Information management (IM)

"Information management is the handling of information acquired by one or many disparate sources in a way that optimizes access by all who have a share in that information or a right to that information." (Wikipedia, 2005).

 

IM is an ambiguous term. It may mean

  1. A process such as indexing abstracted from context (directly management of information) Wikipedia's definition reflects the first meaning. The journal Information Storage & Retrieval, that in 1975 changed its title to Information Processing & Management, is a core journal in Information Science also using IM in the first meaning. In this meaning is the term purely a synonym for information organization and retrieval.

  2. Management of information in organizations (much of which is non-public domain and not book-like). This meaning of the term expands the traditional field of LIS into new applications.

  3. A management process such as managing an information services,  (e.g., library management, managing a team of indexers) (indirectly management of information).  When theories from Business and Management schools, such as "total quality management", TQM, are applied in Library and Information Science (LIS), this is an example of the third meaning of IM.

Generally are the last kinds of theories and concepts not considered about IM in the first meaning. Sometimes, however, are the two meanings confused. When Melvin Dewey introduced Library economy (later to be renamed Library Science and LIS), his view on classification and indexing may be said to reflect a management perspective or approach which may be contrasted with other approaches (cf., Business- or management like approaches to KO).

 

Maceviciute & Wilson (2002, p.26) conclude their investigation of the area:

 

"In the 1980s information management was emergent and perceived by some to be simply a re-write of traditional librarianship. However, it has continued to thrive and much of what is now included is far removed even from modern information science, although information management draws upon ideas from both librarianship and information science. In one form or another it is likely to persist in the future, since information problems are likely to persist in organizations. The means for resolving the problems may change, but the need to understand those problems and develop solutions will remain.
    There are strong pressures at the moment, from policy organizations such as the European Commission, from the consultancy companies such as Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC), from hardware manufacturers (mainly IBM), and, sadly, from the research opportunists in every field, to subsume information management within 'knowledge management'. We believe, however, that information management has a stronger theoretical base than knowledge management and that the latter is simply a label, designed, like other labels, for presentational purposes, to impress the consumers of consultancy companies by giving the impression of something new and serious. Perhaps we shall re-visit this topic in a few years' time to discover whether we are right." (Maceviciute & Wilson, 2002, p.26).

 

Tom Wilson writes:

 

”Whether information management is a passing fancy or a new way of considering the role of information in organizational performance must await the test of time; however, there can be little doubt that the concept has had a significant impact on the thinking of professionals working in a variety of fields. Managers of computer services have become information managers (and even directors of information management services); records managers, archivists, information scientists and special librarians have changed their titles and shifted their professional orientations; . . . “ (Wilson, 2003, p. 275).

 

Sheila Webber is concerned with the tendency to change the titles in courses offered by British Universities on the masters level from ’information science’ to 'information management':

 

 ”In course names, Information Management is the phrase in the ascendant. This is most obvious when looking at UK undergraduate course titles  . .  ‘Engineering: Electrical and Information Sciences’, which is the only course [out of 74] to mention IS. None of the other courses use this phrase. ‘Information management’ is the title of 38 courses. There are 18 course titles using the word ‘studies’, e.g. ‘Information Studies’, ‘Information and Library Studies’. Of the 56 courses mentioning information management or studies, 45 are dual degrees with a subject obviously outside the discipline, e.g. ‘Information Management and Business Studies (the most popular combination).“ (Webber, 2003, 325-326).

 

She finds that this tendency is connected to fads and social trends, that the term "management" is popular whereas the term "science" is not popular when it comes to attracting students. She further asks (p. 328)  ”’Library and Information Management’: is it merely an umbrella term and administrative convenience? Is it a new name for IS? Is it a different discipline?“

 

Alastair Black finds that library education in England has been under pressure from, among other fields, IM, which he find is a field without a history:

 

 “Yet education for librarianship, certainly in Britain, has been under pressure from the appearance of new disciplines—such as information management, information systems, and knowledge management—which claim, by comparison, to be technologically adroit. . . Whereas disciplines as varied as management and medicine and, in the information sphere, documentation, bibliography, information science, and librarianship each have a body of historical knowledge attached to them, the discipline of information management does not“ (Black, 2004, p. 29)

 

 

 

Literature:

 

Black, A. (2004). Every discipline needs a history: Information management and the early information society in Britain. IN: Aware and responsible. Papers of the Nordic-International Colloquium on Social and Cultural Awareness and Responsibility in Library, Information, and Documentation Studies (SCARLID) Edited by Boyd Rayward, Joacim Hansson & Vesa Suominen. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. (Pp. 29-47).


Gu, Y. (2004).  Information management or knowledge management? An informetric view  of the dynamics of Academia. Scientometrics, 61(3), 285-299. 

 

Maceviciute, E. & Wilson, T. D. (2002). The development of the information management research area. Swedish Library Research, 14(2), 17-38. (In English).

 

Maceviciute, E. & Wilson, T. D. (Eds.). (2005). Introducing Information Management. Facet Publishing.

 

Sparck Jones, K. (1988). Fashionable trends and feasible strategies in information management. Information Processing and management, 24(6), 703-711.

 

Webber, S. (2003). Information science in 2003: a critique. Journal of Information Science, 29(4), 311-330.

 

Wikipedia. The free encyclopedia. (2005). Information Management. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_management

 

Wilson, T. D. (2003). Information Management. IN: International Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science. 2nd. ed. Ed. by John Feather & Paul Sturges. London: Routledge (pp. 263-278).

 

 

Journals:

International Journal of Information Management

 

See also: Information Resources Management;  Knowledge Management

 

 

 

 

 

 

Birger Hjørland

Last edited: 28-03-2006

Home