a generic change management decision model: - putting galliers
TRANSCRIPT
A Generic Change Management Decision Model: - Putting Galliers and
Sutherland’s ‘Stages Of Growth’ Model into a Broader Context
Dr. Cathal M. Brugha, University College Dublin, Ireland
ABSTRACT:
Adjustment decision making is shown to be based on having a balance between pairs
of alternatives, leading to two, four and eight kinds of activities, the latter which
corresponds to McKinsey’s Seven Ss.
Development decision making is shown to have three extroverted levels embedded
within three introverted levels, and to underpin Maslow’s hierarchy, Jung’s thinking
types and the Systems Development Life Cycle.
Change management is shown to correspond to a combination of development and
adjustment, and then is applied to Information Systems management. Advantages of
the approach include increasing decision maker understanding of the change process,
mapping expected change in any situation, and adding prescriptive suggestions.
Key words: Decision analysis, Information systems, Hierarchical planning, Nomology
PREFACE
This article is a development of a paper (Brugha, 1998d) given at the United
Kingdom Academy for Information Systems 1998 Conference at Lincoln University.
INTRODUCTION TO NOMOLOGY
The theory on which this article is based is contained in three foundational articles
(Brugha, 1998a, 1998b and 1998c) on the structure of qualitative decision-making,
adjustment decision-making, and development decision-making which provide the
basis for Nomology, the study of the decision making processes of the mind. This
science was named Nomology by Sir William Hamilton (1877, pp. 122-8) after the
Greek word for law. It is based on the fundamental premise that the choices of
intelligent beings tend to follow simple decision rules. Hamilton, who I would
describe as the Father of Nomology, was a philosopher. His work has been influential
in philosophy and sociology, but not in management to any great extent.
The above articles apply a decision science approach to Nomology and build a set
of principles and axioms that together constitute a system. These principles and
axioms were justified (Brugha, 1998a, 1998b and 1998c) using common sense and
then verified by reference to numerous qualitative categorisations found in
management. The system was constructed using principles and axioms because such
statements reflect truisms that hold in general. The broader statements are described
as principles, the more specific statements as axioms. While the rules that the mind
tends to follow are simple, the mind itself is far from simple. Consequently there are
many axioms. The departure from Hamilton’s philosophical approach is the use of a
scientific methodology. Usually axioms, proofs and principles are confined to
quantitative fields. An aim of this work on Nomology is to provide a basis for
combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to management science and, in
particular, to assist in the advancement of Information Systems management. A
practical outcome of the first papers was that well-known qualitatively-based
categorisations of activities such as Maslow’s (1987) hierarchy of needs, Jung’s
(1971) orienting functions and McKinsey’s 7 Ss (Waterman, 1982) were interpreted,
corrected and integrated into one system. Of particular interest is that the Systems
Development Life Cycle (SDLC) also fits into this system, but did not require
correction.
This article develops the theory of Nomology in the area of Change Management,
and introduces the idea of a Nomological Map, a two dimensional representation of
the stages of change which combines adjustment and development. For a full
introduction, and for clarification of references below to Nomology, the reader is
referred to the foundational articles. For the purpose of this article it is sufficient to
review the first few axioms.
Axiom 1: When people have a complex and not obviously structured decision-
making problem that cannot be solved using standard quantitative techniques they try
to analyse it by breaking it down into dimensions with which they are familiar by
means of asking simple questions.
Axiom 2: The natural way that problem-solvers structure their answers to such
questions is in terms of dichotomies, i.e. questions with either/or answers.
Axiom 3: The first dichotomy to be considered relates to the question what should
be done. If we are relatively unclear about what should be done then we will focus on
a planning aspect. If, on balance, we feel relatively clear about the direction that
should be taken we will focus on a putting aspect.
Axiom 4: Every system involving qualitative decision-making will have an inbuilt
tendency to try to find a balance between all the relevant dichotomies.
Axiom 5: The second dichotomy relates to the question where it should be done.
Should we be doing something in a particular place, for instance in some part of the
company or organisation, such as spending some money on a project or restructuring
an institution? Or should we be focusing more on the people involved, agreeing what
should be done or motivating the participants?
Axiom 6: Because the key questions asked are independent of each other so the
answers should find their own balance independently of the others.
Axiom 7: The activities based on combinations of dichotomies of different
dimensions have meaning and importance in the practice of decision-making.
A planning activity within place is described as a proposition. Planning amongst
people corresponds to developing a perception. Putting a solution into effect amongst
people is a pull activity. And push describes the activity of putting the remaining
aspects of the solution into place.
Figure 1: The four phases of activity
In summary, the basis of Nomology is that decision-makers tend to analyse
problems which involve qualitative distinctions by breaking them into activities, or
categories of behaviour, which are each important in themselves and follow natural
sequences. Qualitative decision making has two main types: adjustment and
development. The difference lies with the ownership of the decision. With
adjustment it is outside of the decision maker and the emphasis is on finding a balance
between various dichotomies. The fundamental generic set of adjustment activities is
shown in Figure 1, of which there are numerous examples in management in
particular. These are developed in Figure 2 with the inclusion of another dichotomy:
which focus should be used, relying on one’s position or on a more personal approach.
McKinsey’s 7 Ss (Waterman, 1982) is an example of an empirically found set of
adjustment activities that comes close to the generic set. (See discussion below.)
Figure 2: Principal adjustment activities
A central characteristic of adjustment is the need for balance between the different
categories of activity. This is reflected in Figure 3.
Figure 3: The cycle of principal activities
With development decision making the decision maker owns the process and
consequently cannot "pull" himself or herself to make the decision. Hence the pull
activity in Figure 1 disappears. The emphasis then is on building on levels.
Development decision making can be introverted or extroverted. The first introverted
level is the somatic, and refers to tangible things such as needs. Then there are
psychic (psychological) aspects such as preferences. Finally the pneumatic level
refers to values or higher goals. Hamilton (1877) introduced the terms cognition,
affect and conation as a triad of mental activities corresponding to the somatic,
psychic and pneumatic levels. Thus Nomology takes a broader view than cognition.
It incorporates feelings, but also includes the more neglected area of will
corresponding to the highest level of introverted commitment.
The extroverted dimension starts with technical or self-orientated issues. Then it
relates to other people, and finally it takes account of situations. The introverted and
the extroverted combine as two dimensions and lead to the construction of nine levels,
stages of activity and types of thinking of which an example, shown in Figure 4, is a
reconstruction of Maslow's (1987) hierarchy of needs combined with a reconstruction
of Jung’s (1971) orienting functions.
Extroverted Development Proposition Perception Push Technical Others Situational Self End-users Business Proposition Somatic Physical / Political / Economic / Have / Need Intuiting Recognising Believing Introverted Perception Psychic Social / Cultural / Emotional / Do / Prefer Sensing Learning Trusting Development Push Pneumatic Artistic / Religious / Mystical / Are / Value Experiencing Understanding Realising
Figure 4: Levels of developmental activities and types of thinking
The Systems Development Life Cycle (Whitten, Bentley and Barlow, 1989) fits
this nine phase structure. (See Table 1.) It has been the subject of controversy,
possibly because of varying interpretations about how strictly its stages should be
followed. The overlapping of stages is often forced by the situation, particularly
where there is interaction such as between the design of the new system and the
acquisition of hardware and software. In this author's experience it has been very
helpful to explain each stage by reference to the nomological structure described in
this article. The study phase, for example, emphasises the somatic, i.e. tangible and
measurable aspects that exist in the current system; it also focuses on the end-users.
Introverted Orientation
Extroverted Orientation
Technical Others Situational Somatic Survey project scope
and feasibility Study current system Define the end-user's
requirements Psychic Select a feasible solution
from candidate solutions Design the new system Acquire computer
hardware and software Pneumatic Construct the new
system Deliver the new system Maintain and improve
the system
Table 1: Systems Development Life Cycle activities
THE STRUCTURE OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Adjustment and development processes differ from each other on the key question
of who controls the decisions. Consequently, where change is considered at a deeper
level and combines both processes, being independent of each other they form an
orthogonal two dimensional space of categories of activities. The question that should
be answered before making a map of such a space is: which if any is the dominating
issue: adjustment or development? This is determined by the nature of the problem.
We will call the description of the categories of activities involved in a adjustment /
development combination a Nomological Map.
The best known and most frequently used Nomological Map is the Twelve Step
Programme of Alcoholics Anonymous (Anonymous Authors, 1955). Here the
dominating issue is adjustment. The alcoholic proposes an adjustment (Figure 1) that
he should make, forms a perception of himself and what the adjustment will entail,
allows himself to be pulled along to a new kind of behaviour, and finally pushes this
changed behaviour into effect in all aspects of his life. The success of this change
programme has led to its extension into the other areas: drugs, emotions, marriage
breakdown. Each adjustment phase is non-trivial. Consequently it is necessary for the
decision maker to take ownership of each phase, which is where the development
comes in. In the classic Twelve Step programme each adjustment phase has three
development stages. See Tyrrell (1982) for a full discussion including a list of the
twelve steps. The Twelve Step programme is used for changing people who perceive
themselves as trapped in dysfunctional behaviour. It can also be used to change
people to a higher level of spiritual activity in the world. The Spiritual Exercises of
St. Ignatius of Loyola is such an example. It follows the same pattern as the Twelve
Step programme and has been presented classically (Tyrrell, 1982; Fessard, 1956) as:
First Week: “To reform the deformed.”
Second Week: “To conform the reformed.”
Third Week: “To confirm the conformed.”
Fourth Week: “To transform the confirmed”
Such a representation could be applied to any adjustment process, depending on
how broadly one interpreted the idea of being “deformed”. Table 2 gives further
examples including from strategy (Johnsen, 1993), personal development (Chopra,
1994) and information systems (Woolfe, 1993).
Generic Strategy Chopra Jesuits IT Impact (Woolfe) Proposition Coalition Attention Reform Functional Automation Perception Mission Intention Conform Cross-Func. Integration Pull Vision Desire Confirm Process Automation Push Strategy Detachment Transform Process Transformation
Table 2: Examples of adjustment phases
The other form of the change process is development led. As described in Figure 4
and Table 1 the process works through three phases which behave as levels. The key
aspect is that the decision maker controls the process and builds on the platform of the
previous level or phase. Examples of these in Information Systems are: Analysis,
Design, and Implementation; Intelligence, Design, and Choice (Simon, 1977); and
Understand the Problem or Opportunity, Develop a Solution, and Implement a
Solution (O’Brien, 1993). The only commonly used development-led twelve step
programme that this author has come across was proposed by an woman in the United
States who dedicated her life to campaigning for peace (Peace Pilgrim, 1981). Her
twelve steps involved four preparations, four purifications, and four relinquishments.
The essential difference between this and the Jesuit model is the following. With her
twelve step programme the individual controls the process; the Jesuit model is carried
out as part of “directed retreat” which usually takes place before ordination to the
priesthood, i.e. the process is controlled by the retreat director. Thus it is closer to the
Eastern religious model of submitting oneself to the direction of a guru or teacher.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT
Most empirically found Nomological Maps occur as twelve step programmes such
as described above. It is clear however, from Figures 2 and 4 that the structure could
extend to eight adjustment stages and nine development stages. The closest to a full
Nomological Map that this author has seen is Galliers and Sutherland’s revised ‘stages
of growth’ model (Galliers & Sutherland, 1991; Galliers, 1991) from which Table 3
was extracted, which we will refer to as Galliers’ model. We will now consider the
implications of Nomology for their revised model, in particular for Table 3, and will
work using the content of the category descriptions in their article.
Galliers represents the “growth in IT maturity in an organisation” as having six
stages. It is obvious that these are development stages. Using the levels concept from
Figure 4 and the SDLC concept from Table 1 it is easy to match their six stages to a
growth pattern which involves a mixture of both the levels and stages concepts.
Broadly speaking their first stage, ‘Ad Hocracy’ matches Nomology’s physical or
survey stage: the emphasis is on the physical presence of IT . Stage Two, Starting
the Foundations, corresponds to the political or study stage: IT is starting to have
impact on the organisation; IT people are beginning to look for recognition and
influence. A particular benefit of matching the development stages to generic cycles is
that it can help increase our understanding of some of the results of research.
Research by Bob Galliers’ colleague Tatiana Chameeva when visiting Warwick some
years ago indicated that IS in Russia seemed to have not developed beyond the second
stage. A possible interpretation of this might be that it was due to a problem not with
IS as such, but more to do with the maturity of Russian business practices, i.e. their
emphasis on political issues of control and ownership within organisations and within
society generally. If this were the case it would affect how one should try to improve
the situation. It would imply that one should define the problem on a broader level of
improving business practices or of social construction on a new democracy.
With Stage Three, Centralised Dictatorship, the political battle has mainly been
won; this corresponds to the economic stage during which the argument is about the
definition of end-user requirements: what would be best for the organisation, who
would do it best, and how should it be done. In all cases economic type issues of
efficiency and effectiveness are paramount. Galliers’ Stage Four, Democratic
Dialectic and Co-operation, corresponds to three development stages. There are the
social, cultural and emotional levels, and the selection, design and acquisition stages
of the SDLC. This gives the first indicator of how their model could be extended, i.e.
by developing this psychic phase into its three stages. A useful avenue of exploration
would be to take on board the suggestion (Doukidis et al, 1994) that “the concept of
organisational culture should become central in the study of Information Systems
growth”. This cultural aspect of the IT/business relationship is also being explored in
Cranfield (Ward and Peppard, 1996). Their “troubled marriage” analogy suggests that
they are alluding to more than just business or organisational culture, but to the
panoply of psychological problems associated with this phase.
Galliers’ Stage Five, Entrepreneurial Opportunity, corresponds mainly to the
artistic level / construction stage, but also partly to the religious level / delivery stage.
Here the entrepreneurial, individualistic product champion behaves like an artist and
creatively constructs a new business opportunity. Delivering the benefits of IS to end
users is implied in both this and Galliers’ final stage; this idea of truly helping people
corresponds to the religious level. Galliers’ Stage Six, Integrated Harmonious
Relationships, matches to some extent the religious but mainly the mystical level
where everything works together as it should in some kind of harmony. Maintenance
and improvement continues at this final stage but without any major issues on the
agenda.
Galliers uses McKinsey’s Seven ‘Ss’. (Peters and Waterman, 1991; Waterman,
Peters and Phillips, 1980; Waterman, 1982) as a basis for describing in greater detail
what occurs within their six ‘stages of growth’. These are: style, skills, superordinate
goals, strategy, staff, structure and systems. The difference between the Nomological
adjustment terms (see Figures 2 and 3 above and Brugha, 1998b for a description of
the terms) and the Seven ‘Ss’ is that the McKinsey set focus on the characteristics of
the output of each activity. An output orientation focus would be particularly
appropriate for a consulting company whose work tends to be measured by its results
or outputs. The nomological adjustment terms focus on generic activities. Activities
are more helpful than outputs because they are less tied to a particular context, and
because they can provide indicators about what decision makers should do at a
particular stage.
The first of our activities, pounce, a sudden shift in direction of resources or
emphasis that has not been widely discussed or agreed, does not have a clearly
characterisable output, which may explain why the McKinsey set does not have a
corresponding term. The pounce activity is not included in Galliers’ model. We
would think that it should, that IT is changing so rapidly that management must use
their position to respond quickly to change and not always go through long planning
cycles.
McKinsey’s style corresponds to the different habits that companies form over a
long period, representing different ways of considering new propositions. Many
companies are successful partly because they are prepared to venture into new
territory. A consequence of this is the need to develop a procedure for dealing with
each new situation. In time these procedures become reused and can embody some of
the company's culture or style. In the context of evaluating an organisation’s growth
in IT maturity a company’s style is not as interesting as the procedures it uses to
evaluate new ideas, IT, software, business processes, etc. McKinsey’s skills criterion
corresponds with our price. One’s perception of the value of your product or service
will determine what you can buy in, or afford to keep. Similarly, if you were
considering employing someone new, or a take-over bid, the price you would pay
would be based on the what you expect to get. McKinsey deals more with internal
management issues and with people, with restructuring organisations and forming new
groupings of people. In IS we have a broader set of things that we value, i.e. with IT,
software, and business processes which form the basis for a ‘market’ which
determines IS-based competitive advantage. So, confining the concept to skills is too
narrow; it should encompass all the elements that give IS advantage. This criticism is
directed at the likely interpretation of the word, not at McKinsey’s current practices.
A conversation the author had with an executive of McKinsey & Company, Inc.
Ireland indicated that they use a much broader interpretation of the word skills
including broad corporate skills.
McKinsey's superordinate goals corresponds with our policy. In their framework
this criterion plays a larger and more central role than the other six. Again, this may
be due to the nature of much of McKinsey's work, i.e. assisting in policy making.
Their strategy corresponds with promotion, a pull activity, i.e. the process of getting
support for a new plan and its putting into effect. Sometimes strategy is associated
with a policy, i.e. a perception activity. Johnsen (1993), referred to above, uses it as a
fourth phase push activity, coming after mission and vision. A major contention of
this article is that there is a need to develop and use generic terms that are not bound
up with a particular culture. The McKinsey use of the word strategy is an example
where confusion could be caused by varying interpretations of the meanings of words.
By contrast, the value of the approach proposed here is that any word for a key activity
can be understood in a particular context by reference to the structural meaning of the
word. In this case, see Figure 2 above, policy means a planning activity with people
using a personal approach.
McKinsey’s staff criterion relates to the productivity activity, implying that
productivity in the McKinsey context is delivered mainly by the organisation’s staff.
In an I.S. context a good use of I.T. and systems could enhance productivity.
Structure matches pliability; the emphasis of pliability is on the need for an
organisation to be flexible in order to facilitate re-structuring. There may not be any
“correct” structure. Finally their systems corresponds to our practice. The four
putting activities in both systems match very easily, whereas there are obvious
imbalances on the planning side. See Brugha (1998b) for a more detailed review.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO GALLIERS’ MODEL
Galliers model is used for identifying how far an organisation has developed on
the road to IT maturity. In using McKinsey’s Seven ‘Ss’ the emphasis is on visible
outputs which are relevant to a consulting organisation. We would suggest that it
would help to change over to more generic adjustment activities. They would match
better the development activities and so combine better into a table. They would be
more easy to describe and identify in an organisation. The Seven ‘Ss’ also miss the
sense of a cycle in the adjustment activities (Figure 3). Galliers’ revised model (Table
3) has been revised below as a Nomological Map in Table 4 and presented using the
correct cyclical order of the adjustment activities, and also matching the stages of
growth to the hierarchy of development levels. In order to take account of the
difference between the Seven ‘Ss’ and the adjustment approaches, a new content has
been suggested for some of the cells using the descriptions in Galliers and Sutherland
(1991). Occasionally some speculative filling-in has been done, such as the inclusion
of pounce, the first adjustment activity. In Table 3 the cells read well across each row,
but not as well down each column. An attempt has been made to improve the
adjustment aspects so that they flow well in each column. Ideally each cell should
clearly reflect the combination of a development and an adjustment activity, but
should be grounded in the language of the particular system, in this case IS.
The titles of the columns in Table 4 need to be addressed. We suggested above
that generic adjustment names (pounce, procedure, etc.) should be used. We would
not for the development activities. Why? We would refer back to the basic
difference between adjustment and development (Brugha, 1998a). The difference is
based on ownership. With adjustment there is an outside owner of the decision
process, as it were a sense of the objective ‘right’ thing to do in any situation. This
creates a certain standardisation. With development the owner is ‘inside’ whether it
be a single decision maker or, as in this case, an organisation. There is a subjectivity
about developmental decision making which creates its own culture. Within
development decision making introverted development focuses on one’s self view,
and extroverted development focuses on one’s world view. The perceptions of
oneself in the world describe one’s culture (see Figure 4 above). Consequently we
would propose that the titles of the stages of development in Table 4 should fit the I.S.
culture. In the first row of Table 4 three alternatives have been included: Galliers’ six
titles, the hierarchy of levels, and the systems development life cycle (SDLC). The
latter two reflect extremes in the process; the levels are very distinct, long-term and
relate to personal development; the SDLC generally overlap a lot, are short term and
relate to I.S. Correct terms probably fall somewhere in between all three but probably
closer to Galliers’ set. Obviously the main changes would be in the extension of Stage
4 to three stages, and Stages 5 and 6 to three.
We finish with some suggestions about how a Nomological Map can be used.
We refer the reader to the section in Galliers and Sutherland (1991) on the application
of the revised model, and would propose to add some ideas based on the following
axioms which are slight modifications of ones in Brugha (1998b and c).
Axiom 15: The eight principal adjustment activities operate in a cycle when
solving a problem in management.
Axiom 22: Development decision making is comprised of extroverted stages
nested within introverted phases, making nine kinds of behaviour or stages of relating
to or dealing with a problem.
As we mentioned earlier we can interpret change as adjustment within
development or development within adjustment, or a combination of both. Where
there is a block to change we believe that one should focus on the reasons for that
block, and that it is most likely to be based in an ability to move between stages in
cycles of adjustment and development. These cycles are generic to human behaviour.
Such blocks are known to operate in many other areas of individual and group
behaviour. Consequently we should expect to see them in Information Systems. The
way I.S. has been presented in Galliers’ model would suggest that the primary focus is
on development of the organisation through the use of I.S. This may not be always the
case. In some situations the primary issue might more one of adjustment to the
introduction of IT. We conclude this section with the following new principle in
Nomology.
Principle 6: Nomological change is most effectively achieved when directed at
the appropriate level and stage within a nomological map.
CONCLUSION: TOWARDS A NEW APPROACH
In this article we have used a meta-modelling or ‘outside-in’ approach
(Nomology) to show how Galliers’ ‘stages of growth’ model for I.S. can be seen in a
broader context. This has two values. Firstly it gives a sense of comfort that one has
a complete picture or map, that nobody is likely to appear in the future and suggest
that that there are several more adjustment or development stages. Also it is helpful
for identifying where an organisation is on such a map, as has been done by Galliers
and his colleagues. Furthermore it helps to take such a mapping beyond the narrow
I.S. context into the broader issues of organisational and business / industry change.
The second value is the way one can operationalise such a map to provide advice
and assistance to an organisation to move onwards, possibly overcoming some blocks
to change. This is done by dealing with the behaviour associated with each stage, as it
is exhibited and manifested in the feelings of the organisation and its members. The
four primary feelings and responses are given in Figure 5 (from Brugha, 1998a).
Figure 5: The four primary feelings and responses
These correspond to the four main phases of adjustment activity. Thus for the
eight adjustment activities (Figure 2) policy making, for example, would exhibit a
feeling of anxiety in one’s personal activities with others. Likewise, there would be a
feeling of guilt if one was not as productive as was expected of someone in that
‘position’.
The nine development activities correspond to an introverted dimension with
corresponding feelings and levels (Figure 6) and an extroverted dimension with its
aspects (Figure 7) (Brugha, 1998c). Properly speaking the nomological map should be
viewed as a cube based on three dimensions which could be paraphrased most simply
as adjusting, convincing (extrovert) and committing (introvert). Usually development
activity is primarily about committing, and secondarily about convincing: one moves
through a process of convincing oneself about one’s commitment at some level. With
the kind of nomological map described in this paper, adjusting is about fine-tuning at
a third or lower level. Thus, when one is on a new level one becomes convinced
about its requirements, and then one adjusts to the new situation.
At any point in this cube one can distinguish the activity from the nature of the
feelings, particularly by where they are directed. Consequently there are three types of
fear. There is ‘committing fear’ with which the focus is on threats to or undermining
of oneself or one’s organisation. There is ‘convincing fear’ which would usually be
associated with considering some task. And there is ‘adjusting fear’ where one is
challenged by a new problem that has arisen and one is unsure about what direction to
take to deal with it.
Figure 6: The three general subjective (introverted) activities and corresponding primary
feelings and levels
Figure 7: Aspects of extroverted development
It is not necessary to take these latter two separately. The combination of the
feelings associated with convincing within committing levels have their own well
defined characteristics as stages of relating: Figure 8 (Brugha, 1998c). These can be
combined with the other descriptions (Figure 2). For example, an organisation can
behave like an individual and get stuck in inertia. This is essentially an emotional
problem in which they cannot trust themselves (or others) when judging what to do in
some situation. Obviously this occurs at the point in the SDLC where the major
expenditure decision occurs whether or not to make some major purchase. It also
applies to more general emotional commitments. In the context if I.S. development
the issue would be a commitment to real incorporation of I.S. in the main stream of
the organisation.
Orientations Self Others Situational
Somatic Confusion Denial Upset
Psychic Bargaining Depression Inertia
Pneumatic Jealousy Compliance Enthusiasm
Figure 8: Stages of relating
In summary the way one can operationalise a nomological map is by working on
an ‘inside-out’ basis, in contrast to the way one developed the model which was from
‘outside-in’. The feelings of the stake-holders and decision makers are reliable
indicators of where there are on the map, that is of what activities are currently taking
place.
In conclusion, a word about ‘hard’ approaches and ‘soft’ approaches. The
criticism of ‘soft’ approaches is that they are ‘soft-in-the-head’ approaches. We
would hope that this decision science based approach will be seen to be rigorous and
well founded, and yet soft in the sense of relating to the real human dynamic
underlying change management. The criticism of ‘hard’ approaches is that they are
excessively prescriptive and mechanistic. The analogy of the escalator has been used:
the idea that are steps to be taken and targets to be met regardless of what is
happening within the organisation. We would hope that this ‘inside-out’ approach
would help people to move away from rigid frameworks, while not abandoning the
idea of using frameworks as maps.
REFERENCES:
Anonymous Authors, (1955), Alcoholics Anonymous, 2nd Edition, New York:
Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc.
Brugha, C. (1998a), The structure of qualitative decision making, European Journal
of Operational Research, 104 No.1 p. 46-62.
Brugha, C. (1998b), The structure of adjustment decision making, European Journal
of Operational Research, 104 No.1 p. 63-76.
Brugha, C. (1998c), The structure of development decision making, European Journal
of Operational Research, 104 No.1 p. 77-92.
Chopra, D. (1998c), The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success, San Rafael, CA: Amber-
Allen Publishing / New World Library.
Doukidis, G.I., Mylonopoulos, N.A., and Lybereas, P. (1994), Information Systems
Planning within Medium Environments: a Critique of Information Systems Growth
Models, Int. Trans. Opl. Res., Vol. 1, No. 3 pp. 293-303.
Fessard, G. (1956), La Dialectique des Excercises spirituels de saint Ignace de
Loyola, vol. 1, pp. 40-41, Paris: Aubier.
Galliers, R.D. (1991), Strategic information systems planning: myths, reality and
guidelines for successful implementation, European Journal of Information Systems,
No.1 p. 55-64.
Galliers, R.D. and Sutherland, A.R. (1991), Information systems management and
strategy formulation: the ‘stages of growth’ model revisited, J. of Information
Systems, No.1 p. 89-114.
Hamilton, W. (1877), Lectures on Metaphysics, Vols. 1 and 2, 6th Ed., in Lectures on
Metaphysics and Logic, Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons.
Johnsen, E. (19993), Strategic Analysis and Synthesis - An Axiomatic Model,
Copenhagen Business School Management Research Institute.
Jung, C. (1971), Psychological Types, in The Collected Works of C. J. Jung Volume
6, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Maslow, A. (1971), The Farther Reaches of Human Nature, New York: Penguin.
Maslow, A. (1987), Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper & Row.
O’Brien, J.A. (1993), Management Information Systems: A Managerial End User
Perspective, Second Ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Peace Pilgrim (1981), Steps Toward Inner Peace, Friends of Peace Pilgrim, 43480
Cedar Avenue, Hemet, California 92544.
Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1991) Successful American Companies, Marketing
Classics - A Selection of Influential Articles, 7th. Ed., Ed. Ben Enis and Keith Cox,
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Simon, H. (1977), The New Science of Management Decisions, Rev. Ed. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Tyrrell, B.J. (1982), Christotherapy II, New York: Paulist Press.
Ward, J. and Peppard, J. (1996), Reconciling the IT/business relationship: a troubled
marriage in need of guidance, Strategic Journal of Information Systems, No.5 pp. 37-
65.
Waterman, R., Peters, T., and Phillips, J. (1980), Structure is not organisation,
Business Horizons (June).
Waterman, R. (1982), The seven elements of strategic fit, The Journal of Business
Strategy, Vol. 2, No.3 (Winter).
Whitten, J., Bentley, L., and Barlow, V. (1989), Systems Analysis and Design
Methods, 2nd Ed., Homewood, IL, IRWIN.
Woolfe, R. (1993), The Path To Strategic Alignment, Information Strategy: The
Executive’s Journal, (Winter), pp. 13-23.
Table 3: A revised ‘stages of growth’ model (Galliers & Sutherland, 1991, p. 111; Galliers, 1991, pp. 61 - 62)
Stage
Element 1 2 3 4 5 6
Strategy Acquisition of hardware, software, etc.
IT audit
Find out and meet user needs (reactive)
Top-down IS planning Integration, co-ordination & control
Environmental scanning & opportunity seeking
Maintain comparative strategic advantage
Monitor futures
Interactive planning
Structure None Label of IS
Often subordinate to accounting or finance
Data processing department
Centralised DP shop
End-users running free at Stage 1
Information centres
Library records, OA etc. in same unit
Information services
SBU coalition(s)
(many but separate)
Centrally co-ordinated coalitions (corporate & SBU views concurrently)
Systems Ad hoc unconnected
Operational
Multiple manual & IS
Uncoordinated
Concentration on financial systems
Little maintenance
Many applications
Many gaps
Overlapping systems
Centralised
Operational
Mainly financial systems
Many areas unsatisfied
Large backlog
Heavy maintenance load
Still mostly centralised
Uncontrolled end-user computing
Database systems
Decentralised approach with some controls, but mostly lack of co-ordination
Some DSS ad hoc
Integrated office technology systems
Decentralised systems but central control & co-ordination
Added value systems
(more marketing oriented)
More DSS-internal,
less ad hoc
Some strategic systems (using external data)
Lack of external & internal data integration
Integration of communication technologies with computing
Inter-organisational systems (suppler, customer, government links)
New IS-based products
External / internal data integration
Staff Programmers / contractors Systems analysts
DP Manager
IS planners
IS manager
Data Base Administrator
Data Administrator
Data analysts
Business analysts
Information Resources Manager
(Chief Information Officer)
Corporate / business / IS planners (one role)
IS Director /
member of board of directors
Style Unaware Don't bother me
(I'm too busy)
Abrogation / delegation Democratic dialectic Individualistic
(product champion)
Business team
Skills Technical (very low level), individual expertise
Systems development methodology
IS believes it knows
what the business needs
Project management
Organisational integration
IS knows how the business works
Users know how IS works (for their areas)
Business management (for IS staff)
IS Manager - member of senior executive team
Knowledgeable users in some IS areas
Entrepreneurial marketing skills
All senior management understand IS and its capabilities
Superordinate goals Obfuscation Confusion Senior management concern
DP defence
Co-operation Opportunistic
Entrepreneurial
Intrapreneurial
Interactive planning
Table 4: Galliers & Sutherland ‘stages of growth’ model represented as a Nomological Map of Adjustment within Development
Galliers 1. Ad Hocracy 2. Starting the Foundations 3. Centralised Dictatorship 4. Democratic Dialectic and Co-operation
5. Entrepreneurial Opportunity 6. Integrated Harmonious Relationships
Brugha Physical / Survey Political / Study Economic / Definition Social, Cultural, Emotional /
Selection, Design, Acquisition
Artistic, (Religious) /
Construction, (Delivery)
(Religious), Mystical /
(Delivery), Maintain & Improve
Pounce
Acquisition of hardware, software, etc.
Attempts to get IT people under control within some department
Attempts by senior management to rationalise DP
Head of IT chosen to work for and with rest of organisation
Opportunities given to innovators (product champions)
Senior management abandons hierarchical control
Procedure /
Style
Technical evaluations by IT personnel, none otherwise
IT people work in isolation from the rest of the organisation
Role confusion; abrogation / delegation of responsibility
Democratic dialectic ensures IT / rest of organisation co-operation
Senior managers develop strategic IS projects in teams
Interdependence, IT just one part of the business team
Price /
Skills
Technical (very low level), individual expertise
Isolated IT and software associated with the technical interests of individuals
Not perceived as of value to the business / organisation
IT people with systems development methodology skills are seen as providing a valuable link between IT and the organisation
IS believes it knows what the business needs
IS project managers impress senior management by delivering centrally instigated projects on time and within budget
Organisational integration
Emphasis on the mutual gains to be got from IS knowing how the business works, and users knowing how IS works (for their areas)
Business oriented managers (for IS staff) get appointed
Senior executive team includes IS Manager as a member
Knowledgeable IT users used to full potential
Entrepreneurial and marketing skills within selected IT personnel are important
IS valued as central to the success of the business
All senior management understand IS and its capabilities
Policy /
Superordinate Goals
IT people and business managers do not interfere with one another's concerns
IT function clearer about the contribution of technological developments to the organisation. Everyone else still confused
Senior management raise their concerns about value from IT investment. DP department under threat defends itself.
Co-operation leads to mutual understanding, good relationships and integrated policy making
Opportunistic
Entrepreneurial
Intrapreneurial
Interactive planning
Promotion /
Strategy
IT people seek to buy the latest hardware, software, etc. Business managers want very simple applications; tend to use external suppliers
IT function seeks to find out and meet user needs reactively. They use the IT audit to consolidate their activities and extend into new business areas
Top-down IS planning used to try to bring emphasis on serving real business needs into the DP department
Integration, co-ordination & control changes orientation of the DP department towards having more focus on the business
Environmental scanning & opportunity seeking
Maintain comparative strategic advantage
Monitor futures
Interactive planning
Productivity /
Staff
Use of programmers and contractors
Little contribution to business expected from IS
Introduction of DP Manager, Systems Analysts and some management control in order to ensure delivery matches end user requirements
DP tries to become IS & grows.
IS planners, IS manager, Data Base Administrator, Data Administrator, Data analysts
Business analysts in line departments work directly with IS
Information Resources Manager (Chief Information Officer)
Corporate / business / IS planners now combined into one role, providing strategic IS
IT / business cross-disciplinary
IS Director / member of board of directors
Pliability /
Structure
Traditional organisational systems unaffected by the presence of IT despite sporadic and uncoordinated purchase of IT by senior executives
Internal IT staff form into a structure, maybe with the label of IS, and probably subordinate to accounting or finance. Resistance by them to ‘outside’ interference
Powerful DP department, but still not part of ‘business’ decision making
End-users ignored by unfriendly centralised autocratic DP shop
Some decentralisation of DP department into Information Centres. Information systems provides integrated service. Senior role for (new) IS manager.
SBU coalition(s)
(many but separate within a federal structure)
Strategic coalitions between IT and business units are now centrally co-ordinated.
Corporate view based on individual SBU views
Practice /
Systems
Ad hoc unconnected
Operational
Multiple manual & IS
Uncoordinated
Concentration on financial systems
Little maintenance
Many applications
Many gaps
Overlapping systems
Centralised
Operational
Mainly financial systems
Many areas unsatisfied
Large backlog
Heavy maintenance load
Most systems centrally developed, installed, operated and controlled by the DP department
Uncontrolled end-user computing
Database systems
Decentralised approach with some controls, but mostly lack of co-ordination
Some DSS ad hoc
Integrated office technology systems
Decentralised systems but central control & co-ordination
Added value systems
(more marketing oriented)
More DSS-internal, less ad hoc
Some strategic systems (using external data)
Lack of external & internal data integration
Integration of communication technologies with computing
Inter-organisational systems (suppler, customer, government links)
New IS-based products
External / internal
data integration