The structure of development decision-making

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 decisionmaking 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. development.

Qualitative decision making has two main types: adjustment and 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 Introverted Perception Development Push

Proposition

Perception

Push

Technical Self

Others End-users

Situational Business

Somatic Have / Need

Physical / Intuiting

Political / Recognising

Economic / Believing

Psychic Do / Prefer

Social / Sensing

Cultural / Learning

Emotional / Trusting

Pneumatic Are / Value

Artistic / Experiencing

Religious / Mystical / 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 Somatic Psychic Pneumatic

Technical Survey project scope and feasibility Select a feasible solution from candidate solutions Construct the new system

Extroverted Orientation Others Study current system Design the new system Deliver the new system

Situational Define the end-user's requirements Acquire computer hardware and software 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: AmberAllen 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. 3765. 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 Strategy

1 Acquisition of hardware, software, etc.

2 IT audit

3 Top-down IS planning

Find out and meet user needs (reactive)

4 Integration, co-ordination & control

5 Environmental scanning & opportunity seeking

6 Maintain comparative strategic advantage Monitor futures Interactive planning

Structure

Systems

None

Ad hoc unconnected

Operational

Label of IS

Data processing department

Information centres

SBU coalition(s)

Often subordinate to accounting or finance

Centralised DP shop

Library records, OA etc. in same unit

(many but separate)

Many applications

Still mostly centralised

Many gaps

End-users running free at Stage 1

Uncontrolled end-user computing

Centrally co-ordinated coalitions (corporate & SBU views concurrently)

Information services Decentralised approach with some controls, but mostly lack of co-ordination

Decentralised systems but central control & co-ordination Added value systems

Inter-organisational systems (suppler, customer, government links)

(more marketing oriented) Multiple manual & IS

Overlapping systems

Database systems

Some DSS ad hoc More DSS-internal,

Centralised Uncoordinated

Operational

Concentration on financial systems

Mainly financial systems

less ad hoc Integrated office technology systems Some strategic systems (using external data)

Many areas unsatisfied

Lack of external & internal data integration

Large backlog Little maintenance

Staff

Programmers / contractors

New IS-based products

External / internal data integration

Integration of communication technologies with computing

Heavy maintenance load Systems analysts

IS planners

Business analysts

DP Manager

IS manager

Information Resources Manager

Data Base Administrator Data Administrator

Corporate / business / IS planners (one role)

IS Director /

Individualistic

Business team

member of board of directors

(Chief Information Officer)

Data analysts Style

Unaware

Don't bother me

Abrogation / delegation

Democratic dialectic

(I'm too busy) Skills

Technical (very low level), individual expertise

Systems development methodology

(product champion) IS believes it knows

Organisational integration

what the business needs

IS knows how the business works

Project management

Users know how IS works (for their areas) Business management (for IS staff) Superordinate goals

Obfuscation

Confusion

Senior management concern DP defence

Co-operation

IS Manager - member of senior executive team Knowledgeable users in some IS areas Entrepreneurial marketing skills

All senior management understand IS and its capabilities

Opportunistic

Interactive planning

Entrepreneurial Intrapreneurial

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

Brugha

Physical / Survey

Political / Study

Economic / Definition

4. Democratic Dialectic and Co-operation

5. Entrepreneurial Opportunity

6. Integrated Harmonious Relationships

Social, Cultural, Emotional /

Artistic, (Religious) /

(Religious), Mystical /

Selection, Design, Acquisition

Construction, (Delivery)

(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 Senior management abandons (product champions) hierarchical control

Procedure /

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

Technical (very low level), individual expertise

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

Organisational integration

Senior executive team includes IS Manager as a member

IS valued as central to the success of the business

Style Price / Skills

Isolated IT and software associated with the technical interests of individuals Not perceived as of value to the business / organisation Policy /

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

Knowledgeable IT users used to full potential Entrepreneurial and marketing skills within selected IT personnel are important

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

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 Environmental scanning & changes orientation of the DP opportunity seeking department towards having more focus on the business

Use of programmers and contractors

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.

Business analysts in line departments work directly with IS

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 Some decentralisation of DP not part of ‘business’ decision department into Information making Centres. Information systems provides integrated service. End-users ignored by unfriendly Senior role for (new) IS manager. centralised autocratic DP shop

Practice /

Ad hoc unconnected

Many applications

Systems

Operational

Many gaps Overlapping systems

Most systems centrally developed, installed, operated and controlled by the DP department

Multiple manual & IS

Centralised

Uncontrolled end-user computing

Uncoordinated

Operational

Concentration on financial systems

Mainly financial systems

Superordinate Goals

Promotion / Strategy

Productivity / Staff

IT people and business managers do not interfere with one another's concerns

IS project managers impress senior management by delivering centrally instigated projects on time and within budget

Little contribution to business expected from IS Pliability / Structure

Many areas unsatisfied Large backlog

Little maintenance

Heavy maintenance load

Opportunistic

All senior management understand IS and its capabilities

Interactive planning

Entrepreneurial Intrapreneurial Maintain comparative strategic advantage Monitor futures Interactive planning

IS planners, IS manager, Data Base Administrator, Data Administrator, Data analysts

Database systems

Information Resources Manager (Chief Information Officer)

Corporate / business / IS planners now combined into one role, providing strategic IS

IS Director / member of board of directors

IT / business cross-disciplinary 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

Decentralised approach with some Decentralised systems but controls, but mostly lack of cocentral control & co-ordination ordination Added value systems

Inter-organisational systems (suppler, customer, government links)

(more marketing oriented) Some DSS ad hoc

Integrated office technology systems

More DSS-internal, less ad hoc

New IS-based products

Some strategic systems (using external data) Lack of external & internal data integration Integration of communication technologies with computing

External / internal data integration