Talk:Management information system/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Information Systems versus MIS

On the matter of the Information Systems redirect to this topic, it should be mentioned by someone that MIS is a generally accepted subset of Information Systems and not the other way around. There are several top-level categories of information systems (transactiion processing systems, expert systems, decision support systems, etc) and countless thousands of information systems that are not MIS. Admittedly, I have not read the entire article, so it could be that this article is inappropriately named or that the IS topic needs to be reestablished as its own standalone topic. It is my opinion that one or the other should be a future course of action, and am airing my thoughts here for feedback. Thanks. -- Dx 00:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

PS - I found a couple of stubs that I think will do, and I'll start with them and work my way back here. Thanks. -- Dx 01:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Prestigious schools?

I don't see the point in the list of prestigious schools. Is there a sort of evaluation system when it comes to who's listed or is it just to add whatever? Maybe we should just change the topic of section to "Schools offering MIS" or something?

I agree with you. It's all opinion based. I would like more opinion before making a change and offending individuals though. How do the rest of you out there feel? - Grassferry49

To list all the schools that offer a programme in MIS would create a very long list, most major universities offer such a programme now. To list only "prestigious" schools would be highly subjective. Maybe we can link to a web site that acts as a directory of MIS programmes instead. mydogategodshat 2 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)

"Well-known" works just fine, almost all the ones listed are very well established programs and respected by their peers, employers, and professors. There is a ranking for these programs such as US News 2006 Best Graduate Schools has rankings of MBA programs with concentrations in MIS.

Does anyone object to me re-organising the list of schools/depts/faculties by country? If this list gets much longer, it really should be organised into groups of some sort. Rather than get into a debate about which schools are more prestigious than others (since this will have some geographic variation), I suggest we group by country and then either list alphabetically or have within country listings by prestige. GKS 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflation of SSIS, MIS and IS.... an error?

I don't think MIS is a subset of Information Systems. For example the Wiki article on Orlikowski describes her as a Professor of Information Systems but I believe this is a shorthand for "The Social Study of Information Systems" (SSIS) which is a Social Studies field and not a business/technology/"science" field. I have added a new article for Social Study of Information Systems. Hope this is OK and a useful clarification. Could we change the article on Orlikowski to point at SSIS rather than MIS?? I have also added/updated some new articles on Claudio Ciborra and on Formative Context which are relevant to SSIS. ISmad 17:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two other Wiki pages which could (arguaby) be addressing the same thing: Science studies and Social informatics ISmad 17:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is going to be an ongoing problem. SSIS and MIS are evolving in part out of Information Systems and thus are arguably a subset (in the same way that Information Systems was itself a subset of Computer Science for many years). Can anyone more familiar with the history of IS and MIS do some cross referencing and try for a definitive statement on the origins of SSIS, MIS and IS (which may then make it easier to decide how they should be organised). GKS 00:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Very confusing article

I really can't make heads or tails out of this article. The article starts off by defining "Management Information Systems" (plural) as an area of study, largely based on business. The article then abandons the academic/business aspect of it can talks about the evolution of technology, such as databases and the like. Its like MIS (the academic study) has been mixed with a completely different article talking about the technical management of information systems. Because this article is currently so schitzophrenic, I'm putting a cleanup tag on it. You had not given many topics of MIS like Marketing MIS, and many more. So you should include that topics also. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 15:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

ITSM <> MIS

MIS is academic. ITSM is practitioner-focused. I think that's a clear distinction, and they are not equivalent to each other. Charles T. Betz 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Punctuati

I agree. If nobody objects, I'd like to rename (fix redirect) the page. --Hypertext 07:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

New Article on Information Systems?

Would anyone like to begin a new article that covers Information Systems on its own? As mentioned above, we are still being directed to this article when we search for Information Systems.. This new article should clearly define information systems and possibly provide a taxonomy of the various type of information systems such as MIS (management informantion systems), GIS (geographic information systems, DSS (Decision Support Systems), ES (Expert Systems) etc.. FRM SYD 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support having MIS perhaps redirect to an IS article, or if we kept MIS separate, then to focus on the use of the term, not any intrinsic definition (as above).

I think that trying to define such a taxonomy would constitute original research. I also think that it might be more difficult than you think. Even in the few examples you cite I see considerable overlaps and ambiguity. I would hesitate to try to distinguish DSS from MIS, for example; I do not think you will find any distinguishing criteria that would stand up to rigorous consideration. Charles T. Betz 04:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Completely incorrect information

the part of the article defining the difference between MIS and IT is completely out of way and some parts are down right WRONG!! if people are going to add information pertaining to a difference then they need to be an expert on both sides because the definition of CS or IT is bad. MIS people do not deal with software engineering, software engineering is the creation of a piece of software. the article before i corrected it was a complete oxy-moron, and to some extent still is. this needs some major correcting by all parties knowledgable. Wiki corection 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also problematic. I have spent the last 15 years of my career doing MIS, again if you define that as IT supporting business objectives. If corporate IT does not do software engineering, why did Target Corporation make a public committment to the Capability Maturity Model? We build lots of software in the big corporate shops, especially when you get very large and competitive and no vendor can give you exactly what you need. Charles T. Betz 03:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with what you are saying in part, but the majority of MIS is to solve problems in the business environment using software, generally MIS does not create the software applications that they use. I understand that some of the BIS people out there are trained well enough to create software applications; however this is not the norm. if the point of this page is to be accurate as to the job of the general MIS person then it should be more general with a section going into the fact that software engineering is a possibility for some, but not the job of ALL MIS persons. Pdigrl 14:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

BAD MOVE

it is probably a bad move to redirect people who are looking for information about Computer Information Systems to the page on MIS because they are completely different things. CIS deals more with web based programming while MIS is not. the redirect should definitely be deleted Wiki corection 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an oversimplification. There is a lot more to CIS than the delivery mechanism (HTTP over the public Internet). Way more. And if one is using MIS in the classic sense as IT deployed to support business objectives, clearly all of e-commerce would fit there. Charles T. Betz 03:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In part what you are saying is correct, however Computer Information Systems is somewhat different that Management Information Systems. It is possible that both of you are correct and the best solution to this problem would be to create a page devoted to Computer Information Systems. The idea of CIS is somewhere between MIS and CS. Pdigrl 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is an oversimplification - but the basic point stands: CIS is not (quite) the same thing as MIS. Personally, I've always seen the difference at an academic level as a matter of focus. CIS degrees have a stronger programming focus, and are more concerned with building things. MIS degrees have a stronger management focus, and are more concerned with analysis and implementation than a standard CIS degree would be. When I taught in a business faculty, we argued that we were MIS - now that I'm in a computing faculty, I think of what we teach as more CIS than MIS. But my main worry is that the distinction is so arbitrary and ill-defined that I'm not sure how the two entries could be properly differentiated. Bilby (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)n dok tau la....

Requested move

who left the "s" off the end of the name..

Pls identify yourself Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement

This article, in its present state, reads like a college's admissions catalogue, and I feel its unacceptable. --TonyLechner (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What is a Diu?

In the background section, it states "In Diu their infancy".

I looked up Diu and it is only listed as a place, and this does not work grammatically. I presume that "Diu" can be removed to just read "In their infancy..."

This is my first every wikipedia contribution, so I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.ChunMort (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Background

Please refer to the line there ...

Today, the term is used broadly in a number of contexts and includes (but is not limited to): decision support systems, resource and people management applications, project management, and database retrieval application.

This is a repitition of the introductory para: hence suggest deletion

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Management information system

The article Management information system could really do with some work.This important article is pretty weak. I just removed a huge copyvio portion that has been there for some time.

Perhaps others could work on it? Chzz ► 14:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

MISconception

It seems there is a general misconception of the use of MIS as either being an academic study or being a subset of Information Systems. This has become a misconception because MIS is being used as an abbreviation of both Management Information Systems, which is actually a subset of Information Systems, and Management OF Information Systems, which is more or less the academic approach of managing information systems. The latter should actually be called Information Systems Management.

A good definition of MIS would be:Bold text

A system, typically computer-based, that collects and processes data (information) and provides it to managers at all levels who use it for decision making, planning, program implementation, and control. MI It seems there is a general misconception of the use of MIS as either being an acadamic study or being a subset of Information Systems. This has become a misconception because MIS is being used as an abbreviation of both Management Information Systems, which is actually a subset of Information Systems, and Management OF Information Systems, which is more or less the academic approach of managing information systems. The latter should actually be called Information Systems Management.

A good definition of MIS would be:

A system, typically computer-based, that collects and processes data (information) and provides it to managers at all levels who use it for decision making, planning, program implementation, and S is comprised of all the components that collect, manipulate, and disseminate data or information. It usually includes hardware, software, people, communications systems such as telephone lines, and the data itself. The activities involved include inputting data, processing of data into information, storage of data and information, and the production of outputs such as management reports.

MIS is therefore nothing else than the usage of an Information System to support the process of business decission making. The process of business decission making itself might be an academic study, the tooling used to support that process is not. --Sververda 13:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that, this article is heavily biased, as it focuses on the tools (IT), not on the end-product that managers expects. Their requirement is to get relevant information to monitor their organisation or business and its performances, so as to investigate further and take corrective actions when the objectives they defined are not met. The article should elaborate on the type of indicators that managers, at every level, from top to bottom, and on all crucial aspects of the organisation's activities, expect. --Pgreenfinch 13:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

From the practitioner perspective - MIS is an acronym pretty much restricted to defining academic curricula. While on a theoretical level one might expect MIS to focus on decision support, in reality business school MIS programs typically cover all of IT, from transactional systems, networking and telecommunications, and application design up through more general issues.

In the real world, MIS as a departmental name is now quite rare, mostly the functional area reporting to the CIO is called IS or IT somewhat interchangeably. I have never seen a satisfactorily rigorous distinction between Information Systems and Information Technology. Clearly, IT sounds lower level than IS, but the historical trend has been that IS departments are being renamed IT departments which I think is counter-intuitive and unfortunate. Derivative but still high level, global concepts are IT Service Management and IT Governance, both of which are focused on end product not tools as the above critique mentions.

Basically the academics are as usual about ten years behind where the industry is, and this article is an orphan. The real action is over in IT Service Management and IT Governance and the articles linking from those.

If I were to rewrite this article it would be primarily to emphasize that MIS is for all practical purposes a legacy term, and focus on its contradictory uses, rather than trying to define it. Defining it is an exercise in futility.Charles T. Betz 03:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that the term MIS is a legacy term. I work in the real world as a manager within what is known as the MIS team. This team sits within the Finance Department of a large international company. The role of the team is to provide Management Information to allow various managers within the company make informed business decisions. Corporate data held within systems that IT support is never really useful, this data needs much manipulation whereby carefully defined 'measures' are created in order to make the raw data useful. The team I manage do this work, you may say that this is an IT function, unfortunately the IT function are not really capable of this. The system in simplistic terms goes something like this - Base Corporate data is manipulated, required measures are created, new data set is aggregated, reports are created, management information is produced. The whole process is known as a Management Information System (MIS). I am know as the MIS team manager. I don't work within IT and I never will, I do admit though that my team and I are very highly skilled in IT, but most importantly we are very close to the business, after all my boss is the Finance Director!!!. --92.14.63.220 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sververda and I have rewritten the article accordingly. MIS is an academic domain - a classification - and should not be confused with organisational functions or entities. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

MIS and Information Technology

I disagree with the Walmart example. An extranet is an example of information technology used with an information system. An explanation of what Walmart is doing with its suppliers on the extranet would be a better definition of a management information system. management is a world wide bakwas topic yakhiii — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.181.211 (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Admins:

1. Please delete this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_information_system - It is moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_information_systems — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amjad z4 (talk • contribs)

I've fixed the cut-and-paste move. Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

History

The history part is awful. The reference that is mentioned does NOT talk about the history of MIS, but only general history of computers and networking. Needs a serious rewrite. 130.234.189.54 (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC) the management of company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.203.58 (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hey all, I came across this page while working on something else and linking to this one - I added a few sources from Business Week, PC Mag, the World Bank, and UNC Charlotte in a couple of sections, but nothing in the "history" section. I also removed some unsourced material, although I think it'd be worth getting some of it back if it could be presented with sources and in a much cleaner format than a block of text. Hope this helps! Feel free to contact me with any questions. GRUcrule (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Article title should be plural?

I believe the appropriate title for this article should be "Management information systems", rather than "management information system." When used in the article (like in the first line of the introduction), it is referred to in this way. In addition, other sources refer to the study in the plural form, as well. Would this proposed change not make sense? Jtrnp (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

test?

Not sure why the user added [1] which i removed.174.3.125.23 (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. All other capitalizations and the plurals redirect here. If it becomes necessary at some point to reintroduce this sort of request, please introduce evidence of proportional uses of the terms outside of Wikipedia, but note that the capitalized version is unlikely to be an option for the title per WP:NCCAPS. Dekimasuよ! 01:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Management information system → Management Information Systems – There is a consensus that the title should be plural but the plural page already exists (redirecting to the non plural page) Lucasf926 (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). –Ammarpad (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lucasf926: Where was the consensus reached?. You have only 13 edits as of now, 11 in performing bad copy-paste move and the remaining in filing technical request after you were reverted. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: I based saying that there was a consensus reached based on the fact that there are talk sections that say that the article should be plural with no disagreements. Also if you look closely at the other Talk Sections where different users are discussing different issues, MIS is generally referred to in the plural.Lucasf926 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment. What it certainly shouldn't be is capitalised! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Business Information System" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Business Information System. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 11#Business Information System until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

"Business Information Systems" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Business Information Systems. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 11#Business Information Systems until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ziadzibaoui.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Gmail account

I wany public gmail accounts 2405:3800:91B:367:0:0:0:1 (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)