(c) Copyright 2000 Murray Turoff 1 Management Foundation Areas CIS 679 Management of Information Systems New Jersey Institute of Technology Second set

(c) Copyright 2000 Murray Turoff 1

Management Foundation Areas

CIS 679 Management of Information Systems

New Jersey Institute of Technology Second set of notes for course

Copyright 2000 Murray Turoff


Management Foundation Areas Philosophy and Management History of Management Theory Organizational Structures Objectives & Effectiveness Human Resources Paradoxes, Tradeoffs &

Compromises Organizational Innovation Group & Human Processes References


Philosophy and Management


Classification summary Method of evidence generation Psychological type Class of problem Organizational context Individual styles Psychological types and dimensions Organizational structures Organizational objectives and goals Information value and utility Multiple perspective Other significant factors


Internal Inquiry Process

Data

Transform Model Transform

Information


Method of evidence generation Leibnizian Lockean Kantian Hegelian Singerian Merleau-Ponty: Reality

construction


Leibnizian View

Data InformationMODEL


Leibnizian inquiry Truth in structure of model Independent of data Deductive in nature Questions

What is the rational justification? How was it deduced and is it

precise?


Lockean View

DATA TransformInformation


Lockean inquiry Truth in the data Consensus truth Deductive truth Independent of model Questions

What is the observation? What is the data?


Kantian View

Inquiry Processes

ObjectivesData

Output Comparison Process

Information


Kantian inquiry Truth relative Different inquiries Best utilizes data Best serves objectives Questions

What is the alternative views? What data is obtainable? What model can use the data?


Hegelian View

Inquiry Process

Inquiry Process

Output

Opposing Output

SynergyData

Information

Objectives


Hegelian inquiry Truth conflictual Best inquiry to derive opposing

alternatives Questions

What is the opposite view? What is the synthesis from the

opposing views?


Singerian View

Inquiry

Information

Objectives

Data

Feedback


Singerian inquiry Truth pragmatic Examine history and objectives Feedback to formulation of inquiry Questions

What is the right question? How do we change the process to

be better? How do the inquirers influence the

process?


External Inquiry Process

Objectives & Goals

Internal Inquiry Process

Feedback


Reality construction Truth virtual Tribe negotiates truth Religious truths & Beliefs Questions

What do we share as a belief? What can we construct as a reality? How do we market this?


Strategic Organizational Functions

History Values Scenarios

Future Objectives Goals

Environment

Task Measure of PhilosophyDevelopments Feasibility Liebnitz, LockOpportunities Significance Lock, KantPlans Expectations Kant, HegelDecisions Impacts Hegel, Singer


NEGOTIATED REALITY DELPHI

Consumer Categories tailored to product

Early AdaptersNew wealthShiny blacksFirst nightersForever youngEcological fanatics

Where do they live? What do they read? What do they watch on TV? What do they eat? What typical vacations do they take? What other characteristic behaviors?


INQUIRY OBJECTIVES LOCKEAN: Consensus, validation of

subjective data LEIBNIZIAN: Causality, model, structure,

procedures KANTIAN: Relative truth, comparisons,

cost/benefit HEGELIAN: Conflict exposure & exploration,

synergy out of conflicting views SINGER: Values, interests, goals,

pragmatics, psychological attitudes, beliefs HEIDEGGER: Reality construction, social

engineering, organizational behavior


Validation Dimensions

METHODS PHILOSOPHY EXAMPLE TOOLGroup Voting

Deductive Leibnizian Inappropriate

Inductive Lockean Deterministic by consensus RelativeKantian Deterministic by plurality Negotiated Heidegger Advisory for compromise

Merleau-Ponty Conflictual Hegel Advisory for exploration

Pragmatic Singer Advisory for method


Models & Representation

Mental Models Physical Reality

Metaphors & Theories

Design

Measurement

Experimentation

Validation

ImplementationTesting

Learning

Conceptualization

Observations

Social Processes

Before Information Systems & Virtuality


Models & Representation

Mental Models Virtual Systems

Metaphors & Theories

Conceptualization

Learning

Design

Validation

Experimentation

Social Process

Observations

Implementation

TestingMeasurement

After Information Systems & Virtuality


Before Virtuality I Mental Models are the individuals

internal representations of an understanding of the external world.

Models & Representations are explicit and formal descriptions and/or simulations that can be mutually understood and shared among knowledgeable individuals.


Before Virtuality II Metaphors and Theories are the

abstractions and analogies that guide our formulation of understandings and our design of models and representations.

Physical Reality is what provides us various forms of feed back that indicate how good are the other categories. This is the classic process of scientific validation


After Virtuality I Conceptualization is now one of

creating or implementing models that can run in a computer (virtual environment).

Theories are designed to match (validate) the models against the conceptualization.

Experimentation is now only agreement with our original mental models (preconceptions).


After Virtuality II In effect reality becomes what we

negotiate it to be. There is no longer any physical world to compare it to for validation. It is an implicit result and not a fundamental construct in the process.

The computer system becomes the template for regulating the real world behavior of people and organizations.


After Virtuality III The information system becomes a

prescriptive control system and determines reality.

Virtuality is the potential for a Virtual System to become part of the real world.


Classes of Problems

Programmed Structured

Decisions under certainty Decisions under risk Decisions under uncertainty

Semi-structured Much subjective data

Unstructured Conflicts Unknown relationships

Wicked Value differences Unks unks


THE PHYSICAL SPACE FOR GROUP PROBLEM SOLVING

ENVIRONMENTExternal Factors

ValuesInterests

GOALS OUTCOMES

Produces

Produces

DATA RELATIONSHIPS

PROBLEM REPRESENTATION

Infer Modify

Evaluate

Modify

Determine Generate Modify Produce

Interpret Interpret


Problem Solving Characteristics

Links and Nodes: implicit or explicit

Data and Information: subjective or objective

Any individual can start anywhere and go in any direction.


COMPLEXITY DIMENSION

Complexity ProblemElements

ProblemRelations

ExternalEnvironment

Structured Known Known KnownSemi-structured

Known Uncertain Uncertain

Unstructured Uncertain Uncertain AmbiguousWicked Ambiguous Ambiguous Unknown,

Unk Unks


Examples of Group Problem Solving Tasks I

DEDUCTIVEWell Structured: What salary to offer a new employee?

Semi Structured: When to announce a new product?

Unstructured: How to reduce a budget and/or costs?

Wicked: Whether to cut a loss through termination of a product?


Examples of Group Problem Solving Tasks II

INDUCTIVEWell structured: Setting the price of a new product.

Semi structured: Conducting a review of an on going project.

Unstructured: Choosing whom to hire as a new employee.

Wicked: Choosing which good employee to have to fire in a cut back.


Examples of Group Problem Solving Tasks III

RELATIVEWell structured: Which computer to buy?

Semi structured: Which investment to make?

Unstructured: What new product to develop?

Wicked: Whether to acquire another company?


Examples of a Group Problem Solving Task IV

NEGOTIATEDWell structured: Negotiating a business contract.

Semi structured: Deciding future strategy for a company.

Unstructured: Union - management negotiations.

Wicked: Creating a new commercial standard.


Examples of Group Problem Solving Tasks V

CONFLICTUALWell structured: A budget dispute (e.g., who gets limited resources).

Semi structured: A court case.Unstructured: Setting a new policy (e.g. what business the company is in)

Wicked: Resolving an international or religious dispute (e.g. belief conflicts).


Examples of Group Problem Solving Tasks VI

PRAGMATIC Well structured: How to go about

reorganizing. Semi structured: How to go about

choosing a candidate for office. Unstructured: How to go about

choosing a career. Wicked: How to go about choosing

a mate.


History of Management Theory


Organizational Management Theories I

Scientific Management, 1911, Taylor Time and motion studies,

production maximization, task specialization, Lockean

Principles of Management, 1916, Fayol First “complete” inductive theory,

based upon rules, division of work, clear authority, stability, initiative, esprit de corps, Leibnizian


Organizational Management Theories II

Human Relations, 1933, Mayo Sociological concepts and

emotional factors, satisfied workers, productivity through worker satisfaction and morale, Lockean

Decision Making & Information Management, 1947, Simon Bounded rationality, output

efficiency criterion, rational development of goals, Relative Kantian approaches


Organizational Management Theories III

Socio-technical, 1951, Bamforth, Trist Joint considerations, enterprise as

open system, degree of social/technical fit, congruence of internal process (process reengineering), Kantian, Hegelian

Strategic Management and Design, 1962, Chandler Structure follows strategy, vertical

and horizontal integration, adaptation, Normative orientation, Strategic relevance of IS, Kantian, Negotiated Reality, Singerian


Organizational Management Theories IV

Human Resources, 1961, 1967, Mcgregor, Likert Productive workers in professionals and

management, cohesion, loyalty, open communications, participative management, conflicts of personal goals and organizational goals, Lockean, Hegelian, Singerian

Contingency Theory, 1967, Lawrence, Lorsch Organizational design based upon

environmental factors, no single best way, avoiding errors, understanding risks, leadership, software development, evaluation of IS, Singerian


Organizational Management Theories V

Population Ecology, 1977, Hannan, Freeman Environmental determinism,

Darwinian, luck, timing, survival, life cycle importance, strategy, Kantian, Singerian


Organizational Management Levels

Strategic and/or executive management Object and goal setting

Management planning Resource determination Resource allocation

Management control, tactical management Priority setting Task assignment Resource utilization

Operational control, administrative Line decisions Task accomplishment Monitoring


Organizational Structures


Organizational Structures

Well defined Traditional Bureaucratic Human System

New & Evolving Networked (?) Marketplace (?) Virtual (?)


Traditional Feudalism Authority and loyalty Top down decision making People good or bad, no in-between Hierarchy absolute No informal structure


Bureaucratic Rules and procedures No human authority Hierarchy rationalized Theory X view of people Efficiency Informal structure tolerated


Human Information is power Based upon groups More decentralization Theory Y or Z view of people Informal structure important Individual performances


System Goal and objective oriented People influence by environment Information flow Process understanding Open system view Feedback theory Rationale Actor


Networked Decentralized Independent value centers Accountability Organizational unit Theory Y and Z of people Dispersed geographical teams


Marketplace Decentralized Contractual tasks Bidding System Earnings determine management Free enterprise incentives People as economic entities Knowledge based


Virtual Organization IPremise One: A virtually organized task consists of 1. abstract requirements 2. concrete satisficers 3. (re)allocation procedure (switch) 4. A ‘satisficing criteria’ usually

based upon goals or objectives to satisfy.

The switch assigns satisficers to requirements according to the satisficing criteria.


Virtual Organization IIPremise Two: Meta management is the

management of a virtually organized task.

Five major activities 1. Analyzing abstract requirements 2. Determining concrete satisficers 3. Tracking allocations 4. Maintaining/revising the

allocation procedure 5. Reviewing satisficing criteria


Virtual Organizations IIIPremise Three: A virtual organization is a goal-

oriented enterprise operating under meta management

What is new? Meta management as standard operating procedure.

No direct line decisions need to be made any longer.


Virtual Organizations IVExample: Automobile Manufacturer:

Assembly Abstract requirements:

components Concrete satisficers: suppliers Switching: changing suppliers Satisficing criteria: cost/quality

relation


Virtual Organizations VExample: Bank: Portfolio

Management Abstract requirements: investment

instruments (stocks, bonds, etc.) Concrete Satisficers: Specific

stocks, bonds, etc. Switching: substituting one stock

or bond for another Satisficing criteria: maximize

return for a given level of risk.


Virtual Organization Summary Requirements list Satisficers List Switching Engine Objectives


Organizational coordination Parallel Pooled Sequential Reactive, Reciprocal


I. When is a different organizational model useful?

Goal model: Goals are clear, measurable, consensual

System resource model: A clear connection exists between inputs and performance.

Internal Process Model: A clear connection exists between organizational process and performance.

Strategic Constituencies Model: Constituencies have powerful influence on the organization.


II. When is a different organizational model useful?

Competing Values Model: Organization is unclear about its own criteria or criteria are changing

Legitimacy model: Survival or decline is of concern

Fault Driven Model: Criteria of effectiveness are unclear or strategies for improvement are needed.

High Performing Systems model: Comparisons among similar organizations are desired.


Objectives and Effectiveness


General Effectiveness = measure of

performance Productivity = Quality x Quantity Efficiency = Productivity /

Resources Profit = Return - Resources Growth


Group Oriented Accidents Absenteeism Turnover Conflict/Cohesion Goal consensus Participation and shared influence


Individual Oriented Job Satisfaction Motivation Morale Control Achievement Emphasis


Organizational Orientation Flexibility/adaptation Planning & Goal setting Internalization of organizational

goals Role and Norm Congruence Managerial interpersonal sills Training & Human Development

emphasis


External Orientation Readiness Information Management &

Communications Evaluations by external entities Utilization of environment Value of Human Resources


Observations on Criteria Never a single criteria for any

given situation Mix must be determined for the

given situation Danger of reductionism of criteria

within organizations Criteria must be linked through

levels of application Different Organizations for

different purposes


Human Resource FunctionEquity, stability and initiative, esprit de corps, productivity through worker satisfaction, satisfaction through attention to needs, employee satisfaction, cohesion, loyalty, openness, productivity through people


Integrative FunctionClear authority and discipline, unity of command and direction, order, congruence of internal processes, Efficient information processing, Communication, Internal equilibrium, Efficiency through economies of scale, Simple structure, Simple rules


Adaptive FunctionStructure/strategy congruence, organizational growth, environmental control, flexibility/adaptation, differentiation errors, integration errors, organization/environment fit, timely implementation of change, leadership/contingency fit, adjustment to external conditions, bias for action, close to the customer


Goal-Attainment FunctionProduct maximization, Cost minimization, Technical excellence, Optimal use of resources, task specialization, division of work, Rational goal development, Competitive attainment, Productivity, Survival, Return on investment, Attainment of objectives, Profitability


Information value and utility Classical school

Inherent in content Information coding

Behavioral school Differs from receiver to sender Transactional understanding Discourse analysis

Decision theory school Value relative to environment Opportunity costs & regret


Approaches to Systems Objectives

AutomationReduce people timeEliminate jobs

ProductivityIncrease quantityIncrease quality

OpportunityDo new thingsDo things differently& Better


Multiple Perspectives 1. Technology 2. Physical Environmental Setting 3. Socio-technical Setting 4. Techno-personal Setting 5. Organization Actors &

Stakeholders 6. Individual Actors &

Stakeholders 7. Political Action between

organizations and individuals 8. Decisions and Policies


Multiple Perspectives Alternative

Individual view Actors, stakeholders

Organizational view Tasks, objectives, goals

Social System view Group behavior, moral

Technological view Scientific, engineering

Management view Efficiency, Feasibility


Technology View Cause and effect Abstraction and modeling Optimization Assumed Rationality Use of tradeoffs, averages


Organizational View Identification of the pressures in

support of and opposition to the technology.

Acceptance process for technology Understanding how to gain

Organizational support Understanding

consequences/impacts of technology Avoidance of uncertainty Developing coalitions Virtuality


Personal Perspective View Identifying Individuals Intuition, Leadership and Self

Interest The role of the

participation/political process Rationality & Maslow hierarchy of

needs Power, influence, dominance Fear of Change


Organizational Objectives I Material resources – oil, metals Cost minimization - distributors Performance maximization –

technology Sales maximizing – retail sales Services – professional firms Physical – health care Mental – recreational


Organizational Objectives II Social betterment – charities,

government Capital goods – manufacturers Distribution – trucking Finance – banks Information – publishers Protection – fire, police, insurance Administration – brokers


Human Resources


Management styles

Concern for

People Production Management Jargon

High High Team Management

Medium Medium ConservativeHigh Low Country ClubLow High Task

ManagementLow Low Impoverished

(WIB)


Management stylesRoles of Systems Analyst

Team management: SA is catalyst Conservative: SA as committee

member Country club: SA ordered around Task management: SA orders

others Impoverished: SA is ignored


Herzberg's motivation/hygiene theory

Motivators (job content) Achievement: pride in a job Recognition: praise Work: interesting & challenging Responsibility: carrying out tasks Advancement: mobility

Hygiene factors (job context) Company policy & administration Interpersonal relations Supervision Salary and working conditions


Motivation Needs Cause Drives

Which generate Behavior To reach Goals

That lead to Reduction of tension


Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs 1. Physiological

starving, freezing 2. Safety

physical risk, freedom risk 3. Love & belonging

social, tribal 4. Esteem

recognition 5. Self actualization

doing your best


Hawthorn experiments 1 Productivity increases as a result

of attention 1. Feeling of importance 2. Team spirit 3. Common objective 4. Pleasant environment 5. Friendly supervision


Hawthorn experiments 2 Mafia works groups:

1. Informal 2. Limit on individual productivity 3. Transgressors punished 4. Informal leader/representative 5. Clannish


Climate conditions Quality of management Management climate Staff relation climate Quality of IS staff Quality of users Computer Literacy of Management

& Users


Turnover Model 1 Output variable

Turnover rate Demographic variables

Age: decreases Organizational tenure: decreases Education: increases

Role stressors Role ambiguity (expectations):

increases Role conflict (evaluation): increases


Turnover Model 2 Career related

Salary/benefits: decreases Promotability/mobility: decreases Career opportunities: increases

Intervening variables Job satisfaction: decreases Career satisfaction: decreases Organizational commitment:

decreases Organizational trust: decreases


Talent issue What are the practices and polices

that will maintain outstanding technical talents in your organization?

What rewards, other than salary and typical benefits, motivates those in the computer and information field?


Favorable management climate Managers allowed to manage Achievement will be recognized

and rewarded Enterprise and new ideas accepted Senior managers listen to those

below Accountability is clear Responsibility can be delegated


Leadership characteristics in IS Industry and organizational

knowledge Relationships in the firm and

industry Reputation and track record Abilities and skills Personal values Motivation


Management Approaches

He took the wheel in a lashing roaring hurricane

And by what compass did he steer the course of the ship?

“My policy is to have no policy,” he said in the early months,

And three years later, “I have been controlled by events.”

Carl Sandburg, “The People, Yes”


IS Management Confusions I Let the technology drag us into the

future under the hidden assumption that any advance of the technology is always good.

Look at the process only and use computers to make it more efficient. Ignore the goals, at least the long term ones.

Try to restrict the new technology (through design, laws, regulation, etc.) to the automation of current social systems.


IS Management Confusions I It is often misleading and wrong to

design an information system that automates or imitates the current physical process.

Optimizing efficiency of an operation may not improve effectiveness and it could reduce it.

We optimize processes because quantity is easier to measure than quality (i.e., the drunkard’s paradox of science).


Paradoxes, Tradeoffs & Compromises


Effectiveness & ParadoxesA paradox is an idea involving two opposing thoughts or propositions which, however contradictory, are equally necessary to convey a more imposing, illuminating, life related or provocative insight into truth than either factor can muster in its own right. What the mind seemingly cannot think, it must think; what reason is reluctant to express it must express. (Slatte 1968, page 4)


IS Design Variations for Desired Effectiveness Outcomes

Reduced Need for Information Processing Create slack resources Create self contained tasks

Increased Capacity t Process Information Invest in vertical information

systems Create lateral relationships


Organizational Effectiveness Paradoxes I

Big impact on IS design Loose Coupling: wide search,

initiation of innovation, functional autonomy

Tight Coupling: quick execution, implementing innovation, function reciprocity

Primary concern in IS human resources High specialization of roles:

reinforces expertise and efficiency High generality of roles: reinforces

flexibility and interdependency


Organizational Effectiveness Paradoxes II

Life time of many CIO’s average five years Continuity of leadership: stability, long-

term planning, institutional memory Infusion of new leaders: increased

innovation, adaptability and currency Big impact on IS design

Deviation amplifying process: encourages productive conflict, energize and empower organizations

Deviation reduction process: encourages harmony, consensus, trust and smooth flow of information


Organizational Effectiveness Paradoxes III

Big impact on IS design Expanded search in decision

making: wider environmental scanning, need for more information, divergence of input

Inhibitors to information overload: reduces and buggers amount of information, quicker convergence in decision making


Organizational Effectiveness Paradoxes IV

Big impact on Information flow Disengagement and

disidentification with past strategies: fosters new perspectives and innovation

Reintegration and reinforcement of roots: fosters organizational identity, mission, past strategies.


Principles of Paradoxes in organizations

Extremity in any criterion of effectiveness creates linearity and dysfunction

Synthesis is desirable but not required for excellence

Paradox need not be resolved to be adaptive

Effectiveness has to be situational Assessment of organizations and systems

should include paradoxical criteria This view would dramatically alter data

collection and analysis in most organizations

A totally Hegelian view of effectiveness criteria


Organizational Innovation


Organizational Innovation Problems

Innovation often narrowly defined: organizational suggestion, new start up, new product, product improvement

Human problem of management attention Process problem of converting ideas into

practice Structural problem of part time relationships Strategic problem of leadership Is the new idea productive or useless?

Determination difficult People become attached or invested in an

idea Innovation equals perception of a new idea

whether technical or social.


Evolution (almost biological) of an idea

Disruptive Event Solutions surface Networks galvanize Political debate Legitimization Taken for granted Decay of usefulness Outmoded state


Psychological types and dimensions

Thinking - Feeling Sensing - Intuiting Judging - Perceiving Other dimensions

Dogmatism Locus of control Extroversion/introversion Abstraction Strategy search


Psychological Relationship to Centralization/Decentralization

Centralization DecentralizationInternalFocus

IntegrativeFunctionsInternal ProcessModelStabilityCoordination

Human ResourcesFunctionHuman RelationsModelCohesion, MoralValue of HumanResources

ExternalFocus

Goal-AttainmentFunctionRational GoalModelPlanning,Objective settingProductivity,Efficiency

Adaptive FunctionOpen SystemsModelMaintainingflexibilityGrowthAcquisitionReadiness


Myers-Briggs personality types I Judging/perceiving

JudgingMakes decisions as soon as possible Judging type looks for goals

PerceivingPuts it off until all information in Interested in process


Myers-Briggs personality types II

Sensing/intuiting Sensing

Rely on external stimuliNeed to interactWants everything explicit

IntuitingMake decisions without external stimuli

Like to send work to be batchedLikes to use imagination


Myers-Briggs personality types III

Thinking/feeling Thinking

Needs explicit logic for doing something

Reads helps and documentation before doing

FeelingUse intuitionMore inclined to trial and error


THINKING vs. FEELING

Thinking:logical, analytical,scientific,dispassionate, cold,concerned with truth,rationality,theoretical,unconcerned withpeople’s feelings,concerned with allencompassingtheorems

Feeling:alogical (neitherlogical nor illogical,atheoretical, poetic,artistic, passionate,warm, personal,concerned withmatters of ethics,concerned withpeoples feelings,concerned withjustice, uniquenessand individuality


SENSATION vs. INTUITION

Sensation:careful (risk avoider),concerned with partsand details, lives inpresent, specialist,factual, precise,realist, likes todevelop single idea indepth, practical,conventional

Intuition:risk taker, concernedwith whole picture,lives in future,generalist,hypothetical, vague,speculative, idealist,produces manyalternative ideas,inventive,unconventional


Overlapping Categories

SensationInternalConsiderations

IntuitionExternalConsiderations

ThinkingEfficiency

ST: everything inits place,mathematicalmodels,procedures andadministrativepolicies

NT: broad issues, nonpersonal, flexible,individualistic,investment analysis,acquisitions

FeelingEffectiveness

SF: everyone in itsplace, employeeevaluation,organizationalstructure

NF: team oriented,goals and strategicalternatives


Information Concern Examples

ST:units produced per manhour, rate of return oninvested capital, cost ofgoods sold, scrap materialper unit, sales per salesmanor advertising dollar,inventory costs

NT:cost of capital, marketshare, cost of raw materials,labor costs, product priceleadership, new productdevelopment, new marketdevelopment

SF:employee turnover,absenteeism, number ofgrievances, employeeattitudes, organizationalclimate, employeecommitment, interpersonalrelationships

NF:Community satisfaction,consumer satisfaction,identification of problems oropportunities, socialresponsibility, corporatereputation


Human and Group Biases in Innovation I

What worked before will work again Solutions looking for problems Social inertia Fear of change Risk avoidance Conflicts of goals and interests

(people, units) What is in fashion Not invented here syndrome Lack of individual investment in idea


Human and Group Biases in Innovation II

Difficulty of dealing with complexity (not rules but theories)

Whole-part relationships complexity hand off

Conformity pressures / Mafia syndrome Need for crises, dissatisfaction Tension or external stress to force

action (frogs experiment) People avoid negative information Negative information does not easily

travel up in the organization. Impeachable micro logic often creates

macro nonsense and vice versa


Complexity Bias Estimating effort to do something

familiar but complex humans usually too optimistic. Complexity not easily grasped is

what the pieces actually are Estimating effort to do something

unfamiliar but complex humans too pessimistic Complexity not easily grasped is

how to interface numerous pieces Usually translates to length of time

where bias reverses itself.


Characteristics of Innovative Organizations I

Search out most demanding customers (external relationships)

Search for exceptions (data mining)

Reexamine beliefs Evaluate past performance (lost

opportunities) Look for problems and problem

sources


Characteristics of Innovative Organizations II

Vigilance in extended search, intelligence gathering, surveillance

Close tabs on competitors Monitoring systems in place based

upon two levels Current evaluation criteria Potential changes in evaluation

criteria (Singerian) Vertical individual and group

responsibility of idea for conception to practice


Characteristics of Innovative Organizations III

Do not separate R&D, Engineering and Manufacturing, and marketing

Do not separate Evaluation & Design, Utility & Functionality, and Implementation

Systems Champion Need for people to people transactions

(“deals”) The more complex the idea the more

trial and error cycle Renegotiations Recommitment Readministration


Solutions of Innovative Organizations

Autonomous unit for vertical integration Redundant functions and

multidisciplinary groups Requisite variety (Ashby, 1956)

System must have Internal variability to respond to external variability in order to survive as a survival seeking system.

Development group has talents to match environmental requirements.

Temporal linkages (relationships of past, present, and future)


Group & Human Processes


COORDINATION DIMENSION

Approach Characteristics

Parallel Members IndependentInformation ExchangedNo Group View Imposed

Pooled Same as above BUTGroup View Generated

Sequential Group View ImposedGroup regulates discussionPlanned or static group processSequential problem solving phases

Reciprocal Group View ImposedMembers independent but feedback tied to actionsAdaptive or dynamic group processProblem Solving Phases InterdependentAsynchronous with functionalrelationships


Group Problem Solving Phases Problem recognition Problem formulation Problem space representation Issues & constrains Strategy formulation Goals & objectives Policies & Processes GENERATION: Criteria, Alternatives, Benefits, Risks,

Expectations EVALUATION: Consequences, estimations, voting,

relationships, model structures Disagreement Exploration Feedback Commitment, cohesion & morale Roles Implementation plans Actions


Problem solving requirements

Creativity for factorsEnumeration and exploration

Evaluation and consensusExploration

Exploring disagreementRelationship judgments & model formulation

Comprehension & decision formulation

Implementation planning


Group Process Gains and Losses

Process Gains InterveningVariables

Process Losses

SynergyLearningStimulationMore informationMore objective evaluationIndividual Problem SolvingIncubation and reflection

Leadership andFacilitationGroup MemoryAnonymityCoordination Structures: Sequential Parallel Pooled ReciprocalTask Structures: Linear Temporal Non linearProcess Tools voting, scaling, etc.

Attention BlockingFailure to RememberConformance PressureEvaluation ApprehensionFree RidingAir timeAttenuation blockingConcentration blockingSocializingDominationInformation OverloadFlamingSlower feedbackFewer information cuesIncomplete use of informationIncomplete task analysisAmbiguity in languageCoordination problems


Structures that have been designed to minimize process

lossesBrainstorming (Osborne)Nominal Group TechniqueDelphiAgendas / parliamentary procedureDialectical: Plan and counter-planDevil’s Advocate: Plan and critiqueFocus Groups, Synecticsetc etc


Why Procedures Work Coordinate members’ thinking Provide objective ground rules Protect against bad habits Capitalize on group strengths Balance participation (N heads better than 1) Surface and manage conflict Provide Closure Make groups reflect on process and progress Procedures can be provided by people and/or

computers The degree of tradeoff between two choices

still an evolving area of research in computer based human communications


Procedural Dimensions

Scope: Number of functions a procedure handles

Restrictiveness: Extent of limitation of group activity

Comprehensiveness: Extent to which rules are completely spelled out.

Group Control: Degree to which group manage process

Member involvement: number of members required to “operate” the procedure.


Communication Procedures I

\ ProcedureDimension

Robert’sRules

Brain-storming

NominalGroupTechniques

MultiattributeDecisionAnalysis

Scope High Low Mod Low

Restrictiveness High High High High

Comprehensiveness High High High High

Group Control Mod High Mod Low

MemberInvolvement

High High High High


Communication Procedures II

\ ProcedureDimension

Hall’sRules

Devil’sAdvocate

Synectics Delphi

Scope High Low Mod High

Restrictiveness Low Low High High

Comprehensiveness Low Low Low High

Group Control High High Mod Low

MemberInvolvement

High Low High High


Common Process Gains I

More Information: A group as a whole has more information than any one member.

Synergy: A member uses information in a way that the original holder did not, because that member has different information or skills.

More Objective Evaluation: Groups are better at catching errors than are the individuals with proposed ideas.


Common Process Gains II

Stimulation: Working as part of a group may stimulate and encourage individuals to perform better.

Learning: Members may learn from and imitate more skilled members to improve performance.


Common Process Losses I

Air Time: The group must partition available speaking time among members.

Production Blocking: Attenuation Blocking: Occurs when

members who are prevented from contributing comments when they occur, forget or suppress them later in the meeting, as they seem less original, relevant or important.

Concentration Blocking: Fewer comments are made because members concentrate on remembering comments (rather than thinking of new ones) unless they can contribute them.


Common Process Losses II

Attention Blocking: New comments are not generated because members must consider to listen to others speak and cannot pause to think.

Failure To Remember: Members lack focus on communication, missing or forgetting contributions of others.

Conformance Pressure: Members are reluctant to criticize the comments of others due to politeness or fear of reprisals.


Common Process Losses III

Evaluation Apprehension: Fear of negative evaluation causes members to withhold ideas and comments.

Free Riding: Members rely on others to accomplish goals, due to cognitive loafing, the need to compete for air time, or because they perceive their input to be unneeded.

Cognitive Inertia: Discussion moves along one train of thought without deviation because group members refrain from contributing comments that are not directly related to the current discussion.


Common Process Losses IV

Socializing: Non-task discussion reduces task performance, although some socializing is usually necessary for effective functioning.

Domination: Some group member(s) exercise undue influence or monopolize group's time in an unproductive manner.

Information Overload: Information is presented faster than it can be processed.


Common Process Losses V

Coordination Problems: Difficulty integrating member's contributions because it does not have an appropriate strategy, which can lead to dysfunctional cycling or incomplete discussions resulting in premature decisions.

Incomplete Use of Information: Incomplete access to and use of information necessary for the successful task completion.

Incomplete Task Analysis: Incomplete analysis and understanding of task resulting in superficial discussions.


Delphi method

Structured communications tailored to the application & group by paper or computer communications

Delphi is a method for structuring a group communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a groups of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem.


Reasons for Delphi

Subjective judgments requiredDiverse backgroundsHeterogeneity of participantsLarge group requiredTime availability limitedCosts of travel & shadow timeFace to face difficultiesDisagreementsLanguage differencesValue differencesDominance problemsHuman biases


The Delphi method Process

A series of written questionnairesAnonymously answeredSummarized with new surveyRe-voting and chances to change views


Three participant roles:

1. A user body: expecting a product2. Design and monitor team: designs the initial questionnaire, summarizes the returns, and redesigns the follow-up questionnaires

3. Respondent group: chosen as representative of different expertise and interests related to the task. ("Experts" e.g. Welfare mothers)


Delphi objectives I

To determine or develop a range of possible alternatives

To explore or expose underlying assumptions or information leading to differing judgments

To seek out information which may generate a consensus on the part of the respondent group

To correlate informed judgments on a topic spanning a wide range of disciplines


Delphi objectives II

To educate the respondent group as to the diverse and interrelated aspects of the topic.

Two or more rounds of written (usually anonymous) generation and rating of options or projections by expert groups

Typical scales-- e.g., Importance, likelihood, confidence in rating


Consensus is not always the objective

Policy Delphi: explore all scenarios or alternatives, develop each one fully.

Determine the strongest “pro” and “con” arguments for each possible course of action


Decision Dimensions

Performance (effectiveness) Technical (feasibility) Economic (costs) Social (acceptability) Legal (judicial risk) Political (advancement)


Models of Decision Process I

Rational actor model: People make rational decisions based upon the best possible data and decision processes

Satisfying or bounded rationality model: seeking a decision that is good enough to meet a set of minimum requirements.

Stakeholder model: People as individuals represent certain interests or views that may be indirect conflict with others.


Models of Decision Process II

Bureaucratic polities, incrementalism, “muddling through” model: maximum flexibility by no planning.

Relative model: Optimum decisions are not possible only the best relative decision in the particular circumstances with the information that can be obtained in the required time frame.

Complexity model: Process, culture and organizational structure are key to good decision making.


Models of Decision Process III

Organizational processes model: plans and decisions are the result of well defined organizational processes.

Garbage can model: what is used and done depends on what is on hand (problems, solutions, tools); those who make the least mistakes do the best.


Strategic Objectives

To make an organization:More flexible, more responsive to customer needs

More able to adapt to rapidly changing conditions in the environment.

Consider “intangible” benefits and problems ahead of time


Subjective estimates of risks

Must identify and estimate many kinds of risk

"risk of the vanishing status quo" (doing nothing, no change)

Financial risk: costs exceed projected benefits

Technical Risk: talent and resources to support technology

"Systemic risk": Success that dramatically alters the environment; causes unforeseen responses


Human Biases I

Adjustment and Anchoring Faced with large amounts of data

individual focuses on a narrow and wrong sample

Availability The information most easy to obtain or on

hand is used.Base Rate

The likelihood of two events compared by the number of occurrences or most recent occurrences and not the true rate at which they occur.

Also gets into difference between causal probabilities and the probabilistic calculus.


Human Biases II

Conservatism Failure to update estimates based

upon recent but contradictory information.

Data presentation context Use of different scales,

summarized as opposed to raw data, etc.

Data Saturation Premature conclusions on the

basis of too small a sample.


Human Biases III

Desire for self-fulfilling Prophecies Person values a certain outcome or

conclusion and acquires and analyzes only information that supports it.

Ease of recall Using only the data that can be easily

recalledExpectations

People place more weight on information that confirms what they expect than information that contradicts it.


Human Biases IV

Fact-Value confusion Strongly held values may often be

regarded and presented as facts.Fundamental Attribution Error

(Success/Failure error) Person associates success with personal

ability and associates failure with poor luck in chance events.

Gamblers fallacy False assumption that unexpected

occurrence of a “run” of some events enhances the probability of the occurrence of an alternative event.


Human Biases V

Habit Familiarity with a particular rule for solving

a problem results in its reuse (having a solution looking for a problem).

Hindsight Easier to change view after the outcome

has occurred than before. Leads to recent event having more influence than total sample.

Illusion of Control A good outcome in a chance situations may have resulted from a poor decision.

Feeling of control may not be reasonable.


Human Biases VI

Law of Small numbers People sometimes place to much weight

on a small sample of data (e.g. success of

last two or three products). They do not consider sample size and reliability (e.g. squeaky wheels).

Order effects Order in which information is presented affects retention. Things at beginning

and end easiest to remember.


Human Biases VII

Outcome of irrelevant process Use of definite decision procedure can lead to confidence in result when result may be poor because of inability to evaluate outcomes of choices not examined or poor hypothesis formulation.

Overconfidence Abundance of data sometimes leads to overconfidence in decision or in the accuracy of the data (e.g. poorly designed surveys).


Human Biases VIII

Redundancy The more redundancy in the data, the more confidence in the data.

Reference effect People normally perceive and evaluate

stimuli in accordance with their past experiential level for the stimuli. Changes in reference point often weighted more heavily than changes in the data as a whole.

Regression effect The largest observed values of observation

are used without regression to the mean (e.g. the small number of stocks having high growth in a year).


Human Biases IX

Regression to the mean Thinking the actions based upon a

negative outcome are the cause of a good outcome the next time when it is all chance (e.g. student performance).

Representativeness Results of small samples taken as representing large samples.

Selective Perceptions People seek information that

supports or confirms their views and values.


Human Biases X

Spurious cues Accepting the occurrence of a low probability event as a more common event.

Wishful thinking Preference of a decision maker for a particular combination of decision and

outcome.


Ways to help avoid cognitive bias I

Sample information from a broad database

Be sure to look for data on both sides of a hypothesis

Encourage the use of models and consistency analysis

Encourage the use of proper scaling methods

Analyze past decisions and the process by which they were made for performance and outcomes

Determine prior good and bad decisions and outcomes


Ways to help avoid cognitive bias II

Encourage effective learning and reading

Use of structural frameworks to capture information and organize it

Equal treatment of qualitative and quantitative information

Make sure sample characteristics (size, reliability, etc.) are associated and presented with the data.

Information should be presented in several forms.


Intellectual Cripple Hypothesis

Slovic’s hypothesis is that humans may well be little more than masters of the art of self deception.

Other evidence that humans are strongly motivated to understand, to cope with, and to improve themselves and the environment in which they function.


References I Cameron, K. E., Effectiveness as Paradox:

Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness, Management Science, 32(5), May 1986, 539-553.

Churchman, C. W., (1971), The Design of Inquiry Systems, Academic Press, New York.

Hiltz, S. R., and Turoff, M., (1993), The Network Nation: Human Communication via Computer, Addison-Wesley, 1978. Revised Edition, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1993.


References II Lewin, A. Y. Lewin and J. W. Minton,

Determining Organizational Effectiveness: Another look, and an agenda for Research, Management Science, 32(5), May 1986, 514-538

Linstone, H. and M. Turoff, (1975), The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, Addison-Wesley, Reading Mass (chapter on philosophy)

Mitroff, Ian I. & Murray Turoff, Technological Forecasting and Assessment: Science and/or Mythology?, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 5(1), 1973.

Mowshowitz, Abbe, (1997), Virtual Organization, CACM, 40(9), September, 30-37.


References III Mowshowitz, Abbe, (1997), On the theory of

virtual organization. System Research, 14(4).

Mowshowitz, Abbe, (1994), Virtual organization: a vision of management in the information age,. The Information Society, vol. 10, 267-288.

Scheele, Sam, Reality Construction as a Product of Delphi Interaction, in the Delphi Method Book (see above), 37-71.

Turoff, M., (1997), Virtuality, CACM, 40(9), September, 38-43.


References IV Turoff, M., (1986), The Rational, the

Pragmatic and the Inquiry Process: Social Studies of Communication and Information Systems, Computers and Society, Volume 15, Number 4, Winter.

Turoff, M., (1985), Information and Value: The Internal Information Marketplace, Journal of Technological Forecasting and Social Change, (27:4), July, 257-373.

VandeVen, Andrews, Central Problems in the Management of Innovation, Management Science 32(5), May 1986, 590-607


THE END

CIS 679 Management Information Systems Management Foundations The second notes set http://eies.njit.edu/[email protected]

Documents

(c) Copyright 2000 Murray Turoff 1 Management Foundation Areas CIS 679 Management of Information Systems New Jersey Institute of Technology Second set