Talk:Information system/Archive 1

Information Systems as an "anchor" article

Having taken a quick look around for realted articles, there does not appear to be a strong article that covers Information Systems fundamentals. The closest is the article on Management information systems, which has quite a bit of content that is better suited here since Information Systems is a superset of MIS and about a dozen other articles on Wikipedia. Any ideas? Thanks. -- Dx 07:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think so too. A talk entry below also suggests keeping this page for disambiguation only Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Miscellany

No Balam It is brief, to the point and accurate while being usable for the obviously differing discourses (philosophical and epistemological positions).

I've just reverted an edit of this page made by 202.88.242.14 on the 19th of October. Basically, the page was being forced wide by dumping a report into the page without wikifying it. The article seemed too long anyway, but I'd be glad to discuss integrating it into the page. --Dom 21:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

How is "information" defined as "a difference that makes a difference"? What does that mean? FiftyNine 07:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Bateson

Hi all. Bateson is irrelevant here. The ref should be removed. RomanX 04:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Information Systems is more than an academic discipline

It occurs to me that Information Systems (IS) is also an occupational field, just like Accounting or Marketing. Information Technology professionals are a wholly included subset of IS professionals. For example business analysts (see [1]) and IS project managers are not IT professionals, but they are IS professionals.

An information system entry should be a separate entry. While Langefors definition is not incorrect, I think it is somewhat esoteric. Instead of "technologically implemented medium for recording, storing, and disseminating liguistic expressions, as well as for drawing conclusions from such expressions" how about "an arrangement of technology for capturing, storing and sharing data and information, as well as for enhancing ability to make decisions".

Or we could use the definition of Whitten, et.al., An "information system (IS) an arrangement of people, data, processes, and information technology that interact to collect, process,store, and provide as output the information needed to support an organization." Tee Owe

• I agree, information systems seems to cover a variety of other topics Iancarter 18:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

are you all sure that you are not falling prey to a management fad here? intuitively - and i think NOT irrationally - there is nothing in a capitalization that motivates the promotion of a simple (oh, well maybe not quite so simple) computational term to an "occupational field" or even "academic discipline". listen to people from the domain and they will most probably all tell that information systems (or an information system) are an ill-defined buzzword coming to mean almost everything that has a database as backend and a nice user interface. as for myself, i can't understand the parallel existence of three+ articles on the lemma where one is more bloated with managerial bullshit than the other. sorry. -- Kku 18:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

yes I am sure we are not falling prey to any fad. There are several college programs in Information Systems in colleges of business, and an international organization for IS academics known as the Association for Information Systems (AIS). Information Systems practitioners are to be distinguished from Information Technology (IT) professionals in that the job of an IS professional is independent of any specific technology. The distinguishing characteristics of IS professionals include the recognition of the import of the SDLC as a problem solving approach, treating systems development projects as capital investments and the understanding of the need to treat data as valuable resource, much like property and personnel. Tee Owe 12:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• The field of "information systems" should not be confused with "an information system"; indeed, the very definition of what constitutes an information system is disputed within IS. "Information Systems" as a set of ideas goes back at least 40 years, if not 60 or more. If it is a fad, it is a long-lasting one. However, it is not an easily definable field, drawing on many disciplines, and so not easy to pin down. Practitioners have considerable leeway with regards to methodology and areas of study. It is not associated particularly with any single method or approach. As such, both "professional" practitioners and academics would fall under its remit in my opinion. --Kurisumasu 18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

New Entry commenting on all of the above:

It is confusing to have so many different entries all related to IS/MIS in various ways, but not systematically interrelated, yet brevity needs to be preserved for the person looking for basics. If feel that all of these entries should take 69.19.14.42 15:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC) the web searcher to the same entry port called Information Systems / MIS where the first entry is "Fundamentals". There, at least 3 short working definitions should be stated reflecting the controversy in the IS/MIS field, also the distinction between "The (academic) field of "information systems" and "an information system" as a type of HW/SW application environment, correctly noted above. The above discussion misses the basic observation that MIS is sometimes viewed as a subcategory of IS, i.e. standardized computer-based systems for organization reporting and control (instrumental focus), whereas academics (especially with Minnesota type background) also use MIS as the generic label for all types of IS with emphasis on applications in organizations and society including those intended for the support of deliberative communications (as in policy debates, first proposed by Rittel) and later DSS/GDSS/CSCW support types of computer applications. Some academics emphasize that IS are a social system first merely implemented on changing technologies beginning with the code of Hamurabi carved in stone about 3800 centuries ago or the later Quippu (a bundle of colored threads used by Peru Indians to track food storage and convey royal messages).

The entry "Fundamentals" should be kept to 1 page or less 69.19.14.42 15:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC) and written in a way comprehensible to educated lay poeple with links to subsequent expansions for more in depth treatment.

hkk 69.19.14.42 15:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Information Integrity

I have moved the following section from the article for the moment - in it's current state it is either OR or a copyvio - I'm not sure of which but clearly one or maybe elements of both --Charlesknight 18:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Information Integrity can be defined as the dependability and trustworthiness of information. More specifically, it is the accuracy, consistency and reliability of the information content, processes and systems.

Individuals, organizations and society are becoming increasingly concerned about Information Integrity and seriously impacted by the lack of it. The economic, political and social effects of Information Integrity are as ubiquitous and diverse as errors in supermarket scanners and credit reports, failed corporate mergers and acquisitions, loss of market valuation due to restatement of financial results, deaths caused by medical errors, and debates about the accuracy of ballot counts.

The high-tech industry and the information revolution are causing an explosive growth in the volume of information created, exchanged and stored. Digital information is becoming as pervasive and essential as air, water, electricity and canned food. Increasingly, we rely on such information for our livelihood, lifestyle and even life itself. Ironically, however, information has not been the focus of interest thus far in this information age. Instead, academia, industry and government have been preoccupied with information technology. For us to effectively harness the benefits of the information revolution, and avoid the costs of widespread information pollution, we need to recognize and treat information as a shared, universal resource. We need to develop the science, technology, products and services to measure, monitor and manage its integrity, much like the emergence of the environmental science, technology and industry in the wake of the industrial revolution to answer our need for clean air, pure water, reliable power and safe food.

We need a new paradigm for addressing Information Integrity. The current approach to Information Integrity is unscientific, ad hoc, sporadic and costly. Apart from privacy and security, there has been scant attention on the trustworthiness or integrity of information and of the interconnected, integrated information processes and systems. By and large, Information Integrity is addressed from isolated perspectives within each organization, or as specific issues unique to accounting, finance, law, medicine, engineering, hardware, software and the like. Consequently, industry, government and society are paying an inordinately high price for the level of Information Integrity that there is, and facing enormous, unforeseen risks from catastrophic Information Integrity failures.

The issue of Information Integrity presents a formidable challenge. However, it also offers an enormous and exciting opportunity for academia, industry and government to create a new knowledge and market space. The size and scope of such a space will be very large, spanning many theoretical and applied disciplines as well as a broad spectrum of technologies, products and services. It will encompass a wide array of new research, education, product development, services, standards, legislation and other elements, much like those associated with air quality, water pollution, and food safety. Potentially, it could generate tens of billions of dollars of new economic activity.

Distinguish as a discipline and field of study

This page should not only be kept, but also expanded - it is necessary to distinguish the field of study and practice apart from the actual information system. This is a nascent area which is still struggling with its own identity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahuimanu (talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed -- and actually, I'd suggest merging information system with this article, to help give a deeper depth to readers so they can understand that IS means several things to several different people. Abc378 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Required : example

can some one help me ...I have an assingment about information System can some help me with strong and valid example —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nooru110 (talk • contribs) 15:58, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Langefors

Ran across the reference to TAIS while doing a google search. Am preparing a draft article in my home wikimedia instance which I will deploy here ultimately if noone else does. Lycurgus 09:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics of valuable information

Briefly discuss the following characteristics of valuable information: complete, economical, flexible, and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.255.58.51 (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)