodologies, in chronological order.
Table 1: Outline of some major information audit methodologies in chronological order
Year Author Brief description
1987 Worlock Worlock discusses a framework of headings for the auditing process after testing it out
in various environments and suggests that the judgement of these headings rests with
the person undertaking the audit. In total, there are five headings, each of which should
not be seen as being mutually exclusive. The five headings are:
1. Utility analysis.
2. Quality values.
3. Productivity factors.
4. Implementation criteria.
5. Strategic impact statements.
1988 Burk and
Horton
Burk and Horton were the first to develop InfoMap; it was seen as the first IA
methodology developed for widespread use in the industry. Its focus was to evaluate
the information resources using a four-stage process.
1. Survey staff using questionnaires or surveys.
2. Measure the information resources against cost/value.
3. Analyse resources.
4. Synthesise the findings and map the strengths and weaknesses of the information
resources against the objectives of the organisation.
1993 Booth and
Haines
Booth and Haines made use of the IA for organisational change and for the
development of a new information policy for a regional health authority in the UK. Their
strategy involved five components, which were:
1. Identify and review the corporate objective.
2. Decide what information is needed to meet the corporate requirements.
3. Conduct an IA through the use of questionnaires and interviews to determine if the
current required information exists within the organisation and if so, how it is
currently being utilised.
4. Address the identified information gaps and problems where possible.
5. Develop a comprehensive information management policy for the organisation
1993 Ellis,
Barker,
Potter and
Pridegeon
Ellis, Barker, Potter and Pridegeon acknowledge that there are many different
approaches to information auditing; however, they suggest that, to fulfil its function, an
IA must encompass the following:
1. Establish what the major goals of the organisation/operation are and what kind of
organizational constraints act upon the operational information systems.
2. Determine the needs of the users.
3. Inventory the resources available.
4. Build up a coherent picture of how the system functions from the information
gathered in the first three stages.
1994 Webb
(cited in
Botha and
Boon
2003)
Webb describes the IA according to three distinct stages:
1. Initial audit (inventory).
2. Collecting the data.
3. Data analysis.
It can be seen as an operational advisory audit as it looks at how the IA can be used to
audit the current system and how effectively and efficiently the resources are being
used.
1997 St. Clair St. Clair states that the information audit can be grouped into five main areas which
are:
1. Getting the ball rolling
2. Conducting interviews
Huan Vo-Tran
www.ejise.com 274 ISSN 1566-6379
Year Author Brief description
3. Organising and conducting interviews
4. Follow up
5. Typical pitfalls and mistakes.
1997
1998
2007
2008
Buchanan
and Gibb
Buchanan and Gibb studied a number of IA case studies and developed what they
described as a “universal model” for conducting IAs. Their approach was to create an
IA model that could be used in a number of different environments and for the
purposes of developing an effective information strategy for organisations. The
“universal model” proposed by Buchanan and Gibb consists of five phases, these
being:
1. Promote
2. Identify
3. Analyse
4. Account
5. Synthesise.
2001 Henczel Henczel's work in 2001 leveraged off the strengths of Orna and Buchanan and Gibb to
produce a seven-stage auditing process. Henczel also suggests that the use of the IA
should focus more on the strategic direction of the organisation and that it is the first
step in the development of a knowledge audit or knowledge management strategy.
Henczel's seven stages are:
1. Planning
2. Data collection
3. Data analysis
4. Data evaluation
5. Communicating recommendations
6. Implementing recommendations
7. The information audit as a continuum.
1990
1999
2004
Orna Orna makes a metaphorical reference to the financial audit in her description of the IA
as an, “authoritative examination of accounts with verification by reference to witnesses
and documents” (Orna, 1990). Orna discusses the scope of the IA in terms of seven
phases which are:
1. Plan.
2. Investigate the information available in the organisation.
3. Identify the resources that are available for making information accessible.
4. Determine information used to further the purposes of the organisation.
5. Identify those that are responsible for managing and processing the information,
respectively.
6. Identify and evaluate the information technology that is used to manage information
resources.
7. Calculate the cost and determine the value of organisational information resources.
Since then, Orna (1999) has developed an alternative auditing process comprising ten
steps:
1. Conduct a preliminary review to confirm operational/strategic direction
2. Gain support/resources from management
3. Gain commitment from the other stakeholders (staff)
4. Plan, including the project, team, tools and techniques
5. Identify the IR, information flow and produce a cost/value assessment
6. Interpret findings based upon current versus desired state
7. Produce a report to present findings
8. Implement recommendations
9. Monitor effects of change
10. Repeat the IA.
From the analysis of Table 1, we can clearly see that there are many different approaches to
conducting an IA, ranging from Webb’s (1994) three-step process all the way up to Orna's (1999) tenstep
process. It is also of interest to note that not all IAs focus on the same aspects and contain the
same level of structure and detail.
Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation Volume 14 Issue 2 2011
www.ejise.com 275 ©Academic Publishing International Ltd
3. Methodology
As stated in the introduction section, the study will attempt to audit the information created, processed
and disseminated by a mid-sized architectural practice as they cycle through the architectural design
process in order to design a new academic building for a prominent Australian university. Although
there are many different methodologies that could have been selected as outlined in section 2.3, the
researcher has opted for a hybrid approach in which two methodologies will be combined. This
particular study will attempt to combine Henczel’s (2001) seven-stage IA model with Kemmis and
McTaggart’s AR spiral to form a hybrid approach.
3.1 Justification
After careful consideration of the methodologies on offer, the researcher has decided to select
Henczel’s seven-stage IA model over the other competing methodologies as it:
1. Leverages off the strengths from previous work by Orna, Buchanan and Gibb to produce a sevenstage
auditing process:
Previous work completed by Orna, Buchanan and Gibb have focused on developing effective
information management strategies, as well as the comprehensive examination of the organisation with
particular reference to witness accounts and documents. Henczel’s seven-stage IA model builds
upon these strengths and also provides the practitioner a practical guide on how to structure and
conduct one.
2. Focuses on a strategic direction for the organisation:
While earlier IA models incorporated strategic impact statements as apart of their approach (Worlock
1987), a majority of them have neglected to address the strategic direction for the organisation.
Henczel’s seven-stage IA model allows for the creation of a knowledge audit or knowledge
management strategy, which, in-turn may assist the architectural practice in their decision making
processes and allow the directors to form new information management policies based on the data
collected within the IA.
3. Is similar to the AR cycle – Henczel’s model advocates the IA as a continuum where there is an
establishment of a cyclical process:
Both processes advocate that there should be an on-going process in which changes and
adjustments need to be continually made. This is due to the fact that, organisations are required to be
flexible in order to deal with the changes both internally, and the environments in which they operate
within. Another reason why both were chosen was that they also took on a structured, methodical
approach as opposed to earlier IA models such as Worlock (1987).
4. Has incorporated IT into its overall process:
Changes in technology and workflow processes have made earlier IA models not as comprehensive
as they need to be now. The models that were were developed in the early 80s and 90s did not focus
in-depth on IT within organisations as its use was not wide spread. It can also be argued that the use
of IT in the management of information has also not been seen as an effective as at this stage it full
potential had not been realised.
5. Has considered management and operational aspects with the submission of a business case in
the planning stage before proceeding:
For any project an organisation decides to adopt, the support of management is of upmost
importance. Henczel’s seven-stage IA model addresses this, and has considered the enlisting this
support of management through the form of a business case before any work has been completed.
In addition to Henczel’s seven-stage IA model, the researcher has also incorporated Kemmis and
McTaggart’s AR spiral. This will be utilised in place of stage six – implementing recommendations.
The reason for this selection is that the researcher believes that, although Henczel’s stage six fits well
into the overall IA process, the use of the Kemmis and McTaggart’s AR spiral will serve as a better
Huan Vo-Tran
www.ejise.com 276 ISSN 1566-6379
diagnostic and implementation tool as it can be seen as a more strategic and structured approach for
implementing change. The use of an AR methodology should also, “assist in solving an organisational
problem, or in some instances takes a step forward in deepening an organisation’s understanding of
themselves” (Emerald, 2008).
3.2 Participants
The study will make use of a mid-sized architectural and urban design practice as a case study. It will
attempt to audit the information created by a mid-sized architectural practice as they cycle through the
architectural design process in order to design a new academic building for a prominent Australian
university. The practice was established in 1996 and is based in the Central Business District (CBD)
of Melbourne, Australia. It is currently being led by a team of five directors and also encompasses
ninety professionals, who include: architects, technical staff, designers and construction staff.
The practice has been involved with, and completed numerous large-scale commissions for both
private and government sectors, with some of their most recent projects including major commercial
buildings, university education and training facilities, and government and defence projects.
3.3 Henczel’s seven-stage IA model
Similar to Orna’s (1990) IA model, Henczel’s IA model also consists of seven main stages. As
demonstrated in Figure 1 each stage is clearly defined and each stage needs to be complete before
the next one can commence. Listed below is a short description of what is involved in each stage.
Figure 1: Henczel’s seven-stage information audit model
Stage one: Planning
Involves planning and the submission of a business case for approval by the organisation before
proceeding on to the data collection.
Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation Volume 14 Issue 2 2011
www.ejise.com 277 ©Academic Publishing International Ltd
Stage two: Data Collection
Involves the collection and development of an Information Resource (IR) database and its population
through survey techniques such as questionnaires, personal interviews or focus groups.
Stage three: Data Analysis
Once the data has been collected, it must be organised in a way that allows it to be analysed. It is up
to the person leading the IA to select the most appropriate method for the analysis of the data.
Henczel suggests that, as specialist skills are required to accomplish this, it might be worthwhile to
contract experts outside your organisation.
Stage four: Data Evaluation
At the data evaluation stage, the data begins to show the person conducting the audit a “snapshot” of
the organisation’s information environment. This will facilitate the interpretation and formulation of the
recommendations
Stage five: Communicating Recommendations
Henczel suggests that there are many ways of doing this, depending on the size of the organisation
and the scope of the recommendations. However, the key people who need to be kept informed
through this process may include:
 Anyone who has championed the audit
 Any sponsors
 People who directly participated
 Those who will be affected by the recommended changes. (Henczel 2001).
The communication of these recommendations may be delivered in many forms and could include:
reports, website or intranet, verbal presentations, seminars and personal feedback to participants.
Stage six: Implementing Recommendations
This stage can be seen as the second-last stage in Henczel’s seven-stage IA model. It involves the
development of a plan for when and how the recommendations outlined in the previous stage will be
implemented. Henczel suggests that the organisation, together with the nature of the
recommendations, will influence how the implementation occurs.
Stage seven: The Information Audit as a Continuum
Henczel suggests that when you reach the end of the audit, it is really only the beginning and that
organisations need to be thinking about the IA as a continuous process to ensure that data gathered
initially can be re-assessed and updated.
3.4 Kemmis and McTaggart’s Action Research spiral
McKay and Marshall (2001) describe how Action Research (AR) in its simplest form involves both
action and participation within a particular field. Its focus is to problem-solve in order to improve the
way processes are performed and services are delivered.
AR typically makes use of four main phases of continuous change, which are: Plan, Act, Observe and
Reflect
For the purpose of this study, Kemmis and McTaggart’s AR Spiral was selected and will be
embedded within the implementation recommendations stage (stage six) of Henczel’s seven-stage IA
model. The spiral consists of the four phases of AR and is to be carried out collaboratively with the
organisation that is being studied.
Huan Vo-Tran
www.ejise.com 278 ISSN 1566-6379
Figure 2 represents Kemmis and McTaggart’s AR Spiral (1988). It includes the four main phases of
continuous change (plan, act, observe and reflect). Provided below is a brief description of what
happens within each phase.
Plan: Develop a plan of critically informed action to improve what is already happening within the
organisation that is being studied.
Act: Based on the plan formulated, act upon the plan and implement it.
Observe: Observe the effects of the critically informed action in the context in which it occurs.
Reflect: Reflect on these effects as the basis for future planning, subsequent critically informed action
and so on, through a cycle of succession cycles. (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988)
Figure 2: Kemmis and McTaggart’s (1998) action research spiral
3.5 Combination of the two methods
As stated in section 3.1, the study will take on a hybrid approach where Henczel’s seven-stage IA
model and Kemmis and McTaggart’s AR Spiral will be used in conjunction with one another. The
study will cycle through each one of the seven stages of Henczel’s IA model; however, there will be a
modification made to the sixth stage (implementing recommendations) of the audit instead of making
use of Henczel’s sixth stage, where the outputs should include:
 An information policy
 Post-implementation strategy
 Revised business plan and information management process
 An updated information resources database.
With the addition of Kemmis and McTaggart’s AR Spiral, the findings of the previous stages of
Henczel’s seven-stage IA model will inform the planning phase and, in the last component of
reflection, will lead into the final stage, which is the information audit as a continuum. Figure 3
demonstrates how this will be accomplished.
Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation Volume 14 Issue 2 2011
www.ejise.com 279 ©Academic Publishing International Ltd
Figure 3: The incorporation of Kemmis and McTaggart’s action research spiral within stage six of
Henczel’s seven-stage information audit model (Vo-Tran 2010).
In terms of the techniques that will be used within the combined methodologies, the researcher has
decided to select two commonly used techniques, these being observations and interviews. The use
of observations for this study will allow the researcher to understand, without interfering with the
current practices within the organisation during their the planning phases. Observations can be used
again to see if the changes that have been made during the implementation stages have been
beneficial. In addition to the observations, interviews will be conducted to explore the attitudes and
responses to the changes that have been made. This will also allow the researcher to gather
qualitative information in the form of narratives. It is anticipated that the interviews will take place at
the organisation and take on a planned but unstructured approach.
4. Preliminary findings
As the study is currently in progress, this section will outline the major findings of the first two stages
to date. The findings will be broken down and reported in terms of Henczel’s seven-stage IA model.
Stage one: planning
A formal letter was submitted to the directors of the architectural practice seeking their permission to
participate in the study. Written permission was granted by the practice and the researcher then
sought and received ethics clearance from their home university.
In the feasibility stage of
the architectural design
process, information is
collected from a wide
range of sources including
focus group interviews
and emails. This is then
placed in a folder called
‘briefing folder’. From an
information management
point of view, how can this
process be improved? Is
teaching generic
information management
skills to architects going to
improve the process?
Shift the way architects
think about information
management by
suggesting ‘best practice’
tools and techniques then
allowing them to explore
these.
Record the process taken
as new information comes
in. Also record the
interview responses from
the architects to see how
they manage and
disseminate this data.
Try questioning the
architects so that the can
critically reflect on their
information management
approaches and see if
they can come up with
other solutions.
To what extent is the
current process working
and how can it be
streamlined?
Continue general aim but
try and emphasize ‘best
practices’ in information
management.
Has this process been
streamlined, if so how?
How important is the
collected data for the next
phase in the architectural
design process?
Record any changes in
the architects’ approach to
information management
after suggestions have
been made.
Follow up on the
observations by
interviewing the architects
to see if the suggested
changes have been
Huan Vo-Tran
www.ejise.com 280 ISSN 1566-6379
Adhering to Henczel’s seven-stage IA model, the following tasks and activities were considered and
implemented:
Table 2: Outline of the tasks and activities that were considered and implemented
Task Activity
Developing clear objectives An understanding of what the IA is trying to achieve for both the researcher and
architectural practice
Understanding the organisation and its core business
Identification of the key stakeholders
Defining and scoping the
resource allocation
Physical and information scope
Human, financial, technical and physical resource allocation
Insource, outsource options
Selection of a methodology Data collection, analysis and evaluation
The presentation of the findings and recommendations
Action plan for implementing the recommendations
Development of a
communication strategy
Before the audit
During the audit
After the audit
(Henczel 2001a)
From the tasks and activities listed in the table above, a business case was formulated and presented
to the directors of the architectural practice; this has subsequently been approved and signed off.
Stage two: data collection
Upon completion of the business case, data needed to be collected. This was undertaken using a
combination of techniques, such as onsite interviews and observations. From this, an Information
Resources (IR) database was established and greater understanding of the architectural practice was
achieved. Listed below are some of the findings that resulted from the interviews and observations.
 Projects are won through the tendering process, in which the architectural practice presents their
ideas to prospective clients.
 Staff at the architectural practice work around project-based teams. They can be working on
multiple projects at any given time depending on workload and expertise.
 Each project has one of the architectural practice’s five directors in charge, and these directors
may be spread across no more than three projects.
 All project teams are multidiscipline, and may include architects, draftsmen, consultants,
engineers and designers.
 Projects may last anywhere between six months and four years, depending on the size and
complexity.
In addition to the practices and processes listed above, the data collection also identified some
challenges in information management the architectural practice is facing:
 Storage of documents and images. Documents and images are currently being duplicated in both
physical and electronic formats. These may not be identical as it might take time to update the
documents to reflect either format. In addition to this, electronic copies of documents are stored
within folders according to the file type, e.g. all the PDF files in one location while all the word
documents are in another.
 Recording decisions. The architects have stated that this is one of their biggest problems; any
changes that have been made to a building go straight onto the drawing and there is no record to
why this decision has been made. This causes problems later on when they have no idea why
these changes have been made.
 Re-use of information. Although no two projects will be ever the same, there are some elements
or aspects that could be reused. Instead, the architects and draughtsmen spend lengthy amounts
of time trying to re-create almost identical drawings when they could be spending the time
working on other elements of the building.
Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation Volume 14 Issue 2 2011
www.ejise.com 281 ©Academic Publishing International Ltd
 Transfer of project details to new staff members. As the practices’ staff members move from one
project to another, it takes them time to read through the brief, and attempt to get up to speed as
soon as possible. This is done through reading both the physical and electronic documents, which
may not always contain the most recent changes. This in turn, means that they will have to spend
more time with another staff member going through the finer details.
5. Directions for future research
As the research is currently in progress, it is anticipated that over the next six months the study will
move from the data collection stage into the data analysis and evaluation stages. The data collected
so far will now inform what needs to be done in terms of implementing the recommendations and
structuring the action research component of the hybrid methodology. It is also anticipated that once
the IA has been completed, it will add to the body of knowledge about which Botha and Boon (2003)
concluded in a paper, “more research is required on the topic of information and more of the
methodologies need to be tested in practice” (Botha & Boon 2003).
References
Booth, A. and Haines, M. (1993) "Information audit: whose line is it anyway?" Health Libraries Review, Vol 10, pp
224–232.
Botha, H. and Boon, J. A. (2003) "The Information Audit: Principles and Guidelines", Libri, Vol 53, pp 23–38.
Buchanan, S. and F. Gibb (1998). "The Information Audit: An Integrated Strategic Approach." International
Journal of Information Management, Vol 18, No. 1, pp 29 - 47.
Buchanan, S. and F. Gibb (2007). "The Information Audit: Role and Scope." International Journal of Information
Management, Vol 27, No. 3, pp 159 - 172.
Buchanan, S. and F. Gibb (2008). "The information audit: Methodology selection." International Journal of
Information Management, Vol 28, No. 1, pp 3 - 11.
Burk, C. F. and F. W. Horton (1988). InfoMap: A complete guide to discovering corporate information resources.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Ellis, D., R. Barker, et al. (1993). "Information Audits, Communication Audits and Information Mapping: A Review
and Survey." International Journal of Information Management, Vol 13, No. 2, pp 134 - 151.
Emerald. (2008). "How to... carry out action research." [Online], Emerald,
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/research/guides/methods/action_research.htm.
Orna, E. (1990). Practical information policies: how to manage information flow in organizations. Aldershot,
Gower Publishing Limited.
Orna, E. (1999). Practical Information Policies. Hampshire, Aldershot.
Orna, E. (2004). Information strategy in practice. Aldershot, Gower Publishing Limited.
Dubois, C. P. R. (1995). "The information audit: its contribution to decision making." Library Management, Vol 16,
No. 7, pp 20 - 24.
Henczel, S. (2001a). The Information Audit: A Practical Guide. München, K.G.Saur.
Henczel, S. (2001b). "The Information Audit as a First Step Towards Effective Knowledge Management."
Information Outlook, Vol 5, No. 6, pp 13.
Kemmis, S. and R. McTaggart (1988). The Action research planner. Waurn Ponds, Deakin University Press.
McKay, J. and P. Marshall (2001). "The dual imperatives of action research." Information Technology & People,
Vol 14, No. 1, pp 46 - 59.
LaRosa, S. (1991). "The corporate information audit." Library Management Quarterly, Vol 14, No. 2, pp 7-9.
Roglaski, S. (2006). "The Rising Importance of Enterprise Content Management." DM Review, Vol 16, No. 11, pp
36.
St. Clair, G. (1997). "The information audit I: defining the process." InfoManage, Vol 4, No. 6, pp 5-6.
Swash, G. D. (1997). "The information audit." Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol 12, No. 5, pp 312-318.
Vo-Tran, H. (2010). "Auditing the architectural design process", Paper read at 1
st
International Conference on
Information Management and Evaluation. Cape Town, South Africa.
Worlock, D. (1987). Implementing the information audit. 59th Aslib Annual Conference, 'The information
Manager'. University of Sussex, Electronic Publishing Services Ltd. 39: 255-260.
Copyright of Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation is the property of Academic Conferences,
Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.