Information Management

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 10

Information management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to navigation Jump to search
For the Master of Information Management degree relating to library science, see Education
for librarianship.
Not to be confused with Content management or Knowledge management.
Information science

General aspects
 Access
 Architecture
 Behavior
 Management
 Retrieval
 Seeking
 Society
 Knowledge organization
 Ontology
 Philosophy
 Science and technology studies
 Taxonomy

Related fields and sub-fields


 Bibliometrics
 Categorization
 Censorship
 Classification
 Computer data storage
 Cultural studies
 Data modeling
 Informatics
 Information technology
 Intellectual freedom
 Intellectual property
 Library and information science
 Memory
 Preservation
 Privacy
 Quantum information science

 v
 t
 e
Information management (IM) concerns a cycle of organizational activity: the acquisition
of information from one or more sources, the custodianship and the distribution of that
information to those who need it, and its ultimate disposition through archiving or deletion.

This cycle of information organisation involves a variety of stakeholders, including those


who are responsible for assuring the quality, accessibility and utility of acquired information;
those who are responsible for its safe storage and disposal; and those who need it for decision
making. Stakeholders might have rights to originate, change, distribute or delete information
according to organisational information management policies.

Information management embraces all the generic concepts of management, including the
planning, organizing, structuring, processing, controlling, evaluation and reporting of
information activities, all of which is needed in order to meet the needs of those with
organisational roles or functions that depend on information. These generic concepts allow
the information to be presented to the audience or the correct group of people. After
individuals are able to put that information to use, it then gains more value.

Information management is closely related to, and overlaps with, the management of data,
systems, technology, processes and – where the availability of information is critical to
organisational success – strategy. This broad view of the realm of information management
contrasts with the earlier, more traditional view, that the life cycle of managing information is
an operational matter that requires specific procedures, organisational capabilities and
standards that deal with information as a product or a service.

Contents
 1 History
o 1.1 Emergent ideas out of data management
o 1.2 Positioning information management in the bigger picture
 2 Theoretical background
o 2.1 Behavioural and organisational theories
o 2.2 Economic theory
 3 Strategic information management
o 3.1 Background
o 3.2 Aligning technology and business strategy with information management
o 3.3 A contemporary portfolio model for information
o 3.4 Competencies to manage information well
o 3.5 Summary
 4 Operationalising information management
o 4.1 Managing requisite change
o 4.2 The early work of Galbraith
o 4.3 The matrix organisation
 5 See also
 6 References
 7 External links
History
Emergent ideas out of data management

In the 1970s, the management of information largely concerned matters closer to what would
now be called data management: punched cards, magnetic tapes and other record-keeping
media, involving a life cycle of such formats requiring origination, distribution, backup,
maintenance and disposal. At this time the huge potential of information technology began to
be recognised: for example a single chip storing a whole book, or electronic mail moving
messages instantly around the world, remarkable ideas at the time.[1] With the proliferation of
information technology and the extending reach of information systems in the 1980s and
1990s,[2] information management took on a new form. Progressive businesses such as British
Petroleum transformed the vocabulary of what was then "IT management", so that “systems
analysts” became “business analysts”, “monopoly supply” became a mixture of “insourcing”
and “outsourcing”, and the large IT function was transformed into “lean teams” that began to
allow some agility in the processes that harness information for business benefit.[3] The scope
of senior management interest in information at British Petroleum extended from the creation
of value through improved business processes, based upon the effective management of
information, permitting the implementation of appropriate information systems (or
“applications”) that were operated on IT infrastructure that was outsourced.[3] In this way,
information management was no longer a simple job that could be performed by anyone who
had nothing else to do, it became highly strategic and a matter for senior management
attention. An understanding of the technologies involved, an ability to manage information
systems projects and business change well, and a willingness to align technology and
business strategies all became necessary.[4]

Positioning information management in the bigger picture

In the transitional period leading up to the strategic view of information management,


Venkatraman (a strong advocate of this transition and transformation,[5] proffered a simple
arrangement of ideas that succinctly brought together the managements of data, information,
and knowledge (see the figure)) argued that:

 Data that is maintained in IT infrastructure has to be interpreted in order to render


information.
 The information in our information systems has to be understood in order to emerge
as knowledge.
 Knowledge allows managers to take effective decisions.
 Effective decisions have to lead to appropriate actions.
 Appropriate actions are expected to deliver meaningful results.

This simple model summarises a presentation by Venkatraman in 1996, as reported by Ward


and Peppard (2002, page 207).[4]

This is often referred to as the DIKAR model: Data, Information, Knowledge, Action and
Result,[6] it gives a strong clue as to the layers involved in aligning technology and
organisational strategies, and it can be seen as a pivotal moment in changing attitudes to
information management. The recognition that information management is an investment that
must deliver meaningful results is important to all modern organisations that depend on
information and good decision-making for their success.[7]

Theoretical background
Behavioural and organisational theories

It is commonly believed that good information management is crucial to the smooth working
of organisations, and although there is no commonly accepted theory of information
management per se, behavioural and organisational theories help. Following the behavioural
science theory of management, mainly developed at Carnegie Mellon University and
prominently supported by March and Simon,[8] most of what goes on in modern organizations
is actually information handling and decision making. One crucial factor in information
handling and decision making is an individual's ability to process information and to make
decisions under limitations that might derive from the context: a person's age, the situational
complexity, or a lack of requisite quality in the information that is at hand – all of which is
exacerbated by the rapid advance of technology and the new kinds of system that it enables,
especially as the social web emerges as a phenomenon that business cannot ignore. And yet,
well before there was any general recognition of the importance of information management
in organisations, March and Simon [8] argued that organizations have to be considered as
cooperative systems, with a high level of information processing and a vast need for decision
making at various levels. Instead of using the model of the "economic man", as advocated in
classical theory [9] they proposed "administrative man" as an alternative, based on their
argumentation about the cognitive limits of rationality. Additionally they proposed the notion
of satisficing, which entails searching through the available alternatives until an acceptability
threshold is met - another idea that still has currency.[10]

Economic theory

In addition to the organisational factors mentioned by March and Simon, there are other
issues that stem from economic and environmental dynamics. There is the cost of collecting
and evaluating the information needed to take a decision, including the time and effort
required.[11] The transaction cost associated with information processes can be high. In
particular, established organizational rules and procedures can prevent the taking of the most
appropriate decision, leading to sub-optimum outcomes .[12][13] This is an issue that has been
presented as a major problem with bureaucratic organizations that lose the economies of
strategic change because of entrenched attitudes.[14]

Strategic information management


Background

According to the Carnegie Mellon School an organization's ability to process information is


at the core of organizational and managerial competency, and an organization's strategies
must be designed to improve information processing capability [15] and as information
systems that provide that capability became formalised and automated, competencies were
severely tested at many levels.[16] It was recognised that organisations needed to be able to
learn and adapt in ways that were never so evident before [17] and academics began to
organise and publish definitive works concerning the strategic management of information,
and information systems.[4][18] Concurrently, the ideas of business process management [19] and
knowledge management[20] although much of the optimistic early thinking about business
process redesign has since been discredited in the information management literature.[21] In
the strategic studies field, it is considered of the highest priority the understanding of the
information environment, conceived as the aggregate of individuals, organizations, and
systems that collect, process, disseminate, or act on information. This environment consists of
three interrelated dimensions which continuously interact with individuals, organizations, and
systems. These dimensions are the physical, informational, and cognitive.[22]

Aligning technology and business strategy with information management

Venkatraman has provided a simple view of the requisite capabilities of an organisation that
wants to manage information well – the DIKAR model (see above). He also worked with
others to understand how technology and business strategies could be appropriately aligned in
order to identify specific capabilities that are needed.[23] This work was paralleled by other
writers in the world of consulting,[24] practice [25] and academia.[26]

A contemporary portfolio model for information

Bytheway has collected and organised basic tools and techniques for information
management in a single volume.[7] At the heart of his view of information management is a
portfolio model that takes account of the surging interest in external sources of information
and the need to organise un-structured information external so as to make it useful (see the
figure).

This portfolio model organizes issues of internal and external sourcing and management of
information, that may be either structured or unstructured.

Such an information portfolio as this shows how information can be gathered and usefully
organised, in four stages:

Stage 1: Taking advantage of public information: recognise and adopt well-structured


external schemes of reference data, such as post codes, weather data, GPS positioning data
and travel timetables, exemplified in the personal computing press.[27]

Stage 2: Tagging the noise on the world wide web: use existing schemes such as post codes
and GPS data or more typically by adding “tags”, or construct a formal ontology that
provides structure. Shirky provides an overview of these two approaches.[28]

Stage 3: Sifting and analysing: in the wider world the generalised ontologies that are under
development extend to hundreds of entities and hundreds of relations between them and
provide the means to elicit meaning from large volumes of data. Structured data in databases
works best when that structure reflects a higher-level information model – an ontology, or an
entity-relationship model.[29]

Stage 4: Structuring and archiving: with the large volume of data available from sources such
as the social web and from the miniature telemetry systems used in personal health
management, new ways to archive and then trawl data for meaningful information. Map-
reduce methods, originating from functional programming, are a more recent way of eliciting
information from large archival datasets that is becoming interesting to regular businesses
that have very large data resources to work with, but it requires advanced multi-processor
resources.[30]

Competencies to manage information well

In 2004, the management system "Information Management Body of Knowledge" was first
published on the world wide web[31] and set out to show that the required management
competencies to derive real benefits from an investment in information are complex and
multi-layered. The framework model that is the basis for understanding competencies
comprises six “knowledge” areas and four “process” areas:

This framework is the basis of organising the "Information Management Body of


Knowledge" first made available in 2004. This version is adapted by the addition of
"Business information" in 2014.
The information management knowledge areas

The IMBOK is based on the argument that there are six areas of required management
competency, two of which (“business process management” and “business information
management”) are very closely related.[32]

 Information technology: The pace of change of technology and the pressure to


constantly acquire the newest technological products can undermine the stability of
the infrastructure that supports systems, and thereby optimises business processes and
delivers benefits. It is necessary to manage the “supply side” and recognise that
technology is, increasingly, becoming a commodity.[33]
 Information system: While historically information systems were developed in-
house, over the years it has become possible to acquire most of the software systems
that an organisation needs from the software package industry. However, there is still
the potential for competitive advantage from the implementation of new systems ideas
that deliver to the strategic intentions of organisations.[4]
 Business processes and Business information: Information systems are applied to
business processes in order to improve them, and they bring data to the business that
becomes useful as business information. Business process management is still seen as
a relatively new idea because it is not universally adopted, and it has been difficult in
many cases; business information management is even more of a challenge.[34][35]
 Business benefit: What are the benefits that we are seeking? It is necessary not only
to be brutally honest about what can be achieved, but also to ensure the active
management and assessment of benefit delivery. Since the emergence and
popularisation of the Balanced scorecard[36] there has been huge interest in business
performance management but not much serious effort has been made to relate
business performance management to the benefits of information technology
investments and the introduction of new information systems until the turn of the
millennium.[26]
 Business strategy: Although a long way from the workaday issues of managing
information in organisations, strategy in most organisations simply has to be informed
by information technology and information systems opportunities, whether to address
poor performance or to improve differentiation and competitiveness. Strategic
analysis tools such as the value chain and critical success factor analysis are directly
dependent on proper attention to the information that is (or could be) managed [4]

The information management processes

Even with full capability and competency within the six knowledge areas, it is argued that
things can still go wrong. The problem lies in the migration of ideas and information
management value from one area of competency to another. Summarising what Bytheway
explains in some detail (and supported by selected secondary references):[37]

 Projects: Information technology is without value until it is engineered into


information systems that meet the needs of the business by means of good project
management.[38]
 Business change: The best information systems succeed in delivering benefits
through the achievement of change within the business systems, but people do not
appreciate change that makes new demands upon their skills in the ways that new
information systems often do. Contrary to common expectations, there is some
evidence that the public sector has succeeded with information technology induced
business change.[39]
 Business operations: With new systems in place, with business processes and
business information improved, and with staff finally ready and able to work with
new processes, then the business can get to work, even when new systems extend far
beyond the boundaries of a single business.[40]
 Performance management: Investments are no longer solely about financial results,
financial success must be balanced with internal efficiency, customer satisfaction, and
with organisational learning and development.[36]

Summary

There are always many ways to see a business, and the information management viewpoint is
only one way. It is important to remember that other areas of business activity will also
contribute to strategy – it is not only good information management that moves a business
forwards. Corporate governance, human resource management, product development and
marketing will all have an important role to play in strategic ways, and we must not see one
domain of activity alone as the sole source of strategic success. On the other hand, corporate
governance, human resource management, product development and marketing are all
dependent on effective information management, and so in the final analysis our competency
to manage information well, on the broad basis that is offered here, can be said to be
predominant.

Operationalising information management


Managing requisite change

Organizations are often confronted with many information management challenges and issues
at the operational level, especially when organisational change is engendered. The novelty of
new systems architectures and a lack of experience with new styles of information
management requires a level of organisational change management that is notoriously
difficult to deliver. As a result of a general organisational reluctance to change, to enable new
forms of information management, there might be (for example): a shortfall in the requisite
resources, a failure to acknowledge new classes of information and the new procedures that
use them, a lack of support from senior management leading to a loss of strategic vision, and
even political manoeuvring that undermines the operation of the whole organisation.[41]
However, the implementation of new forms of information management should normally lead
to operational benefits.

The early work of Galbraith

In early work, taking an information processing view of organisation design, Jay Galbraith
has identified five tactical areas to increase information processing capacity and reduce the
need for information processing.[42]

 Developing, implementing, and monitoring all aspects of the “environment” of an


organization.
 Creation of slack resources so as to decrease the load on the overall hierarchy of
resources and to reduce information processing relating to overload.
 Creation of self-contained tasks with defined boundaries and that can achieve proper
closure, and with all the resources at hand required to perform the task.
 Recognition of lateral relations that cut across functional units, so as to move decision
power to the process instead of fragmenting it within the hierarchy.
 Investment in vertical information systems that route information flows for a specific
task (or set of tasks) in accordance to the applied business logic.

The matrix organisation

The lateral relations concept leads to an organizational form that is different from the simple
hierarchy, the “matrix organization”. This brings together the vertical (hierarchical) view of
an organisation and the horizontal (product or project) view of the work that it does visible to
the outside world. The creation of a matrix organization is one management response to a
persistent fluidity of external demand, avoiding multifarious and spurious responses to
episodic demands that tend to be dealt with individually.

See also
 Information Management Body of Knowledge
 Records management
 Knowledge management
 Information technology
 Information system
 Project management
 Business process
 Balanced scorecard
 Strategic management
 Data management
 Content management
 Master of Information Management
 Information Resources Management Journal
 Journal of Global Information Management

References
1.

 Evans, C., 1979. The Mighty Micro, London: Victor Gollancz.


  Venkatraman, N., 1994. IT-enabled business transformation: from automation to
business scope redefinition. Sloan Management Review, 35(2), pp.73–87
  Cross, J. & Earl, M., 1997. Transformation of the IT function at British Petroleum.
MIS Quarterly, 21(4), page 403
  Ward, J. & Peppard, J., 2002. Strategic Planning for Information Systems (3rd
Edition), Chichester: Wiley
  Venkatraman, N., 1994. IT-enabled business transformation: from automation to
business scope redefinition. Sloan Management Review, 35(2), pp.73–87.
  Venkatraman, N., 1996. Managing IT resources as a value center, IS Executive
Seminar Series, Cranfield School of Management
  Bytheway, A., 2015. Investing in Information: the Information Management Body of
Knowledge, Geneva: Springer
  March, J.G. & Simon, H.A., 1958. Organizations, Wiley
  see Opp, K.-D., 1985. Sociology and economic man. Zeitschrift für die gesamte
Staatswissenschaft/Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, pp.213–243
  Winter, S.G., 2000. The satisficing principle in capability learning. Strategic
Management Journal, 21(10-11), pp.981–996
  Hedberg, Bo (1981), "How organizations learn and unlearn", in: Nyström, P.C. &
Starbuck, W.H., Handbook of Organizational Design, Oxford University Press
  Mackenzie K.D. (1978), Organizational Structures, AHM Publishing Corporation
  Mullins, L.J (1993), Management and Organizational Behaviours, 3rd ed., Pitman
Publishing
  Wigand, Rolf T., Picot, Arnold and Reichwald, Ralf (1997), Information,
Organization and Management: Expanding Markets and Corporate Boundaries, Wiley &
Sons
  Cyert, R.M. & March, J.G., 1959. A behavioural theory of organizational objectives.
Modern Organization Theory, Wiley, New York, pp.76–90
  Morton, M.S.S., 1991. The corporation of the 1990s: Information technology and
organizational transformation, Oxford University Press
  Senge, P.M., 1990. The fifth discipline, Doubleday
  Earl, M.J., 1989. Management Strategies for Information Technology, Upper Saddle
River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  Hammer, M. & Champy, J., 2009. Reengineering the Corporation: Manifesto for
Business Revolution, A, Zondervan
  Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H., 1995. The knowledge creating company: how Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation, New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press
  Belmiro, T., Gardiner, P. & Simmons, J., 1997. Business process re-engineering—A
discredited vocabulary? International Journal of Information Management, 17(1), pp.21–33
  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Army (2012). Information Operations.
Joint Publication 3-13. Joint Doctrine Support Division, 116 Lake View Parkway, Suffolk,
VA., p. 18.
  Henderson, J.C. & Venkatraman, N., 1993. Strategic alignment: leveraging
information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), pp.4–16
  Zachman, J. A. (1987). A framework for information systems architecture. IBM
Systems Journal, 26(3), 590–616
  Cross, J., 1995. IT outsourcing : British Petroleum’s competitive approach. Harvard
Business Review, 73(3), p.94
  Ward, J. & Daniel, E., 2005. Benefits Management: Delivering Value from IS and IT
Investments, Chichester: Wiley
  Ashbrook, D. & Starner, T., 2003. Using GPS to learn significant locations and
predict movement across multiple users. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7(5), pp.275–
286
  Shirky, C., 2005. Shirky: Ontology is Overrated -- Categories, Links, and Tags. Clay
Shirky’s Writings About the Internet. Available at:
http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html [Accessed May 23, 2013]
  Noy, N.F., McGuinness, D.L. & others, 2001. Ontology development 101: A guide to
creating your first ontology, Stanford knowledge systems laboratory technical report KSL-
01-05 and Stanford medical informatics technical report SMI-2001-0880
  Chu, C. et al., 2007. Map-reduce for machine learning on multicore. Advances in
neural information processing systems, 19, p.281
 IMBOK, 2004. The Information Management Body of Knowledge. Available at:

You might also like