saving it’s soul: human-centered information...

Nc~-~~ ~

_________________________ _____ ~ ~ ‘~, t~c,~ ~

Anewapproachto informationpromisesbusinessbenefitsthatfewinanagerscouldconceiveofwhenfocusingstrictly

on technology.

Saving IT’s Soul:Hu ma n-Centered

InformationManagement

by Thomas1-L Davenport

informationtechnologyhasa polarizingeffectonmanagers~it either bedazzlesor frightens.Thosewhoareafraidof it shunit, while bedazzledIT de-partmentsfrequently becomeprisonersof theirownfascination,constructingelaboratetechnologyarchitecturesandenterpriseinformationmodelsto guidesystemsdevel-opment.Seniorexecutiveswho buy into this viewpromotetechnologyas thekey catalystof businesschange.But suchtechno-craticsolutionsoftenspec-ify the minutiae of ma-chinerywhiledisregardinghow peoplein organiza-tionsactuallygo aboutac-quiring,sharing,andmak-ing useof information.Inshort,theyglorify infor-niation technologyandig-norehumanpsychology.

It shouldn’t surprise~nyone that humanna-cure,goodandbad,canthrow awrench into thebest-laidiT plans,yettech-nocratsare constantly

caughtof I guard by the %rratiorial” behaviorof“end users.”In fact, peoplewho areafraidof infor-ination technologymayhavegoodreasonto feelthat way. Companiesthatballyhootheir latestmanagementinformationsystemsor groupwareusuallyspendlittle timetrainingemployeesto use

them.Eventhosçwholikecomputerscanfi~dthem-selveshobbledby the rig-id structureandrules ofmanyIT shops.

Obviously,peoplehan-dle information in anynumberof ways,hornba-sic dataprocessingto gen-

ThomasH. Davenportis apartnerand directorof ze-searchat Ernst & Young’sCenter/orinformationTech-nologyandStrategyin .Bos-tori and cm adjunctprofes-sor at Boston UnfversitysSchoolof Management.Heis theauthorofProcessInno-vation: RcenginceringWorkThroughInformationTcch-nology and two previousHBRarticks.

Peoplehandlei.ifozuiat~onin myriadways—fromdataprocessingto exchangingE-mailworldwide.

DgAWU4GSB? PAUL M~tSEL Ill,

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

cniting sophistic;ucdaccountingdocumentsto cx-changing informal E-mail messagesaroundtheworld. For the manydivcts~informationusersinlargeorganizations,only onethingis certain:eifec~tive information managementmust begin bythinking.abouthow peopleuseinformation—notwith howpeopleusemachines.While it’s impossi-ble to accountfor all the unforeseenconsequencesof information expansionandusein today’scom-panies,thefollowing threeobservationsexemplifyhow ahuman-centeredapproachto informationmanagementcontrastswith the standardIT view:o Information evolvesin manydirections,takirig

on rrwltiple meanings.While IT specialistsaredrawn to commondefinitionsof termslike cus-tomeror product, most informationdoesn’tcon-form to such strict boundaries.Forcingemployeesto cometo onecommondefinition, assometech-nologiesrequire,only truncatesthe very conver-sationsandsharingof perspectivesthat the tech-nology is supposedto ensure.Ratherthanforcingemployeestosimplify informationsothatit will fitinto acomputer,ahuman-centeredapproachto in.formation calls for preservingthe rich complexitywepreferinourinformationdiets.oPeopledon’t shareinformationeasily.Assumingthat different departments,professionals,or lineworkerswill wantto usetechnologyto shareirif or-mation is oneof the biggestmistakesexecutivesmake.Yet it is oneof thefundamentalassumptionsmadein planninganyIT system.That is, if youbuild it, peoplewill useit.o Changingan IT systemwon’t changea corn-pany’s information culture.Thepresenceof tech-nology, in andof itself, cannotwholly transformacorporation.Changingacompany’sinformationculturerequiresalteringthe basicbehaviors,atti-tudes,values,managementexpectations,andin-centivesthat relateto information. Changingthetechnologyonly reinforcesthebehaviorsthatal-readyexist.Yetinmostcompanies,manymanagersstill believethat oncethe right technologyis inplace, theappropriateinformation-sharingbehav-ior will inevitablyfollow.

At ono largepharmaceuticalcompany,for ex-ample,IT managerstried to implement shareddatabasesandother new technologiesto speedupR&D, onlyto havetheirefforts foiledby significantcultural barriers.In this case,managersassumedthat researchersinvolved in the developmentof adrugwould passalongall information about it to•the people conductingits clinical trial; if re-searchershadfoundearlyon that,say, thedrug’s ef-fect diminishedwhentakenwith certainfoods,thenpatientsin theclinical trial couldbeinstruct-ednot to takethedrugat meals.Suchearlyreleaseof data,however,rarelyhappensat this pharma-

ceuticalcompany.Clinical studiesthereforeoften haveto be redone,delayingthe drug-approvalprocesssometimesforyears.

In this company,managementpushedthe new databasesand soft-ware, but researcherswereeitherhostile or apathetic.The IT depart-merit wassofocusedon thetechnol-ogy that they hadfailed to under-standthe rigid rules of scientific

explorationthatgovernhowscientiststhink aboutinformation.Different departmentscouldn’t agreeon whatconstituteda “drug” or a“clinical trial” —

or evenwhat font theyshouldusefor researchre-ports.In this case,the rateof technologicalchangefar outstrippedthepaceof changein thecultureasawhole.Insteadof instituting new technologies,executivesshouldhaveinstitutedaprogramof cu?-tural changeto convincehighly competitivescien-tists that theywouldn’t be penalizedfor sharingearlyandperhapsincompleteresults.

Technology,after all, is neitherthe saviornorarchdemonof the informationage.At its worst, itdistractsandmisleadsus.But at its best,new sys-temscansupporttheki~n~dof informationusethatresultsin realbusinesschange.

What’sWrongwith theView from iT?Sincethefirst businessapplicationsof computers

in themid-1950s,planningandcontrolhavedomi-natedsystemsdevelopmentin largecompanies.Inparticular,the conceptof “informationarchitec-ture”hasovershadowedahuman-centeredview ofinformation.IBM createdthefirst structuredap-proachin the 1960sandhasdefinedthefield eversince.Originally named“businesssystemsplan-

-• fling” (BSP),laterversionscametobecalled“strate-gic dataplanning” and“informationarchitecture.”

The analogyto an architecturalblueprint,inwhich the locationandusesof differentroomsare

Too many managersstill believethatoncetheright technologyisin place,appropriateinformationsharingwill follow.

120 HARVARD BUSINESSP.EVIEW March-April 1994

1.Mostoftheinformationin organizations-andmostof theinformationpeoplereallycareabout—isn’t oncouterL .

The Information Factsof Life,

6. If inforñi~atioriis pow~i ~sharciteasily -

7meWi1liofj13th:I3~formation 1orinat is didy~piôpärt~

.much-~~. Max~gerspreferto get informationfrom peopleratherthancomputers,peopleaddvaluetorawinformationby inter.~

• pxttingitzxidaddingatext.

3 Themoreconipiexanddetailed-

~ in ormation.rnanageuientap-~.~proach,.�he.1css.Iikelyit is to~dflC anyoneabehavior

~ of~l~ii~1~thdison3erisdesrrabIe - °° -

—

- LThemoreacosnpanyknowsand; ~lO There’scaresaboutuscorebu.sinessarea, -. mationoverlothe Ii emplOyeeswill beto it informationis powerandmoney, - reallyuseful1~agreeonacommondefinitionofit.. -peoplewon’tshareit easily

- .‘- - ..!-~ -. — ‘.

- - -

.-•—..-.

)ortant,theymaketheunrealisticassumptionthatnostof a company’sinformationcanbe organizedLccordingtoafewcommonterms.

t~NaturalMess:Multiple Informationv\eanings

While informationarchitecturecan’tcapturethereality of humanbehavior,thealternativeis hardFor traditionalmanagersto grasp.That’sbecauseahuman-centeredapproachassumesinformationiscomplex,ever.expanding,andimpossibleto con-trol completely,Thenaturalworld is a moreaptmetaphorfor the Information agethanarchitec-ture.From thisholisticperspective,all informationdoesn’thaveto be commonssomedisorderandevenredundancymaybe desirable.(Seethechart,“Human-CenteredIT ManagersPocusonHowPeo-pleUseInformationRatherthanMachines.”)

Nomatterhowsimpleorbasicaunit of in.forma-non mayseem,therecanbevalid disagreementsaboutits meaning.At Digital EquipmentCorpora-tion,forexample,a“sale” totheindirectmarketingorganizationhappenedwhena distributor or re-sellerorderedacomputer;but to directmarketing,thesaleoccurredonlywhentheendcustomertookdelivery.Evenwithin directmarketing,therewere

differencesof opinion: salespeoplerecordedasalewhenthe orderwas placed,manufacturingandlo-gisticswhentheproductwasdelivered,andfinancewhenit waspaidfor.

At AmericanAirlines, thereare severalperspec-tiveson whatan“airport” is. Somemanagersarguethat an airport is any locationto which Americanhasscheduledservice;otherscountany airportgrantedthat statusby theinternationalstandardsbody. At Union Pacific i~.a~i1road,there’slittle con-sensuson whata “train’~is. Is it a locomotive,allcarsactuallypulledfrom anorigin to adestination,oranabstractschedulingentity! EvenU.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture officials can’t agreeon themeaningof“farm.”

Th~semultiple meaningsmakethejob of infor-mationmanagementtreacherousatbest.At oneoilexplorationcompany,for example,informationar-chitectsworkedfor yearson ineffectivemodelsbecausepeopleassigneddifferentmeaningsto “oillocation.”Someusersdefinedit asthe originalgeographiccoordinatesin the ground; othersthoughtit wasthewell from whichoil spran~stillothersusedthe term to referto~theoil’s currentlo-cationin a tankfarm or pipeline.Eachdefinitionfoundits wayinto computerdatabases.As aresult,it wasdifficult to shareeventhemostbasicinfor-

KkRVARD BUSINESSREVIEW M3~ch-ApZil1994

gether.But while dual information streamsaremessyandhard to control, theyseemrealisticforthis diversecompany,

A largermanagerialbarrier, however,remains:operatingwith multiple meaningsalso requiresba-sic changesin behavior—not only for informationproviders,who categorizeand collecttheinforma-tion, butalsofor users.TheCEO who is annoyedwhentold there’sno quick answerto how manycustomers(oremployeesorproducts)thecompanyhasis justasguilty of oversimplifyinginformationasthedatabasedesignerwho insistson onedefini-tionofcustomer.

And whenit is necessaryto define commonmeanings,theprocessrequiresmuchmoreman-agementparticipationandtimethanmanyassumeorwant to allot, For instance,Xerox diddatamod-eling andadministrationfor 20 years,but in thewordsof the directorof informationmanagement,“We got nowhere.”Theseinitiativesweredrivenby iT ratherthanbyseniorbusinessmanagers;theywerealwaysabandonedin favorof specificdevelop-ment projectslike the new order-processingorblUingsystem,whichyieldedobviousbenefits.- Finally,Xerox’s IT departmentaskedseniorexec-utives to identify thekeypiecesof informationon

which theentire businessshouldbe run. The executivesdebatedtheissueon severaloccasionsbutweren’tableto reachaCOflSCflSUS.They did agree,however,thattheir main prioritieswere cus-tomer,financial, andproductin-formation— in thatorder.

Xerox’s IT departmentthentook anothertack.From aroundtheworld, 15 marketingandsalesmanagers,accompaniedby theirIT counterparts,met to agreeonthesetof commoncustomerin-formation the companywoulduse.As usual,peopledisagreedaboutwhat “customer” meant.But thesemanagerseventuallyagreedto definecustomersascor-porationsthat badalreadypur-chasedproductsor servicesfromXerox andto refer to themwith acommonworldwidenumber;theyalsoreachedconsensuson 11 oth-er customer-orientedterms,in-cluding customer-satisfactionmeasures.This coordinatedap-proachallowedcountrymanagersto thencreatecustomerinforma-

tion thattheIT departmenthasnowcombinedintoaglobaldatawarehouse.

TheTroublewith InformationSharing

In today’scompetitivebusinessenvironment,itmakessenseto give informationparticularismitsdue;but asXerox’s exj~etiencewith customerin-formationillustrates,ex~cutivesmustalsodecidewhichaspectsof acompany’sinformationareglob-al. More to the point, executivesmustdeterminehowsuchinformationis to besharedeffectively—oneof thetrickiestmanagementissuesfor today’scor~ipanies.While informationarchitecturecanspecifywho controlsinformation,suchrigid mod-els don’t accountfor theunpredictablegrowthofinformationorhumannature.

Somemanagersarequick to point out the ob-vious difficulties with informationsharing,espe-cially whenit’s driven by newtechnologieslikeelectronicmaiL If sharingmakesit easierfor a

• company’semployeesto getatcritical information,it alsoopenstheway for any interestedexternalparties— competitors,attorneys,evencomputerbackers.Giventhemanyrecentandhighly visible

No unitof informationis toobasictopreventdisagreementaboutitsmeaning:USDA officialscan’tevenagreeonwhaxafarmis.

HARVARD BUSINESSREVIEW M.2xcb-April 1994

informationtechnologiesdon’t inevitably leadtoflattenedhierarchiesandempoweredemployees.Workingout informationissuesin a companywitha monolithic culture—insteadof wrestlingwithtwo competinginformation culturesthat resultfrom a merger—ofteninvolves diggingout en-trenchedattitudestowardorganizationalcontrol.

In suchcompanies,technolo-gies that promoteinformationsharingcanendup controllingemployeesratherthanempower-ingthem.Whenlowerlevelwork-ersareorderedto “share”infor-mationwith thosehigherup thecorporateladder,acutthroatinfor-mationcultureof meddlingmicro-managementcanresult.At therefiningandmarketingdivisionofa largeoil company,for example,thedivisionpresidentdelightedinbeingableto usehis computertopeerelectronicallyovertheshoul-dersof oil traders—andoccasion-ally to overrideor initiatea deal.

On the otherhand,Xerox’s ex-ecutivesupportsystemhasbeenlimited to accessingdatatwo lev-els below the user—preciselytoavoid this type of excessivecon-trol. Suchhuman-centeredtech-nology implementationsarestillrare,but theyindicatethewaymanagersmust think abouttheissuesthat informationsharingbringsto thesurface.

Populist exhortationsto thecontrary,unlimited informationsharingdoesn’twork. In fact, in-creasedinformationsharingcaneither improveor activelyharmcompanymorale.Sharinginfor-mation aboutactualcorporateperformanceis usuallygood formorale- evenwhenperformanceispoor,sinceuninformedemploy-eesoftenassumethat it’s worsethanit really is. Sharingrumors,however,canbedenioralizirig.

An informationsystemsman-agerat a New York bank, forexample,createda LotusNotesbulletinboard that he calledthe“Rumor Mill.” The systemal-lowedemployeesin his depart-ment to sharerumorseasily~the

managercouldthenquashfalseoneson-line.Thisexperimentworkedjust fine—until rumorsWerepostedaboutthemanager’sown departurefrom thebank.Whenhe refusedto comment,employeescorrectlysurmisedit wastrue.Theybecamecyni-cal.aboutthisattemptto shareinformationthroughtechnology,sincethemanagerhadn’tcommunicat-

edwith themon this particularpieceof information.Needlesstosay,Rumor Mill was~not contiri-tied by hissuccessor.

Sharingrumorsin this fashionunderscoresthe distinctionbe-tweeninformationandnoninfor-motion. Manypeoplesufferfromfar too muchnoninformation—

which companiesseemto gener-atewith easeandattheexpenseofuseful information—ratherthanthe “informationoverload”theycomplainabout.Any heavyB-mail usercantestify to thejunkmail problem.Right now I havemorethan160 messagesin myelectronicmailbox,someofwhichinform me that onecolleaguelost his appointmentbookorthatanotherwantedto be includedin lastThursday’spizza run. Ishouldneverhavereceivedthem,andnow I don’t-havt the timetodeletethem.

Technologistsareworking onpersonalizedfilters or “agents”thatcanseparaterealinformationfrom junk.Butit’s likely thatgoodmarketersof electronicinforma-tionwill find waysto circumventfilterst_~justasdirect mail nowlookslike ataxrefundorpersonalcheck.In fact,somecomniuiiica-tion technologiesjust exacerbatethisproblem.

At TandemComputers,for ex-ample,a combinationE-mail/bul-letin boardallows field-servicepersonnelto senda “hasanyoneseenthisproblem!”messagetoalltechnicalpeoplein the company.Theservicetechnicianmaygetananswer,but is it really necessaryfor everyoneto readthismessage!As Insomanyothercases,simplyimplementinganelectronic-mailsystem— without any guidelines

WhenChemicalBatikandManufacturersHanovermerged,

two informationculturesclashed.

HARVABD BUSINESSREVIEW Maxc~-Apd11994

INFORMATION MkNAGEMENT

I~A1, #‘ ~_I__ fi l~S ‘C~ OT anTormc2tlon

.~rkEflVh~~~~M~ N

~E)

stem thOr provides

toots,andto increase

Ii~kLr1~e~ecppkotions~hefollowing catogories:

inForm0tb0~~

0~dto°~

0nd toolS

and tools

~0~iotl/suPpor, tools

1oetno~i0fl

~,FHONE repre5~tmajor

,0orkel inf0~0~~cnd ore~ det~dj~iterin this section:

M~’rkChfl9PerspectiveICQM$1

DocismentDatabCs~(MDO~on Center (NSC)

Dccumdt~tpa~obo5e(PDOC)Accout~Support(SIA$tjpp1

line:

WHATt$0

pphCOti0~1name

0fferifl95

— Key HONEREF.~1GU1DEfr0m~

HO1’~E~~ifl menu.— on4inedem0n5~0tb0t~5

0F s.etected 0~pheotions~r funcb~On theMO~Emain menu.

AnuW1~eroI~Oflt0tn

User Guides, whichmaY be viewed bykeying GUIDE onoppflc0~’0’~menU.

—

EasternTime

128 HARVARDBUSINESSREVIEW Msrch.April 1994

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

were afraid that answeringquestionsabout infor-mationwould be too time-consuming.In practice,however,theextratime involved hasn’t really in-terferedwith anyone’sjob. Manyoftheseinforma-tion ownersnowsaythey learnfrom thequestionsandcommentsof others.More important,~M hassavedmillions by avoidingduplicationIn thepur-chaseof externalmarketinformation.

in formationGuides.Along withmaps,informa-tion usersneedpeopleto guide themto therightkind of informationin the first place.Librarianshaveoftenperformedthis role in the past.Butwhile informationownersat IBM cananswerspe-cific questions,few companieshavegeneralguidesto the vastinformation resourcesavailablethroughoutanorganization.Onceagain,includingnewkinds of humansupport for technologycanhelpchangeacompany’sinformationcuhu.re.

In1991,HallmarkCards’sMIS managersrealizedthat the company’s informationuserswerecon-fusedabouthowtoaccessnecessarydata.Theprob-lem wasboth technicalandbehavioral,Financial,customer,supplier,product,and otherdatawereburiedin manydifferentdatabases.In addition,ex-istingapplicationswerehardtouseandprovidednoinformationabouthowthedatawerecreated.

Hailtuark’sMIS managersthereforeestablishedin eachbusinessunit a newfull-time position: the“information guide.”Theseindivid-uals are theprimary point of con-tactfor anyoneat Hallmark seekingcomputer-basedinformation.TheytranslatebetweenuserinformationrequestsandtheIT staff who canquerydatabasesandgetthecomput-erizedinformationthat usersneed.Hallmark’s inforniation guideshavehelpedimprovedataaccesssomuchthat therearenow 10 guidesaroundthecompany.Theyhavesubstantiallyreducedthetime it takesfor employeesto find the right infor-mation andto compareinformationacrossbusi-nessunits.

BusinessDocuments.Theform in which infor-mationis presentedis also critical to its under-standinganduse.Alterall, rawdataisnot inforrna-tion; and accumulatingdatais not the sameasinterpretingit andputting it in a usableform.Com-panyB’s emphasison documentationandpresenta-tion,demonstrateshowsuchanattitudeshapestheoverall informationculture. In that case,promo-tionsandotherfinancialincentivesweretiedtothekindsof documentsprofessionalsproduced.

Ingeneral,businessdocumentsprovideorganiza-tionandcontext,andtheyexcludeenoughinforma-

tionsothatwhatremainsisdigestible.Focusingonwhichdocumentsanorganizationnee~lsoftenleadsto amorefruitful discussionthanlookingatbroadinformationrequirementsor trying to pin downatermlike “customer.”

Severalcompanieshavebeguntoidentify criticalinformationneedsin theform of documents..AiDeanWitter, for instance,informationmanagers,particularlythosein thecentrallibrary, werefrus-tratedby their inability to addressbrokers’in.for-marionneedsefficiently. They advocatedhiringmorelibrarians,but financialexecutiveswerexc-luctantto takeon additionalworkers.

With thehelpof a consultant,financemanagerstalkedto brokersaboutwhat informationtheyneeded.Insteadofphrasingtheirquestionsin termsof informationandsystems,theyaskedwhichkeydocumentsbrokersrequired.As it turnedout, al-mostall usedthesamedocumentsover andover.Theirneedswere categorizedinto asetof “coredocuments,”mostofwhichwereregulatoryandre-portingdocumentsfrom U.S.companies.

By separatingthe documentsinto threeor fourIndustrygroups,90%ofthe informationneededbya typical brokerfit on oneCD-ROM disk. DeanWitter thencreateda“perfectinformationplatter,”which wasupdatedmonthly and kepton a localareanetworkserver.By definingcommoninforma-

Hallmark hasestablished

usersand the IT staff.

tionalneedsandimplementingtechnologyto sup-portwhatbrokerswerealreadydoing,DeanWitterwasableto reduceits library staff—ratherthanin-creasingit asoriginallysuggested—whilegreatlyLa..cilitatinginformationuse.

Groupware.Groupwarelike LotusNotes,NCR’SCooperation,andDigital Equipment’sTeam.Linksare excellentexamplesof lessstructuredinforma-tion-sharingtechnologies.Thisnewtechnologyal-lows teamsin different locationsto sharedocu-mentselectronically,to discussissueson-line,andto captureanddistributekeyinformationeasily.

Even so,companieswill fail totakeadvantageofgroupwareif theydon’t alsoprovideadequatetrain-ing andhumansupport.Indeed,groupwareimple-mentationstandsor falls on a company’sinforma-

“information guides”—

translators betweeninformation

130 HARVARDBUS~S5REVIEW Maxch-Ap~i11994