winfave@dutrun.UUCP (Alexander Verbraeck) (07/24/89)
*** ANSWERS ONLY TO NEWS.GROUPS! *** We watched the discussion on creating comp.infosystems. It was very interesting and showed that there are still a few questions to be answered. Below, a very short excerpt of some of the postings are given with some answers and remarks as far as we can give them at this moment. Steve Emmerson (steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU) writes: > It might help if you would post a definition of information systems and > elucidate their differences from other computer-related activities. Information Systems (IS) is a discipline, both scientific and professional. This is so because people call themselves IS-professionals or IS-researchers, because there are Departments of IS at universities, there are many organizations for IS-researchers and -professionals, conferences, etc. etc. These people, departments, organizations, conferences etc. are dealing with "fields related to design, construction, evaluation, use and maintenance of dataprocessing, storage and communication systems, including the hardware, the software, as well as the human and organizational aspects and the complex of their industrial, commercial, administrative, social, and political impacts" (definition by UNESCO). Subjects that are covered in this area are: - IS design methodologies; - Organizational problem solving; - Decision Support Systems, Management Information Systems (whatever their definition); - Implementation of IS; - Management of IS; - etc. __________ felleman@cg-atla.UUCP (John Felleman) writes: > Would this newsgroup accomodate discussion of I.S. standards such > as those set by the Information Systems Standard Board of ANSI? Of course discussions on I.S. standards will be covered by this newsgroup. As there is not much standardization in our field yet, I hope that discussions on this topic can help to speed up standardization proposals. __________ ckd@bucsb.UUCP (Christopher Davis) writes: > And as a Management Information Systems concentrator, I can't say I'm > not interested in this sort of thing... :-) > ... > Do we really need a moderated group? I don't think we'll be gathering > enough detritus to require it. Then again, maybe I'm just an idealist. > No, I don't have any real objections to moderation, just a preference > for unmoderated groups unless it's reasonably necessary. Most reactions showed a preference for an unmoderated group. Therefore we changed our proposal into a non-moderated one. If discussions tend to get irrelevant or in the wrong group very often, we can always change the group into a moderated one. __________ dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US (David H. Brierley) writes: > On the other hand, I dont ever recall seeing any huge amounts of discussions > in other groups about information systems and I dont think that this group > is really needed at this point. That's right. The IS professionals and IS researchers have just discovered this communications medium. Once in a while there are questions in comp.databases, comp.misc, comp.ai, comp.soft-eng or comp.cog-eng that are in fact about information systems. One of the reasons for the low number of IS discussions could be that most existing groups give a wrong "feeling" when posting reactions or questions to them. I tried it several times, and got some reactions, all by e-mail, because the replyers thought the newsgroup was not the right place to have the discussion. Another reason could be that most IS professionals were (are?) working on non-Unix machines like IBM mainframes that do not run 'rn' and are connected only to Bitnet or Earn. Most of my IS-colleagues from all over the world have Bitnet numbers and run their e-mail system on an IBM mainframe. Just look at the TIMS (The Institute of Mamagement Science) list of e-mail numbers: 90% are Bitnet numbers. __________ fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) writes: = In article <424@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) = writes: = >It might help if you would post a definition of information systems and = >elucidate their differences from other computer-related activities. = = Ah, precisely my thought. I have already mailed to the folks in Holland = as to what they think computers are. = = My definition has always included the obvious: Information System. = FR In our view, computers and information systems are two distinct topics. Information systems cover the hardware, the software, users, procedures, organizational setting and databases. Computers are the 'hardware' part or the 'hardware' with some of the 'software' part. Davis and Olson give a good introduction into the concepts and structures that are found in the information systems area (Management Information Systems, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1987). __________ rleroux1@uvicctr.UVic.ca.UUCP (Roger Leroux) writes: > The newsgroup sounds like a good idea, as currently proposed (Whether > it's moderated or not makes no difference), but the name is too long. > Perhaps something like comp.infosys would be better. We'll try comp.infosystems and unmoderated for now. __________ hargrove@harlie.sgi.com (Mark Hargrove) writes: > Why not just comp.is ? We thought a long time on comp.is. In the IS area, IS if often used shortened. For the news readers that are not from the IS area, the abbreveation could be unclear. Ok, the same holds for infosystems: a non experienced user could think that it gives information on systems. A solution to that could be to place it in the sci. hierarchy (sci.infosystems). As we are talking here about computerized information systems, my preference would be comp.infosystems. __________ dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) writes: > I support the idea. I was considering starting discussions on > the possible formation of a group for GEOGRAPHIC Information Systems > (GIS) and SPATIAL Decision Support Systems, an area of rapidly growing > interest. But, if comp.informationsystems is created, we could post > GIS items to it. Then, if the GIS traffic became high, we could propose > comp.informationsystems.GIS at some time in the future. > > So, my vote on comp.informationsystems will be : "Yes!" > ... > At the risk of seeing some inappropriate postings, I strongly > prefer UNMODERATED newsgroups. I feel quite detached from the > Moderated groups. I feel like a MEMBER of unmoderated groups > such as comp-cog-eng, sci-lang, comp.ai, and like a READER/ > SUBSCRIBER of the moderated ones. So, let's try comp.informationsystems > unmoderated, and if it has problems, then make it moderated. We'll try UNmoderated first. I would very much like to have subgroups for comp.infosystems, like comp.infosystems.dss, ....mis, ....methodologies, ....gis, etc. !!! __________ jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger) writes: > I vote no. > > "Information Systems" is a term the computer industry uses when > advertising large systems to large organizations. The term serves the > purposes of the vendor sales force, and protects the interests of a > few individuals within the organization who have the power to make > large purchase decisions. It has yet to be demonstrated that it is > useful to the public in general or organizations in particular. > > According to Datamation (15 June 1989), the top five information > systems companies are IBM, Digital Equipment, Fujitsu, NEC, and > Unisys. In 1988, Datamation goes on to say, their revenues totaled > over 90 billion dollars. I see no reason why the net at large should > pay for air time to talk about "information systems". "large systems" is a broad term that is often misunderstood. The information systems specialists often talk about "large systems". They mostly mean "large information systems" with large databases, lots of programs, a number of people working with this kind of systems. Just look at the average bank or insurance company to see what a large system means. of course these "large information systems" run on "large computer systems" like IBM mainframes, VAXes, HP-3000 computers or on others of the brands you mention. Gladly, the top five INFORMATION SYSTEMS companies are NOT IBM, Digital, ...! These are the top five COMPUTER SYSTEMS companies. You are right that we should not talk about these companies in a separate area called comp.infosystems. (let's do that in comp.talk). It is however very useful to talk about developing (large) information systems using certain methodologies with -sometimes- a team of developers like information analysts, systems designers, programmers, users and operators. __________ hargrove@harlie.sgi.com (Mark Hargrove) writes: In article <578@daitc.daitc.mil> jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger) writes: = >>CALL FOR DISCUSSION ON CREATING COMP.INFORMATIONSYSTEMS = > = >I vote no. = > = >"Information Systems" is a term the computer industry uses when = >advertising large systems to large organizations. The term serves the = >purposes of the vendor sales force, and protects the interests of a = >few individuals within the organization who have the power to make = >large purchase decisions. It has yet to be demonstrated that it is = >useful to the public in general or organizations in particular. = = Sadly, this incredible misconception is carried by many people I've = worked with (and for) over the last 10 years or so. "Information Systems" = is *not* about selling mainframes. Information Systems (sometimes = "Information Technology") is a broadly based discipline that synthesizes = elements from computer science, engineering, business, communications, = information theory and other areas into strategies and methods that allow = individuals and organizations to be provided with, and to deal with, the = staggering amounts of information needed to do a good job. = > = >According to Datamation (15 June 1989), the top five information = >systems companies are IBM, Digital Equipment, Fujitsu, NEC, and = >Unisys. In 1988, Datamation goes on to say, their revenues totaled = >over 90 billion dollars. I see no reason why the net at large should = >pay for air time to talk about "information systems". = > = = Let's ask Scott McNealy at Sun Microsystems whether or not he'd agree = with *this* deep insight :-) = = *My* concern is that there might not be enough of us to make a go of = this type of newsgroup. I'll be voting *yes*. That is right. SOME information systems RUN on a mainframe, which does not mean that we talk about SELLING mainframes. What we DO talk about is on DEVELOPING and CHOOSING the total of programs, necessary hardware, communications, user interfaces, human procedures, organizational changes, database design and much more for SOLVING organizational PROBLEMS. We shall also discuss about development methods and tools that can be used in this discipline, like systems development methodologies, a little on CASE tools, diagramming techniques. __________ hjg@amms4.UUCP (Harry Gross) writes: = This sounds like an excellent idea to me. The field of IS is large, = and likely to only get larger. A convenient forum for discussion is = absolutely appropriate. = = One thing, though, there are many sites that can't handle a filename or = directory name longer than 14 characters, so perhaps the name should be = comp.information.systems (it's trivial, I know, but it is somewhat = important to those of us stuck without flexnames :-) = = >In our view the area should be MODERATED, in order to be = >able to filter out the postings that have nothing to do = >with information systems. = = This is probably a good idea, too (at least initially). If the = moderator(s) discover that the quality of the vast majority of = postings are being posted, perhaps the moderated status could be = dropped. Initially, however, it is probably a good thing. = = All in all, I think this is a group that is long overdue. IMHO it = should be created. I think hundreds of thousands of people are working in this area all over the world (whether they realize it or not is of course an open question -) The IS field is large. In the Netherlands there are lots of workshops on IS aspects every DAY! We'll drop the moderated status for a starter. __________ ckd@bucsb.UUCP (Christopher Davis) writes: = In article <578@daitc.daitc.mil> jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan = Krueger) writes: = - In article <787@dutrun.UUCP>, winffww@dutrun (Folkert W. Wierda) writes: = - >CALL FOR DISCUSSION ON CREATING COMP.INFORMATIONSYSTEMS = - = - I vote no. = - = - "Information Systems" is a term the computer industry uses when = - advertising large systems to large organizations. The term serves the = - purposes of the vendor sales force, and protects the interests of a = - few individuals within the organization who have the power to make = - large purchase decisions. It has yet to be demonstrated that it is = - useful to the public in general or organizations in particular. = = Ah, it's just a buzzword, why does it need a newsgroup, is that it? = = Wrong. = = Information Systems is a discipline involving aspects of computer = science, information theory, systems design, user interface design, = management of change, and many other fields. It is more than a = marketing buzzword. It is the management of a system to turn data = into information, and use that information as an organizational asset. = Tell American Express, or Federal Express, or Johnson & Johnson, that = their information systems departments are simply money wasted on = mainframes and you're likely to be laughed out of the office. = = Of course, as powerful as it can be when handled well, it can be = expensive when handled poorly, as with Bank of America's ill-fated = system. We need a newsgroup for this for both the good and the bad. = = - According to Datamation (15 June 1989), the top five information = - systems companies are IBM, Digital Equipment, Fujitsu, NEC, and = - Unisys. In 1988, Datamation goes on to say, their revenues totaled = - over 90 billion dollars. I see no reason why the net at large should = - pay for air time to talk about "information systems". = = Gee, I guess I'd better go pick up my check from IBM's marketing = office--I didn't realize that in talking about information systems I = was becoming a paid flack. Is there any problem with companies making = money by selling systems or components? I don't think comp.info-sys = will become a "Buy a 3090, it makes a great accounting platform" type = of group. Go bother comp.newprod if you have problems. We couldn't have said it better... __________ faatzd@rpics (Don Faatz) writes: = I'm all for a group dedicated to Information Systems discussion ... __________ pwillmot@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk (pat willmott) writes: = Excellent Idea. I hope that IS professionals will contribute as well as = acker deme. So do I. I have no idea how many IS professionals are reading the USENET discussions right now. I hope there are enough to start the group. More will follow later when they see or hear the discussions are not something to be missed. __________ dreher%mar.span@io.arc.nasa.gov mails: = It would be useful, to me at least, if you could post a definition = of INFORMATION SYSTEMS and how this topic differs from the many others = in comp.*. For example, I have some interest in the topic of information = retrieval -- would this group cover that subtopic? It depends on your view on information retrieval. When information retrieval means trying to get the right information from existing databases or designing a database in such a way that information retrieval is easy, I would say yes. When information retrieval is restricted to 'finding the correct SQL sequence to get item A from such and such a database', I would say no. On the difference between comp.infosystems and related discussion areas: This definition, and for that, this discipline, does not exclude possible overlap with other newsgroups. However, the focus is clearly different. It is not the machine, or the piece of software that is central, but the combination of hardware, software and people in an organizational setting. Some groups have explicit relations with the proposed group. Some examples: - comp.databases: Technical aspects of databases and database software. Issues that are _hardly_ addressed in comp.databases are organizational use of databases, design of datamodels, application of databases in information systems, etc. - comp.soft-eng: Designing "good" programs. Undoubtedly a necessary aspect of "good" information systems. But programming is just a part of developing an information system. In the IS area we'll focus more on the combination of the different skills to deliver the TOTAL information system from start (trying to demarcate a problem in an organization) to finish (managing the information system and education of the users). - comp.ai: Sometimes IS subjects are covered in comp.ai. From the information systems standpoint, artificial intelligence hands us a number of very important ideas and techniques that can be used in information systems. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Verbraeck e-mail: Folkert W. Wierda ------ Delft University of Technology winfave@hdetud1.bitnet Department of Information Systems winfave@dutrun.uucp PO Box 356, 2600 AJ The Netherlands winffww@dutrun.uucp ---------------------------------------------------------------------