论文部分内容阅读
5月里,主流IT媒体《计算机世界》在其第十七、十八两期中,基于“中国CIO年会”,分别刊发了《取消信息中心?——信息中心改制调查》(以下简称“‘取消’文”)和《中国CIO阶层分析》(以下简称“CIO阶层分析”)两篇文章。应该说掌握的材料还是很丰富的,揭示的主题也很典型,是深入思考信息部门发展趋势,及信息化关键人群状态的好文章。 但是值得注意的是,这两篇文章侧重于现象的描述,素材未能整合,没有提出明确的观点。在此情况下,文章将个别人、个别企业的言论和做法作为行业中的典型代表,传播出去,容易造成思想认识上的混乱。 混乱之一,是“取消”文观点的“暖昧”容易误导行业视听。该文章落脚于“取消论”,但实际是“地位未定论”。也就是说,文章虽然提出了很多信息中心改制的模式,但是仅仅只是描述了一种信息中心“地位未定”的场景。至于信息中心到底是“取消”还是其他,文章不仅没有触及,而且自己也存疑。作为“领袖媒体”的言论性的重头文章,如果没有观点,至少是不完整的;如果有某种观点但是表达得很暧昧,就不算负责任;如果暖昧地表达的观点还是错误的,就更值得拿出来商榷一番。 混乱之二,是“CIO阶层分析”文的立论。本杂志在第五期《信息化的“江湖传言”》中,就曾经质疑过“CIO阶层”这个提法。?
In May, Computerworld, the mainstream IT media, published “Cancel Information Center? - Information Center Restructuring Survey” (hereinafter referred to as the “Information Center Restructuring”) in its 17th and 18th issues, respectively, ’Cancel’ article) and ’China CIO class analysis’ (hereinafter referred to as ’CIO class analysis’) two articles. It should be said that the material held is still very rich, and the themes disclosed are also typical. They are good articles for thinking deeply about the development trend of the information sector and the status of the key informants. However, it is noteworthy that these two articles focus on the description of the phenomenon, the material failed to integrate, did not put forward a clear view. Under such circumstances, the article spreads the remarks and practices of individuals and individual enterprises as the typical representative in the industry and easily leads to confusion in ideological understanding. One of the confusion is the “ignorance” of “canceling” the viewpoint of literature, which can easily mislead the industry. The article lays in the “cancellation theory”, but in fact it is “undetermined status.” In other words, although the article put forward a lot of information center restructuring model, but only described a “undetermined status” of the information center scene. As for the information center is “canceled” or other, the article not only did not touch, but also doubt themselves. A rhetorical rehearsal as “the leader’s media” is, at least, an incomplete one if there is no point of view; it is not responsible if an opinion is ambiguous; if the point of expression of ambiguity is still wrong, It is even worth discussing something out. The second confusion is the argument of “CIO class analysis”. The magazine in the fifth “information” rumors “”, had questioned the “CIO class” this reference. ?