I like this consutruct. I am constantly hearing from folks that "we have an organization in charge of D and M and E, but we don't have an I!"
And you know that's the wrong argument.
Incidentally, this model works well with the Army's conception of information as a part of everything - METT-TC (I).
But didn't you argue elsewhere that DIME isn't about "instruments of national power" but rather structures of bueracracy (or something like that?). Does that even matter here?
Great post Matt! You did an excellent job pointing out the flaws.
I've come to a similar conclusion. One of the most important sentences in my upcoming book: "Communication is a common denominator and often an antecedent for most forms of social interaction and resultant causality." More specifically, communication technology has monopolized one of the most heavily trafficked social intersections and is often a precursor to almost all judgment and action taken.
"Communication is the fundamental social process" -Schramm
I like this consutruct. I am constantly hearing from folks that "we have an organization in charge of D and M and E, but we don't have an I!"
And you know that's the wrong argument.
Incidentally, this model works well with the Army's conception of information as a part of everything - METT-TC (I).
But didn't you argue elsewhere that DIME isn't about "instruments of national power" but rather structures of bueracracy (or something like that?). Does that even matter here?
Great post Matt! You did an excellent job pointing out the flaws.
I've come to a similar conclusion. One of the most important sentences in my upcoming book: "Communication is a common denominator and often an antecedent for most forms of social interaction and resultant causality." More specifically, communication technology has monopolized one of the most heavily trafficked social intersections and is often a precursor to almost all judgment and action taken.
"Communication is the fundamental social process" -Schramm