System would need minor adjustments before implementation, since it complies with customers' information needs to a degree well above expectations. SIGER ...
Development and Implementation of a R&D Management Information System Suzana Maria Valle Lima1, Antônio Maria Gomes de Castro1, José Ruy Porto de Carvalho2
1
DPD (Department of Research and Development), Embrapa, SAIN Parque Rural, Ed. Sede, 70770-990 Brasília DF Brazil 2 CNPTIA (National Center of Computer Sciences Applied to Agriculture) , Embrapa, Campus da UNICAMP, Rua Andre Tosello s/n, 13083-970 Campinas SP Brazil
Abstract - Institutional planning, in its broader conceptualization, is the strongest tool to guarantee an enhanced influence by objective factors on management. Planning, nevertheless, is the application of knowledge, based on systematized information, which may be structured in management information systems (MIS). This paper focuses the development, validation and implementation of such a MIS at EMBRAPA (Brazilian Corporation for Agricultural Research). The MIS described here (named SIGER) is linked to the conceptual framework for planning, monitoring and evaluation adopted by the EMBRAPA’s R&D Planning System (SEP). SIGER structure has as its elements the programming instruments and articulation mechanisms which comprise the EMBRAPA Planning System; it also takes into account the information needs of its customers, the managers in charge of these instruments and mechanisms. Methodological stages of SIGER development, as well as SIGER main features and outputs are described. SIGER validation demonstrated that the System would need minor adjustments before implementation, since it complies with customers' information needs to a degree well above expectations. SIGER implementation (strategies and management), as well as its problems sources, identification and solution are discussed. Lessons learned throughout the whole process of design, automatization, validation and implementation are described.
I. INTRODUCTION Institutional management depends on several objective factors - among which planning plays an important role - and also on subjective factors which are characterized by low levels of predictability and control. The art and science of management seeks to reduce the influence of subjective factors and to increase that of objective factors. Improvement of planning instruments, among which one may distinguish information systematization, has been the way used by managers to accomplish this goal. To systematize information is to organize it through a coherent, systematic and rational way, so it may flow through the organization’s several management levels, supporting the process of decision making [4]. Such concepts apply to any type of institution, but are particularly suitable for those aiming at technological innovation and the diffusion of knowledge, such as research and development (R&D) organizations. Their management represents a big challenge, due to their own nature, human resources and tradition in scientific thinking. Institutional planning, in its broader conceptualization, is the strongest tool to guarantee an enhanced influence by objective factors on management. Planning may be applied in its strategic, tactical or operational dimensions, each one with
its specific planning, monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) functions. Planning, nevertheless, is the application of knowledge, based on systematized information, which can be structured in management information systems (MIS). This paper describes the development and implementation of such a system at the Brazilian Corporation for Agricultural Research (EMBRAPA). Both development and implementation followed the methodological and conceptual guidelines described elsewhere [4].
II. EARLY EXPERIENCES WITH MIS AT EMBRAPA Along its history EMBRAPA has developed several management information systems, aiming to increase its efficiency and effectiveness. Some of these systems were developed in the 1980s, without a clear linkage to EMBRAPA’s planning system. Others were initiated almost at the same time as the strategic planning process [7]. In any case, all these systems may be characterized, retrospectively, as reflecting general understanding of planning, MIS, MIS importance in management, as well as other beliefs – some of them from the organizational culture itself – and technical conditions for their development and implementation, at their time. These systems presented several weaknesses: a) Inconsistency between the systems and information needs of their clients; b) Internal information fragmentation due to systems management by different EMBRAPA subunits; c) Low linkage with EMBRAPA’s strategy; d) Emphasis on planning at the expense of monitoring and evaluation, and not considering the process of PM&E as an integrated whole; e) No possibility of communication between the systems, although they represented different levels of aggregation of a unique information basis (subprojects and projects). As direct consequences of the characteristics described above, the systems’ products (information for decision making) presented low quality and reliability, and were hardly useful for most customers and users. These customers, in consequence, viewed the systems as merely bureaucratic rituals, with no connection to research reality and needs. As a result of the strategic planning process carried out in the 90´s, EMBRAPA developed and implemented an up-todate research planning system, called EMBRAPA Planning System (SEP). The new planning system brought up several innovations into the R&D management in EMBRAPA, leading to an increased demand for innovative R&D management information systems.
SINSEP (SEP Information System, a SIGER predecessor) was a direct response for this new demand. However, this system was developed in a very short time, in reaction to the urge posed by the implementation of the new planning system. Because of that, SINSEP initially displayed several design misconceptions, leading to a low acceptance by its users. These limitations imposed several constraints on the SEP management, persuading the R&D management staff to further MIS development. Therefore, a team effort was set to develop a new MIS replacement to SINSEP: this new system was called SIGER (EMBRAPA Management Information System). The conceptualization and main features of SIGER will be the main subject of the next section.
III. SIGER: EMBRAPA MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM A. SIGER Conceptual Framework: Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation (PM&E) at EMBRAPA: Planning is guided by EMBRAPA’s mission, and an applied research approach, of which the essence is the search for solutions of agricultural problems faced by its customers and users. Some important principles – R&D approach1 and systems approach2 – also guide planning at Embrapa. “Evaluation is the systematic exam of (a) situation, in a given moment in time, aiming at a value judgement about the efficiency and effectiveness of the evaluation object” [11]. The evaluation may have as objectives, according to the moment of its application, analysis related to the design and formulation of plans, programs and projects (initial or exante evaluation, referred to also as appraisal), the monitoring of plans, programs or projects implementation, and the evaluation of their effectiveness and efficiency (final evaluation or ex-post evaluation) [13]. In the case of SIGER, planning, monitoring and evaluation subsystems are drawn to support three main objectives: a) to increase the chances of success of R&D planned actions, through the identification of inconsistencies between planning and execution of plans, programs and projects, and the ready determination of adjustment actions; SIGER includes corrections in projects and subprojects, in case they are not being executed in an efficient way. 1
R&D approach: This principle determines that research is customer oriented; it is seen as a recurrent process, aiming to generate solutions through the application of the scientific method, but finishing only when a totally developed and validated product is ready to be delivered to users and customers. 2 Systems Approach: This principle guided the concepts of research projects and subprojects, as well as, in general, planning, monitoring and evaluation functions. It implies that R&D projects and subprojects are built as alternative solutions to high priority problems of users and customers of the research, which often demand the work of multidisciplinary research teams to be solved.
b) to guarantee the efficiency and effectiveness of EMBRAPA, through systematic measurement of performance indicators related to EMBRAPA´s plans, programs and projects; c) to guarantee the integration between strategic and operational planning, facilitating the identification of deviations in the directions established for the EMBRAPA´s centers and for EMBRAPA as a whole. The conceptual framework for planning, monitoring and evaluation [5] adopted by the EMBRAPA Planning System (SEP) is the base of SIGER. SIGER structure has as its elements the programming instruments and articulation mechanisms which comprise the EMBRAPA Planning System; it also takes into account the information needs of the managers in charge of these instruments and mechanisms [8]. The planning instruments and their respective managers in SIGER are: a) The Strategic Plans (of EMBRAPA and of its Research Centers), which are managed by EMBRAPA´s Board of Directors and by the Heads of centers, respectively. b) The Annual Working Plan: a synthesis of annual programming comprising projects and subprojects of each Research Center, managed by the Heads of these centers, with the help of Internal Technical Committees. c) The Program: defines the institutional polices in certain themes or national priority issues and is managed by Technical Program Commissions. d) The Project: describes actions to solve customers’ and users’ priority problems; these problems have a broad and complex nature. Projects to solve them are generally multidisciplinary and involve more than one institution or research center. A leader manages a project. e) The Subproject: an auxiliary instrument for organizing the necessary activities to solve problems of a more specific nature, embedded within the problem aimed at by the project. It generally requires only one discipline and has local reach. A subproject coordinator manages it. There is a hierarchy among the different levels of decision making (and between the several planning instruments). This hierarchy determines that there should be consistency among strategic plans and tactical plans, and between these and the operational plans. It is considered that the lower levels are requirements for the upper levels of planning. This characteristic is made operational, in MISs, through the increasing aggregation of information, the higher the decision level. Thus, most of the necessary information for the different subgroups of customers can be obtained through the aggregation of information originating in the lower levels of decision.
Fig. 1 presents the architecture described above. The entry of information in the system occurs, mostly, in its base (subprojects of R&D) and proceeds to the planning
instrument immediately above. flow in the opposite direction.
The system includes also a
PLANNING, MONITORING AND EVALUATION EMBRAPA Strategic Plan
Research centre Strategic Plan
Research centre Head
Annual Working Plan
Research centre Head
Board of Directors
Research Program
Research project
Project Leader
Research subproject
Subproject coordinator
Program Technical Comission
Fig. 1: Embrapa´s Management Information System: architecture and flow. (Shadowed boxes indicate managers of planning figures depicted in transparent boxes).
B. System Attributes, Main Features and Outputs The selection of attributes of the system must be made to guide the conceptual design, instruments creation, and software implementation and in order to minimize, from the first moment, resistance and dissatisfaction from customers and users. Table 1 presents some MIS attributes, based on
Bolivar et al. [1]. As one can see, some attributes are more important for design and others for system implementation. SIGER incorporates all these attributes as guiding principles for its design and implementation. All these attributes were adopted as guidelines for SIGER development and implementation.
TABLE 1: ATTRIBUTES IMPORTANCE FOR MIS DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION. SOURCE: [1] ATTRIBUTES Linkage to PM&E Customer driven approach Evaluative approach Decentralization Integration with other systems Flexibility and simplicity Informatization
The main features of the system are: a) attendance to the information needs of its clients; b) total coverage of planning, monitoring and evaluation functions, considered as an integrated whole; c) perfect integration between planning, monitoring and evaluation functions; between planning instruments at the strategic, tactical and operational levels; and with other EMBRAPA Systems; d) total consistency
DESIGN High High Medium Medium High High High
IMPLEMENTATION Medium High High High Medium High High
between SIGER and EMBRAPA Planning System conceptual frameworks; e) total automation of the PM&E process as a whole, facilitating and speeding the process management; f) emphasis on feedback flows in the system, allowing all users to benefit from entered information; g) written and on-line help focusing heavily on PM&E concepts, rather than on computation details; h) input information classified through a
number of “menus”; only occasionally are textual answers required; I) operation through networks and availability of a less sophisticated version, for those clients who cannot interact with the system through these networks. Table 2 presents instances of effectiveness and efficiency information, which will be available from SIGER’s evaluation instruments. These examples demonstrate the
usefulness of these types of information for management, at different levels. SIGER facilities for output of aggregated information allows for improved links among operational, tactical and strategic planning levels in EMBRAPA. Managers in these levels have a strong source of information. An improved level of R&D management can be expected and therefore, greater internal efficiency and institutional effectiveness.
TABLE 2 INSTANCES OF INFORMATION RELATED TO EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS, AVAILABLE IN SIGER, GENERATED BY EX-POST EVALUATION. SOURCE: [3] AVAILABLE INFORMATION 1. General statistics 2. Listing and quantity of projects, subprojects, by product, discipline, geographic region, ecosystem, Program and Research Center 3. Obtained versus planned end results 4. Time for reaching end results (actual versus planned) 5. Data base of technologies, products and services generated by projects and subprojects, by Program, by Research Center 6. Publications and other forms of diffusion 7. Technical quality of execution and results 8. Contribution of obtained results to institutional sustainability 9. Contribution of obtained results to knowledge advancement 10. Social, economic and environmental impacts from obtained results 11. Global performance evaluation
D. Siger´s Development SIGER development was made through the following methodological stages [10]: 1. Assessment of information needs of customers and users: SIGER has as its customers all the people in charge of management at EMBRAPA: subprojects’ coordinators, project leaders, Research Centers’ Technical Internal Committees, Programs’ Technical Commissions, Heads of research centers, and Board of Directors of EMBRAPA. These managers constitute the internal customers' of SIGER group. The system was also designed to take into account the information needs of external customers, that is, institutions (or their representatives) to which EMBRAPA should render accounts: national and international financial institutions, non-governmental organizations, the National Congress,
Project/ Subproject X
2.
INSTRUMENT Program Annual Working Plan X X X X
Strategic Plan X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
press organs and the society as a whole. Thus, all these institutions constitute a second group of customers – external to the system. The information needs of the two groups of customers (internal and external) of SIGER were assessed [11]. Table 3 presents examples of the different needs of information of several management levels (and of external customers). Definition of limits and objectives of the system: SIGER focus on EMBRAPA’s planning, monitoring and evaluation of the R&D activity, embedding the following subsystems: 1) R&D planning, monitoring and evaluation; 2) a database of customers and their demands; 3) a database of technologies, services and generated products; 4) a subsystem for impact evaluation of research.
TABLE 3 EXAMPLES OF INFORMATION NEEDS OF SIGER CUSTOMERS. SOURCE: [11].
CUSTOMER´S CATEGORIES
INFORMATION NEEDS (EXAMPLES)
Society as a whole (political power, press organs, agribusiness, etc.)
a) Research results aiming specific solutions
Coordination, control and account organizations
a) R&D impact on agribusiness
b) Environmental impact of technologies developed b) Costs and benefits of investment in research
National and International R&D donors
a) Social and economic impacts of technologies developed b) Technologies, products and services commercialized
EMBRAPA Board of Directors
a) Programs and projects contribution to mission accomplishment b) Research centers Annual Working Plan Evaluation
Program Managers
a) Relationship between Program demands and projects supply b) Social, economic and environmental impacts of projects within the Program
Annual Working Plan Managers
a) Research center annual investment in R&D b) Research center budget and financial flow
Project Leaders
a)Project Management Quality b) Project financial execution
3.
Definition of performance indicators, flow and access rules: This stage corresponds to the detailed conceptual design of a MIS, and includes identifying component variables of SIGER, performance indicators, and to set SIGER´S flow and access rules. Component variables, in SIGER, were selected taking into account the R&D model and EMBRAPA’s Planning
System; as a general rule, the use of free entry of information was avoided. Performance indicators: variables that refer to planning, monitoring and evaluation properties which may be used to measure the performance in the execution of each SIGER instrument (Table 4).
TABLE 4 INDICATORS ADOPTED IN SIGER Indicator
Description
Planning performance indicators
Correspond to the definition of end results of a project or subproject, when supposedly a finished product is ready to be delivered to clients.
Planning effort indicators
Indicators of the efforts which should be made to accomplish the end results defined through performance indicators, related to methods used in the project: research, validation, diffusion, marketing, team training.
Initial (“ex-ante”) evaluation indicators
Can be categorized as follows: linkages to planning, linkages to demands, technical and managerial feasibility, and expected impacts. They are used as criteria to decide if a project is (or is not) to be approved and executed.
Monitoring indicators
These indicators may be categorized as follows: management quality, observance of deadlines and costs; and evaluation of obtained partial results
Final (“ex-post”) evaluation indicators:
These indicators relate to: management quality, observance of deadlines and costs, technical quality of results, their contribution for knowledge advancement, and their social, economic, environmental and institutional impacts of the results
Information flow: In SIGER, a detailed and thorough design of the information flow, of the transition rules among instrument states (in elaboration, elaborated, under analysis, in execution, etc.) and of the life cycle of the several instruments allow the automated control of the whole process of PM&E, greatly facilitating and speeding the management of this process.
Reading and writing access rules: Beyond information flow definition, there were also established rules for reading and writing access by different customers and users. Since the system operates through networks (Internet or satellite communication) there is a strong concern related to information security.
4.
5.
6.
System informatization: In this stage, several decisions about architecture and communication were made. SIGER uses a hardware architecture [12] consisting of an integrated network of workstations (or PCs) connected to each other and to common peripherals; in this case, all levels of customers may have up-to-date information available at any time, and updating is made by a single data entry. The interfaces of the system were developed in Delphi, using a Windows platform and presenting all the editing facilities available in most well known word processors [9]. Verification and validation of the system: This is the final stage of system development, before its implementation starts, and consists basically of: a) a verification test to check the consistency of its computerized version with the conceptual design of the system; b) a validation test of the computerized corrected version with a sample of customers, in conditions of real use. These two tests – verification and validation demonstrated that the System could enter into operation with small adjustments. They also showed that SIGER behaved as expected, when the system was evaluated in the light of the attributes with which it was drawn (see above), that SIGER characteristics were well received by its clientele, and that the conceptual design was its main strength [3]. Evaluation of compliance with attributes, in the validation, reached means varying between 6.4 and 8.7 in a 10 points scale. System implementation: This is a critical stage in any system history. For this reason, it will be described in more detail in a following section.
IV. PUTTING SIGER TO USE: IMPLEMENTATION Conceptualization of SIGER was a long-term process, not only due to the characteristics of the environment in which the system performs, but also because of its own degree of innovativeness. This environment comprises about 500 R&D projects and 2000 sub-projects, 17 national R&D programs, 56 R&D centers and institutes and the professional activities of about 4000 agricultural researchers widespread in Brazil (2000 from EMBRAPA and 2000 from Brazilian Agricultural Research System). If conceptualizing a system to cover the information needs of such a number of clients is a tremendous complex task, one can visualize the astonishing amount of energy demanded to actually delivering the system to its users. Therefore a great deal of strategy was needed to successfully replace the MIS which was in use, SINSEP, by SIGER. A strategy was set for implementing SIGER. The main strategic points were: 1 The use of a massive internal campaign for pointing out the advantages of using SIGER, at the individual, managerial and institutional levels.
2
3
4 5
A large training process, covering researchers, R&D managers and computer support staff, comprising the PM&E concepts and the computer aspects that each one should be able to cope with, in order to fully operate SIGER. Production of support material, in written and visual format, aiming at information needs of users, including a thorough and detailed User Manual, Bulletins and Videos, filled with the necessary information for using the system. Revision of the R&D management structure aiming at full use of SIGER potentialities in R&D management; Diagnostics of a computing support system in the R&D centers, bringing up-to-date the available hardware, software and personal skills demanded by the implementation of SIGER.
In the formulation of the implementation strategy, several assumptions and requirements were considered. The operation of the system should take into account: a) the current rules in the planning system (SEP); b) the established EMBRAPA planning calendar; c) the existence of internal and external R&D partners; d) the direct use of the system by its users (since previous MISs had been managed by third parties); e) the smallest degree of disruption of the ongoing R&D planning; f) the diversity of computers skills in EMBRAPA; g) the different aptitudes and existing capacities in planning and R&D management. Several methodologies were used in the implementation, aiming at motivation, conceptual and instrumental training in system use and user assistance. The main methodologies used were: a) training of instructors, users and computer science technicians in system use and operation; b) project leaders' training in projects management; c) SIGER´s homepage with orientations on its use; d) discussion lists; e) videoconferences addressed to users and computer science technicians; f) bugs and suggestions recording. Additionally, the user was given written support materials; list of clues on the system, general instructions through individual e-mails. During the whole implementation period an assistance service, by phone, was also available, answering to managerial, conceptual and computer use questions. This whole methodological apparatus had as purpose to reduce technical, managerial and cultural difficulties generated through the implementation process, minimizing potential resistances to the changes thus introduced. SIGER implementation was initiated in November, 1998, with the training of 25 so called “multipliers”. It continued in the first semester of 1999, when the multipliers trained some 1300 project leaders' (from EMBRAPA itself and also from the Brazilian National System of Agricultural Research). The training focused on SIGER’s basic concepts and use. Part of
the leaders group also received a course in project management. Participants evaluated all training events, at the end. The evaluation was made with the help of Likert scales (five points scales), where 1 indicated the most negative scale end and 5 corresponded to its positive extreme. The variables considered in this evaluation referred to: a) training planning; b) training development; c) imparted information; d) instructors' knowledge; and) general results of the training. These groups of variables measured the reaction of the participants both to the training and to SIGER. The general averages obtained in those trainings were, respectively, of 3,90 (for the training planning), of 4,10 (for its development), of 4,30 (for the imparted information), of 4,70 (for the instructors' knowledge), and of 3,80 (for performance improvement that might be expected with system’s use). Those averages presented small variations, among the research centers that participated in the training (owed, probably, to instructors teams’ skills differentials). These results indicated that SIGER implementation began in a very favorable way, but were taken with a lot of caution, because the emergence of problems and resistances, during actual systems use, were predicted and expected. In the next section, these problems and their solutions are described. A. Evaluation of limitations and difficulties In his book “How to Implement Information Systems and Live to Tell About It”, Fallon [6] points to the difficulties in implementing information systems in a network architecture, especially in situations characterized by scarce resources and heterogeneous capacities, hardware and software. According to this author, systems that operate in a stand-alone fashion are far away less complex, when compared to those designed to operate through a network. SIGER is a system projected to operate in these two ways: in local networks and stand-alone. The use of these two configurations confirmed Fallon’s warnings. In situations with a network configuration, SIGER implementation presented a significantly larger number of problems than in those that used a stand-alone configuration. The implementation team evaluated the impact of the identified problems, on SIGER credibility. In this evaluation, some 60 EMBRAPA’s R&D managers answered questionnaires. The results of this evaluation indicated the following categories of problems, occurring in the first year of SIGER implementation: Conceptual (13% of total number of problems indicated) Difficulties related to the conceptual model of planning, monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) adopted by SIGER; SIPF / SIPJ (6%) - Difficulties in registering external personnel and organizational partners, in the systems SIPF and SIPJ, SIGER’s information suppliers; SIGER´s Use (13%) - Difficulties in applying system concepts correctly (this category differs from the “conceptual” category because it refers to a false conceptual assumption adopted by the user);
Computer use (41%)- Difficulties related to the use of the several SIGER’s software components; Patches ( 3%) - Impact of SIGER updating; Training (3%) – Lack of skills in SIGER’s use; Manuals (4%) –Difficulties of access to SIGER’s Manuals; Planning rules (3%) - Difficulties in using the system, due to some planning system outdated rules; Partners ( 4%) - Difficulties felt by partners of EMBRAPA, in the use of SIGER; Printing (8%)– Problems with SIGER printing module; Machines (1%) - Lack of appropriate hardware to execute SIGER; Suggestions (1%) - Suggestions for improvement in any of the previous items. Seemingly, unlike Fallon’s prediction, problems of technological nature were more intense in this first implementation stage. Computers use problems, patches, printed reports and use of SIGER, all somehow related with technological aspects, were indicated more frequently by R&D managers. Coordination and communication problems were much less intense than technological problems. A final dimension explored was the degree in which these problems affected R&D programming. Fortunately, the R&D managers' perception points to a small or medium repercussion of problems over R&D programming.
V. LESSONS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN R&D ORGANIZATIONS Unmistakably, the implementation of a management information system has strong impact over the organizational culture. Today there are no doubts on the importance of information for management. Also, there is almost consensus about the need for strategic R&D management. Difficulties start when people need to change behaviors and routines, in order to create a true information culture. All people seem to agree that there is a need to receive information, but they are less motivated to render demanded information. As for the creation of a flow of information input and output are both necessary, the creation of a true information culture in any institution needs to begin with changes of individual attitudes. Users motivation and mobilization is therefore an important issue, because at first they do not realize the need to render appropriate information, in such a way in which it can be useful information for decision making. It is on that moment that resistance emerges, many times due not to inherent system’s aspects, but to the organizational change it implies. In that point, it is essential to determine, among the occurrences in an implementation process, which ones represent genuine deficiencies to be solved and which simply mirror the resistances to the innovation. The aim here is to solve the first ones and to develop involvement and communication strategies that neutralize the last ones. This
dilemma has been a reality during SIGER implementation. Some factors were restrictive, others impelled the implementation of the system. In Table 5, the principal restrictive and impelling factors identified by SIGER´s implementation team – including the ones found in the evaluation above described - are presented. For each one of the restrictive factors a countermeasure was set: elucidation of new concepts which were not well understood; new formats for printed outputs; new training, at an advanced level, for chosen “information manager” at the R&D Centers; new training for researchers from organizations engaged in relationships with EMBRAPA. Most of the limitations found are already solved, as is shown by the fact that all projects planned to begin in 2001 were programmed within SIGER. Some of the limitations, however, are more difficult to overcome, since they are at the SIGER´s core: the instability caused by the Data Bank Manager System Used (DBMS) used for SIGER can only be eliminated through the adoption of another DBMS. This decision is already made, but not yet operational. The difficulty imposed by the integration with other corporate systems (SIPF and SIPJ, for short) is also a
problem not totally overcome. There are several barriers to implement the needed solution here, without compromising information reliability. One of the causes for the problems is the architecture of both systems and the availability of these systems mainly for partners outside EMBRAPA. A solution will possibly be to put these systems to communicate with the users through networks. Another important limitations, the size and skills mix of computer team, at the moment of implementation, are being reduced through the incorporation of external members to the original team. In such a complex system, however, new members socialization takes time. It is important to register here that a big push toward complete and successful adoption of SIGER was obtained when the first outputs allowed by the system were made available to clients and users. The system, in the words of one of these clients, “made it possible to recover, in a fifteen minute period, statistics which I took one month to put together”. The realization of the gains to be obtained with SIGER was a decisive step towards its successful implementation, completed in the past year.
TABLE 5 MAIN IMPELLING AND RESTRICTIVE FACTORS IN SIGER IMPLEMENTATION. SOURCE: [2] IMPELLING FACTORS Innovative conceptual model Training process and motivation User involvement in the design, validation and implementation phases. Documentation of the system and support offered to the users (manuals, helps, technical and managerial support). Inappropriate performance of previous MISs Communication between coordinating team and users.
RESTRICTIVE FACTORS Innovations noticed as threats Hardware platform and software Competition with other managerial innovations being implemented simultaneously with SIGER Size of the coordination team and development Negative attitude in relation to MIS performance Complexity of the concepts introduced by the system.
VI. CONCLUSIONS After almost five years of work in the conceptual design, computerized development, validation, implementation and continuous improvement of SIGER, in a national R&D system such as EMBRAPA and associated partners, it is already possible to point out to some conclusions that can be useful in similar experiences: 1. Team formation and conceptual model: it is essential to constitute multi-disciplinary teams, with professionals in R&D management, computer science, information and users' representatives. The project coordinator must manage potential conflicts among these disciplines, creating a common conceptual framework for conducting system design and development. 2. MIS conceptual model should be as detailed as possible. It should also be based on careful studies of managers’ information needs. Institutional strategy is a good
3.
4.
5.
reference against which to select and rank these information needs. During computerized development, it is crucial to maintain as a guideline the prevalence of the conceptual model, as opposed to hardware and software solutions, even when it is the case that conceptual specifications are difficult to implement in the hardware and software platform adopted (or available). Opportunity and feasibility of a MIS development: The decision of building and implementing a MIS should be evaluated carefully, taking into consideration the costs, risks and long term feature of this enterprise. Short term expectations for MIS results will only end in frustrations and failures. Need for top management support: during the implementation, a MIS has deep impacts on organizational culture and it may even affect formal or informal power structures. Therefore, it generates active and passive resistances that need to be identified and
6.
7.
8.
neutralized. In this process, top management support is a key factor. MIS implementation and competition with other organizational innovations: a MIS has a potential to affect each employee's life. In the initial phase of implementation, the occurrence of problems with the use of the new system is stressful for all involved. Therefore, it is wise not to implement simultaneously other innovations of such a wide nature, to keep the stress controlled. Need of different teams for implementation and user support: In the initial phase of implementation, user support is strategic, to solve actual system’s problems, but also problems generated by the users' small familiarity with the new software. The support team is highly demanded, as well as the implementation team, which will be solving eventual flaws of the system. Consequently, it is very important to maintain two teams working integrated, but with different responsibilities, so that none of the functions is neglected. Communication and documentation management: As it was already said, communication with the user is vital. It is important to communicate concepts, logic, reasons, strategies adopted in the implementation, operation procedures, uses and purposes of the system. All this information should be generated, organized, documented, updated and mainly, quickly delivered to users. Information management is crucial, and it should be systematic and user oriented. In this area, there are plenty field for managerial innovation, in the choice of communication media, or else in methods and alternative processes. The experience with SIGER showed that many problems might have been reduced, if communication was more agile. It also showed that printed communication it is expensive, slow, difficult to update and a lot of times of reduced efficiency, because it doesn't reach the user.
The whole process of overcoming the difficulties emerged during implementation is a slow one, due to their diverse nature and causes. The process requires lots of negotiation, communication and firmness on the part of those who are in charge of making the decisions about the system and those who are to implement them. Time, empathy to users complains, efforts in the direction of adjustments and patience are all good virtues for all the people involved. To introduce such a system is to introduce a big organizational
change, one that will affect the work of everybody within – and, in many cases, even outside – the organization, putting into work the known circle of insecurity, fear and resistance. With all the challenges embedded in such an enterprise, it is our conviction that it is worthwhile, from the viewpoint of gains to be obtained by the organization.
REFERENCES [1] [2]
[3]
[4] [5] [6] [7]
[8]
[9] [10] [11]
[12] [13] [14]
H. Bolivar, A.M.G. de Castro, A. H. Sánchez, M.G.O. Aguilera, M.A. Sarmiento, Sistemas de información gerencial (SIG). ISNAR, Quito, 1997. A.M.G. de Castro, S.M.V. Lima, J.R.P. de Carvalho, and E. Bacarin, “Implantação do SIGER na EMBRAPA - Estratégia, Resultados e Lições”. Anais do XXI Simpósio de Gestão de Inovação Tecnológica, São Paulo: FEA/USP, 2000. A.M.G. de Castro, S.M.V. Lima, J.R.P. de Carvalho, and A. Freitas Filho, A. . “Desenho conceitual e validação do Sistema de Informação Gerencial (SIGER) da EMBRAPA. Anais do XX Simpósio de Gestão de Inovação Tecnológica, Sâo Paulo: FEA/USP , 1998. A.M.G. de Castro, S.M.V. Lima, J.R.P. de Carvalho, Planejamento de C&T: Sistemas de Informação Gerencial. EMBRAPA/DPD, 1999. A.M.G. de Castro, M. Pedroso Jr., A. Freitas Filho, A., and M.C. Motta, Modelo Conceitual do Sistema de Informação Gerencial da EMBRAPA – SIGER.. Brasília: EMBRAPA, Mimeo, 1995 H. Fallon, How to Implement Information Systems and Live to Tell About It. New York; John Wiley & Sons, 1995 (291p.) M.X. Flores, M.L.D. Paez, J. de S. Silva, and A. Freitas Filho, “Planejamento Estratégico em C&T: Teoria e Aplicação” In: W.J. Goedert, M.L.D. Paez, and A.M.G. de Castro, (Eds.), Gestão em Ciência e Tecnologia: Pesquisa Agropecuária. Brasília, EMBRAPASPI, 1994. W.J. Goedert, P.J.C. Genú, A.P.M. Galvão, A.P.M., J.R.R. Peres and J.R.F. Cabral, “Sistema de Planejamento”. ” In: W.J. Goedert, M.L.D. Paez, and A.M.G. de Castro, (Eds.), Gestão em Ciência e Tecnologia: Pesquisa Agropecuária. Brasília, EMBRAPA-SPI, 1994. M.A.A. Leite, M.C. Visoli, S.R.M. Evangelista.and A.A Souza, Informatização do Sistema de Informação Gerencial da EMBRAPA. Brasília: EMBRAPA, 1998. S.M.V. Lima, A.M.G. de Castro, C.H.S. Ayres and A.F.D. Ávila, O Sistema de Informação Gerencial da EMBRAPA (SIGER): Desenho Conceitual. Brasília, EMBRAPA, 1998. M.L.D. Paez, A.M.G. de Castro, J.R.P. de Carvalho and M.A.G. Martins “Sistema Integrado de Informação Gerencial em P&D: Acompanhamento e Avaliação”. In: W.J. Goedert, M.L.D. Paez, and A.M.G. de Castro, (Eds.), Gestão em Ciência e Tecnologia: Pesquisa Agropecuária. Brasília, EMBRAPA-SPI, 1994. M. Pedroso Jr., M.A.A. Leite, P.C. Oliveira and M.C. Visoli, SIGER – Implementação. Brasília, DF, 1995. P.H. Rossi and H.E. Freeman, Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1989. R. Sbragia, Avaliação de Desempenho de Projetos em Instituições de Pesquisa: um Estudo Empírico dentro do Setor de Tecnologia Industrial, Revista de Administração da USP, 19 (1): 83-93, 1984.
