final assignment-mircea cojocaru - mis

8/3/2019 Final Assignment-Mircea Cojocaru - MIS

1/29

Mircea Cojocaru Monday 18th

of

MBA - Managing Information Systems January 2011

Prof.: Marius Mihailescu

How to implement IS in an organization

and how does it affect its Organizational Culture?

I have chosen this topic as I run a sales consulting company called High Mark

Business wich implements sales training programs, social media branding campaigns

and e-shops. I run this company over a year now and I have noticed that the main

challenge I face in implementing the products with success is the organizational culture

of the clients organizations as well as the capability to understand why does Is matter

to his organization. In order to further develop my skills in this area I will write this essay

as a personal study as well as a school project.

To have a better understanding on how IS can improve the efficiency of anorganization I would like to use Mark S. Silvers of why IS are implemented in an

organization.

He states that Information systems are implemented within an organization for

the purpose of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of that organization.

Capabilities of the information system and characteristics of the organization, its work

systems, its people, and its development and implementation methodologies together

determine the extent to which that purpose is achieved.

According to his definition IS should be introduced in every organization andused by everyone as it looks like the propose is met with ease improving theeffectiveness and efficiency of that organizationand it is in my opinion true, however Ihave noticed that in reality when implementing IS into a an organization an multitude ofchallenges arise and to sustain my opinion here is a statement by Gary Hamel, Author,Leading the Revolution

"Companies around the world have spent billions of dollars on informationtechnology, yet in most cases this investment has failed to produce any genuinecompetitive advantage and challenges business leaders to take a more prudent andpractical view of the role of IT in business success."

Why did he state this? Lets have a look at the history of IS

As illustrated by the Venn diagram, the history of information systems coincides

with the history of computer science that began long before the modern discipline of

computer science emerged in the twentieth century. Regarding the circulation of

information and ideas, numerous legacy information systems still exist today that are

continuously updated to promote ethnographic approaches, to ensure data integrity,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_integrityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_integrityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_science


2/29


of



and to improve the social effectiveness & efficiency of the whole process. In general,

information systems are focused upon processing information within organizations,

especially within business enterprises, and sharing the benefits with modern society.

Although Information Systems as a discipline has been evolving for over 30years now, the core focus or identity of IS research is still subject to debate. There are

two main views around this debate: a narrow view focusing on the IT artifact as the core

subject matter of IS research, and a broad view that focuses on the interplay between

social and technical aspects of IT that is embedded into a dynamic evolving context. A

third view provided by calling IS scholars to take a balanced attention for both the IT

artifact and its context.

Since information systems are an applied field, industry practitioners expect

information systems research to generate findings that are immediately applicable in

practice. However, that is not always the case. Often information systems researchersexplore behavioral issues in much more depth than practitioners would expect them to

do. This may render information systems research results difficult to understand, and

has led to criticism.

Here is another point of view within in regards to IS history, for a long timerelationship between information system functions and corporate strategy was not ofmuch interest to Top Management of firms. Information Systems were thought to besynonymous with corporate data processing and treated as some back-room operationin support of day-to-day mundane tasks (Rockart, 1979). In the 80s and 90s, however,there has been a growing realization of the need to make information systems ofstrategic importance to an organization.

I noticed from the articles presented before that the first step of implementing ISinto an organization begins with the identification of needs. In order to be effective,development of any type of computer-based system should be a response to need,whether at the transaction processing level or at the more complex information andsupport systems levels.

Such planning for information systems is much like strategic planning inmanagement. Objectives, priorities, and authorization for information systems projectsneed to be formalized.

The systems development plan should identify specific projects slated for the

future, priorities for each project and for resources, general procedures, and constraintsfor each application area.

The plan must be specific enough to enable understanding of each applicationand to know where it stands in the order of development. Also the plan should beflexible so that priorities can be adjusted if necessary.

King (King, 1995) in his recent article has argued that strategic capabilityarchitecture - a flexible and continuously improving infrastructure of organizationalcapabilities, is the primary basis for a company's sustainable competitive advantage.


3/29


of



He has emphasized the need for continuously updating and improving the strategiccapabilities architecture.

Next I would like to focus on strategic IS planning as we identified this as being

the first step of approach.

Here are a few characteristics of strategic Is Planning.

Main task: strategic/competitive advantage, linkage to business strategy.

Key objective: pursuing opportunities, integrating IS and business strategies

Direction from: executives/senior management and users, coalition of

users/management and information systems.

Main approach: entrepreneurial (user innovation), multiple (bottom-up

development, top down analysis, etc.) at the same time.

Strategic Information Systems Planning in the present SISP era is not an easy

task because such a process is deeply embedded in business processes. These

systems need to cater to the strategic demands of organizations, i.e., serving the

business goals and creating competitive advantage as well as meeting their data

processing and MIS needs.

The key point here is that organizations have to plan for information systems not

merely as tools for cutting costs but as means to adding value.

According to this Week article, The Technology Payoff (Business Week, June14, 1993) explains that throughout the 1980s US businesses invested a staggering $1

trillion in the information technology. This huge investment did not result in a

commensurate productivity gain - overall national productivity rose at a 1% annual rate

compared with nearly 5% in Japan.

As IT is used to support breakthrough ideas in business processes, essentially

supporting direct value adding activities instead of merely cost saving, it has resulted in

major productivity gains. In 1992, productivity rose nearly 3% and the corporate profits

went up sharply.

According to an MIT study quoted in the above article, the return on investment

in information systems averaged 54% for manufacturing and 68% for all businesses

surveyed.

This impact of information technology on re-defining, re-engineering businesses

is likely to continue and it is expected that information technology will play increasingly

important roles in future. For example, Pant, et al. (1994) point out that the emerging

vision of virtual corporations will become a reality only if it is rooted in new visionary

information technology. It is information technology alone which will carve multiple


4/29


of



virtual corporations simultaneously out of the same physical resources and adapt them

without having to change the actual organizations. Thus, it is obvious that information

technology has indeed come a long way in the SIS era, offering unprecedented

possibilities, which, if not cashed on, would turn into 4 unprecedented risks.

As Keen (1993) has morbidly but realistically pointed out that organizations not

planning for strategic information systems may fail to spot the business implications of

competitors use of information technology until it is too late for them to react. In

situations like this, when information technology changes the basics of competition in an

industry, 50% of the companies in that industry disappear within ten years.

As I have a better understanding of what IS planning does, I will focus my

attention now on how to plan? What to look out for?

I came across planning methodologies.

The task of strategic information systems planning is difficult and often time

organizations do not know how to do it. Strategic information systems planning is a

major change for organizations, from planning for information systems based on users

demands to those based on business strategy?

For example, the time horizon for planning changes from 1 year to 3 years or

more and development plans are driven by current and future business needs rather

than incremental user needs. Increase in the time horizon is a factor which results in

poor response from the top management to the strategic information systems planning

process as it is difficult to hold their attention for such a long period.Other questions associated with strategic information systems planning are

related to the scope of the planning study, the focus of the planning exercise

corporate organization vs. strategic business unit, number of studies and their

sequence, choosing a strategic information systems planning methodology or

developing one if none is suitable, targets of planning process and deliverables.

Because of the complexity of the strategic information systems planning process and

uniqueness of each organization, there is no one best way to tackle it.

In this next section I have searched few ways to tackle system planning and Ihave found a few Impact Methodologies.

First off I will present to you the Value chain of Michael Porter who is a leading

authority on company strategy and the competitiveness of nations and regions.

According to him, every firm is a collection of activities that are performed to

design, produce, market, deliver, and support its product. All these activities can be

represented using a value chain. Porter goes on to explain that information technology


5/29


of



is one of the major support activities for the value chain. Information systems

technology is particularly pervasive in the value chain, since every value activity creates

and uses information. The recent, rapid technological change in information systems is

having a profound impact on competition and competitive advantage because of the

pervasive role of information in the value chain. Change in the way office functions can

be performed is one of the most important types of technological trends occurring today

for many firms, though few are devoting substantial resources to it. A firm that can

discover a better technology for performing an activity than its competitors thus gains

competitive advantage (Porter, 1985). A typical value chain is summarized in the figure

PRIMARY ACTIVITIES

Inbound>logistics>Operations Outbound>logistics>Marketing and sales>Service $

SUPPORT ACTIVITIES Firm infrastructure

Human resources management

Technology development

Procurement

Porters Value Chain (Porter, 1985)

Once the value chain is charted, executives can rank order the steps in importance to

determine which departments are central to the strategic objectives of the organization.

Also, executives can then consider the interfaces between primary functions along the

chain of production, and between support activities and all of the primary functions.

This helps in identifying critical points of inter-departmental collaboration. Thus, value

chain analysis:

(a) Is a form of business activity analysis which decomposes an enterprise into its parts.

Information systems are derived from this analysis.

(b) Helps in devising information systems which increase the overall profit available to a

firm.

(c) Helps in identifying the potential for mutual business advantages of component

businesses, in the same or related industries, available from information interchange.

(d) Concentrates on value-adding business activities and is independent oforganizational structure.

Strengths: The main strength of value chain analysis is that it concentrates on

direct value adding activities of a firm and thus pitches information systems right into the

realm of value adding rather than cost cutting.

Weaknesses: Although a very useful and intuitively appealing, value chain

analysis suffers from a few weaknesses, namely,


6/29


of



(a) It only provides a higher level information model for a firm and fails to address the

developmental and implementation issues.

(b) Because of its focus on internal operations instead of data, it fails to define a data

structure for the firm.

(c) The basic concept of a value chain is difficult to apply to non-manufacturing

organizations where the product is not tangible and there are no obvious raw materials.

(d) It does not provide an automated support for carrying out analysis. Value chain

analysis, therefore, needs to be used in conjunction with some other methodology which

addresses the development and implementation issues and defines a data structure.

Since I have learned that the value chain on its own has a few drawbacks I

further researched other planning methodologies and came across the Critical Success

Factor Analysis.

Here is what the CSFs are aboutCritical success factors analysis can be considered to be both an impact as well

as an alignment methodology. Critical Success Factors (CSF) are used for interpreting

more clearly the objectives, tactics, and operational activities in terms of key information

needs of an organization and its managers and strengths and weaknesses of the

organizations existing systems.

Rockart (1979) defines critical success factors as being for any business the

limited number of areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful

competitive performance for the organization. As shown in figure 3, CSFs can exist at a

number of levels. They represent the few key areas where things must go right for the

business to flourish. Consequently, critical success factors are areas of activity thatshould receive constant and careful attention from management.

Rockart originally developed the CSF approach as a means to understanding the

information needs of CEOs. The approach has subsequently been applied to the

enterprise as a whole and has been extended into a broader planning methodology. It

has been made the basis of many consulting practices and has achieved major results

where it has been used well. CSFs can exist at a number of levels, i.e., industry,

organizational, business unit, or managers. CSFs at a lower level are derived from

those at the preceding higher level. The CSF approach introduces information

technology into the initial stages of the planning process and helps provide a realisticassessment of the ITs contribution to the organization.

Industry CSFs>Organizational CSFs>Business Unit or Function CSFs>Manager's CSFs

Strengths: CSF analysis provides a very powerful method for concentrating on

key information requirements of an organization, a business unit, or of a manager. This

allows the management to concentrate resources on developing information systems


7/29


of



around these requirements. Also, CSF analysis is easy to perform and can be carried

out with few resources.

Weaknesses:

(a) Although a useful and widely used technique, CSF analysis by itself is not enough -

it does not define a data architecture or provides automated support for analysis.

(b) To be of value, the CSF analysis should be easily and directly related back to the

objectives of the business unit under review. It has been the experience of the people

using this technique that generally it loses its value when used below the third level in

an organizational hierarchy (Ward, 1990, p.164).

(c) CSFs focus primarily on management control and thus tend to be internally focused

and analytical rather than creative (Ibid.).

(d) CSFs partly reflect a particular executives management style. Use of CSFs as an

aid in identifying systems, with the associated long lead-times for developing thesesystems, may lead to giving executive information that s/he does not regard as

important (Ibid.).

(e) CSFs do not draw attention to the value-added aspect of information systems.

While CSF analysis facilitates identification of information systems which meet the key

information needs of an organization/business unit, the value derived from these

systems is not assessed.

As I did not found a complete answer I decided to further research and run into

the Alignment Methodologiesso I will study this in order to have a better understanding.

1. Business Systems Planning (BSP): This methodology, developed by IBM, combines

top down planning with bottom up implementation. The methodology focuses on

business processes which in turn are derived from an organizations business mission,

objectives and goals. Business processes are analyzed to determine data needs and,

then, data classes. Similar data classes are combined to develop databases. The final

BSP plan describes an overall information systems architecture as well as installation

schedule of individual systems.

Barlow (1990) and Ledrer and Sethi (1988) have discussed strengths andweaknesses of BSP.

Strengths: Because BSP combines a top down business analysis approach with

a bottom up implementation strategy, it represents an integrated methodology. In its top

down strategy, BSP is similar to CSF method in that it develops an overall

understanding of business plans and supporting IS needs through joint discussions.


8/29


of



IBM being the vendor of this methodology, it has the advantage of being better known to

the top management than other methodologies.

Weaknesses: (a) BSP requires a firm commitment from the top management

and their substantial involvement.

(b) It requires a high degree of IT experience within the BSP planning team.10

(c) There is a problem of bridging the gap between top down planning and bottom up

implementation.

(d) It does not incorporate a software design methodology.

(e) Major weakness of BSP is the considerable time and effort required for its

successful implementation.

Here is another methodology called Strategic Systems Planning (SSP): Also

known as PRO planner and developed by Robert Holland, this methodology is similar to

BSP. A business functional model is defined by analyzing major functional areas of abusiness. A data architecture is derived from the business function model by combining

information requirements into generic data entities and subject databases. New

systems and their implementation schedules are derived from this architecture. This

architecture is then used to identify new systems and their implementation schedule.

Although steps in the SSP procedure are similar to those in the BSP, a major difference

between SSP and BSP is SSPs automated handling of the data collected during the

SISP process(Strategic Information Systems Plan). Software produces reports in a

wide range of formats and with various levels of detail. Affinity reports show the

frequencies of accesses to data and clustering reports give guidance for database

design. Users are guided through menus for on-line data collection and maintenance.The software also provides a data dictionary interface for sharing SSP data with an

existing data dictionary or other automated design tools.

Corporation also offers two other methodologies - one for guiding the information

system architecture and another for developing data structures for modules from the

SISP study. The strengths and weaknesses of BSP apply to SSP as well.

Define new systems and their Implementation schedule.

Analyze major functional areas

Develop a business functional model

Determine information requirements Combine information requirements into generic data entities and subject

databases

Derive IS architecture

Next I would like to present to you the Information Engineering (IE) methodology:

This methodology was developed by James Martin (1982) and provides techniques for


9/29


of



building enterprise, data and process models. These models combine to form a

comprehensive knowledge base which is used to create and maintain information

systems. Basic philosophy underlying this technique is the use of structured techniques

in all the tasks relating to planning, analysis, design and construction of enterprise wide

information systems. Such structured techniques are expected to result in well

integrated information systems. IE relies on an information systems pyramid for an

enterprise. The pyramid has three sides which represent the organizations data, the

activities the organization carries out using the data and the technology that is

employed in implementing information systems. IE views all three aspects of

information systems from a high-level, management oriented perspective at the top to a

fully detailed implementation at the bottom. The pyramid describes the four levels of

activities, namely, strategy, analysis, systems design and construction that involve data,

activities and technology.

Strategic overview of the information needed to run an enterprise as effectively aspossible

Fully normalized logical data model

Design of the records used by specific procedures

Application program view of the data

Strategic overview of how technology can be used to improve the enterprise

The processes needed to operate the enterprise, and how they integrate

Design of procedures for executing specified processes

Design of detailed program logic or input to a code generator

Strategy Analysis System Design

Data Construction

Activities

In addition to information engineering, Martin advocates the use of critical

success factors.

A major difference between IE and other methodologies is the automated tools provided

by IE to link its output to subsequent systems development efforts, and this is the major

strength of this methodology. Major weaknesses of IE have been identified as difficulty

in securing top management commitment, difficulty in finding the team leader meetingcriteria, too much user involvement and that the planning exercise takes long time.

Another method I have run into is called Method/1 (Arthur Anderson and Co.,

1982) is a layered approach for SISP. The top layer is the methodology itself, the

middle layer of techniques supports the methodology, and a bottom layer of tools

supports the techniques. Techniques supported by this methodology include data flow


10/29


of



diagramming, matrix analysis, functional decomposition, focus groups and Delphi

studies.

This methodology has five distinct objectives (Lederer and Gardiner, 1992):

To identify the organizations information needs.

To find new opportunities for using information to achieve competitive advantage.

To define an overall IT strategy for satisfying the organizations IT objectives.

To define data, applications, technology and organizational requirements for

supporting the overall IT strategy.

To define the activities needed to meet the above requirements and thereby

implement the overall IT strategy.

This methodology incorporates the value chain analysis in its approach towards

business and competitive assessment. The ten work segments of Method/1, their

actions and products are shown in table 3 (Lederer and Gardiner, 1992).Work Segment Actions Product

1. Scope

Definition and Organization

Determine key planning issues

Determine project scope

Organize project team

Obtain management commitment

Definition of key planning issues

Definition of project scope Schedule of key management checkpoints

Proposal letter

2. Business and Competitive

Assessment

Study business and competitive environment

Identify competitive information opportunities

Define strategic information needs

Opportunities to use information competitively

Definition of priority-setting criteria3. Present State Assessment Document present systems

Assess effectiveness of information services

Review functional operations

Assess present operations

Evaluate competitive IT position

Evaluation of organizations


11/29


of



IT position

Description of present and planned application characteristics

Assessment of present operations, architecture, and

capacity4. Information Technology

Opportunities

Analyze IT trends

Determine information needs

Define major IT objectives

Identify opportunities for improvement

Summary of needs of each major functional department

Description of opportunities for improvement

Summary of IT objectives and trends

5. Information Technology

Strategies

Develop high-level IT strategies

Define conceptual architecture of required information systems

Identify high-priority projects

IT strategies

Description of high-priority projects

6. Organization Plan Develop change management approach

Develop human resources plan

Organization plan7. Data and Applications Plan Define data and applications

Define data and maintenance approaches

Develop data and application plan

Data and application plan

8. Technology Plan Develop technical architecture

Develop technology plan

Technology plan

9. Information Action Plan Develop migration plan

Prepare information action plan Approve and initiate information action plan

Information action plan

10. Product Definition and

Planning

Initiate project definition

Define requirements


12/29


of



Develop a conceptual design

Obtain management advisory committee approval

Project definition report

Before I further research I will focus now on the Key Issues in SISP Methodologies:

Information systems managers when they attempt to implement one of three

alignment methodologies, BSP, SSP or IE. Barlow (1990) has also examined the SISP

methodologies and has provided some insights into their structure and implementation

problems.

Bergeron et al. (1991) examined the issue of application of two impact

methodologies, Porters Value Chain Analysis andWisemans Strategic Thrust

Methodology. These studies and the insights developed by us form the basis of this

section which provides a critique of the existing methodologies.

The detailed list of problems in implementing SISP methodologies has beenclassified by Lederer and Sethi as resource, planning process, or output related

problem associated with the three methodologies.

According to this survey, the most severe problem identified by IS managers is

the failure to secure top management commitment for carrying out the final plan. The

second most severe problem identified is the requirement for substantial further analysis

after the completion of the IS plan. Both these problems are related to the output of the

planning process.

Besides these top two, six of the next top eight problems are related to the

resources required to carry out the strategic information systems planning (success of

the plan depends on the team leader, difficulty in finding the team leader meeting the

criteria specified in the study, methodology lacking computer support, planning exercise

taking long time, etc.).

Among the top ten problems encountered while implementing one of these

methodologies (or, even while implementing an in-house methodology), three are

common: difficulty in obtaining top management commitment for implementing the

outputs, the requirement of substantial further analysis and difficulty in finding a good

team leader.

The results of this survey suggest that IS planners are not particularly satisfied

with their methodologies. If the objective of the SISP exercise is to align IS objectiveswith business goals, then detailed, lengthy and complex SISP may be of limited value.

Where the objective is to use IT to impact a business strategy, these methodologies

may not generate useful ideas for that purpose.

Bergeron et al. (1990), however, point out that the value chain analysis and

Wisemans strategic methodologies do help in achieving that purpose. Barlow (1990)


13/29


of



suggests that the large number of methodologies that have been developed can often

add confusion rather than clarity to the (IS)planning process.

Salient points which emerge from this and the preceding sections are:

Although strategic information systems planning is a major concern, most

organizations find it difficult to undertake it. Besides their lack of experience with

SISP, absence of a comprehensive, structured, easy to use methodology may

also be a main reason for it. It is possible that the advances in Information

Technology and their applicability in organizations has outpaced all formal

methodologies evolved in the 70s and 80s or evolved in 90s as marginally

modified versions of the earlier methodologies, which were largely dominated by

IBMs Business Systems Planning.

Further, as pointed out by Barlow (1990) also, the overall success of integrated

business/technology architecture depends upon the organizational structure, the

level of IT experience within the company and the availability of informationresources. Since these factors differ between firms, there may not be a single

best way to view IT planning.

A comprehensive methodology for SISP will need to incorporate both the impact

and the align views. Method/1 incorporates Value Chain Analysis. IE supports

Critical Success Factors Analysis. Even BSP is now incorporating CSFs.

Since it is difficult to find a team leader who meets the criteria specified in SISP

methodologies, it is proposed that detailed guidelines on how to perform a SISP

study by way of an automated tool will help. Such a tool will make the task more

structured and less leader-critical. Some such tools for strategic business

planning have been developed by the Search Technology, Inc. and are reported

in Rouse and Howard (1993).

A conceptual framework for SISP is necessary both from a theory building

perspective as also providing a basis for undertaking SISP. The latter is expected to

answer the following questions frequently encountered by the practitioners in this area:

What is involved in SISP and how to go about doing it?

How to link the products of SISP to systems analysis, design and implementation

in a timely manner?

Is one SISP methodology more suitable than another in a given context? How to evaluate alternative information systems plans?

The theory building perspective of SISP is expected to contribute to research in

this area, which, being in its infancy has been largely anecdotal.


14/29


of



Based on the literature in this area and a careful study of the current

methodologies, certain generic steps in a typical SISP formulation can be identified.

These are:

Study Internal Business Environment. This is a prerequisite to determining

the business IS needs. The internal business environment is comprised of

mission of the organization, its objectives, strategies and plans, business

activities, the organizational environment, core competencies, its critical

success factors and the internal value chain.

Study external business environment. This helps an organization focus

attention on the forces and pressure groups it encounters. These external

forces exert a very strong influence on the business strategy of an

organization. Factors to be considered here are the industry that the

organization is in and that industrys critical success factors, competitiveposition of the organization in the industry, relationship with major buyers and

suppliers.

Study internal IS/IT environment. This is mainly comprised of the current and

planned applications portfolio that supports the business. Other aspects to be

considered here are the present

IS organization, skills and attitudes of people in the organization, IT

environment and the IS/IT budgets.

External IS/IT Environment. This consists of scanning the environment for

available and emerging technologies and their business implications. An

important aspect of this is to understand how the competitors are using

information technology.

Strategic Information Systems Planning essentially provides a high level

business/information model for an organization. Conceptually, the entire process of

planning down to its detailed implementation can be looked at as occurring at three

levels.All the generic tasks associated with SISP are performed at the top level and the

information flows at that level are diagrammed. The outflows from the top level flow

vertically into the next Analysis and Design level. This level has its own generic flows,

associated with the analysis and design cycle of the systems development life cycle.

The vertical flows do two things:

(a) Provide constraints on the flows and entities at this level and


15/29


of



(b) Create entities which link the analysis and design level to the upper, planning

level.

Similarly, outputs from the analysis and design level create and constraint flows

at the implementation level. It is hypothesized that different combinations of flows and

entities at the top level will result in different information architecture for the

organization. For example, a different set of critical success factors will give rise to

different constraints and hence different architecture.

Similarly, if entities are changed at the top level, a different flow and hence a

different architecture will emerge. For example, if the planning level model uses the

internal value chain as against the external value chain - the resulting vertical flows, and

hence the architecture, will be different. This should provide an organization the

capability to

(a) Experiment with different architecture.

(b) To modify its current architecture in response to high level changes withouthaving to redo the entire systems development life cycle.

It is also hypothesized that the above model will provide an organization a third

alternative to develop applications based on either a comprehensive systems

development life cycle or rapid prototyping. Either after the completion of the top level

model or even during its completion, some critical vertical flows can be identified - for

example those based on the critical success factors, or some competitive

advantage/threat. Applications can then quickly be developed, tested and implemented

along those critical/competitive flows.

The rest of the model can await completion and subsequent implementationwhile the organizational resources are concentrated on developing applications

demanded by the exigencies of the current situation.

Developing a Theoretical Perspective, Hsu and Rattner (1993) developed a theory of

information integration in CIM environment.

This theory developed a concept of parallel paradigm of integration which asserts

that by the sharing of information between processes interdependent decisions are

pooled into concurrent processes.

This parallel formulation of processes is a major change from the traditional

sequential formulation of processes. In traditional CIM formulation, functions aresupported by isolated decision spaces.

That is, only the information pertaining to that decision is handled as a variable.

Other information is inherited as a constraint. For example the part cycle inherits the

information processed by the production cycle as a constraint which in turn is

constrained by the information processed at the product development cycle. One can

look at the degree of non-integration as the number of constraints a decision space


16/29


of



inherits. The extent to which these constraints can be converted into variables

represents the degree of integration. For instance, the design function in sequential

formulation will constraint the process planning function. Because of the isolation of

decision spaces, a mere interfacing between these two functions will require repeated

iterations. Integration of the functions, will, however, provide for real-time interaction

between these functions.

From an enterprise point of view, parameterized decision spaces are fragmented

and their existence prevents the associated set of functions from operating as an

information-processing and decision-making whole, since results reflect a sequence of

discrete decisions. Hsu and Rattners work suggests that while such functions operate

as though they are using local variables, they are in fact tightly coupled (through,

perhaps second or third order relationships) to many other apparently local variables.

Another distinction which needs to be made here is that between local and global

optimality. Since constraints from both higher levels and from peer-level are inherited asconstraints, they are not evaluated in local decisions. Therefore, it is possible that while

an enterprise may try to achieve local optimality, it may prevent global optimality of

enterprise performance.

In contrast, manufacturing functions can be organized in parallel; i.e., to explicitly

share unified decision spaces. The extent to which parameters and constraints are

converted to decision variables is a measure of integration strength among sub-

functions. The implication is that by explicitly managing global decision variables as

such, each local function supports global performance objectives. The impact of

optimizing global performance is ultimately measurable from the firms production

function.The paradigm is rooted in the premise that local productivity is largely irrelevant

and that an enterprise achieves competitive success if it achieves optimal global

productivity. Formulating tasks in parallel is a means towards that end.

The paradigm alters the decision-making hierarchy so that peer functions operate in

parallel. Thus, all decisions are made in support of explicit global requirements. In this

way, decisions contribute to synergy. There is no longer a need for explicit flows among

peer functions since such iterations (sequential iterations) have been replaced by a

comprehensive decision space.

The three level approach to information systems development can also bebrought into the ambit of the above theoretical framework. The decisions at the

planning level constraint those at the analysis level and from there down to the design

level. The task here is to convert these constraints into variables which can be

manipulated as the need arises. For example, the critical success factors at the

planning level constraint the analysis, design and implementation of a particular

application.


17/29


of



In a parallel formulation this constraint would become a variable - that is not only

do CSFs determine applications to support them but the CSFs set itself will be altered

depending on the realities of an enterprises information system. This provides a new

perspective on SISP - the19 bottom up planning - where the planning level variables (at

least some of them) are manipulated by the state of the IS in the organization. Where

these variables cannot be manipulated, for example those reflecting the external

environment (competitors, technology available, etc.), this bottom-up approach will

explicitly acknowledge those limitations and hopefully initiate a corrective action. It is

not that organizations are not doing some or all of the things suggested here. The

parallel formulation of information systems development tasks is expected to formalize

and structure these steps and provide automated support for carrying them out in an

interactive manner.

This parallel formulation of IS development tasks will also help organizations tide

over a major limitation of SISP methodologies: planning is unnecessarily detailed andtakes a long time.

When the entire hierarchy of tasks related to developing down to implementing a

plan is modeled in terms of its explicit information flows and data and knowledge

classes, information systems can be developed quickly along the preferred paths (flows)

without having to develop the entire system.

Systems so developed will be different from those developed in an ad hoc

manner in response to exigencies of the situation - these systems will be integrated with

the overall system at the logical level as they are developed out of the shared

information, data and knowledge spaces. This concept has its parallel in Physics.

Holographic images are made up of a multitude of images where each individual imageis derived from and contains the big image. In the same way, individual systems will be

derived from the overall system and will in turn holistically support the overall system.

To conclude this theoretical perspective, it offers a viable alternative to the SISP

process.

Although not as well defined as in the CIM scenario, there is a structure to the

SISP process. The literature and the analysis of existing methodologies, as mentioned

earlier, does point to certain generic tasks and information flows required for SISP. This

will provide the starting point for building a framework for a parallel formulation of SISP

tasks.

As a conclusion Information-based enterprises must be planned in an integrated

way whereby all stages of the life cycle are engaged to bring about agility, quality, and

productivity. This integration is similar in nature to the integration of product life cycle

for an enterprise. The existing methodologies, however, tend to support information

planning as an island separated from the wealth of the enterprises information


18/29


of



resources. A needed new approach would tap into these resources which capture and

characterize the enterprise to allow for integration of the planning stage with information

systems development stages and support a shortened and adaptive cycle. This paper

is a small first step towards a big task: developing a framework and a theory for

strategic information systems planning. The need for such a framework is established

by the existing problems in implementing SISP methodologies and also by what these

methodologies themselves lack. A possible approach to building a framework is traced

to the theoretical work of Hsu and Rattner (1993) and that is where the thrust of this line

of research is expected to lie.

As I now have a better understanding of the implementation procces and have

noticed many ways in which I can improve the way I implement my programs to the

clients I have decided to look for the opposite part of the ecuation and find out the

benefits that IS brings to an organization. This will allow me to better create demand formy product and identify the clients need before the competition does.

I will start with my domain and move forward as more questions arize, below you

will find a few domains that I like but I shure that this presents just a fraction of the total

market which benefits from IS.

Marketing

Advanced information systems and packages can be used to help the marketing

department analyze their customer base, for both current and potential

consumers, and improve the "quality" of customers. Advertising and promotions

can be aimed directly at the key potential consumer rather than spending money

broadly promoting to any potential consumer and increase consumer retention as

well. As markets are getting more defined, this is an easy way to find and target

the best potential market and increase market share in the business' key

demographics.

Customer Service

As information is streamlined, data becomes more accessible, and companies

become more organized, it allows company representatives the ability to quickly

and effectively respond to customer inquiries, comments, and process returns.As customer service is more efficient and effective, customer loyalty will be

gained and positive public relations will be spread. This is a significant way to

increase market share

Globalization

By utilizing advanced and more efficient information systems tools, companies

are able to expand internationally into new markets, thus increasing market share


19/29


of



on a global scale. It may take awhile to gain an audience in a new country or

within a new demographic, but even making a new market aware of the product

is increasing the brand awareness and eventually, hopefully, the market share.

Not all products will succeed or take hold in certain markets, but the Internet and

advanced information systems tools allows businesses to take risks without

having to invest as much money into the infrastructure that a brick and mortar

store would cost.

The next main challenge I face is about organizational culture as I have noticed

that most of the time here is where the main reason for failing lies. Therefore I will run

through the organizational Culture and the way to best change it.Organizational culture

Definition by Kenneth Desson,(Pentor Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada) thepersonality of an organization that guides how employees think and act on the job is

central to the values, beliefs, inter-personal behaviors, and attitudes to stakeholders that

determine how the organization does its job. Culture is a key factor not only in achieving

organizational goals, but in attracting and keeping desirable employees, creating a

positive public image, and building respectful relationships with stakeholders.

In the next part lets explore what organizational culture is, why it is important,

and how to change an established culture so that it is better aligned with changes in

organizational objectives and work practices.

1. What is organizational culture?

In his seminal 1992 work entitled Organizational Culture and Leadership, Edgar

H. Schein, Professor Emeritus in the Sloan School of Management at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, offered a definition of what he called an

empirically based abstraction.

Organizational culture, he said, is a pattern of shared basic assumptions that

was learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal

integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to betaught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to

those problems Schein, Edgar H., Organizational Culture and Leadership, Third

Edition, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, 2004.2

The definition applies to organizations of virtually every kind families, social

clubs, work groups, companies, governments, and nations. Over time, each such group
http://www.ehow.com/internet/http://www.ehow.com/internet/


20/29


of



develops a set of tacit and explicit understandings, beliefs and practices. It might not be

easy to explain exactly what the cultural characteristics of a particular group are, but all

of its members understand and conform instinctively to its expectations. As abstract as

the concept of organizational culture may be, it is often grounded in clearly identifiable

characteristics. These may include:A shared understanding of the organizations

mission.

This may be evident in such things as: a formal charter or mission statement;

explicit strategies, goals and principles; and staff beliefs and assumptions about why the

organization does what it does. Values that guide decision-making and activity at all

levels in the organization.

For instance, it may be evident in the organizations policies, public statements

and activities that it values:

Safety the physical safety of staff and the public

Security the protection of information and other assets

Integrity the reputation of the organization for honesty, high ethical standards,

reliable outputs, and impeccable methodologies

Continuous improvement with mistakes seen as learning opportunities

Continuous learning the creation of rich opportunities for staff to gain new

knowledge and skills

The focus and management style of senior officers.

This is often evident in statements that senior managers make about

organizational priorities, the management style that they embrace (e.g. Top-down?

Consultative?), and staff perceptions about senior managements main preoccupations

and commitment to walking the talk.

How employees think of their relationships with management, one-another,

partner organizations, and clients.

Are relationships predominantly adversarial, competitive, distrustful, collegial and

mutually supportive, etc.?

How an organization conducts its day-to-day business

Much can be learned about the culture of an organization by looking at such

things as: its routine processes (e.g. does it routinely audit process effectiveness?); how

are decisions made; how much responsibility is given to each layer / staff member in


21/29


of



the organization; and, how flexible the organization is in dealing with tasks that are out

of the ordinary.

When you put these things together, a distinctive organizational personality

may become apparent even to casual observers. Organizations develop reputations forbeing, for example, bureaucratic or entrepreneurial, innovative or tradition bound,

focused or diffuse in their interests, transparent or secretive, responsible and reliable or

adventuresome and risky.

Certain elements of an organization's culture may not be readily apparent,

including beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions. Before embarking on a major

change initiative, it is important to identify, as much as possible, these aspects of culture

by means of structured survey and assessment activities. A number of effective tools

have been developed for this purpose.

Within the overall culture of an organization, there are often a number of distinct

sub-cultures based on such things as professional discipline, unit functions,

geographical locations, or employee age and experience. If a change initiative is

directed primarily to one such unit or subgroup, it is important to understand its unique

cultural characteristics.

2. Why does culture matter?

As Edgar Schein and other management theorists have observed, organizational

culture may be an abstraction, but it has powerful effects on the way organizations think

and behave. Indeed, having the right kind of culture a culture that is appropriate to

the kind of enterprise in which an organization is engaged is widely acknowledged to

be among the most important determinants of how effective or successful the

organization will be.

Why is that so?

Culture is important because it shapes:

What the organization considers to be right decisions

What employees consider to be appropriate behaviors and how they interact witheach other within the organization

How individuals, work groups and the organization as a whole deal with work

assigned to them

The speed and efficiency with which things get done

The organizations capacity for and receptiveness to change the attitudes of

outside stakeholders to the organization


22/29


of



In short, an organizations culture can be supportive of or hinder the

implementation of new initiatives and the achievement of its overall goals.

An example of such a tool is the Contextual Assessment of Organizational

Culture (CAOC) developed by Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn at the University ofMichigans Ross School of Business.4

3. Why might cultural change be necessary?

When an organization is faced by a changing marketplace or regulatory

environment, or has identified the need for a shift in strategic direction, the

implementation of a new technology, or the introduction of new processes, the

established culture may impede progress unless it, too, is changed. For that reason,

the success of major organizational change initiatives are almost always dependent on

internal cultural change.

What are some of the main reasons that a regulatory organization such as the

IAEA might consider embarking on a cultural change initiative? The reasons might

include:

Circumstances change for instance, the organization finds that it is

encountering more instances of false or incomplete declarations that require a different

attitude when conducting inspections;

Stakeholder expectations change for instance, the organization encounters

greater skepticism about its conclusions, requiring a culture that places even greateremphasis on the quality of its processes while permitting more transparency about how

it performs its functions;

The demographics of the organization change for instance, the proportion of

young people in the work force grows, or a larger percentage of new employees arrive

with limited background in nuclear physics, requiring new approaches to knowledge

transfer;

The organizations objectives change requiring new skills, processes and

attitudes to meet the objectives;

New technologies are deployed requiring new cultural attitudes to realize the

benefits;

Ingrained attitudes are producing negative outcomesWhat our division does is

our businesslet other divisions get on with their own business; It is better to hoard

information than share it; Performance isntrewarded; I have an advanced degree,


23/29


of



therefore I already know everything I need to know. Attitudes such as these are

indicative of a culture in need of change.

In situations such as those identified above, a formal change management

process may help to increase the probability of success, maximize employee and keystakeholder involvement and buy-in at appropriate times, and increase the change

competencies in the organization.

4. What is involved in changing organizational culture?

An organizations culture comes into being over a period of time. A newly formed

group has no culture. Only a mature organization has had time for a set of widely

shared understandings and behaviors to take root. It follows that an established culture

cannot be changed overnight. It has also been said that organizational culture cannot

be changed directly. What can be changed 5 are processes and behaviors. Asemployees are informed, trained and equipped to do things in new ways, the culture in

which they are embedded changes as a matter of course.

Successful organizational change initiatives are usually implemented over a 3-5

year time span in an intensive, incremental process that begins simply with awareness

of the need for change and eventually leads to internalization of new patterns of thinking

and doing.

The Change Implementation Process

Throughout an organizational change process like the one modeled above, on-going communications to reinforce key themes and messages, and thorough training to

impart new skills, are essential to success.

The Task of Managing Change

Managing change entails planning, implementing, monitoring and reporting on a

series of tasks and activities required to achieve change objectives. REACTIVE

organizational change is a response to catalysts or triggers that lie outside the

organizations control (e.g. new legislation, shifting political direction, seminal events,

etc.).Change of this kind must often take place in a short time span, without much

opportunity for systematic planning and implementation.

PROACTIVE organizational change is planned and managed within frameworks

and methodologies. The goal of these initiatives is to implement new business


24/29


of



processes and systems to improve organizational performance. The extent and timing

of the change is within the organizations control.

Proactive change management is almost always propelled by an organizations

senior leadership, with assistance from advisors who have specialized expertise inchange management strategies and frameworks. Effective organizational change is not

a one approach fits all affair. The full commitment of a leader or leaders who are

widely respected within the organization and who understand the organizations

purpose, goals, and business programs is essential to successful organizational

change. Change leaders assist all levels within the organization implement

organizational and personal change.

Supporting expertise is often provided by management consultants who

specialize in applied behavioral science. These resources understand and can adapt

and apply models, methods and techniques, tools, skills, and other forms of knowledgeto assist organizations implement change.

They draw, as required, on resources in fields such as psychology, sociology,

business administration, economics, industrial engineering, systems engineering, and

the study of human and organizational behavior. Together, these resources support

change initiative by developing the necessary strategies, methodologies and

implementation frameworks.

Developing a Change Strategy

The planning framework modeled in Figure 2 underlines the importance of

pursuing organizational change by means of coordinated activities of different kinds (left

column) in a phased, step-by-step approach (top row).

Change Planning Framework

Activities typical of the first implementation stage include:

Executive briefings on the initiative

Change readiness assessment

Change leadership plan Communication plan

Orientation session for project team members

Training plan for team members

Change leadership training

Team building sessions

Leadership alignment


25/29


of



Creativity workshop

During the Design and Build phases of implementation, typical activities include:

Visioning session(s) with key stakeholders Stakeholder consultation

Change readiness assessment (performance against plan)

Leadership coaching & action planning

Team renewal (team-building)

Identification & enrolment of change agents within the organization

Face-to-face communications with larger stakeholder community

Identification of impacts of new technology

& processes on individuals

Change agent training Employee Workshops

During the Deliver and Operate phases, activities include:

Workforce transition support including related HR policies & programs - training-

performance evaluation- compensation- reward and recognition- career

development and planning

Skills gap analysis

End-user non-technical training

5. Why do culture change initiatives often fail?

The unfortunate truth is that many organizational change initiatives fail to achieve

their objectives. This is often due to the inherent resistance of organizational culture to

change.

Arguments often offered as to why change should not take place include: Its

best to stick to our tried-and-true approaches; This is the wrong time to be attempting

a major change;

Weredifferent; Our people will instinctively do the right thing; and many others.

However, there may be other reasons for the failure of an organizational changeinitiative. These include:

Competing change initiatives (i.e. too many overlapping change initiatives)9

Lack of management ownership (managers may be as heavily invested in the

existing culture as other staff members)

Differences of opinion and approach among senior leaders


26/29


of



Unrealistic time lines

Failure to embed the desired changes in work processes and performance

standards

Failure to consult, engage and communicate Failure to measure progress

Lack of recognition and rewards for progress toward change - and punishments

for failure to live up to expectations.

It is essential to anticipate, and respond effectively to, these kinds of impediments to

change.

6. What is needed to succeed?

Clearly, change leaders must commit themselves to well-reasoned, carefully

planned, vigorous change management activities including opportunities for staffmembers to practice new approaches in controlled settings if behavior, and eventually

culture, are to be changed.

Essentials for success include:

Have a good plan to work from

Have compelling reasons for the specified change

Demonstrate strong change leadership and unswerving commitment at the

senior management level

Insist on middle-management ownership of the process Implement a program of ongoing communication

Provide access to expert resources and on-going support for change at the staff

level

Measure and continually adjust

After this study I am a strong believer that Getting the culture right is challenging but

well worth the rewards of success

As a conclusion to my study I feel that from now on I will be able to implement IS

with a higher rate of success as I now understand the stages that need to be followedand the CSF that must be evaluated in order to obtain a smooth and effective

implementation without shaking the organizational culture and placing employees into

situations where they will react defensive.


27/29


of



References

1. Barlow, J.F., Putting Information Systems Planning Methodologies IntoPerspective, Journal

of Systems Management, July, 1990, pp. 6-9.

2. Battaglia, Greg, Strategic Information Planning: A Corporate Necessity, Journal of

Systems

Management, February 1991, pp. 23-26.

3. Beath, C.M., and Orlikowski, W., The Contradictory Structure of Systems

DevelopmentMethodologies: Deconstructing the IS-User Relationship in Information Engineering,

Information

Systems Research, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1994, pp. 350-377.

4. Hsu, C. and Rattner, L., Information Modeling, Journal of Productions and

Operations

Management, 1(3), 1993.

5. Keen, P.G.W., Information Technology and the Measurement Difference: A FusionMap, IBM

Systems Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1993.

6. King, William R., " Creating A Strategic Capabilities Architectur," Information Systems

Management," v.12 (Winter '95) p. 67-9.

7. Ledrer, Albert L., and Sethi, Vijay, Guidelines for Strategic Information Planning,

The Journal

of Business Strategy, November/December 1991, pp. 38-43.

8. Ledrer, Albert L., and Sethi, Vijay, Pitfalls in Planning, Datamation, June 1, 1989,

pp. 59-62.

9. Ledrer, Albert L., and Sethi, Vijay, The Implementation of Strategic Information

Systems


28/29


of



Planning Methodologies, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 3, September 1988, pp. 445-460.

10. Lederer, Albert L., and Gardiner, Veronica, Strategic Information Systems Planning

- The

Method/1 Approach, Information Systems Management, Summer, 1992.

11. Ledrer, AL and Mendelow, AL, Information Resource Planning: Overcoming

Difficulties in

Identifying Top Managements Objectives, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1987, pp.

389-399.

12. Martin, James, Strategic Information Planning Methodologies, Second Edition,

Prentice Hall,

1989.

13. Martin, James, Strategic Data-Planning Methodologies, Prentice Hall, 1982.

14. McFarlan, F.W., Information Technology Changes the Way You Compete, Harvard

Business

Review, May-June 1984, pp. 98-105.

15. Pant, S., Rattner, L., and Hsu, C., "Manufacturing Information Integration Using a

Reference

Model," International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 14, No..

11, 1994.

16. Parvi, F., and Ang, J., " A Study of the Strategic Planning Practices in Singapore,"

Information

& Management, Vol. 28, Number 1, January, 1995, pp 33-47.

17. Porter, M.E., Competitive Advantage, Free Press, 1984.

18. Porter, M.E. and Millar, V.E., How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage,Harvard

Business Review, July-August, 1985.

19. Rattner, L., Information Requirements for Integrated Manufacturing Planning and

Control: A


29/29


of



Theoretical Model, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1990.21

20. Rockart, J.F., Chief Executives Define Their Own Information Needs, Harvard

Business

Review, March-April 1979.

21. Rouse, W.B., and Howard, C.W., Software Tools For Supporting Planning,

Industrial

Engineering, June, 1993, pp. 51-53.

22. The Technology Payoff, Feature Article, Business Week, June 14, 1993, pp. 57

68.

23. Vitale, M., Ives, B. and Beath, C., Identifying Strategic Information Systems, Proc.7th Intl

Conf. Inf. Sys., San Diego, December 1986, pp. 265-276.

24. Ward, John, Griffiths, Pat and Whitmore, Paul, Strategic Planning for Information

Systems,

John Wiley & Sons, 1990

final assignment-mircea cojocaru - mis

Documents