Information is a distinct discipline, separate from technology, requiring its own knowledge, skills, and perspectives.

 

Conventional IT suffers considerable confusion not only about what we should be thinking about but how to think about it.  Many favorite perspectives are unimportant.  When improperly emphasized they are destructive.  Suffering a tradition that limits possibilities and lowers expectations diminishes the vision of what we could and should expect from information management.

 

 

Thinking information instead of technology.

 

 

 

Page Contents Informability The four corners of information capability. Planning Change Making change a part of systems instead of something that happens to systems. Data vs. Information Distinguishing between organizing data-symbols and organizing information-meaning. Technology vs. Information Making technology fit how information works instead of making information fit how technology works. Process vs. Function Putting function (what we accomplish ) ahead of process (what we do) to eliminate process-oriented anti-functions hidden in conventional systems. Goals vs. Purpose Assuring how we achieve our goals (win battles) doesn't violate our overall purpose (lose the war). Results vs. Capability Planning systems with information capabilities ("teach to fish") instead of providing a relative hand full of results ("give fish"). Design vs. Discovery How information fits the real world (discovery) instead of how it fits technology (design). Efficiency vs. Efficacy Planning that how well we do something (efficacy) takes priority over how fast we do something (efficiency) while still improving efficiency.

 

 

 

Informability

 

The four corners of information capability (informability)

 

 

Planning Change

Information is affected by changes of data, information, technology, expectations, and needs.  Managing information about information (through topography, mechanics, cartography, and engines) isolates change, making it relatively easy to accommodate.  Topography and mechanics don't change. Cartography ... the map, and engines do.  Buying new technology ... a new engine ... should not require a new information map.  Remapping changing business should not require a new engine. 

 

Data vs Information

 

The words data and information, often used interchangeably, are not truly synonymous. 

Data has no intrinsic reality.  Data-symbols are artificial, agreed upon convention.  Sorting something ... alphabetizing it ... only makes sense if we agree that the alphabet follows the arbitrary sequence ABC to XYZ. Much of what we call "information technology" is really agreed upon but essentially 'meaningless' (non-informational) symbol manipulation. 

 

Information is wholly about intrinsic reality.  Information-meaning transcends symbology, requiring different knowledge, mind-sets, and skills to develop and organize than those used for symbol manipulation.

 

Despite conversational usage, distinguishing between data-symbology and information-meaning is critical to effective information management. The point is to be informed, not "data-ed."

 

Technology vs. Information

technology	artificial and arbitrary; tools computer, calculator, pencil, quill pen, abacus media discs, flat screens, paper, cave walls symbology ideographs, icons, alphabets, number systems
information	real and definitive; meaning what information tells us and what it tells us about

No matter which technology complex we choose ... pigment stained fingers and cave walls, quill pen and ruled ledger, or computer and lighted display ... knowing what we need to know about to know about something is the same for every situation.  Without clearly developed knowledge about information, contemplating technology just gets in the way of understanding and organizing what information tells us and what it tells us about.

.

Process vs. Function

If we ask five people to sum a column of numbers giving the first pencil and paper, the second a calculator, another an abacus, the next a computer, and the last only their fingers and toes, how they accomplish the summation function is completely determined by the tool available to them.  Process is always decided by the tool and our perceptions of it, not by what we want to accomplish.  

Information does not now have, has never had, and can never have a process.  Unable to differentiate between the two, conventional IT plans process mechanization, not information automation.

If Henry Ford and the Wright brothers had mechanized process instead of function, cars would gallop and airplanes would flap.

Planning effective information management requires functional, not procedural thinking.

 

Goals vs. Purpose

We won the battle but lost the war.

The operation was a success but the patient died.

These cliches describe conventional information technology and systems.  It is not that the goals and purpose are incompatible, but goals so preoccupy our intention that what we do to achieve them rarely works to the greater purpose of actually managing information.  We assume it, we just don't do it and never have.

 

Pursuing goals unguided by purpose sets false criteria.  What seems a success is really a failure.  The battle is won; the war is lost. 

Results vs. Capability

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

This homily illustrates the difference between providing results and providing capability.  Providing results makes the recipient dependent on and even hostage to the results-giver.  Providing capability makes them self-sufficient.  Though without malicious intent, our conventional provide-results perspective on systems keeps business artificially dependent on IT overhead.  Providing capability allows business to get its results as it needs when it needs without being spoon-fed each result. 

 

Design vs. Discovery

When planning systems, design is always about the tool ... the vehicle ... not the informational lay-of-the land.  Managing information to its full potential requires full informational discovery without worrying about the vehicle.  Until information terrain is fully understood, it is impossible to know if vehicle design is sufficient or appropriate. 

 

Efficiency vs Efficacy

How fast we do something (efficiency) does not translate to how well we do it (efficacy or effectiveness).  Now matter how well we learn to use a saw, it is important to know whether the purpose is sawdust or lumber.  How well we use information is more important than how efficiently we use technology.  Ironically, the better we use information the better we can use technology.

-