Information management must timely - which is now! - develop from some narrow discipline supporting separate business and government organizations to an essentially interdisciplinary approach covering the whole range of social interaction.

in: Ontology for interdependency: steps to an ecology of information management

 

Civil information management is not in opposition with business-oriented IS. Such disciplines should be made complementary.

in: Civil information management, a short introduction: an information discipline for society and the metaphor of traffic

 

[C]ivil information management [is] the new IS discipline catering not directly to business information management, but generally to information engineering/management at the encompassing social scope. Of course, at such a scope, stretched to global size, a modeling method (context and time in information models) such as [Metapattern] is even a prerequisite for necessary and sufficient rigor.

in: note 23.9

 

Complementing more or less traditional IS, a disciplined approach is urgently also required for information exchange/traffic at the scale of society. Analogous with civil engineering providing for physical infrastructure, I’ve labeled it civil information engineering or management.

in: Civil information management, a short introduction: an information discipline for society and the metaphor of traffic

 

As academics and practitioners all over seem largely unaware of the critical problem, it is often even from their best intentions they are blocking a proper solution which of course they should be welcoming and championing instead.

in: Metapattern for complementarity modeling

 

Information management is still caught at the stage of, say, naïve semantics. (It is not even classical, yet, because Socrates already knew better.) For information systems continue to be conceived on the assumption of one word/one meaning, and when it is time for information exchange the differences are supposed to take care of themselves. Well, they don’t. There’s no such magic to rely on.

in: Metapattern for complementarity modeling

 

[C]ontextualism makes it viable as the social-psychological discipline it needs to become and then continue to be.

in: Invitation to contextualism

 

[It is about] (re)establish[ing] an orientation at life for information management. As I see it, digital technologies have certainly played havoc; a typical case of mistaking some means for the goal. Yes, I do find information management a misnomer for the discipline that I would like to help develop, but translating from the Dutch I have so far not come up with a better term. (“Informatiekunde” could be described as the art and science of using information, that is, semiotics …)

in: note 56.16

 

The bias of software engineering is, no surprise there, software. As any profession (im)matures, programmers et cetera habitually come to consider software as an end (and as such for them to determine unilaterally). However, what they are supposed to contribute to are tools, that is, means to what are ends for users et cetera.
I find neglect, and I am trying to put it mildly, of users and their information requirements easy to recognize. For it is immediately evident when a conceptual model is lacking.

in: note 71.36

 

When I am roughly right about those two different paradigms, the outdated one runs even counter what the later one could help accomplish. Otherwise they wouldn’t be different as paradigms go, now would they?! As a corollary, it is highly unlikely that the persons, say, mastering the old paradigm can be of much use getting the new one accepted and productively implemented.

in: note 71.40

 

Could it be that you think of me as a software engineer? Please note, I am not. I do have the greatest respect for programmers, that is, for the ones who master their craft. But design of an encompassing — system of — system(s) should in my view not be left to programmers. Why not? Software ‘only’ covers an aspect.
In my opinion, overall design is first and foremost a conceptual task. Again in my experience, it is not what programmers excel at. Early on, priority rests with designing — often confused with analysing — a system of concepts which, following Einstein’s advice […] “must be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.†What might be subject to programming, and what not, can only properly be derived from an adequately outlined conceptual model covering the, indeed, totality of relevant concepts, relationships between them included. […] Anyway, what I propose for a modelling method, Metapattern, that is, should help designers of models express conceptual variety at whatever relevant scope. It is not at all meant as a software engineering method.

in: note 80.3