Part 1: Information networking as technology: tools, uses, and socio-technical interactions Information overload! The phrase alone is enough to strike terror into the hardiest of managers; it presages the breakdown of society as we know it and the failure of management to cope with change. The media constantly dissect the forthcoming collapse brought on by TMI ("Too Much Information"), even as they themselves pile up larger and larger dossiers on the subject, and we are frequently informed that it is our own damn fault that we are drowning in data, since we simply can't discriminate between the important stuff and everything else. Hence, the info-tsunami warning signs posted all along what we once so naively called the "information superhighway".  Of course, this is arrant nonsense -- human beings have been suffering from information overload in varying forms since about the time we hit the ground and found ourselves simultaneously running after the antelope and away from the lion. There's no question that the human mind has a limited capacity to process information, but after several million years we've gotten pretty good at figuring out how to handle a lot. The two basic tricks turn out to be distinguishing between short-term and long-term information storage, and "chunking" -- putting things in a limited number of baskets. This isn't primarily a course in the psychology of memory -- it's about information tools and systems -- but in fact the same things that make our information tools and systems work are the same things that have kept us near the antelopes and away from the lions (mostly) for the last million years or so. So we're beginning this course by thinking about information tools, what makes them like and unlike other kinds of tools, how the concept of a socio-technical system (in which social and behavioral functions shape results as much as does the technology itself) helps make sense of what we're facing, and why the technology just might win after all. Let's start with a little historical review.  Amy Blair has recently done a very intriguing summary of just why information overload isn't something that we, or still less our kids, dreamed up -- people have been drowning in data for ages regardless of the tools at their disposal: Blair, A. (2010) Information Overload, Then and Now.  The Chronicle of Higher Education Review.  November 28.Retrieved November 15, 2010 from http://chronicle.com/article/Information-Overload-Then-and/125479/?sid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en We thought we had it all nailed down when the information theorists came up with their typology distinguishing between "data" (raw stuff), "information" (cooked stuff), and "knowledge" (cooked stuff that we've eaten).  This rather elegant approach did have the virtue of emphasizing that information processing is a human task, even though we might delegate part of it to machinery, and that the tests of that task are the results for humans. It helps return us to .

1. Part 1: Information networking as technology: tools, uses, and
socio-technical interactions
Information overload! The phrase alone is enough to strike
terror into the hardiest of managers; it presages the breakdown
of society as we know it and the failure of management to cope
with change. The media constantly dissect the forthcoming
collapse brought on by TMI ("Too Much Information"), even as
they themselves pile up larger and larger dossiers on the
subject, and we are frequently informed that it is our own damn
fault that we are drowning in data, since we simply can't
discriminate between the important stuff and everything else.
Hence, the info-tsunami warning signs posted all along what we
once so naively called the "information superhighway".
Of course, this is arrant nonsense -- human beings have been
suffering from information overload in varying forms since
about the time we hit the ground and found ourselves
simultaneously running after the antelope and away from the
lion. There's no question that the human mind has a limited
capacity to process information, but after several million years
we've gotten pretty good at figuring out how to handle a lot.
The two basic tricks turn out to be distinguishing between
short-term and long-term information storage, and "chunking" --
putting things in a limited number of baskets. This isn't
primarily a course in the psychology of memory -- it's about
information tools and systems -- but in fact the same things that
make our information tools and systems work are the same
things that have kept us near the antelopes and away from the
lions (mostly) for the last million years or so. So we're
beginning this course by thinking about information tools, what
makes them like and unlike other kinds of tools, how the
concept of a socio-technical system (in which social and
behavioral functions shape results as much as does the
technology itself) helps make sense of what we're facing, and
why the technology just might win after all.

2. Let's start with a little historical review. Amy Blair has
recently done a very intriguing summary of just why
information overload isn't something that we, or still less our
kids, dreamed up -- people have been drowning in data for ages
regardless of the tools at their disposal:
Blair, A. (2010) Information Overload, Then and Now. The
Chronicle of Higher Education Review. November
28.Retrieved November 15, 2010
from http://chronicle.com/article/Information-Overload-Then-
and/125479/?sid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en
We thought we had it all nailed down when the information
theorists came up with their typology distinguishing between
"data" (raw stuff), "information" (cooked stuff), and
"knowledge" (cooked stuff that we've eaten). This rather
elegant approach did have the virtue of emphasizing that
information processing is a human task, even though we might
delegate part of it to machinery, and that the tests of that task
are the results for humans. It helps return us to the perspective
outlined in the module introduction -- that is, tools need to be
judged by what they do, not just what they are. Systems
thinking is a classic approach that even pre-dates computers.
Here's a good brief summary of this perspective:
Bellinger, G., Castro, D., & Mills, A. (2004) Data, Information,
Knowledge, and Wisdom. The Way of Systems. November 15,
2010 from http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm
But just when we thought we had everything nailed down, the
emerging technologies of networking seemed to be blurring
things a bit. First, with so much stuff floating around, it's not at
all clear just how much "cooking" is really involved in the
data/information boundary; a lot of data turns out to be pretty
self-interpreting, and no matter how much we cook some of the
stuff, it's never going to be particularly nutritious. In addition,
it turns out that information sometimes looks an awfully lot like
property, so that the kind of disembodied knowledge
management framework we thought was going to make things
clear for us gets all tied up with personal self-interest,

3. organizational and social politics, generational conflicts, and all
of the other fun things that human beings have teamed up to
make life difficult for one another over the years. Here is a
useful introduction to this concern:
Green, P. (2010 ) Social Media Is Challenging Notions of the
Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom (DIKW)
Hierarchy. CMS Wire. August 16. Retrieved November 25,
2010 from http://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-20/social-
media-is-challenging-notions-of-the-data-information-
knowledge-wisdom-dikw-hierarchy--008320.php
But now let's put this all in a bit of organizational context. As
we noted in the module introduction, the language of socio-
technical design can be very helpful in diagnosing where
systems are going wrong, particularly when there appear to be
disconnects between the capacities of the technology and the
ability of the company to establish the right kind of behaviorl
and procedures to take advantage of the tools. Here is a very
useful shortbut classic introduction to socio-technical design
and how it can be used:
Liu, X. and Errey, C. (2006) Socio-technical systems - there's
more to performance than new technology. PTG Global.
Retrieved February 27, 2011, from http://www.ptg-
global.com/PDFArticles/Socio%20technical%20systems%20-
%20There's%20more%20to%20performance%20than%20new%2
0technology%20v1.0.pdf
So how does all this tie together? Well, we've got all this
lovely data, information, and maybe even knowledge floating
around most organizations, but we don't seem to be able to
make a lot of use of it. Either there's just too much, or we can't
identify relevant material on a timely basis, or things fall
between the organizational cracks. In any event, we experience
what amounts to "information overload" on a pretty regular
basis, despite having all this understanding of information and
some really good tools for managing and using it. How come?
There's a lot more out there in the optional and supplemental
readings as well as the wide wonderful world of the Internet to

4. give you a feel for whether or not we’re about to be washed
away by the “info-tsunami”; the more widely you can spread
your own information gathering net, the more effective your
analysis is likely to be.
When you believe you have a reasonable feel for how
information tools do (or don't) manage an info-tsunami, you'll
be in a position to write an effective short paper on the topic:
Are organizations likely to find better solutions to information
overload through changes to theirtechnical systemsor
their social systems -- or both? Why?
Case Assignment Expectations:
Your paper should be short (6 pages, not including cover sheet
and references) and to the point. It is to be structured as a
point/counterpoint argument, in the following manner. You are
expected to:
· Begin this paper by stating your position on this question
clearly and concisely -- take one or the other position (either for
or against formality), but not both!
· Citing appropriate sources, present the reasons why you take
this position. Be sure to make the most effective case you can.
· Then present the best evidence you can, again citing
appropriate sources, against your position -- that is, establish
what counterarguments can be made in response to your original
position.
· Finally, review your original position in light of the
counterarguments, showing how they are inadequate to rebut
your original statement.
By the end of your paper, you should be able to unequivocally
re-affirm your original position.
Part 2: Information networking as technology: tools, uses, and

5. socio-technical interactions
As your project assignment for this module, you are to
experiment with alternative web browsers and compare their
utility and features. As you undoubtedly know, a web browser is
simply a piece of software that requests and then decodes and
displays the files that make up Internet pages. Certainly
Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Mozilla's Firefox are by far
the most commonly used browsers, but there are probably at
least 50 to 70 others that are available for public use, and
virtually all of them have their staunch fans and supporters.
Two other major players in the game are Google's entry Chrome
and Opera, which has been through many versions and is very
popular particularly in Europe. Different browsers appear to
have different degrees of utility depending on the materials to
be accessed and the used to be made of the material by the
recipient. So for this exercise, you are to compare the
performance of your most commonly used browser, whatever it
might be, to at least two others that you can either download or
access directly online, in terms of the way they perform on
several basic kinds of Internet tasks.
A fairly complete list of possible browser candidates can be
found in Wikipedia's list of web browsers
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers). There are
also numerous browser comparison sites that you may choose to
examine and use as a basis for your choice of tools. If you
mainly use one of the Big Three, it would be most beneficial for
you probably to try one of the other majors and one of the lesser
known ones.
For each browser, try to use it to at least access, if not actively
work with, each of the following type of common web sites:
· A news site (newspaper, cable news outlet, etc.)
· A sports site
· A large retail operation (Amazon.com or BestBuy.com might
be good examples)
· A travel site

6. · If possible, a private site used in your workplace (obviously,
nothing too confidential!)
· A social networking site (Facebook, Twitter, etc,)
· Something else that you use frequently, if possible
When you have had a chance to conduct your comparative
evaluations and make notes (it may be helpful to take
screenshots if possible -- the key combination ALT-PRNTSCRN
will copy the active window into your computer's clipboard, and
you can then use PASTE to insert the resulting picture into your
Word document), please prepare a brief summary of your
experiences with the different browsers, identifying:
· any differences you detect,
· your overall assessments of their respective utilities, and for
what,
· what you may have learned from the exercise about yourself,
and
· how you may be able to apply this learning to your own future
understanding.
AS AN ALTERNATIVE, PLEASE NOTE: If for various
reasons you do not have the flexibility on your computer system
to actually try out alternative browsers, you can still do the
assignment by doing some online research about alternative
browsers and reporting the results of your inquiries. It's not
going to be quite as fun as hands-on experimentation or quite as
revealing, but you can still show that you understand the issues
and demonstrate your ability to learn lessons for yourself from
such research. After all, as we noted above, that's what these
exercises are mostly about anyway. You will never be
penalized because your computer system won't allow you to do
something.
Try to have some fun with this!
Assignment Expectations:
LENGTH: 2-3 pages typed and double-spaced
The following items will be assessed in particular:
· The degree to which you have carried out the assignment
completely, or clarified why you could not and investigated

7. alternatives
· Your ability to describe your experiences clearly and draw
conclusions from them, not just narrate events
· Your ability to focus on the overall purposes of the
assignment, not just its specific steps
· Your use of some in-text references to what you have read,
where appropriate; please cite all sources properly