Information selection by managers: priorities and values attributed to the dimensions of information

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the paper is to understand the values perceived and the priorities attributed by the managers to four dimensions of information quality associated with meta-information commonly used in the initial selection (scanning) of content by managers: source credibility, comprehensiveness, timeliness, and confidentiality.

Design/methodology/approach

The study involved conducting simulations of information selection for decision making with 124 professionals from 11 different companies. The results were analysed with content analysis techniques, nonparametric statistics, and cluster analysis.

Findings

Three levels of priority were found in the managers’ information selection process: the credibility and timeliness dimensions were the most highly prioritised, the comprehensiveness dimension was the least prioritised, and the confidentiality dimension occupied an intermediate position. The preferences of the managers are for current information and a well-known source with respect to the timeliness and source credibility dimensions, respectively. Regarding the confidentiality dimension, the preference is for restricted information, valued for the desire to know. For the comprehensiveness dimension, there was no well-defined preference for managers with respect to the quantity of text in a managerial report.

Practical implications

The knowledge of priorities and values attributed to the dimensions of information quality is critical for the definition of characteristics to be incorporated into information projects.

Originality/value

This study's contribution is related to the process of information selection in a dynamic situation in which little time is available to information analysis.

Citation

Osvaldo De Sordi, J., Meireles, M. and Carvalho de Azevedo, M. (2014), "Information selection by managers: priorities and values attributed to the dimensions of information", Online Information Review, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 661-679. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-01-2014-0006