There is an interesting assumption implicit in this statement which, IMO, is unwarranted: it assumes that such an horizontal arrangement and management of "information" will actually be effective. While I certainly agree that "efficient management of information promotes unity of effort and understanding", the way it is stated ascribes efficient management of information without placing the responsibility for it in any one location. Having done a lot of reading about organizations (and worked with too many of them) this, IMO, is a recipe for disaster as each organization scrambles to lay blame for failures (and there will be many) on other organizations.Information
126. Information enables the application of all 3 instruments. It is fundamental to the Government’s approach to crisis management, although the British position is that information does not form a separate instrument per se.[3] The dissemination of information, in accordance with a cross-Government information strategy, enables diplomatic, economic and military influence to be exerted in an effective and comprehensive way. At the same time, intelligence and information received across Government shapes planning and execution at all levels. Moreover, efficient management of information promotes unity of effort and understanding, and provides the opportunity to influence a range of audiences and activities in a coherent manner.
Page I-6
Note 3: Some other nations, such as the United States, treat information as a discrete instrument of power.
One other point about this is that by dispersing responsibility for "Information" across organizations, the individual organization is more likely to retain control over "important" pieces rather than let the "real enemy" (i.e. their bureaucratic counterparts in other organizations) get ahold of it.
Bookmarks