What kind of resource is information?

International Journal of hformation Management (1991), 17 (156-l 65) What Kind of Information? Resource is 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 Universi- ty, 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, North- ampton Square, London EClV OHB, UK. 'CLEVELAND, H. (1985). The twilight of hierarchy: Speculations on the global in- formation hierarchy. Information and Re- ferral, 7 (No. l), pp. l-31. ‘MOORE, N. (1989). Developing the use of a neglected resource: The growth of in- formation management. Journal of In- formation Science, 15, pp. 67-70. 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 informa- tion 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 156 0266-4012/91/02 015&l 0 0 1991 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd J.J. EATON AND D. BAWDEN resources? For an extended literature survey of this area see the unpublished MA thesis by Eaton.’ KEATON, J.I. (1987). Is information a re- source? A review of the literature relating to the economic significance of informa- tion. Unpublished M.A. dissertation, De- partment of Information Studies, Sheffield University. 4~~~~, A.J. (1989). The value of informa- tion: Approaches in economics, accounting and management science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40, pp. 68-85. REPO, A.J. (1987). Econo- mics 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, it’s still information. Information and Records Management, 16, pp. 18-20. COOPER, M.D. (1983). The structure and future of the information economy. In- formation 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 eco- nomic 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 inven- tion. In The collected papers of Kenneth J. Arrow, vol. 5. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. The concept of information as a resource This concept has been very often put forward in the context of information fulfilling the role of primary resource for the ‘post- industrial 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, it’s 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 informa- tion: ‘no amount of legal protection can make a thoroughly appropri- able 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 cal- culation of a relationship between price and quantity. The,value to the ‘purchaser’ of information is not known or verifiable until the informa- tion 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 manage- ment, 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 information as a strategic resource (J. Olaisen). I2 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 produc- ing 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 “0,~. cif., Ref. 3 impact on the standpoint, and to a limited extent the practices, of the lZo~~I~~~, J. (1990). Information versus information professions has been considerable. As the different tribal information technology as a strategic re- specialisms within information work (librarians, information scientists, -_ source. International Journal of Informa- tion Management, 10 (No. 3), pp. 192-214. data-processing managers, office managers, archivists, etc.) coalesce, "BURK, C.F. AND HORTON, F.W. (1988). under the influence of the new technologies and the convergence of Infomap. A complete guide IO discovering once discrete types of information system, so the concepts of IRM corporate information resources. Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. HORTON, increasingly affect each major group of information professionals.14 F.W. AND MARCHAND, D.A. (1982). In- It is perhaps superfluous to point out that IRM, by definition, regards formation management in public adminis- information as a resource. Indeed, discussion of IRM often leads the iration. Arlingt& VA: Information Re- sources Press. HORTON, F.W. (1985). In- proponents to speak of information resources in somewhat millennial formation resource management. Engle- terms: wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 14~~~1s, D. (1986). Information manage- ment 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. "DIEBOLD. J. (1979). Information re- Just as energy fueled the Industrial Age, so information resources now power the economy in the Information Age.15 Information is now our most important and pervasive resource.” The corporations which will excel in the the future will be those that manage information as a major resource.” There is today a widespread appreciation of the value of sources management IIRM)? New direc- tions in management. Znfosystems, 26 (No. lo), pp. 41-42. 158 %RONIN, B. AND GUDIM, M. (1986). In- formation and productivity: A review of research’, International Journal of In- formation Management, 6 (No. 2), pp. 85- 101, 19~~~~~~ AND MARWAND, op. cit., Ref. 13. "BURK AND HORTON op. cit., Ref. 13. “Ibid. J.J. EATON AND D. 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 in- formation. How they manage the information resource thus has a direct bearing on organizational effectiveness.‘” BAWDEN There is a clear implication underlying the whole of IRM that informa- tion is to be managed in essentially the same way as other resources: Information must be regarded as a valuable asset or resource that deserves and needs disciplines given to other material, and natural. l9 The nature of IRM is expressed and Forest Horton:20 the same kind of management resources - financial, physical, particularly clearly by Cornelius Burk IRM refers to the application of traditional management processes, particularly resource management principles, to the stewardship of an organization’s information resources and assets. Corporate IRM policies focus on inventorying, defining requirements, costing, valuing and fixing accounta- bility for safe-keeping and results. Resource manage- ment practices are applied through the traditional corporate management processes of planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling . . the information resource en- tities maintained and used to meet information demands exist solely to satisfy information requirements defined by corpo- rate users, including users in both operations and administra- tion. 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 ‘informa- tion 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 manage- ment); etc. Of course, each of these traditional resources has its own characteris- tics, 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. 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Information is acquired at a definite measurable cost. Information possesses a definite value, which may be quantified, and treated as an accountable asset. Information consumption can be quantified. Cost accounting techniques can be applied to help control the costs of information. Information has identifiable and measurable characteristics. Information has a clear life-cycle: definition of requirements, 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., pub- lished 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. Indeed it is a sine qua non for TRM that information should be treated as a tangible entity. As Horton put it, in his seminal primer on IRM:22 The first step to be taken is to begin thinking of data, not just as abstractions - ideas - but as something, tangible, physical, and concrete. 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 formula- tion 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 demol- ish 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 tradi- tional views (to put it politely) would hold no brief for such new-fangled nonsense. There is a belief that if you can’t hold it in your hand, it’s not real. So we have a long way to go, just in convincing the world of this basic tenet. *'HORTON, op. cit., Ref. 13. %ICKERS, P. (1985). Information manage- and in somewhat similar vein, White:24 ment: Selling a concept. In Information management. From strategies to action (B. the main opposition [to IRM] comes from people who Cronin, ed.). London: Aslib. '"WHITE, M. (1985). Intelligence manage- contend that information is not a resource. Within the ment. In Information management. From corporate environment, virtually everything else can be mea- strategies to action (B. Cronin, ed.). Lon- sured, such as employees, goodwill, bank loans, property don: Aslib. values and patents. But information never shows up on the 160 J.J. EATON AND D. BAWDEN balance sheet, and on this basis many will say that informa- tion is not a resource since it cannot be valued. 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. Information is expandable, it increases with use. 2. Information is compressible, able to be summarized, integrated, etc. 3. Information can substitute for other resources, e.g., replacing physical facilities. 4. Information is transportable virtually instantaneously. 5. Information is diffusive, tending to leak from the straightjacket of secrecy and control, and the more it leaks the more there is. 6. 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 uncriti- cally 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. 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. Informa- 250p. cit., Ref. 1. CLEVELAND, H. (1982). t’ ” Information as a resource. The Futurist, ton per se, they argue, has the features of a ‘hidden property good’, in December, pp. 34-39. that its value may not be fully appreciated until well after the time of 261bid. use. Information services. on the other hand. can be reearded as 270p. cit., Ref. 18. "CRONIN, B. (1984). Information account- ‘experience goods’, since their value may not be appreciated immediate- ing. In The use of information in a changing ly, but only after a number of transactions. Information technology world (A. Van der Laan and A.A. Win- systems have features of ‘search goods’, since they may be tried out, and ters, eds). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 2y~~~~ (1989). op. cit., Ref. 4. their value assessed, before purchase. Olaisen also distinguishes be- 300p, cit., Ref. 18. tween the resource aspects of information per se and of information 3’Op. cil., Ref. 12. 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 simultaneous- ly by many people for different purposes. Like so many analogies, it is an attractive one but it is best not pushed too far. Much 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’. The special characteristics of information Although the writers quoted above, and others, often categorize their 32~~:~~~~~, I.J. (1981). The fallacy of in- points ;ery differently, we may make a number of key distinctions formation resource manapement. Infosvs- between information and traditional, tangible resources. terns, 28 (No. 5), pp. 78-8;1. ” ’ 33~~~~, D.P. (1988). The future of informa- tion management. International Journal ef Value of inform&ion Information Management, 8 (NO. I), Perhaps the major distinction is that the value of information, unlike r)B. E-24. that of tangible resources, is simply not readily quantifiable. Informa- CARLSON, W.L. (1980). Information is not a manageable resource. ~n~~rmat~on Lana- tion has no intrinsic value. Its value depends upon its context and its use per. 2 (No. 21. DR. 6-9. bv particular users on particular occasions, and the value of information rSF& example, &JLDINC, K. (1955). Notes on the information concept. Explorations to its users is impossible to determine in advance. Furthermore the (Toronto), 6, pp. 103-112. LANGLOIS, R. value of information does not, for the most part, change with time in (1983). Systems and the meaning of in- any predictable manner. Cronin and Gudim summarize many of these formation. In The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages. (F. Machlup arguments.j6 and U. Mansfield, eds). New York: Wiley. We must distinguish carefully between value and cost. It may be 3hOp. cit., Ref. 18. perfectly possible to assess the cost incurred in creating an information 162 371bid 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 corpo- rate 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 most classes of information. It assumes that the use made of information, and hence its value, is necessarily predictable. Similarly, it assumes that there is a clear assignable point of obsolescence. But it is clear that all of these things are inherently unpredictable, except for information of a clearly ephemeral nature. As Cronin and Gudim put it, 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 plan- ning and marketing a difficult exercise.“’ ~ndivid~~~ity of 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? 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? "BUKK AN" HORTON, op. cit., Ref. 13. "VICKERS, P. (1986). Chairman’s introduc- tion. 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. 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 ‘some- thing 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 accepted as a resource . when the management of information starts 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 informa- tion, 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 informa- tion 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 informa- tion 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. The production of the information is undertaken to contribute to some purpose in the organization. 2. The relationship of the information to the achievement of the stated purpose can be clearly shown. 3. The relationship can be empirically tested. 164 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, account- able, controllable, predictable, categorized, static, consistent, uniform, dehumanized - will be regarded as ‘information resources’, and hence important. What then of the informal, anomalous, multifacetted, inter- disciplinary, idiosyncratic, individualistic aspects of information transfer - those which are most closely associated with creativity and innova- tion 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 straight- jacket 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 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 @BAWDEN, o. (1986). Information systems inappropriate, and potentially harmful, resource management model and the stimulation of creativity. Journal of which cannot allow for the singular properties of information. The Information Science, 12, pp. 203-216. analogy, useful as it is, should not be pushed too far. 165