Organizational Thinking
A place to put my writing and thinking about organizations, change, transformation, and the general puzzle of people living and working in groups. Chris Francovich, Ed.D coherence@adelphia.netMonday, April 25, 2005
A Framework of Effects of Information Systems on Organizations
A Framework of Effects of Information Systems on Organizations
(a paper I have been working on (off and on) for a while)
Language defining and describing information technology in general and specific applications in particular (e.g. the Windows interface) lead us to believe that we understand the use of information tools and that their application in work environments is relatively unproblematic.
The buzz words and hyperbole surrounding the ‘information’ revolution that we are in the middle of sometimes make if difficult to see what is right in front of us. The simple facts resulting from the introduction of distributed information systems into time constrained and space constrained work environments are important to consider.
First I want to define what a ‘distributed information system’ is. Simply stated it is a system of communication and data storage that is networked via personal computers and work stations. It is a system that, from a technical standpoint, is centrally coordinated, and from a social standpoint is not centrally coordinated. Distributed information systems are hybrid designs that blend two historically unconnected organizational phenomena.
This is important to consider. The engineering know-how and the technical expertise behind the rational development and implementation of information systems, software application, and physical infrastructure are consistent with traditional organizational theory and practice. The work groups and professional assumptions of engineers and designers effectively and rationally produce the information products that we use today. These systems are also the first to take advantage of the collaborative networked work systems of the future. The reason for this is mostly attributable to the strong professional identities that emerge from legitimized competence in a technical field as well as the relatively higher salaries that these information professionals command.
The general effect and lack of centralized coordination of advanced information technology and distributed systems on the wider social environment of organizations is another matter. Here we see many non-professional workers with relatively weak professional identities expected to assimilate and adapt to the new environment that is, on its face, a very technical and rational system that purports to describe and specify a workers function and process. Now, by itself, this state of affairs would be little different than that which obtained with the advent of Fredrick Taylor’s ‘scientific management’ technique that swept organizations over the last 80 years. Workers were forced to adapt to the model or they lost their jobs. The behaviors required for adaptation was generally of a routine sort and required relatively simple training.
The difference is two-fold. First the ‘system’ of scientific management was static. Once the job’s parameters were described and specified – and once the control systems were in place the process went on with only slight variations. The static nature of the system allowed for the hierarchical control of subsystems in an overall rational manner. The worker need only be trained. With dynamic systems workers must be encouraged to learn – that is – to absorb and assimilate new knowledge that translates to new behavior continuously!
Second, the control tools were not under the control of the workers. The rationalization of the technology was opaque or invisible to the average worker. It was only through the ‘special’ knowledge gained by the expert that the reasons why the control mechanisms worked and their relationship to corporate goals were made clear. Workers had only to behave – understanding was not required, in fact, it was generally discouraged.
That state of affairs is now changing. Our distributed information networks are dynamic and the ‘user’ is expected to understand the nature of the system, their place in it, and their function’s connection to overall corporate goals. We expect stock clerks and production workers to behave like professionals.
The problem here is that these workers generally do not have the psychological or behavioral skills to support this new work. What is generally happening instead is that the dynamic feedback effects of distributed information systems (especially e-mail) are creating a hyper-grapevine or hyper-informal system of communication and meaning making that is more often than not at odds with the goals and practices of the formal rational system designed by senior management and their professional process designers.
There is both a problem related to the generic description of the ‘technical system’ as opposed to the ‘social system’1 as well as a problem within the social system that relates to the creation and sustenance of a ‘professional’ identity. The loyalty and allegiance typically associated with professional identities is generally missing in the rank and file work force2.
The solution to this state of affairs is to be found in the design of the systems that workers are expected to adapt to. It is not enough to simply ‘train’ a worker to use a new system but to build into or design the system features that direct the user toward a fuller utilization and understanding of the meanings and purposes behind the design itself. This means a fuller participation in the design stage, an ongoing link with designers and decision makers in the beta testing stage, and a permanent place in the ongoing management of the system itself.
This is nowhere more evident in the information technology/work process interface that occurs in all ERP systems. Users of the IT are active participants in the processes that the IT models, constrains, and monitors.
Workers must be encouraged to collaborate, reflect, and inquire as a regular part of their job. This posture signals a radical change in most organizations. Prerequisites for this type of behavior minimally include a work culture that is noted for its open and honest communication climate and the development of trust across all levels of responsibility.
The difference in the whole systems approach advocated here (as opposed to the typical approach developed by functional specialists) is that the creation of new behaviors and attitudes is not to be found in training or exhortations toward open and honest communication but through the systematic development of structures and systems that afford open and honest communication. The most important aspect of this shift in focus is in the developing of a holistic and coherent design plan for the organization. Numerous models3 exist to aid in this design that also help direct strategy for the penetration of the model throughout the entire organization.
On a more specific level this requires (for example) a rethinking of document design and routing, archiving of data, and an opening up of organizational meetings. Probably of most importance, however, is the active participation of workers at all levels in the development of goals & objectives and the criteria through which they are both understood and measured.
This approach requires a fundamental shift in management’s approach and abilities related to leadership. Leadership cannot be conceived independent of the particular context it is being exercised in. Each organization is different and each individual will come to their position of influence in different ways and for different reasons. Effective leadership is not developed through coaching alone but also through the development of a sound theoretical framework within which the dynamics of the particular organization makes sense. This ‘sense’ making does not come out of a book or through the development of greater skill at manipulating others. It comes through experience and the honest and straight forward engagement of the organization as a whole.
1.Goguen, Joseph A. "Toward a Social, Ethical, Theory of Information." In Social Science, Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work: Beyond the Great Divide, edited by Geoffrey C. Bowker, Susan Leigh-Starr, William Turner and Gasser Les, 27-56. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1997.
2. Eraut, Michael. Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence. London: The Falmer Press, 1994.
3. Rummler, Geary, A. & Brache, Alan, P. Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995
(a paper I have been working on (off and on) for a while)
Language defining and describing information technology in general and specific applications in particular (e.g. the Windows interface) lead us to believe that we understand the use of information tools and that their application in work environments is relatively unproblematic.
The buzz words and hyperbole surrounding the ‘information’ revolution that we are in the middle of sometimes make if difficult to see what is right in front of us. The simple facts resulting from the introduction of distributed information systems into time constrained and space constrained work environments are important to consider.
First I want to define what a ‘distributed information system’ is. Simply stated it is a system of communication and data storage that is networked via personal computers and work stations. It is a system that, from a technical standpoint, is centrally coordinated, and from a social standpoint is not centrally coordinated. Distributed information systems are hybrid designs that blend two historically unconnected organizational phenomena.
This is important to consider. The engineering know-how and the technical expertise behind the rational development and implementation of information systems, software application, and physical infrastructure are consistent with traditional organizational theory and practice. The work groups and professional assumptions of engineers and designers effectively and rationally produce the information products that we use today. These systems are also the first to take advantage of the collaborative networked work systems of the future. The reason for this is mostly attributable to the strong professional identities that emerge from legitimized competence in a technical field as well as the relatively higher salaries that these information professionals command.
The general effect and lack of centralized coordination of advanced information technology and distributed systems on the wider social environment of organizations is another matter. Here we see many non-professional workers with relatively weak professional identities expected to assimilate and adapt to the new environment that is, on its face, a very technical and rational system that purports to describe and specify a workers function and process. Now, by itself, this state of affairs would be little different than that which obtained with the advent of Fredrick Taylor’s ‘scientific management’ technique that swept organizations over the last 80 years. Workers were forced to adapt to the model or they lost their jobs. The behaviors required for adaptation was generally of a routine sort and required relatively simple training.
The difference is two-fold. First the ‘system’ of scientific management was static. Once the job’s parameters were described and specified – and once the control systems were in place the process went on with only slight variations. The static nature of the system allowed for the hierarchical control of subsystems in an overall rational manner. The worker need only be trained. With dynamic systems workers must be encouraged to learn – that is – to absorb and assimilate new knowledge that translates to new behavior continuously!
Second, the control tools were not under the control of the workers. The rationalization of the technology was opaque or invisible to the average worker. It was only through the ‘special’ knowledge gained by the expert that the reasons why the control mechanisms worked and their relationship to corporate goals were made clear. Workers had only to behave – understanding was not required, in fact, it was generally discouraged.
That state of affairs is now changing. Our distributed information networks are dynamic and the ‘user’ is expected to understand the nature of the system, their place in it, and their function’s connection to overall corporate goals. We expect stock clerks and production workers to behave like professionals.
The problem here is that these workers generally do not have the psychological or behavioral skills to support this new work. What is generally happening instead is that the dynamic feedback effects of distributed information systems (especially e-mail) are creating a hyper-grapevine or hyper-informal system of communication and meaning making that is more often than not at odds with the goals and practices of the formal rational system designed by senior management and their professional process designers.
There is both a problem related to the generic description of the ‘technical system’ as opposed to the ‘social system’1 as well as a problem within the social system that relates to the creation and sustenance of a ‘professional’ identity. The loyalty and allegiance typically associated with professional identities is generally missing in the rank and file work force2.
The solution to this state of affairs is to be found in the design of the systems that workers are expected to adapt to. It is not enough to simply ‘train’ a worker to use a new system but to build into or design the system features that direct the user toward a fuller utilization and understanding of the meanings and purposes behind the design itself. This means a fuller participation in the design stage, an ongoing link with designers and decision makers in the beta testing stage, and a permanent place in the ongoing management of the system itself.
This is nowhere more evident in the information technology/work process interface that occurs in all ERP systems. Users of the IT are active participants in the processes that the IT models, constrains, and monitors.
Workers must be encouraged to collaborate, reflect, and inquire as a regular part of their job. This posture signals a radical change in most organizations. Prerequisites for this type of behavior minimally include a work culture that is noted for its open and honest communication climate and the development of trust across all levels of responsibility.
The difference in the whole systems approach advocated here (as opposed to the typical approach developed by functional specialists) is that the creation of new behaviors and attitudes is not to be found in training or exhortations toward open and honest communication but through the systematic development of structures and systems that afford open and honest communication. The most important aspect of this shift in focus is in the developing of a holistic and coherent design plan for the organization. Numerous models3 exist to aid in this design that also help direct strategy for the penetration of the model throughout the entire organization.
On a more specific level this requires (for example) a rethinking of document design and routing, archiving of data, and an opening up of organizational meetings. Probably of most importance, however, is the active participation of workers at all levels in the development of goals & objectives and the criteria through which they are both understood and measured.
This approach requires a fundamental shift in management’s approach and abilities related to leadership. Leadership cannot be conceived independent of the particular context it is being exercised in. Each organization is different and each individual will come to their position of influence in different ways and for different reasons. Effective leadership is not developed through coaching alone but also through the development of a sound theoretical framework within which the dynamics of the particular organization makes sense. This ‘sense’ making does not come out of a book or through the development of greater skill at manipulating others. It comes through experience and the honest and straight forward engagement of the organization as a whole.
1.Goguen, Joseph A. "Toward a Social, Ethical, Theory of Information." In Social Science, Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work: Beyond the Great Divide, edited by Geoffrey C. Bowker, Susan Leigh-Starr, William Turner and Gasser Les, 27-56. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1997.
2. Eraut, Michael. Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence. London: The Falmer Press, 1994.
3. Rummler, Geary, A. & Brache, Alan, P. Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995
Archives
