International

Journal

of hformation

Management

(1991),

17 (156-l

65)

What Kind of Resource is

Information?
J.J. EATON AND D. BAWDEN

The idea of information as resource, and the related information as commodity

is reviewed. Attributes
of information
which make it appear similar to, and
different from, other resources are evaluated. The term is used in two rather
different ways: to indicate the importance of information within an organization,
and to imply the appropriateness
of a resource management
model to handle
information. We find the first to be valid, and the second unjustified. The resource
view of information is a useful analogy, but it should not be pushed too far.

Jonathan
J. Eaton is with the Department
of Information
Studies, Sheffield University, Western Bank, Sheffield SlO 2TN, UK.
His present
address
is Library,
London
Business
School,
Sussex Place,
London
NW1 4SA, UK. David Bawden is Senior
Lecturer in the Department of Information
Science,
The City University,
Northampton Square, London EClV OHB, UK.

'CLEVELAND,
H. (1985).
The twilight of
hierarchy:
Speculations
on the global information
hierarchy.
Information and Referral, 7 (No. l), pp. l-31.
MOORE, N. (1989). Developing
the use of a
neglected
resource:
The growth
of information
management.
Journal of Information Science, 15, pp. 67-70.

156

Introduction
The information

resource is different in kind from other

resources.
So it has to be a mistake to carry over uncritically
to the management
of information
those concepts which have
proven so useful during the centuries when things were the
dominant resources (Cleveland).

The idea that information

is a resource, to be managed on behalf of the
organization
to which it belongs, is now well entrenched
in the literature
of information
management,
and information
resource
management
(IRM) has become a widely accepted term.
An acceptance
of the idea that information
is a resource,
to be
managed like other resources (people, money, land, equipment,
etc.)
has considerable
consequences
for information
workers. It can affect,
for example, their place within the organization,
their relationships
with
other organizations,
and their professional
ethos. With this in mind, it is
perhaps
surprising
that the information
as a resource
concept has
gained general acceptance
with little critical examination,
at least in
print. As we shall see later, even a cursory examination
shows that, if
information
is a resource, it is different in kind from most others.
Part of the problem is that the statement
information
is a resource
has become a shorthand for, and to some extent synonymous
with, ideas
such as information
is important , information
should be treated more
seriously by organizations,
information
workers should have higher
status, etc. Or, as Nick Moore puts it,2 a formal recognition
by
organizations
of the importance
of information.
Better use of information holds the key to increased
competitiveness,
increased
efficiency,
improved
resource allocation,
and enhanced
effectiveness.
Denial of
the resource concept can therefore seem to be an attack on these other
tenets, which, we imagine, most information
professionals
would wish
to promote.
This article looks critically at the idea of information
as a resource.
We would rather not pursue the sterile quest of trying to decide whether
or not it is, or is not, really a resource. Instead, we try to answer a more
constructive
question: if it is a resource, what kind of resource is it? and
how does its management
compare
with the management
of other

0266-4012/91/02

015&l

0 0

1991

Butterworth-Heinemann

Ltd

J.J. EATON AND D. BAWDEN

resources?
unpublished

For an extended
literature
MA thesis by Eaton.

The concept of information

J.I. (1987).
Is information
a resource? A review of the literature
relating
to the economic
significance
of information. Unpublished
M.A. dissertation,
Department of Information
Studies, Sheffield
University.
4~~~~,
A.J. (1989). The value of information: Approaches
in economics,
accounting
and management
science. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science,
40, pp. 68-85. REPO, A.J. (1987). Economics of information.
Annual Reviews of
Information Science and Technology, 22,
IJp. 3-35.
~MACHUJP,
F. (1983).
Semantic
quirks in
studies of information.
In The study of
information: Interdisciplinary messages. (F.
Machlup
and U. Mansfield,
eds). New
York: Wiley.
h~~~~, K. (1988). Records,
words, data
whatever
you call it, its still information.
Information and Records Management, 16,
pp. 18-20.
COOPER,
M.D.
(1983). The structure
and
future of the information
economy.
Information Processing and Management, 19
(No. I), pp. 9-16.
'BOULIXNG,
K. (1968).
Knowledge
as a
commodity,
In Beyond economics: Essays
on society, religion and ethics. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
"ARROW,
K.J. (1984). Information
and economic behaviour.
In The collected papers
of Kenneth J. Arrow, vol. 4. Cambridge
MA: Harvard University Press.
ARROW,
K.J.
(1985). Economic
welfare
and the allocation
of resources
for invention. In The collected papers of Kenneth J.
Arrow, vol. 5. Cambridge
MA: Harvard
University
Press.

KEATON,

survey

of this

area

see

the

as a resource

This concept
has been very often put forward
in the context
of
information
fulfilling
the role of primary
resource
for the postindustrial
society or information
society.
This in turn leads to the ideas of information
economics,
with
information
treated as a commodity.
These aspects are discussed fully
by Eaton and by Repo.
We devote some discussion
to what is meant by resource. We do
not, however, try to deal with the well-worked
area of what is meant by
information,
nor will we try to distinguish between data, information,
knowledge and wisdom. Rather, we will agree with Fritz Machlup that
information
has become an all-purpose
weasel-word,
and with Mass
that records,
words,
data
. .
whatever
you call it, its still
information,6
hoping that our readers are clear as to what is implied.
The change in the status of information,
from a comparatively
marginal
intellectual
level to a resource or commodity,
central to
modern society, has occurred only in the last 40 years. This has largely
resulted from the work of economists
such as Machlup, Porat and Bell,
who pioneered
the ideas of the information
economy, with information
as the transforming
resource for the post-industrial
society. Their ideas
have been well summarized
by Cooper.
Even at an early stage of these developments,
however, critics were
pointing
out the limitations
of such ideas, in particular
the quite
different
nature of the exchange of information,
from that of other
commodities.
Boulding gives a good example: when a teacher teaches a
class, at the end of the hour the pupils know more and the teacher
usually knows more too. Arrow also points out that information
is
inappropriable
because an individual
who has some can never lose by
transmitting
it,9 and that the usual means of control of resources legal protection,
secrecy, monopoly,
etc. - are inapplicable
to information: no amount of legal protection
can make a thoroughly
appropriable commodity of something so intangible as information.
The very use
of information
in any productive
way is bound to reveal it, at least in
part. lo
Furthermore,
as Arrow clearly shows, a basic paradox
exists in
determining
the demand for information
- demand analysis being a
fundamental
requirement
of commodity
economics,
allowing the calculation of a relationship
between price and quantity.
The,value
to the
purchaser of information
is not known or verifiable until the information has been received. Indeed, it may only be months or years later that
an individual fully apprehends
the value of the original information.
The
value of information
eludes attempts
at its precise calculation:
it is
entirely dependent
upon context, use and outcome.
Demand
analysis
techniques
are therefore of strictly limited applicability.
The ideas of the information
society and information
economy were
met with a good deal of enthusiasm,
perhaps rather uncritical,
on the
part of the information
professions.
Perhaps the feeling was that these
alleged trends were moving towards a situation in which information,
and by implication
information
professionals,
would occupy a much
more central role. More recently, there has been a degree of skepticism

157

What kind of resource

is information?

about these concepts,

by commentators
such as Stearns, Cooper, and
Rubin and Taylor. I The commodity
view of information
has gained
enthusiastic
acceptance
from some, fitting in well with prevailing social
and economic
trends,
though it has also received
heavy criticism.
However,
one very clear result of the influence of these theories, with
their close analysis of the nature and value of information
has been the
rise and acceptance
of the concept of information
resource management, with the clear implication
that information
can be seen as some
sort of commodity
resource.

Information

resource management

The growing awareness that information

behaves as an active
economic resource like capital, plant, or human resources has

focussed attention on how to manage

strategic resource (J. Olaisen). I2

0,~. cif., Ref. 3

lZo~~I~~~,
J. (1990).
Information
versus
information
technology -_ as a strategic
resource. International Journal of Information Management, 10 (No. 3), pp. 192-214.
"BURK,
C.F. AND
HORTON,
F.W. (1988).
Infomap. A complete guide IO discovering
corporate information resources.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall. HORTON,
F.W.
AND
MARCHAND,
D.A.
(1982). Information management in public adminisiration. Arlingt&
VA: Information
Resources Press. HORTON,
F.W. (1985). Information resource management.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14~~~1s, D. (1986).
Information
management and information
work. International
Journal of Information Management? 6
(No. 2), pp. 115-116.
'5~~~~
AND
HORTON,
op. cit., Ref. 13.
Op. cit., Ref. 1.
.

information

The idea of information

as a resource underlies
the relatively
new
discipline of information
resource management.
This brings together
an amalgam
of skills and attitudes
from information
science,
data
processing,
management
science,
records
management,
etc. It has
found its most immediate,
and natural, home in large commercial
and
governmental
organizations,
but is being increasingly
adopted
as a
model and target for information
service providers in many settings. It is
worth remembering
that IRM is an offshoot of management
theory,
rather than information
science or librarianship.
It had its origin in the
mid-1970s, in a drive by the US government
to control its paperwork
mountain,
by restraining
the enthusiasm
of the bureaucracy
for producing vast quantities
of paperwork,
without being accountable
for its
usefulness.
This led the US government
to pronounce
that information
was an economic commodity,
and an expensive one at that, rather than
a free good. Since its inception
IRM, which was regarded as a more
appropriate
term than the traditional
paperwork management
which it
supplanted,
has largely been geared to the need of large administrative
bureaucracies,
whether in government
or commerce.
Nonetheless,
its
impact on the standpoint,
and to a limited extent the practices, of the
information
professions
has been considerable.
As the different tribal
specialisms within information
work (librarians,
information
scientists,
data-processing
managers,
office managers,
archivists,
etc.) coalesce,
under the influence
of the new technologies
and the convergence
of
once discrete
types of information
system, so the concepts
of IRM
increasingly
affect each major group of information
professionals.14
It is perhaps superfluous
to point out that IRM, by definition,
regards
information
as a resource.
Indeed, discussion of IRM often leads the
proponents
to speak of information
resources in somewhat
millennial
terms:
Just

as

resources

energy fueled the Industrial

Age, so information
now power the economy in the Information
Age.15

Information
resource.

is now

our

most

important

and

pervasive

"DIEBOLD.
J. (1979).
Information
resources management IIRM)? New directions in management. Znfosystems, 26 (No.

The corporations
which will excel in the the future
those that manage information
as a major resource.

lo), pp. 41-42.

There

158

as a

is today

a widespread

appreciation

will

be

of the value

of

J.J. EATON AND D. BAWDEN

information
as a social and organizational
resource
. .
Organizations,
be they industrial concerns or service entities,
are information communicating
and processing systems. They
are routinely
bombarded
with information;
they routinely
generate
information;
they routinely
store and access information.
How they manage the information
resource thus
has a direct bearing on organizational
effectiveness.
There
tion

is a clear

implication

is to be managed

underlying

in essentially

the whole
the same

of IRM that

way as other

informa-

resources:

Information
must be regarded as a valuable asset or resource
that deserves
and needs the same kind of management
physical,
disciplines
given to other resources - financial,
material, and natural. l9
The nature
and Forest

of IRM is expressed
Horton:20

particularly

clearly

by Cornelius

Burk

IRM refers to the application

of traditional
management
processes,
particularly
resource management
principles,
to
the stewardship
of an organizations
information
resources
and assets. Corporate
IRM policies focus on inventorying,
defining requirements,
costing, valuing and fixing accountability for safe-keeping
and results.
Resource
management practices are applied through the traditional corporate
management
processes
of planning,
organizing,
staffing,
directing and controlling
. . the information
resource entities maintained and used to meet information
demands exist
solely to satisfy information
requirements
defined by corporate users, including users in both operations and administration.

We must say at once that Burk and Horton explicitly recognize that
there are other professional
and operational
aspects to information
management,
which they regard as a wider field which embraces IRM,
than are expressed
in this narrow viewpoint.
Nonetheless,
it is this
approach which has attained most visibility in expressing the information as a resource idea, and it is with this that we must deal.
If information
is a resource, to be administered
like any other, then it
must stand comparison
with other types of managed resource: people
(human resources management);
money (financial management);
land,
plant and buildings (property management);
equipment,
stores and raw
materials
(materials
management);
energy (energy resources management); etc.
Of course, each of these traditional
resources has its own characteristics, and the management
of each is done in its own way, under the
broad framework
of resource management.
The question is whether
information
can also be fitted within this framework,
or whether its
qualities are so singular as to require it to be treated as a unique entity.

%RONIN,

B. AND

formation
research,

and productivity:

GUDIM,

M.

(1986). InA review of

International Journal
of Information Management, 6 (No. 2), pp. 85-

101,
19~~~~~~

AND

MARWAND,

op.

cit., Ref.

13.
"BURK

Ibid.

AND

HORTON

op.

cit., Ref. 13.

Information

compared to other resources

The IRM approach requires that there be some commonality

between
information
and other resources,
so that at least some of the resource
management
framework
is applicable.
Burk and Horton
typify this
viewpoint approach in listing nine basic similarities between information
and other traditional
managed resources,
listed below:21

159

What

kind of resource

is information?

1.

Information
is acquired at a definite measurable
cost.
Information
possesses a definite value, which may be quantified,
and treated as an accountable
asset.
consumption
can be quantified.
3. Information
4. Cost accounting
techniques
can be applied to help control the costs
of information.
has identifiable
and measurable
characteristics.
5. Information
has a clear life-cycle:
definition
of requirements,
6. Information
collection,
transmission,
processing,
storage,
dissemination,
use,
disposal.
Information
may be processed
and refined, so that raw materials
(e.g., databases)
are converted
into finished products (e.g., published directories).
Substitutes
for any specific item or collection
of information
are
available,
and may be quantified
as more or less expensive.
Choices are available to management
in making trade-offs between
different grades, types and prices for information.
2.

Indeed it is a sine qua non for TRM that information

a tangible entity. As Horton put it, in his seminal
The first step to be taken

should be treated as
primer on IRM:22

is to begin thinking of data, not

just as abstractions - ideas physical, and concrete.

but as something,

tangible,

Furthermore,
this concreteness
must be continued
by way of the
analogies shown above: information
must have a life-cycle of creation,
distribution,
use and disposal, just like any other tangible resource, and
must (above all) be accurately costed and valued. The original formulation of IRM laid great stress on this necessity to squeeze information
into the mould of tangible resources,
while neglecting
the important
qualifications
to the commodity
view of information
raised by the
economic
theorists,
as noted above.
Although
recent trends have
tended to a more flexible approach to IRM, with greater allowance of
singular qualities of information,
the commodity
approach still largely
holds sway.
Proponents
of the information
as resource viewpoint from within the
information
professions
have tended to concentrate
on trying to demolish counter-arguments
based on the intangibility
of information,
and on
the difficulties of costing and valuing it. Thus, Vickers:23
The notion that information
is a resource is becoming quite
widely accepted in certain circles, as evidenced by the spate of
pronouncements
on the subject by various gurus
Not
everyone agrees, of course
many a wizened old manager,
and perhaps quite a few younger ones, holding more traditional views (to put it politely) would hold no brief for such
new-fangled
nonsense. There is a belief that if you cant hold
it in your hand, its not real. So we have a long way to go, just
in convincing the world of this basic tenet.
cit., Ref. 13.
(1985). Information management: Selling a concept. In Information
management.
From strategies to action (B.
Cronin, ed.). London: Aslib.
'"WHITE,
M. (1985). Intelligence
management. In Information management. From
strategies to action (B. Cronin, ed.). London: Aslib.
*'HORTON,

op.

%ICKERS,

P.

160

and in somewhat

similar

vein,

White:24

the main opposition

[to IRM] comes from people
who
contend
that information
is not a resource.
Within the
corporate environment,
virtually everything else can be measured, such as employees,
goodwill, bank loans, property
values and patents. But information
never shows up on the

J.J. EATON AND D. BAWDEN

sheet, and on this basis many will say that information is not a resource since it cannot be valued.

balance

This is not to say that there have not been critics of the over-enthusiastic

approach of information
as resource,
but they have not made great
impact. Perhaps this is because their arguments have stressed the unique
attributes
of information,
so different
from those of more tangible
resources. This line of attack is likely to smack of special pleading to the
generalist administrator,
while being so self-evident
to most information
professionals
as to be unworthy of emphasis.
Cleveland
gives a clear account of the unique, indeed paradoxical,
qualities of information;
his six main points are summarized
below:25
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Information
is expandable,
it increases with use.
Information
is compressible,
able to be summarized,
integrated,
etc.
Information
can substitute
for other resources,
e.g., replacing
physical facilities.
Information
is transportable
virtually instantaneously.
Information
is diffusive, tending to leak from the straightjacket
of
secrecy and control, and the more it leaks the more there is.
Information
is sharable, not exchangeable,
it can be given away and
retained at the same time.

His main thesis, similar to the criticisms by Arrow and Boulding of the
idea of information
as commodity,
is that information
is quite unlike
the tangible things generally thought of as valuable resources.
He also
argues that the means used to administer
things - control, ownership,
monopoly,
secrecy, and so are singularly
inappropriate
for, and
ineffective at, administering
information.
We cannot carry over uncritically to the management
of information
the concepts which have proved
useful for the management
of things.* The difficulties
of enforcing
property rights for information
have been emphasized.27
Blaise Cronin similarly criticizes information
as commodity:28
It is fashionable to speak of information as a commodity, like
crude oil or coffee beans. Information differs from oil and
coffee, however, in that it cannot be exhausted: over time
certain types of information
lose their currency and become
obsolete, but, equally, certain types of information
can have
multiple life-cycles. Information
is not depleted on use, and
the same information
can be used by, and be of value to, an
infinite number of consumers.
Furthermore,
information
has
the characteristics
of a public good: more for me does not
necessarily mean less for you.

250p. cit., Ref. 1. CLEVELAND,H. (1982).

Information as a resource.
The Futurist,
December, pp. 34-39.
261bid.
270p. cit., Ref. 18.

"CRONIN,
B.(1984). Information accounting. In The use of information in a changing
world (A. Van der Laan and A.A. Winters, eds). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
2y~~~~
(1989). op. cit., Ref. 4.
300p, cit., Ref. 18.
3Op. cil., Ref. 12.

Repo summarizes
similar arguments.29
Cronin and Gudim make the point that it may be too simplistic to
speak just of information,
in discussing its resource qualities. Informatton per
se, they argue, has the features of a hidden property good, in
that its value may not be fully appreciated
until well after the time of
use. Information
services.
on the other hand. can be reearded
as
experience
goods, since their value may not be appreciated
immediately, but only after a number
of transactions.
Information
technology
systems have features of search goods, since they may be tried out, and
their value assessed, before purchase.
Olaisen also distinguishes
between the resource aspects of information
per se and of information
technology.31

161

What kind of resource is ;nfor~ation?

Connell* attempts to demolish the whole IRM idea (an ill-disguised

attempt to provide a sinecure for aging data processing managers) with
the argument that although information
may be regarded as a resource,
an asset, or indeed a commodity,
it cannot be managed in the same way
as other resources:
We can no more manage information than we can manage air
or water.
. . Information is not a resource in the same sense
as people, money. materials and facilities. Information
has no
intrinsic worth as people do; its worth is entirely subjective.
Information
does not vary in value because
of external
factors, as money does; its value is in the mind of the user.
Information
is not consumed
in its use, as are materials.
Information
is not physical in nature as are facilities.
If information
is not a resource on its own, then, what is
information?
It is brain food. It is the feedstock used in the
intellectual effort of managing other resources. How it is used
depends on the user. How it is defined must also depend on
the user, if it is to have value in his or her eyes.

Best3 makes

similar

points:

Whether information can actually be regarded as a resource is

. . a prickly question. It can certainly be reused, like money,
but, unlike money, it can be created by anyone. Like water, it
can be recycled and modified
or incorporated
into other
things. Unlike water the same item can be used simultaneously by many people for different
purposes.
Like so many
analogies, it is an attractive one but it is best not pushed too
far.

the same arguments

are put forward by Carlson.
Rather apart from the resource argument have been the contributions
of a number of authors who have argued against the idea of information
as the sum of individual
facts in a static store. Information
should be
seen, in their eyes, as a dynamic force, constantly altering and extending
a store of knowledge,
where personal, organizational,
or global, and as
an organizing
force. The term information,
after all, derives from the
Latin informare,
meaning to give form to.

Much

The special characteristics

I.J. (1981). The fallacy
of information
resource manapement.
Infosvsterns, 28 (No. 5), pp. 78-8;1.

33~~~~, D.P. (1988). The future of information management.
International Journal ef
Information
Management,
8 (NO. I),
r)B. E-24.
CARLSON,
W.L.(1980). Information is not
a manageable
resource. ~n~~rmat~onLanaper. 2 (No. 21. DR. 6-9.
rSF& example, &JLDINC, K. (1955). Notes
on the information
concept.
Explorations
(Toronto), 6, pp. 103-112. LANGLOIS, R.
(1983). Systems and the meaning
of information.
In The study of information:
Interdisciplinary messages. (F. Machlup
and U. Mansfield, eds). New York: Wiley.
3hOp. cit., Ref. 18.

32~~:~~~~~,

162

of information

Although
the writers quoted above, and others, often categorize their
points ;ery differently,
we may make a number
of key distinctions
between information
and traditional,
tangible resources.
Value of inform&ion

Perhaps the major distinction

is that the value of information,
unlike
that of tangible resources,
is simply not readily quantifiable.
Information has no intrinsic value. Its value depends upon its context and its use
bv particular users on particular occasions, and the value of information
to its users is impossible
to determine
in advance.
Furthermore
the
value of information
does not, for the most part, change with time in
any predictable
manner.
Cronin and Gudim summarize
many of these
arguments.j6

We must distinguish
carefully
between
value and cost. It may be
perfectly possible to assess the cost incurred in creating an information

J.J. EATON AND D. BAWDEN

source - purchase price, staff time, hardware and software costs, etc.
- but this does not reflect the true value to the users. A great deal of
effort has been expended in the attempt to produce some realistic way
of assessing the value of information sources and systems. Indeed, some
commercial organizations, particularly in the USA, are beginning to
include information resources among the financially accounted corporate assets. The fact remains that information cannot, in general, be
accounted for in the same way as other resources.
Consumption of information

The results of the use of information are quite unlike those for other
resources: the consumption consequences attached to finite resources
are not applicable. Information is not lost when it is given to others,
although its usefulness for particular purposes may be decreased. Nor
does it diminish when consumed; its sharing and transmission may,
indeed almost always will, cause its increase. In economic terms, we can
say that information differs fundamentally from commodity resources,
in that it has a self-multiplicative quality; that is its exchange does not
necessarily involve redistribution, loss or consumption.
Dynamics of information

Information cannot be regarded as a static resource to be accumulated

and stored, within the confines of a static system. Rather, it is a dynamic
force for change to the system within which it operates; a formative,
organizing entity, rather than an accumulated stockpile of facts.
Life-cycle ofinformatio~

The life-cycle idea is an inappropriate over-simplification,

for
classes of information. It assumes that the use made of information,
hence its value, is necessarily predictable. Similarly, it assumes
there is a clear assignable point of obsolescence. But it is clear that
these things are inherently unpredictable, except for information
clearly ephemeral nature. As Cronin and Gudim put it,

most
and
that
all of
of a

information can have multiple life-cycles,

as ideas come into,

move out of, and finally come back into fashion. Demand for
information,
unlike demand for basic commodities
. . . can
be extremely variable, which sometimes makes forward planning and marketing a difficult exercise.

~ndivid~~~ityof information

Information comes in many different forms, and is expressed in many

different ways. Far from being an irritating source of inefficiency, this is
an inevitable, appropriate reflection of the fact that information only
takes on any value in the context of the individual situation. The IRM
approach, with its concentration on paperwork, documents, computer
systems, etc. tends to minimize this situational uniqueness, as do all
resource approaches.

What kind of resource?

371bid

It is worth noting that even these writers, who pour scorn on the strict
IRM ideal, still refer to information in resource terms, Clevetand, for
example, regarding it as our most important . . , resource.
163

What kind of resource is information?

op. cit., Ref. 13.

(1986). Chairmans
introduction. Journal of Information Science, 12,
p. 271.
%OBEKTS,
N. AND
WILSON,
T.". (1987).
Information
resource
management:
A
question of attitudes? International Journal
of Information Management, 7 (No. 2), pp.
67-75.
lop. cit., Ref. 33.
"BUKK

AN"

"VICKERS,

164

HORTON,

P.

By contrast,
even the strongest proponents
of IRM are increasingly
recognizing
the limitations
of the traditional
resource models as applied
to information.
Burk and Horton, for example, are driven to conclude
that it is the role that information
plays which distinguishes
it as an
organizational
resource, not its similarities
to the other resources.s
By
this, they imply that information,
like traditional
resources is something critical to achieving success and for which there is a real, potential
or perceived shortage. This rather brings us back to where we came in,
with information
as a resource meaning little more than information
is
important,
and with no implication
that information
should be treated
in the same way as other resources.
Vickers speaks in rather the same
way: For there to be information
management,
information
has to be
when the management
of information
starts
accepted as a resource .
to be treated with the respect given to the management
of money and
materials.
Roberts and Wilson refer to the requirement
for the active
handling
of information
as a management
resource
of comparable
importance
to other factors of production.4
So, there appear to be two distinct ways in which information
may
reasonably
be spoken of as a resource.
First, the phrase indicates an
intention to treat information
as a resource like any other, and manage
it appropriately.
Second, it may simply indicate a clear awareness of the
importance
of information
to the organization.
The irony of the situation
is that the two approaches
may be
diametrically
opposed in the situations
to which they are best applied.
The IRM model is arguably most suitable for administrative
information, of the sort generated within organizational
bureaucracies.
This will
probably
have a clear use, and hence value, a well-defined
life-cycle,
and other parameters
in accordance
with IRM ideas. But it is the last
kind of information
which will be a resource
in the other sense:
providing value to the organization
through encouraging
innovation
and
change.
To give a trivial example,
consider an organization
undertaking
a
programme
of research and development
in order to generate ideas for
new products and services. One type of information
service may record
the administrative
aspects of the programme
- financial accounting
and
budgeting,
personnel
assignments,
project planning,
etc. This information will be used for control and monitoring
of the process, for spotting
potential
problems,
for planning
future work, and for maximizing
efficiency.
This is probably
the closest that information
comes to
imitating a tangible resource, in this context. Another form of information system will record the results of the projects,
the success and
failures and the reasons for both, and perhaps the ideas of the people
involved as the project develops. This will not fit the tangible resource
model, for the sorts of reasons discussed above, but it is the sort of
system most reasonably
described as an organizational
resource, in the
broader
sense, since it encompasses
the knowledge
gained and the
possibility of future innovation.
Best suggests that information
can only be managed, i.e., treated as a
resource, if three conditions
are fulfilled:4
1.
2.
3.

The production
of the information
some purpose in the organization.
The relationship
of the information
purpose can be clearly shown.
The relationship
can be empirically

is undertaken

to contribute

to the achievement
tested.

to

of the stated

J.J. EATON AND D. BAWDEN

There seems to be a real risk that, by these criteria, whole classes of

informal,
browsable,
peripheral
(and highly useful) information
will
simply be by-passed as unmanageable,
and hence unimportant.
The danger of this dual meaning of resource, and of the overuse of
the whole information
as resource
idea, is that tools and policies
appropriate
to the former situation
(manageable
information)
will be
applied willy-nilly to the latter (important
information).
As Best puts it,
the analogy will be pushed too far. Only those aspects of information
which fit neatly into the resource framework
- formalized,
accountable, controllable,
predictable,
categorized,
static, consistent,
uniform,
dehumanized
- will be regarded as information
resources, and hence
important.
What then of the informal, anomalous,
multifacetted,
interdisciplinary,
idiosyncratic,
individualistic
aspects of information
transfer
- those which are most closely associated with creativity and innovation at both individual
and corporate leve1?42 In reading too much into
the work resource, and overly concentrating
on promoting
an analogy
with tangible resources, there lies the danger of negating the real value
of information.
We can agree, then, that information
is a resource, in the sense that it
is of vital importance
to organizations,
by virtue of its importance
to the
individuals
within them. But it is a resource qualitatively
different from
others: much more distinct from the tangible resources listed earlier,
than any of them are from each other. If any parallel can be drawn, it is
perhaps between the information
resource and the intangible
aspects of
human resources: enthusiasm,
commitment,
openness to change, etc.
The information
resource cannot, then, be forced into the straightjacket of the traditional
methods
of resource
management,
without
doing violence to precisely those attributes of information
which make it
an organizational
resource
in the other sense: a dynamic force for
innovation
and progress.

Conclusions

@BAWDEN, o. (1986). Information

systems
and the stimulation of creativity. Journal of
Information Science, 12, pp. 203-216.

In speaking of information
as a resource, we must be careful to state in
which sense the term is meant. We must not use the term indicate the
importance
of information,
and then find ourselves
led to adopt an
inappropriate,
and potentially
harmful,
resource management
model
which cannot allow for the singular properties
of information.
The
analogy, useful as it is, should not be pushed too far.

165