Running Head: INFORMATION NETWORKING AS TECHNOLOGY
Information networking as technology: tools, uses, and socio-technical interactions
Trident University
Module One: Case
ITM501: Management Information Systems and Business Strategy
Every morning when I get to work the first thing I do is check my email to see what I may have missed after I left the day before, what meetings I may have going on today or maybe scheduled for tomorrow or later. I have hard-copy paper requests in the typical metal inbox, stacked six shelves high, awaiting my approval. I have instructions on my desk that are awaiting annual review, and to top it off, my evaluation is due. At my level, I have to write my own evaluation, it sucks but I guess no one knows or can explain what I do better than I can. In addition to all of that, the phone is ringing off the hook. Each of my co-workers has to deal with the same dreadful information overload on a daily basis. What can I do to manage this? We all deal with it in different ways. As Blair (2010) lets us know, “Reactions to overload have often been emotional, whether hostile or enthusiastic.” What can my employer do to help us manage the overwhelming information we have to contend with on a daily basis? A lot of companies are dealing with this same issue so how are they able to manage? There’s no doubt that a change must occur but the real dilemma is whether or not they are likely to find a better solution to information overload through changes to our technical systems or social systems. To find and implement the best solution, they must first understand exactly what they’re dealing with. One decision could be very effective and efficient and the other decision could actually slow down and hinder the process. There’s nothing worse than trying to make improvements but instead end up wasting a lot of money, research time, and man-hours. To better assist with the decision-making process we should start with the five categories of the human mind from the bottom to get to the root cause of the problem (Bellinger, Castro, & Mills, 2004). First, we start with data; data is raw with no significance. Second, is information, which provides answers to “who”, “what”, “where”, and “when” questions. Third, is knowledge, it answers the “how” questions. Fourth, understanding, which answers the “why” questions. The fifth and final category is wisdom, which evaluates understanding (Bellinger et al., 2004). After the first four categories are settled, the fifth can be used to make the educated decision to implement the right system. It's interesting that Green (2006) describes a slightly different approach. Green says there are only three to four categories, he excluded understanding. He uses data, information, "knowledge and/or wisdom," meaning you have the option to use one or both categories. I suppose you can still come to the same conclusion assuming understanding is a given but I think it’s important to specify understanding as an element. Let’s examine the cases in, “Socio-technical systems: There’s more to perform than new technology,” by Errey & Liu (2006). First there’s the case of the financial services institution not cross-selling or giving leads to other parts of the organization because they get paid based on their own individual sales, not by helping others (Errey & Liu, 2006). There’s really no social association here, the customer base is not really affected because they are being taken care of, this problem in internal. The new technical system would allow the sales teams to communicate with other parts of the organization and maybe start getting paid for group sales performance. The financial services institution would need to use technical systems to manage their workload better and potentially increase productivity throughout the company. The next case is about a call center receiving thousands of calls on a daily basis. Most of
