Synopsis
Since joining The InterPlex, I have noticed inconsistent organizational practices, especially an unprincipled folder hierarchy with little internal cohesion. To remedy this and facilitate future work, I propose developing a more straightforward and consistent organizational framework that will allow the team to reliably stay on the same page about which items go where and how to keep track of item versions and overall workflow. Together with 3.3 File naming best practices, this constitutes one of two major recommendations for overhauling the way we organize and store our documents and data.
1. Principles
There are different approaches to structuring file systems. Some like hierarchical structures with many subdirectories, like branches of a tree, and some prefer flat ones; either approach can work well depending on the nature of an individual or organization’s projects and workflow. Yet some basic principles and best practices of file organization are beneficial.
File systems tend to become more complicated where teamwork is required; an organization like The InterPlex, with several team members working on both different and overlapping projects, needs to develop shared rules of categorization that facilitate the consistent organization of existing files and the incorporation of new files. This reduces time spent administrating the system and keeps management straightforward and scalable for all team members, particularly as an organization’s file library grows.
A key starting point is that too many folders complicate things. Organizational structure is better kept intuitive and predictable. It is fine to make inductive refinements as needed, but if we don’t implement some kind of overarching structure, our workflow will continue to be impaired by the system’s ongoing disorder. This in turn gives way to the principle of stability over frequent reorganization; we should develop a good organizational system and stick with it, minimizing the need for revision.
2. Example
Drawing on a system that has worked well for me, the Johnny Decimal System, I propose the following as an example of a more logical folder hierarchy for use in our Google Drive:
The_InterPlex
├── 00_Meta
├──── 00.01_System_specification
├──── 00.02_Index
├── 01_Admin
├──── 01.01_Legal_documents
├──── 01.02_Contracts
├──── 01.03_Website
├── 02_Content
├──── 02.01_InterDialogues
├──── 02.02_InterArticles
├──── 02.03_InterPods
├──── 02.04_Social_media
├──── 02.05_Standards_and_guidelines
├── 03_Community
├──── 03.01_Contributor_database
├──── 03.02_Outreach_database
├──── 03.03_Recruitment_templates
├── 04_Planning
├──── 04.01_Content_plan_2026
├──── 04.02_Fundraising_2026
├── 05_Archive
├──── 05.01_2024
├──── 05.02_2025
This is only an example. Needless to say, other structures are possible; other categories and file names could be chosen. It would also be possible to make further distinctions within each item; for instance, the InterDialogues folder could contain subfolders for each individual collaborator, each containing the raw recording files, final video, thumbnail, transcript, etc., as long as all are consistently named. Descending levels of specificity are always possible but should be justified.
Whichever naming conventions we choose to adopt, the parameters of the system should be clearly laid out in the Meta category given above, similar to the use of README files to specify file naming practices.
3. Basic governance norms
As we move toward a more consistent organizational structure, it may be helpful to agree upon a few basic governance norms for data hygiene. For instance:
- No duplicate copies
- Use comments instead of editing over others
- Move obsolete files to Archive periodically, e.g., monthly
- Avoid creating folders without clear purpose
Related
3.3 File naming best practices
References
Chien, Diana. n. d. “File Structure.” MIT CommKit. https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commkit/file-structure/.
MIT Libraries. n. d. “Organize Your Files.” https://libraries.mit.edu/data-management/store/organize/.