Information 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.

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.

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] 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.

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.

[22] 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.

[26] Bytheway has collected and organised basic tools and techniques for information management in a single volume.

Organizations are often confronted with many information management challenges and issues at the operational level, especially when organisational change is engendered.

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.

This simple model summarises a presentation by Venkatraman in 1996, as reported by Ward and Peppard (2002, page 207). [ 4 ]
This portfolio model organizes issues of internal and external sourcing and management of information, that may be either structured or unstructured.
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.