8/3/2019 Is and Org Change

1/10

S oc i al I m pa c t s o fC o m p u t i n g R . K l i ngE d i t o rInform ation System sand O rganizationalChangeP e t e r G . W . K e e nS l o a n S c h o o l o f M a n a g e m e n t , M I T

T h i s p a p e r d i s c u s s e s l o n g - t e r m c h a n g e i no r g a n i z a t i o n s i n r e l a ti o n t o i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s . I tr e v i e w s c a u s e s o f s o c i a l i n e r t ia , r e s i s t a n c e a n dc o u n t e r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . I t s t r e s s e s t h e p l u r a li s ti cn a t u r e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s . T a c t i c s f o r m a n a g i n g c h a n g er e l y o n i n c r e m e n t a l , f a c i l it a t i v e a p p r o a c h e s . T h e s e l i m i ts t r a t e g i c c h a n g e w h i c h r e q u i r e s c o a l it i o n - b u il d i n g a n dc a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n t o p o l i t i c a l m e c h a n i s m s .

K e y W o r d s a n d P h r a s e s : i m p l em e n t a t i o n , c h a n g e ,p o l i t i c s

C R C a t e g o r i e s : 2 . 1 1 , 3 .3 0

I . I n t r o d u c t i o nT hi s p a pe r d i sc us se s long - t e r m c h a nge i n o r ga n i z a -t ions in re la t ion to informat ion sys tems . The a im i s toe xp l a i n w hy i nnova t i on i s s o d i f f i c u l t a nd t o po i n t t o -

w a r ds e f f e c t i ve s t r a t e g i e s f o r m a na g i ng t he p r oc e s s o fc h a n g e . M a n y c o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e d r a w n a t t e n t i o n t ot he p r ob l e m s o f i m p l e m e n t a t i on t ha t r e s u l t i n s y s t e m sbe ing t echnica l succes ses but organiza t iona l fa i lures .( U r ba n [ 69 ], G r a ys o n [ 23 ], K e e n [ 32 ], D r a k e [ 19 ]) T he i rana lyses s t res s the complexi ty of organiza t iona l sys temsa nd t he s oc i a l i ne r t i a tha t da m ps ou t t he i n t e nde d e f f e c tso f t e c hn i c a l i nnova t i ons.T h e g r o w i n g b o d y o f r e s e a r c h o n i m p l e m e n t a t i o ndea l s ma inly wi th t ac t i ca l is sues: H ow to c rea te a c l imatefor changing , bui ld ing and ins t i tu t iona l i z ing a spec i f i csys tem.~ This pap er focuses on s t ra tegic ques t ions :(1) W hat a re the causes of soc ia l ine r t ia?

P er mis s io n to co p y w i th o u t f ee a l l o r p a r t o f t h i s mate r i a l i sg r a n t e d p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e c o p i e s a r e n o t m a d e o r d i s t r ib u t e d f o r d i re c tc o m m e r c i a l a d v a n t a g e , t h e A C M c o p y r i g h t n ot i c e a n d t h e t i t l e o f t h ep u b l i ca t io n an d i t s d a te ap p ea r , an d n o t i ce i s g iv en th a t co p y in g i s b yp e r m i s s i o n o f t h e A s s o c i a ti o n f o r C o m p u t i n g M a c h i n e r y . T o c o p yo th e r w is e , o r to r ep u b l i s h , r eq u i r e s a f ee an d /o r s p ec i f ic p e r mis s io n .A u t h o r ' s p r e s e n t a d d r es s : P e t er G . W . K e e n , C e n t e r f o r I n f o r m a -t i o n S y s t e m s R e s e a r c h, S l o a n S c h o o l o f M a n a g e m e n t , M a s s a c h u se t t sI n s t i tu t e o f Tech n o lo g y , R o o m E5 3 -4 2 0, 6 0 M emo r ia l D r iv e , C am-b r id g e , MA 0 2 13 9 . 1 9 81 AC M 0 0 0 1 - 0 7 8 2 /8 1 /0 1 0 0 - 0 0 2 4 $ 0 0 .7 5 .2 4

( 2) W ha t a r e t he m a i n o r ga n i z at i ona l c ons t r a in t s onc ha nge ?( 3) W ha t a r e t he m e c h a n i s m s f o r e f f e c ti ng c ha nge ?E f f e c t i ve i m p l e m e n t a t i on r e l i e s on i nc r e m e n t a lchan ge , sm al l - s ca le pro jec t s, an d face - to- face fac il i ta t ion .( G i nz be r g [ 22 ] , V e r t i n s ky e t a l . [ 7 1 ] , K e e n a nd S c o t tM or t on [ 36 ]) A s t r a t e gy f o r l ong - t e r m c ha ng e a nd l a rge -s c a le i nnov a t i on r e qu i r e s a b r oa de r s t r a te gy ; t he c onc e p -t ua l a nd e m p i r i c a l w o r k on i m p l e m e n t a t i on , bo t h w i t h i n

M I S a nd O R / M S a nd i n po l i ti c a l s c ie nc e , p r ov i de s f e wgu i de l i ne s a nd s om e ve r y pe s s im i s t ic c onc l u si ons . T hem a i n a r gu m e n t o f th i s pa pe r i s t ha t i n f o r m a t i on s y st e m sdev e lop m ent i s an in ten se ly pol it i ca l a s we l l a s techn ica lp r oc e s s a nd t ha t o r ga n i z a t i ona l m e c ha n i s m s a r e ne e de dt ha t p r ov i de M I S m a n a ge r s w i t h a u t ho r i t y a nd r e s ou r c e sfo r ne go t i a t ion . T h e t r a d i t i ona l v ie w o f M I S a s a s t a f ff unc t i on i gno r e s t he p l u r a l i sm o f o r ga n i z a t i ona l de c i si onm a k i n g a n d t h e l i n k b e t w e e n i n f o r m a t i o n a n d p o w e r .Info rm at io n sys tems inc reas ingly a l te r re la t ionships , pa t -t e r n s o f c om m un i c a t i on a nd pe r c e i ve d i n f l ue nc e , a u -t ho r i t y , a nd c on t r o l . A s t r a t e gy f o r i m p l e m e n t a t i on m us tt he r e f o r e r e c ogn i z e a nd de a l w i t h t he po l i ti c s o f da t a a ndth e l i ke li hood , e v e n l e g i t im a c y , o f c oun t e r i r np l e m e n t a -t ion .

2 . T h e C a u s e s o f S o c i a l I n e r ti a" S oc i a l i ne r t ia " i s a c om pl i c a t e d w a y o f s a y ing t ha tn o m a t t e r h o w h a r d y o u t r y , n o th i n g s e e m s t o h a p p e n .T he m a i n c a us e s o f i ne r t i a i n r e l a t i on t o i n f o r m a t i ons ys te m s s e e m t o be :

( 1) I n f o r m a t i on i s on l y a s m a l l c om pone n t o f o r ga n i -za t iona l dec i s ion proces ses;( 2) H um a n i n f o r m a t i on - p r oc e s s i ng i s e xpe r i e n t ia l a ndre l i es on s im pl i f ica t ion;( 3) O r ga n i z a t i ons a r e c om pl e x a nd c ha nge is i nc r e m e n-t a l a nd e vo l u t i ona r y ; l a r ge s te p s a r e a vo i de d , e ve nres is ted;( 4) D a t a a r e no t m e r e l y a n in t e l le c t ua l c om m o d i t y bu ta pol i t i ca l resource , whose redi s t r ibut ion throughne w i n f o r m a t i on s y s t e m s a f f e c t s t he i n t e r e s t s o fpa r t i c u l a r g r oups .

C o m p u t e r s pe ci a li st s ge ne r a l l y t a ke f o r g r a n t e d t ha ti n f o r m a t i on s y s t e m s p la y a c e n t r a l r o le i n de c i s i on m a k-ing . Min tzberg ' s [51] and S tewar t ' s [65] desc r ip t ive s tud-ies of managers ' ac t iv i t i e s sugges t th i s i s of t en not thecase . ( s ee a lso Kl in g [39] ) In gen era l , dec i s ion proces sesa r e r e m a r ka b l y s i m p l e ( M i l le r [ 50 ]) ; w ha t ha s w or ke d i nt he pa s t i s m os t l i ke l y t o be r e pe a t e d . U nde r p r e s s u r e ,de c i s i on m a ke r s discard i n f o r m a t i on , a vo i d b r i ng i ng i ne xpe r t i se a n d e xp l o r i ng ne w a l t e rna t i ve s ( Wi l e ns ky [ 7 5] );t he y s i m p l i f y a p r ob l e m t o t he po i n t w he r e i t b e c om e sm a n a ge a b l e . A l m os t e ve r y de s c ri p t ive s t udy o f a c om p l e xdec i s ion proces s sugges ts tha t form al ana lys i s of quan t i -

S ee [ 3 4] f o r a c r i ti ca l ev a lu a t io n o f imp lem en ta t io n r e s ea rch .C o m m u n i c a t i o n s J a n u a r y 1 98 1o f V o l u m e 2 4t h e A C M N u m b e r 1

8/3/2019 Is and Org Change

2/10

f l ed in fo rma t ion i s, a t be s t , a minor a spec t o f t he s i t ua -t ion. (Pe t t igrew [57 ] , Bo we r [7]) Neg ot ia t ions, (St rauss[67 ]) hab i t, ru l e s o f t humb , and "mu ddl ing th roug h"(L indb lom [46] ) have fa r more fo rce . Th i s may seem anex t reme a sse r t ion bu t t he re i s l it tl e i f any empi r i ca lev idence to cha l l enge i t . The po in t i s no t t ha t manage rsa re s tup id o r i n fo rma t ion sys t ems i r r e l evan t bu t t ha tdec i s ion making i s mul t i f ace t ed , emot ive , conse rva t ive ,and on ly pa r t i a l l y cogn i t i ve . Forma l i zed in fo rma t iontechno log ie s a re no t a s se l f - ev iden t ly bene f i c i a l a s t ech-n i c i ans p re sume . M any desc r ip t ive mode l s o f dec i s ionmaking (L indb lom [46] , Coh en and M arch [12], Hi r sch-ma n [28 ]) imply tha t "be t t e r " i n fo rma t ion wi l l havev i r tua l ly no impac t .S imo n ' s concep t o f bo und ed ra t i ona l i t y s t r esse s t hes impl i c i t y and l imi t a ti ons o f i nd iv idua l i n fo rma t ion p ro -ce ss ing . 2 The re ha s l ong been a conf l i c t be tw een then o r m a t i v e p e r s p e ct i v e o f O R / M S a n d M I S , w h i c h d e -f ine s too l s ba sed on a r a t iona l i s ti c m ode l o f dec is ionmaking, and the descr ipt ive , la rgely re la t ivist ic posi t ionof man y beha v io ra l sc i en ti s ts who a rgue tha t t ha t con -cep t ion i s unrea l is t ic . 3 M i t ro f f ' s s t udy o f t he Apo l lomoon sc i en t i s t s i s pe rhaps t he be s t suppor t ed p re sen ta -t i on o f t h is pos i t i on . [54 ] Rega rd l e ss o f one ' s v i ewp oin to n h o w i n d iv i d u a ls should make decisions, i t seems c leartha t t he p rocesse s t hey actually r e ly o n d o n o t r e m o t e l yapprox ima te t he r a t i ona l i dea l . Th i s gap be tween thedesc r ip t ive a nd p re sc r ip t ive i s a m a in cause o f i ne r ti a :(1 ) The re i s l it t le ev idence to suppor t t he concep t o fcons i s t en t p re fe rence func t ions (Braybrooke andL i n d b l o m [ 9 ] , K a h n e m a n a n d T v e r s ky [ 3 1 ],Ku nrue the r and S lov ic [42]) ;(2) M anage rs and s tuden t s ( the t r ad i t iona l sub jec t s o fexpe r imen t s ) have d i f f i cu l ty wi th s imple t r ade -o f fcho ice s (Z ion t s and Wal l en ius [77 ] );(3) Pe rcep t ions a re se l ect ive (Dea rborn and S imon[14]);(4 ) The re a re c l ear b i a se s and pe r sona l i t y d if f e rencesin p rob lem-so lv ing "s ty l e s" (Huysmans [30 ] ,M c K e n n e y a n d K e e n [ 4 9] , D o k t o r [ 1 6] ) t h a t m a yeven l ead ind iv idua l s t o r e j ec t a ccura t e and use fu li n f o r m a t io n ( C h u r c h m a n [ 1 1] , D o k t o r a n d H a m i l -ton [17]);(5 ) Even in t el l igen t and expe r i enced dec i s ion make rsma ke m any e r ro r s o f l og ic and in fe rence (Tve rskya n d K a h n e m a n [ 6 8] , R o s s [ 6 1] ;(6) M anage rs p re fe r conc re t e and ve rba l da t a t o fo rma lanalysis . (M intzberg [51] , Stew art [65]);Al l i n a l l , human in fo rma t ion-process ing t ends t o bes imple , expe r i en t i a l , nonana ly t i c , and on the whole ,

2See [641. See also [131, and with a different flavor and verydifferent conclusions, Lindb lom [47] who argues that:"The h uman condition is small brain, big problems. People henneed help--devices, processes and institutions--to simplify problem-solving." (p. 66).3See 1331 for a historical summ ary of the (largely axiomatic)concept of optimality.25

Fig. 1. The L eavitt "Diam ond": Compo nents of the organization.

Technology~

8/3/2019 Is and Org Change

3/10

F i g . 2 . Tac t i ca l Mo d e l fo r D esc r i b i n g an d / o r Man ag i n g Ch an g .

LEWlN-SCHEIN KOLB-FROHMANUnfreezing Scouting Create Climate.~ for and ContractEntry for Change

4 ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Change Diagnosis Techn icalAnalysis andDesignPlanning

Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Refreeze E v a lu a t i o n Inst itu tional ization4 ,Termination

The f ina l c ause o f i ne r t i a i s le ss pa ss ive t han theo the r s . Da ta a re a cen t ra l po l i t ic a l re source . Man y agen t sand un i t s i n o rgan iza t ions ge t t he i r i n f luence and au ton-o m y f r o m t h e ir c o n t r o l o v e r i n f o rm a t i o n . T h e y w i l l n o tread i ly g ive t ha t up . In many ins t ances new in fo rma t ionsys t ems repre sen t a d i r ec t t h rea t and they re spond ac -c o r d in g l y . W e n o w h a v e a d e q u a t e t h e o r ie s o f i m p l em e n -t a ti o n . W e h a v e l es s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f c o u n t e ri m p l e m e n -t a t i on , t he l i f e fo rce o f mo re than a f ew pub l i c sec to ro r g a n i z at i o n s a n d a h i d d e n f e a tu r e o f m a n y p r i v a t e o n e s .Th i s i s sue is d i scussed in m ore de t a i l i n Sec t ion 6 .Al l t he se fo rce s t owards i ne r t i a a re cons t ra in t s oninnova t ion . They a re no t necessa r i l y b ind ing ones . Im-p l e m e n t a t i o n is poss ib l e bu t r equ i re s pa t i ence and as t r a t egy tha t r ecogn ize s t ha t t he change p rocess mus t beexp l i c it l y managed . Only sma l l successe s wi l l be ach ievedin mos t s i t ua t ions . These may , howeve r , be s t rung to -ge the r i n to ma jo r l ong- t e rm innova t ions . "Creep ingsoc i a l i sm" i s an ins t ance o f lim i t ed t ac t i cal dec i s ionsadd ing up to s t r a t eg i c r ed i rec t ion ; no one s t ep appea r sradica l .

3 . O verc o m ing S o c ia l Inert ia : A T a c t ic a l App ro a c hThere a re seve ra l we l l -de f ined t ac t i ca l mode l s fo rdea l ing wi th i ne r t i a . They a re t a c t i ca l i n t he sense t ha tthey ap p ly l a rge ly t o spec if i c p ro j ec ts . They recom men ds imple , phased p rog rams wi th c l ea r ob j ec t ive s (Pre ssmanand Wi ldavsky [59] ) and fac i l i t a t i on by a change agen to r a " f ixe r" (Ba rdach [5 ] ) , an ac to r wi th t he o rgan iza -t i ona l r e sources t o nego t i a t e among in t e re s t ed pa r t i e sa n d m a k e s i d e p a y m e n t s . T h e L e w i n - S c h e i n f r a m e w o r ka n d a n e x t e n s io n o f i t, K o l b a n d F r o h m a n ' s m o d e l o fthe con su l t i ng p rocess [41] , have been u sed ex t ens ive ly

2 6

b y r e s e a rc h e r s o n O R / M S a n d M I S i m p l e m e n t a t io n , 4bo th in de sc r ip t ive s tud ie s (Ginzbe rg [22] , Zan d andSorenson [76] ) and p re sc r ip t ive ana lys i s . (Lucas andPl im pton [48 ] , Ke en [32] , U rba n [69]) Th i s concep t ionof t he change p rocess ( see F igure 2 ) emphas i zes :( 1) T h e i m m e n s e a m o u n t o f w o r k n e e d e d p ri o r t odes ign ; change mus t be se l f -mot iva t ed and basedo n a " f e l t n e e d " w i t h a c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n u s e r a n di m p l e m e n t e r b u i l t o n m u t u a l c r e d i b i l i t y a n d c o m -mi tment ;(2 ) The d i f f i cu l ty o f ins t i tu t i ona l iz ing a sys t em and

em bedd ing i t i n it s o rgan iza tiona l co n tex t so tha t i twi l l s t ay a l i ve when the de s igne r / consu l t an t l e avesthe scene ;(3 ) The p rob le m of ope ra t iona l i z ing goa l s and iden t ify -ing cr i te r ia for success.T h i s t a c t i c a l a p p r o a c h i s " U p - a n d - I n " r a t h e r t h a n" D o w n - a n d - O u t " . ( L e a v it t a n d W e b b [ 4 5] ) D O i s b a s e don d i rec t ion f rom the top , l eng thy des ign s t ages , and af o r m a l s y s t e m fo r p la n n i n g a n d p r o j e c t m a n a g e m e n t . U Ire l ie s on sm a l l g roups , wi th f ace - to - face i nvo lvem ent andpa r t i c ipa t ive manag emen t . T he d es ign evo lves ou t o f t heE n t r y p r o c e s s. ( K o l b a n d F r o h m a n [ 41 ])L e a v i t t a n d W e b b p o i n t o u t t h a t U I w o r k s w e l l f o rsma l l p ro j ec t s . Howeve r , l a rge - sca l e change requ i re s aneng inee r ing approach to de s ign tha t qu i ck ly encoun te r ssoc i a l ine r t ia . T he d i l emm a i s t ha t U I l imi t s i t se lf t ofea s ib l e, inc reme nta l change w hi l e DO , the b roade r s t ra -tegic process, i s rare ly successful . The tac t ica l modelneeds ex t ens ion ; f ac i l i t a t i on i s no t enough and soc i a li ne r t i a i s dange rous ly c lose t o soc i a l en t ropy (Ba rdach

[51).4 Ginz berg [22] provides a u seful summ ary o f th is perspect ive. Seealso [34].

Co m m u n i ca t i o n s Jan u a ry 1 98 1o f V o l u m e 2 4t he A C M N u m b e r 1

8/3/2019 Is and Org Change

4/10

No fo rma l e f fec t ive s t r a t eg i c mode l ex i s t s . I f i t d id ,one migh t expec t t o f r ed i t i n po l i t i c a l sc i ence , whichf requen t ly r econs t ruc t s t he p rocesse s unde r ly ing e f fo r t sto de l ive r m a jo r soc ia l , t echn ica l, o r po l i t ic a l p rograms.( S a p l o s k y [ 6 3] , P r e s s m a n a n d W i l d v a s k y [ 5 9] , H a r g r o v e[27], Derthic k [15]) Pol i t ica l sc ience deserv es the label ofthe "d i sma l " sc i ence f a r more than economics , whicha f t e r a l l be l i eves i n t he even tua l t r i um ph o f r a t iona l i ty ;mo s t s tud i e s i n t h i s f i e ld dea l wi th f a il u re s. (S ap losky ' sana lys i s o f t he Po la r i s p ro j ec t i s a r a re exa mple o f asuccess . ) They iden t i fy a s fo rce s imped ing change no ton ly soc i a l i ne r t i a bu t a l so p lu ra l i sm and coun te r imple -m e n t a t i o n - - o v e r t m o v e s , o f t en m a d e b y s k i ll e d a ct o rs ,t o p reven t a d i s rup t ion o f t he s t a tus quo . Co un te r imple -men ta t ion i s mos t l i ke ly t o occur whe n ou t s ide r s b r ing int h r e a t e n i n g n e w t e c h n o l o g i e s . ( M u n s o n a n d H a n c o c k[55 ], Ches l e r and F lande rs [10 ]) . In fo rma t ion sys t ems a reexac t ly t ha t i n ma ny ca se s (Argyn s [3 ] , [4 ] , Ha l l [25 ],[261.)

4 . P l u r al is m : T h e N e e d t o M o b i l iz ePol i t ic a l sc i ence v i ews o rgan iza t ions ma in ly a s g roupsof ac tors, of ten w i th confl ic t ing pr ior i ties , objec t ives, andva lues . (A l l i son [ 1 ]) The man agem ent l i te ra tu re gene ra l lya s s u m e s f ar m o r e c o m m o n a l i t y o f p u r p o s e . T h e D o w n -a n d - O u t a p p r o a c h r e l i e s o n t h i s . U p - a n d - I n e v a d e s t h ep r o b l e m b y l i m i ti n g t h e s c o p e o f t h e p r o j ec t a n d h e n c ethe number o f ac to r s i nvo lved ; i t f a i l s comple t e ly i fconsensus i s no t imposs ib l e . The more the o rgan iza t ioni s v i ewed a s a se t o f l oose ly coup led un i t s (W e ick [72])wh e re j o in t a c t ion re s t s on nego t i a t i ons (S t rauss [67] ),t h e m o r e a n y s t r a te g y f o r im p l e m e n t a t i o n m u s t e m p h a -s ize t he n eed to mo bi l i z e coa l it i ons, t o p ro v ide the nec -e ssa ry suppor t fo r an innova t ive p roposa l . Obv ious ly ,t ha t p rocess i s ba sed on po l i t i c a l r a the r t han economicra t iona l it y . T he co ro l l a ry o f t h i s a rgumen t i s t ha t l a ck o fa t t en t ion to t he cons t ra in t s on change imposed by p lu -ra l i sm in organiza t ions wi l l resul t in fa i lure .Many wr i t e r s who a t t ack the r a t i ona l i s t t r ad i t i on onw h i c h O R / M S a n d M I S a r e b a s e d s t r e s s t h e l e g i t i m a c yo f p l u r a li s m a n d h e n c e o f i n c re m e n t a l d e c i s i on m a k i n g .L ind b lom sees t he use o f soc i a l i n t e rac tions i ns t ead o fana lys i s and p l ann ing a s ana logous to r e l i ance on amarke t sys t em to s impl i fy t he p rocess o f r e source a l l o -ca t ion [47 ] . S t rauss a rgues t ha t "soc i a l o rde r" and dec i -s i o n m a k i n g i n a n y o r g a n i z a t i o n a r e p r e d o m i n a n t l y

based on nego t i a t i ons : . . w h e n i n d i v i d u a l s o r g r o u p s o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s w o r k t o g e t h e r t o' g e t t h i n g s d o n e ' t h e n a g r e e m e n t i s required a b o u t s u c h m a t t e r s a sw h a t , h o w , w h e n , w h e re , a n d h o w m u c h . C o n t i n u e d a g r e e m e n t it s e l fm a y b e s o m e t h i n g to b e w o r k e d a t . . . n e g o t i a t i o n s p e r t a i n t o th eo r d e r i n g a n d a r t i c u la t i o n o f a n e n o r m o u s v a r i e t y o f a c t iv i ti e s, sIn m any ins tances , p lu ra l i s ti c pe r spec t ive s v i ew fo r-ma l i n fo rma t ion sys t ems a s e i t he r e th ica l ly dange rous i n

tha t t hey impose a f a l se r a t i ona l i t y (Hoos [29] ) , na ive(Wi ldavsky [74 ] ) , o r s imply i r r e l evan t . (L indb lom [46] )They a l so deny the i r va lue a s coup l ing dev ice s t ha t he lpcoord ina t e p l ann ing and communica t ion ; p lu ra l i s t s seemerit in d i s o r d e r a n d r e d u n d a n c y . ( K l e i n a n d M e c k l i n g[37 ] ) We ine r and Wi ldavsky , comment ing on fede ra l i sm,s u m m a r i z e t h i s a r g u m e n t : W h a t i s n e e d e d i s " . . . p l a n -n ing w i th a d i f f e ren t a im: t o fos t e r cho ice t h rough ca re fu lst ruc tu r ing of socia l interac t ion. ' '6T h e s e v i e w p o i n t s a r e o b v i o u s l y n o t s h a r e d b y m o s tp rop onen t s o f ana ly t i c me thodo log ie s . S ince they a rem a i n l y b a s e d o n s t u d ie s o f p u b l i c p o l i c y is s ue s , o n e m a ya rgue tha t bus iness o rgan iza t ions a re more t i gh t ly cou-p l ed and l e ss dom ina ted by p lu ra li sm an d inc rementa l -i sm. Th i s may be t rue i n pa r t i cu l a r i ns t ances ; t he re a rem a n y c o m p a n i e s w h o s e p l a n n i n g s y s t e m s a r e e f f e c t i v ein e s t ab li sh ing and co mm unica t ing goa l s, invo lv ing man-age r s i n t he dec i s ion p rocess , and c rea t ing a c l ima te fo rinnova t ion . (Vanc i l and Lorange [70 ] ) Even so , mos tca se s tud ie s o f com plex dec i s ions sugges t tha t co mp an ie sa re f a r more p lu ra f i s t i c t han we conven ien t ly a ssume .Pe t t i g rew ' s ana lys i s o f a dec i s ion to purchase a compu te r ,fo r example , r evea l s i nnumerab le t e r r i t o r i a l d i spu te s ,man euve r in g fo r pos i t ion , conf f i c t ove r goa l s, and i r rec -onc i l ab l e d i f f e rences i n pe r spec t ive among o rgan iza -t i ona l un i t s [57 ]. Be l i eve r s i n p lu ra l i sm do n o t f i nd tha tsu rp r i s ing bu t mos t compute r spec i a l i s t s do .The po in t i s no t t o j us t i fy p lu ra l ism. I t seems c l ea r ,how eve r , t ha t i t is a ma in cause o f i ner t ia . "Ge t t i ngt h i n g s d o n e " , w h e t h e r D o w n - a n d - O u t o r U p - a n d - I n ,r equ i re s t he ca re fu l bu i ld ing o f coa l i ti ons ba sed on co m-p lex nego t i a t ions . T he l a rge r t he scope o f a p ro j ec t andthe more st ra tegic i t s goals , the t ruer this wi l l be , becauseo f th e " . . . g e o m e t r i c g r o w t h o f i n t e rd e p e n d e n c i es . . .whose impl i ca t ions ex t end ove r t ime . " (Pre ssman andWi ldavsky [59] ) Sec t ion 8 sugges t s some o rgan iza t iona lm e c h a n i s m s t h a t c a n p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s d e -ve lope r s wi th t he au th or i t y an d re sources t o r e so lve the secomplex i t i e s .

5 . C o u n t e r i m p l e m e n t a t i o nBef i eve r s i n r a t i ona f i sm gene ra l ly v i ew re s i st ance tochange and p ro t ec t ion o f ve s t ed in t e re s t s a s f au lt s t o beignored o r suppre ssed . The t ac t i ca l approach to imple -menta t ion see s r e s i s t ance a s a s igna l f rom a sys t em inequ i f ib f ium tha t t he cos t s o f change a re pe rce ived a sgrea t e r t han the l i ke ly bene f i ts . The b f inge r s and se ll e rso f c h a n g e - - a c a d e m i c s , c o m p u t e r s p e ci al is ts , a n d c o n -s u l t a n t s - - a s s u m e t h a t w h a t t h e y o f f e r i s g o o d . I n p r a c -t i c e , t he re a re many va f id r ea sons t o go beyond pass ivere s i s t ance and ac t ive ly t ry t o p reven t implementa t ion .M a n y i n n o v a t i o n s a r e d u m b i d e a s . O t h e r s t h r e a t e n t h ein t e res t s o f ind iv idua l s and g roups b y in t rud ing on the i rt e r r i t o ry , l im i t i ng the i r au tonomy, r educ ing the i r i n f lu -

2 75 [671, p. ix . e [73], p. 17.

C o m m u n i c a t i o n s J a n u a r y 1 98 1o f V o l u m e 2 4t he A C M N u m b e r 1

8/3/2019 Is and Org Change

5/10

ence , o r add ing to t he i r work load . Whi l e we a l l may t ryto ac t i n t he "corpora t e " i n t e re s t , we o f t en have ve ryd i f fe ren t de f in it i ons o f exac t ly wh a t t ha t i s. (Dea rbornand Simon po in t ou t t ha t even sen io r execu t ive s adop tthe pe r spec t ive o f t he i r depa r tm en t [14] ).Obvious ly t he re i s a f i ne l i ne be tween hones t r e s i s t -ance to a p ro j ec t one f ee l s i s mi sgu ided and se l f i shsabo tage o f a necessa ry innova t ion . The d i f f e rence i s ama t t e r fo r consc i ence and se l f - sc ru t iny . In bo th ca se s ,t he r e sponse i s po l i t i c a l , whe the r "c l ean" o r "d i r ty"pol i t ics .Ba rdach [5 ] de f ine s implementa t ion a s a game ando u t l in e s s o m e o f t h e m o v e s a n d c o u n t e r m o v e s b y w h i c hactors: (1) diver t resources f rom a projec t ; (2) def lec t i t sgoals; (3) dissipa te i t s energies. A centra l lesson to bel e a r n e d f r o m e x a m p l e s o f s u c ce s s fu l c o u n t e f i m p l e m e n -t a t i on i s t ha t t he re i s no need to t ake the r i sky s t ep o fove r t l y oppos ing a p ro j ec t . The s imple s t approach i s t ore ly on soc i a l i ne r t i a and use moves based on de l ay andtoken i sm. Techn ica l ou t s ide r s shou ld be kep t ou t s ideand the i r l a ck o f awareness o f o rgan iza t iona l i s suese n c o u r a g e d . ( " W h y d o n ' t y o u b u i ld th e m o d e l a n d w e ' lldea l w i th t he peop le i ssues la t e r; t he re ' s no nee d to havethese i n t e rminab le mee t ings . " ) I f mo re ac t ive coun te r -implem enta t ion i s needed , on e may exp lo i t the d i f f i cu l tyof ge t ti ng agreem ent am ong ac to r s wi th d i f f e ren t i n te r -e s t s by en thus i a s t i c a l ly say ing , "Grea t i dea - -bu t l e t ' s doi t p ro p e r l y !" a d d i n g m o r e p e o p l e t o th e g a m e a n d m a k i n gt h e o b j e c t iv e s o f t h e v e n t u r e b r o a d e r a n d m o r e a m b i t i o u sa n d c o n s e q u e n t l y m o r e c o n t e n ti o u s a n d h a r d e r t o m a k eope ra t iona l .

T h i s a u t h o r h a s f o u n d e x a m p l e s o f m o s t o f t h e t a ct ic sB a r d a c h i d e nt if i es , i n a n o n g o i n g s t u d y o f t h e i m p l e m e n -t a t io n o f i n f o r m a t io n s y s te m s a n d m o d e l s f o r e d u c a t io n a lpo l i cy ana lys i s i n s t a t e gove rnment . Be fore d i scuss ingthem, i t i s impor t an t t o examine wha t i s pe rhaps t hes i ng l e m o s t i m p o r t a n t c a u s e o f c o u n t e r i m p l e m e n t a t io ni n i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s d e v e l o p m e n t - - t h e p o l i t i c s o fda t a .T h e l in k b e t w e e n c o n t r o l o v e r in f o r m a t i o n a n d i n fl u -ence has o f t en been no ted . " In fo rma t ion i s a r e sourcetha t symbol i ze s s t a tus , enhances au thor i t y and shapesre l a t i onsh ips . " (Wi ldavsky [74 ] ) " In fo rma t ion i s an e l e -me nt o f power . " (Q uoted in Gree nbe rg e r e t a l. [24 ])Compute r sys t ems o f t en r ed i s t r i bu t e i n fo rma t ion , b reak-i n g u p m o n o p o l i es . B u i l d in g a d a t a b a s e t h e n b e c o m e s apo l i t ic a l mov e ; some t imes i t i s equ iva l en t t o a dec l a ra t ionof wa r . The sys t em des igne r needs t o a sk :( 1 ) W h o o w n s t h e d a t a?(2 ) W ho wi l l sha re i t?(3 ) W ha t wi l l be the pe rce ived impac t o f r ed i s t r i bu t ionon :(a ) eva lua t ion ;(b ) i n f luence and au thor i t y ;( c ) communica t ion?H e o r s h e s h o u l d t h e n g e t r e a d y t o d e a l w i t h c o u n t e r -implementa t ion .28

D o r n b u s c h a n d S c o t t d e f i n e e v a lu a t i o n a s c e n tr a l t othe exe rc i se o f au tho r i t y [ 18 ]. In g ene ra l , p rov id ing man-agement (o r ou t s ide agenc ie s ) wi th da t a t ha t pe rmi t sc l o se r o b s e r v a t i o n o f s u b o r d i n a t e s ' d e c i s i o n m a k i n g o rhe lps de f ine add i t i ona l ou tp u t measure s i nc rea se s con t ro la n d d e c r e a s e s a u t o n o m y . M a n y p u b l i c s e c t o r a g e n c i e spro t ec t da t a on the i r ope ra t ions a s a means o f ma in t a in -i n g t h e ir i n d e p e n d e n c e . L a u d o n ' s s t u d y o f i n f o r m a t io nsys t ems in l oca l gove rnment p rov ides many i l l us t r a t i onsof this poin t [43] , i .e ., pol ice ag encies protec t the i r d a taf r o m m a y o r s a n d b u d g e t a g e n c ie s . I n fo r ma t ion i s c on tro l .(See a lso Pet t igrew [58] . )E v a l u a t i o n a n d m o n i t o r i n g a r e o f t e n " i m p r o v e d "( f r o m t h e m a n a g e r ' s v i e w p o i n t ) t h r o u g h t h e c o l le c t io n o frou t ine op e ra t iona l da t a . An un an t i c ipa t ed s ide e f fec t o fin fo rm a t ion sys t ems i s an inc rea se i n t he supe r io r ' s ab i l -i t y t o eva lua t e pe r sonne l . For example , t e l ecommunica -t i ons , o f f i ce au toma t ion , and in t eg ra t ed da t abase s p ro -v ide and reco rd s imple access t o i n fo rma t ion tha t ma yt h e n b e u s e d t o o b s e r v e s u b o rd i n a te s . T h e i n t r o d u c ti o nof o f f i ce au toma t ion has , fo r ins t ance , l ed some manage rsto s tudy " p rod uc t iv i ty" o f c le r i cal s ta f f , mea sured int e rms o f li ne s t yped o r e r ro r r a te s . Ho sp i t a l s s imi la r ly usec o m p u t e r - d e r i v e d d a t a t o t r a c k n u r s e s ' p e r f o r m a n c e ;p rev ious ly eva lua t ion requ i red in t e rac t ion , some degreeof nego t i a t i on and re spec t fo r t he nurse s ' "p ro fe ss ion a l "j u d g e m e n t . S o m e m a n a g e r s a r e c o n c e rn e d t h a t t r en d s i nc o m p u t e r n e t w o r k i n g a n d d a t a b a s e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n m a ys imi l a r ly e ncoura ge the i r supe r io r s t o snoo p . 7T h e l i n k b e t w e e n e v a l u a t i o n a n d a u t h o r i t y i s r e c o g-n i z e d b y m a n y t r a d e u n i o n l e ad e r s. G r e e n b e r g e r e t a l. 'sd i s c u s si o n o f t h e jo i n t e f f o r t o f R a n d a n d t h e a d m i n i s -t r at io n o f M a y o r L i n d s a y i n N e w Y o r k t o a p p l y m a n -agement sc i ence to c i t y gove rnment p rov ides seve ra lexam ple s o f the i r r e fusa l t o pe rmi t d a t a t o be ga the redt h a t m i g h t la ter be used to eva lua t e p roduc t iv i ty [24 ] .Teache r un ions s imi l a r ly opposed e f fo r t s t o i n t roduceaccoun tab i l i t y p rograms. In a t l e a s t one s t a t e , t heD e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n j o i n e d t h e m i n a n e l e g a n tc o u n t e r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n m o v e , a v a r ia n t o f o n e B a r d a c h[5] labels P i l e O n . T e a c h e r a c c o u n t a b i li t y m e a s u r e s h a db e e n t a c k e d o n t o a s c h o o l f in a n c e b il l. T h e D e p a r t m e n to f E d u c a t i o n s u g g e s te d s ix c o m p r e h e n s i v e p r o g r a m s , a l lo f which invo lved co l l ec ting and p rocess ing add i t i ona lda t a . I t t hen schedu led abou t 30 s t a t ewide mee t ings ,ope n to p a ren t s , t he p re ss , schoo l o ff i c ia l s , and t eache r sand lo f t i l y en t i t l ed "The Sea rch fo r Consensus" . Th i sgene ra t ed 44 sepa ra t e accoun tab i l i t y measure s . The p ro -g r a m i s, o f c o u rs e , n o w d e a d . T h i s c o u n t e r i m p l e m e n t a -t i on was ove r t and sk i l l ed , bu t puzz l ing to ana lys t s whosaw the ne ed fo r " be t t e r " da t a a s i n the i n t e re s ts o f a ll .A c o r o l la r y o f t h e l in k b e t w e e n e v a l u a t i o n a n d a u -thor i t y i s t he r e l a t i onsh ip be tw een own ersh ip o f i n fo r -m a t i o n a n d a u t o n o m y . I n s o m e c as e s, d e p a r t m e n t s o rind iv idua l s have in f luence on ly because they have a da t a

7 See [40]. [6] prov ides an excellent summary of pow er issues inrelation to information systems,viewedmainly n terms of he account-ing function.Communications January 1981of Volume 24the ACM Number 1

8/3/2019 Is and Org Change

6/10

T a b l e I . I m p l e m e n t a t i o n G a m e s ( B a r d a c h ) .D i v e r t i n g R e s o u r ce s

Easy MoneyBudgetEasy LifePork Barrel

D e f l e c t in g G o a l sPile OnUp or GrabsKeep the Peace

D is s ip a t in g En e r g ie sTenacityTerritoryNot Our ProblemOdd Man OutReputation

S a m p l e M o t i v a t i o n" G e t a l i t t le m o r e t h a n w e g i v e b a c k . "" W e n e v e r t ur n d o w n m o n e y ."" M ak e s u r e w e ' r e in ch a r g e an d d o n ' t l e t o u t s id e r s cau s e t r o u b le ; t ak e i t s lo w ly . "Th e e l ec ted o f f ic i a l ' s v e r s io n o f Eas y Mo n ey ; " g r ab i t w h i l e y o u can . "

" L e t ' s d o i t f i g h t ! - - W e h a v e t o m a k e s u r e o u r i n t e r es t s a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r o j e c t . "" I f t h e y d o n ' t k n o w w h a t t h e y w a n t , w e ' l l t a k e o v e r ."" W e ' r e g o i n g t o h a v e t o w o r k c l o s el y w i t h M a r k e t i n g a n d m a k e s u r e w e ' r e b o t h h a p p y . "

" N o . " " O n e m o r e t i m e ." " W e ' r e n o t h a p p y a b o u t . . . "" T h i s i s our job." " W e t h i n k we s h o u ld r u n t h e p r oj e c t s i n c e . . . "" M a r k e t i n g r e a ll y o u g h t t o h a n d l e t h i s . "" W e ' r e c e r t a in l y i n te r e s te d a n d w e ' l l b e h a p p y t o p r o v i d e s o m e i n p u t s, b u t . . . "" I w a n t a n i n t e g r a t e d -o n - l i n e - re a l - t i m e - d a t a b a se - m a n a g e m e n t - d i s t d b u t e d - p r o c e ss i n g - p l a n n in g y s te m . M ys y s t e m w i l l . . . "

monopoly. (Cyert and March [13] comment that orga-nizations are par tly designed in terms o f rules for filteringand channelling data. Particular units are given respon-sibility for collecting and interpreting data and otherunits may not challenge them.) Finance and Planning,for example, may own data on capital allocations. Instate government agencies, budget officials often have amonopoly on the details of particular programs andexpenditures which gives them great influence on thedecision making process. Staffspecialists, who often lackdirect authority, rely on careful rationing of technicalinforma tion in negotiations and on their ability to with-hold data (Pettigrew [58]).

Informa tion systems redistribute data and are some-times intended to break up monopolies. This may beequivalent to redesigning parts of the organization, dis-rupting patterns of communication, and reallocating au-thority. Of course, this also means that they may beexplicitly used to "... perpetuate or modify decisionprocesses and social structures." (Bariff and Galbraith[6]) Information systems then become a tool for organi-zational development in the most literal sense of theterm. The key point is that designers must recognize thatfar from being divorced from messy "politics", infor-mation technology has a major impact on a criticalresource and source of power. It i s hardly surprising thenthat teachers view a productivity reporting system as anoutrage or that operating divisions oppose the efforts ofFinance to coordinate planning through a budget track-ing system. Computer specialists tend to be very sur-prised.

6 . T h e T a c t i c s o f C o u n t e r im p l e m e n t a t io nA key step in the tactical approach to implementationis to convert the general impetus for change which is

2 9

usually based on broad goals and rallying cries, intooperational objectives and a specific contract. (Kolb andFrohman [41], Ginzberg [22]) Any project is very vul-nerable to counterimplementation until this is done.Programs that have unc lear goals or ambiguous specifi-cations and that rely on continuing high levels of com-petence and coordination are easy targets for skilledgame players. Bardach [5] outlines a variety of games.(Table I) Ea sy Mo n ey involves supporting a projectbecause it can be used to fmance some needed activitywithin the player's sphere o f interest. The Budget gameis played by managers as budget maximizers and Terri-tory is similarly used to protect or extend control.Within a game, there are some predictable moves.Tenacity exploits social inertia and interdependencies:" . . . all it takes is the ability and the will to stymie thecompletion, or even the progress, of a program untilone's own part icula r terms are satisfied. ''a O d d M a n O u tcreates an option to withdraw if the project gets intotrouble and then the chance to say "I told you so." Thismove is made easiest in projects where only the designeris accountable and no visible commitment is requiredfrom the game player. Up For Grabs is used to take overa program where the mandate is half-hearted or ambig-uous.All these moves are found in information systemsdevelopment. There is an additional maneuver employedwherever computers are found--the Reputation game.Here, a manager gets credit as a bold innovator bysponsoring a new system- -the closer to the state-of-the-art t he better, since this increases his or her visibility andcreates excitement. The Reputation gamer will have beentransferred to a new position by the time the projectcollapses and can then ruefully say ". . . when I was incharge of things..." The short tenure of upwardlymobile managers and their need to produce fast results

s [5], p. 148.C o m m u n i c a t i o n s J a n u a r y 1 98 1o f V o l u m e 2 4t h e A C M N u m b e r 1

8/3/2019 Is and Org Change

7/10

T a b l e I I . S c e n a r i o - W r i t in g ( a d a p t e d f r o m B a r d a c h ) .A . B as ic O b jec t iv es :

B . D i l e m m a s o fA d m i n i s t r a t i o n :

C . G a m e s :

D . D e lay :

E . F i x i n g t h e G a m e :

- - W h a t e x a c tl y a r e y o u t r y in g t o g e t d o n e ?( n o t w h a t d o es th e s y s t em lo o k l ik e? )

- - W h a t r e s o u r ce s ar e n e e de d ?- - W h o c o n t r o ls t h e m , d ir e c t ly o rin d i r ec t ly ?- - H o w c a n y o u m i n i m i z e t h e e f f e c t s o fsocial iner t ia?- - W h a t e l e m e n t s a re c r it ic a l ?- - A r e a n y o f t h e m s u b j e ct to m o n o p o l y

in teres ts?- - W i l l t h e i r o w n e r s b e u n c o o p e r a ti v e ?- - C a n y o u w o rk a r o u n d t h e m o r b u y th e mo f ~ .- - W i l l t h e y r e s p o n d w i t h d e l a y s ort o k e n i s m ?- - H o w w i l l y o u d e a l w i t h m a s s i v e r e s i s t -an ce?- - W h a t g a m e s ar e l ik e l y t o( a ) d iv e r t r e s o u rces ?( b ) d e f l ec t g o a l s ?(c) d is s ipate energies?- - H o w c a n y o u c o u n t e r a c t o r p r e v e n t t h e m ,

i f n eces s a r y b y r ed es ig n in g th e p r o jec t?- - H o w m u c h d e l a y s h o u l d y o u e x p e ct ?- - W h a t n e g o t i a t i o n s a r e ne e d e d ?- - W h a t r e s ou r c es d o y o u h a v e f o r n e g o t i -a t i o n s a n d / o r c o n t r o l?- - W o u l d i t h e l p t o u s e p r o j e c t m a n a g e -

men t , w o r k a r o u n d p o s s ib le o b s tac le san d d e lay o r en l i s t i n t e r med ia r i e s ?- - W h a t s e n io r m a n a g e m e n t a n d s t a f f a i dd o y o u n e e d ?- - W h a t r e s o u r ce s d o t h e y h av e ?- - W h a t i n c e n t iv e s a r e t h e r e f or t h e m t op lay th e f ix e r r ol e?- - C an y o u b u i ld a co a l i t i o n to f'Lx h e g ame?

e nc ou r a ge s t h i s m ove , w h i c h i s on l y pos s i b l e how e ve rw h e n t h e g o a ls o f t h e p r o j e c t ar e n o t m a d e o p e r a ti o n a lo r s pe c i f ic c om m i t m e n t s m a de t o de l i ve r pha s e d ou t pu t s .T h i s a na l y s i s o f i m p l e m e n t a t i on a s a ga m e m a y s e e movercynica l . However , i t s eems es sent i a l to ask a t thes ta r t of a p ro jec t :(1) Ar e peop le l ike ly to p lay games?(2) I s the proposa l pro of aga ins t subvers ion?T he s e t w o s i m p l e que s t i ons p r ov i de t he ba s i s f o r adefens iv e s tra tegy.

7 . C o unterc o unter im plem enta t io n : T he Ma na g em entG a m e

M o s t o f t he m ove s B a r da c h d i sc us se s e xp lo i t a m b i -gu i t y a nd a l a c k o f c on t r o l m e c ha n i s m s . T he Reputationga m e p l a ye r c a n ge t e a r ly c r e d it a nd no t be he l d a c c oun t -able l a t e r . Easy Money i s poss ib le only because th e goa l so f t he p r o j e c t a r e t oo b r oa d l y s t a t e d . Odd Man Outoc c u r s w he n t e c hn i c i a ns ha ve t o c a r r y t he ve n t u r e ( o rchoose to do so). Bard ach sugges t s des igners use " scen-a r i o - w r i t i ng" ( T a b l e I I ) a nd i n e s s e nc e a s k " w ho c a n3 0

f ou l i t up . " T he t a c t i c a l a pp r oa c h t o i m p l e m e n t a t i onm a k e s t h e s a m e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , t h o u g h m o r e o p t i m is -t ic a ll y . A t t he E n t r y s ta ge t he i m p l e m e n t e r t ri e s to i de n -t i fy and br ing in to the ( fac i l i t a t ive ) negot ia t ions anypa r t y w hos e a c t i ons o r i na c t ions c a n a f f e c t t he c ha nc e sof succes s. S cenar io-w r i t ing forewarns the des ign er andpa r t i a ll y p r o t e c t s h i m o r he r a ga i n st ( 1 ) m onop o l y a ndtokeni sm; (2) mass ive res i s t ance ; and (3) de lays , de l ib-e ra te or acc identa l . Bardach reccommends a va r ie ty ofr e s pons e s to c o un t e r i m p l e m e n t a t i on s uc h a s c r e a ti ngs ubs t i t u t e m onopo l i e s ( i n f o r m a t i on s y s t e m s pe r s onne lcan use the i r spec ia l i zed t echnica l resources in th i s wayfor ba rga in ing) , co-opt ing l ike ly oppos i t ion ea r ly , pro-v i d i ng c l e a r i nc e n t ive s { " I f po l ic y a na l y s t s c a r r y bum pe rs t i ckers , they should read 'Be S imple ! Be Di rec t ' o r' P A Y M E N T O N P E R F O R M A N C E ' , 9 ( Pr es sm a n a n dW i l da vs ky [ 5 9] } a nd c r e a t i ng a ba ndw a gon .T h e M a n a g e m e n t g a m e u s e s c o n t r o l m e c h a n i s m sover la id o n o thers ' gam es . By as s igning pr ior i ti e s , deve l -op i ng p r o j e c t m a na g e m e n t p r oc e du r e s a nd a bove a ll , byke e p i ng t he s c ope o f t he p r o j e c t sm a l l a nd s i m p le , w h i c hi s o f t e n i n t e ll e c t ua l ly ha r de r t ha n de s i gn i ng a c om pl i -c a t e d s y s t e m , t he i m p l e m e n t e r c a n l i m i t t he r a nge o fm o v e s a c t o rs c a n m a k e . T h e M a n a g e m e n t g a m e i s di f-f i cu l t to p lay w i thou t a " f ixe r" , x a pe rso n or group wi ththe pres t ige , v i s ib i l ity , an d l eg i t imacy to fac i l it a t e , de te r ,ba r ga i n , a nd ne go t i a t e e f f ec t ive l y . I n f o r m a t i on s y s t e m st e a m s o f t e n l a c k t h i s ke y s uppo r t .

8 . Co nc lus io n : A S tra teg ic Perspec t ive o n Cha ng eC ou n t e r c ou n t e r i m p l e m e n t a t i on ( C C I ) i s l a r ge l y de -fens ive , whereas the fac i l i t a t ive t ac t i ca l approach i sp r oa c t i ve . T o a n e x t e n t , C C I i nvo l ve s c on t a i n i ng a nd

do i ng t he oppos i te o f c oun t e r i m p l e m e n t e r s , w hos e s t r a t-e g y m a y b e s u m m a r i z e d as :(1) Lay low;(2) Re ly on ine r t i a ;( 3) K e e p t he p r o j e c t c om pl e x , ha r d t o c oo r d i na t e , a ndva gue l y de f i ne d ;( 4 ) M i n i m i z e t he i m p l e m e n t e r s ' l e g i t im a c y a nd i n f l u -e nc e ;( 5) E xp l o i t t he i r l a c k o f i n s i de know l e dge .T he t a c t ic a l m o de l a dd r e s s es s om e o f t he s e is sues :( 1) M a ke s u r e you ha ve a c on t r a c t f o r c ha nge ;(2) Seek out res i s tance and t rea t i t a s a s igna l to be

r e s pond e d t o;(3) Re ly on face - to- face cont rac t s ;( 4) B e c om e a n i n si de r a nd w or k ha r d t o bu i l d pe r s ona lc redib i l i ty ;(5 ) Co -opt use rs ea r ly .

9 [ 5 9 ] , p . 1 5 9 .10 [5], pp . 273--278 . Th e con cept o f a f ixe r vas t ly ext end s thep l a t i t u d e i n t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n l i t e ra t u r e o f t h e n e e d f o r t o p m a n a g e -m e n t s u p p o r t.C o m m u n i c a t i o n s J a n u a r y 1 98 1o f V o l u m e 2 4t h e A C M N u m b e r 1

8/3/2019 Is and Org Change

8/10

A s t ra t eg i c mode l fo r change needs t o r e so lve someadd i t i ona l conce rns :(1 ) W ha t happen s wh en consensus i s imposs ib l e?(2 ) H ow can l a rge - sca l e p ro j ec t s evade soc i a l i ne rt i a?(3 ) W ha t au thor i t y mechan i sms and o rgan iza t iona l r e -sources a re needed to dea l wi th t he po l i t i c s andd a t a a n d c o u n t e r im p l e m e n t a t i o n ?( 4) W h a t is t h e r o le o f m a n a g e m e n t ?Some po in t s a re obv ious f rom the ana lys i s so f a r .Whe the r we l i ke i t o r no t , we can on ly hope fo r i nc re -men ta l ch ange [excep t , a s An sof f po in t s ou t [2 ] i n s i t ua -t i ons o f mi ld c r i se s , whe re t he s t a tus quo i s no longe rsa t i s fac to ry , and o rgan iza t ions r e th ink the i r goa l s anda re m ore w i l li ng to t h ink " ra t i ona l ly"] . T h i s r ea l i t y sug-ges t s tha t sys t ems des igne rs mu s t a lways a im fo r s impl ic -i t y o f de s ign and p rec i se ob jec t ive s . How eve r , i f they a ret o g o b e y o n d t a c t i c a l i n n o v a t i o n s b a s e d o n U p - a n d - I n ,t h e y n e e d D o w n - a n d - O u t d i r e c t i o n a l p l a n n i n g ; t h e ymust e s t ab l i sh t he direction o f c h a n g e a n d e v o l v e c o m -p lex sys t ems ou t o f phased com ponen t s . Th i s r equ i re snon techn ica l r e sources such a s (1 ) a mean ing fu l s t ee r ingcommi t t ee and (2 ) au thor i t y .The ana lys i s in t h i s pape r i nd i ca t e s t ha t i n fo rma t iond e v e l o p m e n t m u s t b e s p e a r h e a d e d b y a g e n e r a l , n o tcoord ina t ed b y a ide s -de -camp. I t mus t be de f ined a s pa r to f t he In fo rma t ion fun c t ion o f t he o rgan iza t ion , i ns t eadof be ing a s t a f f se rv ice l abe ll ed da t a p rocess ing o r m an-agem ent sc i ence . The i s sues o f nego t i a t ions s eem cen t ra l.(Kl ing and Gerson [40 ] ) To pos i t i on a sys t em one mus tc l a r i fy ob jec t ive s , r e spond to r e s i s t ance , ad jus t o the rc o m p o n e n t s o f th e L e a v i t t D i a m o n d ( T a s k , Technology,P e o p l e , S t r u c t u r e ) a n d b l o c k o f fc o u n t e f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .The po l i t ic s o f da t a ( and o f so f twa re eng inee r ing ; seeKe en an d Gers on [35 ] ) mak e i t e ssen t ia l tha t nego t i a t i onsbe hand led by a f i xe r , we l l - l i nked in to sen io r manage -ment s ' dec i s ion making . La rge sca l e change i s a p rocessof coa l it i on-bu i ld ing ; t h i s c anno t b e done by s t a f f ana -lys t s , who a re t oo ea s i l y caugh t i n t he midd le wi th noforma l powers .The s t r a t egy fo r manag ing soc i a l change i s ba sed onaccep tance o f t he po l i ti c a l na tu re o f i n fo rma t ion sys t emsd e v e l o p m e n t a n d t h e n e e d f o r s u i ta b l e a u th o r i ty . M a n yorgan iza t ions have moved in t h i s d i r ec t ion . Nea l andR a d n o r a n d t h e ir c o l l ea g u e s [ 5 6 , 6 2] c o n c lu d e t h a t O R /M S grou ps w i th fo rma l cha r t e r s (budge t s , sen io r j o bt it l es fo r t he ir manage rs , and the r i gh t t o tu rn dow n use rreques t s ) a re more su ccess fu l t han ones t ha t a re a co r -p o r a t e s e r v ic e u n i t. T h e f e w G r a n d O l d M e n i n t h ein fo rm a t ion sys t ems f ie ld who hav e r i sen to sen io r pos i-t i ons i n l a rge compan ie s have bu i l t up o rgan iza t iona lm e c h a n i s m s t h a t p r o v i d e t h e m w i t h a u t h o r it y a n d s t ro n gl inks wi th t op l eve l p l ann ing in t he o rgan iza t ion . (S t ra ss -ma n [66] , Ede lm an [20] ) The re i s pe rhaps an a lmos tDarw in ian p rocess o f na tu ra l se l ec tion , whe re t he M ISgroup adop t s a pure ly t e chn ica l focus o r canno t ob t a inau thor i t y fo r nego t i a t i ons , i t becomes mere ly a da t aprocess ing se rv i ce l imi t ed to rou t ine app l i ca t ions and31

sub jec t t o a l l t he fo rce s o f ine r t i a and coun te r im plemen -t a t i on d i scussed he re . nI t i s no t t he a im of t h is pap e r t o de f ine a spec i fi cs t r a t egy fo r implemen ta t ion . The ou t l i ne seems c lea r :(1 ) A sen io r leve l f i xe r mu s t head the In fo rma t ionfunc t ion ; he o r she mus t have fu l l au thor i t y andre sources t o nego t i a t e wi th o r be tween use r s andwi th t hose a f fec t ed by in fo rma t ion sys t ems;(2 ) The re m us t be som e po l i cy p l ann ing o r s t ee r ing

commi t t ee which inc ludes sen io r l i ne manage rs ; i twi l l de l ega t e t o t e chn ica l s t a f f r e spons ib i li t y fo rp ro j ec t s t ha t do n o t have s ign i fi can t o rgan iza t iona limpac t bu t w i l l be ac t ive ly invo lved w i th ones t ha ta re pa r t o f t he po l i ti c s o f da t a ( t he po l i cy comm i t t eea l so p rov ides a nego t i a t i ng t ab l e ) ;(3 ) The p l ann ing p rocess wi ll r equ i re subs t an t ia l t imeand e f fo r t i n t he predesign s t ages , whe re ob jec t ive sa r e m a d e o p e r a t i o n a l a n d e v o l u t io n o f t h e l a rg e rsys t em i s de fmed by b reak ing i t i n to c l ea r phases ;(4 ) Fo rm a l con t rac t s wi l l be needed , i n which commi t -m e n t s m u s t b e c l ea r ly m a d e a n d s u c h g a m e s a s Upfo r Grabs, Reputation, Easy Life, a n d Territorym a d ei l legal and ineffec tual ;(5 ) "H yb r id" sk i l ls mus t be deve lo ped in sys t ems s t a ff ;t hey canno t d i smiss o rgan iza t iona l and po l i t i c a li s sues a s i r r e l evan t o r no t t he i r r e spons ib i l i t y , bu tm u s t b e a b l e t o o p e r a te i n t h e m a n a g e r ' s w o r l d a n dbu i ld credibi l i ty a cross the organiza tion.12(6) W i th the um bre l l a p rov ided by the fi xe r 's au thor i t yand the s t ee r ing commi t t ee , t he t a c t i ca l approachrema ins an exce l l en t gu ide to manag ing the imple -men ta t ion p rocess fo r a g iven p ro j ec t .

The s imple , c en t ra l a rgument p re sen ted he re i s t ha tin fo rma t ion sys t ems deve lop men t i s po l i t ic a l a s we l l a s ,some t imes f a r more so t han , t e chn ica l i n na tu re . Whentha t i s a ccep ted , t he o rgan iza t iona l mechan i sms fo l lowna tu ra l ly . Unfor tuna t e ly , "po l i t i c s" have been equa tedwi th ev i l , co r rup t ion and , w ors t o f al l, b l a sp hem y in t hepre sence o f t he R a t iona l Idea l , bu t po l i t i cs a re t he p rocessof ge tt i ng comm i tment , o r bu i ld ing suppor t , o r c rea t ingm o m e n t u m f o r c h a ng e ; t h e y a r e i n e v it a b le .T h e f i n a l c o m m e n t s t o b e m a d e h e r e c o n c e r n r e -sea rch . The re have b een few s tud ie s o f the po l i t i c ala spec t s o f in fo rm a t ion sys t em s deve lopm ent . The top i ci s r a re ly d i scussed in t ex tbooks and even the l i t e ra tu reon t ac t i ca l implementa t ion dea l s wi th i t on ly pe r iph-e ra l ly . Ye t when one t r i e s t o r econs t ruc t o r obse rve theprogre ss o f any ma jo r p ro j ec t , t h i s i s an obv ious andimpor t an t f ea tu re . I t i s absurd to i gnore i t o r t r ea t i t a ss o m e h o w a n u n s u i t a b le s u b j e c t fo r s t u d y o r f o r t r a i n in gM IS spec ia l is t s . The re i s som e f ragmented re sea rch ava i l-ab l e : Pe t t i g rew ' s obse rva t ion o f a compute r purchasedec i s ion , [57 ] Laudo n ' s , Computers and Bureaucratic Re-

1~ S ee [3 5] an d [3 2] , wh o a rg u es t h a t m o s t M IS g ro u p s a r e l o ck edi n t o t h e " m a i n t e n a n c e " a c t iv i ti e s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t io n w h i c h r e i n f o r c e st h e s t a t u s q u o an d e m p h as i ze s e f f i c ien cy . T h ey h a v e l i t t l e i m p ac t o nt h e " a d a p t i o n " f u n c t io n s , w h i c h i n v o l v e i n n o v a t i o n a n d s t r at e g ic p l a n -n i n g .12 See [36], Cha p. 9.C o m m u n i c a t i o n s J a n u a r y 1 98 1o f V o l u m e 2 4t he A C M N u m b e r 1

8/3/2019 Is and Org Change

9/10

form, [43] and the work done by the Urban InformationSystems Research Grou p at the University of Californiaat Irving. (Kling [38], [39]) Greenberger et al. [24] alsoprovide some vivid illustrations of the political nature o fcomputer models in public policy making. Most of thiswork is based on case studies. Politics are hard to study.They involve many hidden agenda (counterimplemen-ters do not boast about their triumphs) and in mostinstances a skilled observer has to ferret out and interpretwhat has happened. In political science, the work onimplementation is almost entirely narrative and descrip-tive. A political perspective on information systems isneeded in research. It will of necessity be based oncomparative field studies that illustrate theoretical con-cepts. 13 It will no t fit the s tandard mold for behaviora lresearch. It can immensely add to our understandingboth of the implications of information technology andthe dynamics of effective implementation. For a longtime the word "impl ementa tion" was not included in theindex to literature on OR /M S and MIS. It is to be hopedthat "politics", "negotiations", and "authority" be in-creasingly found in the titles of papers on informationsystems. That the papers will often be case studies doesnot mean they are not "legitimate" research. We badlyneed more understanding of these issues which are offundamental importance to the effective exploitation ofcomputer technology.Rece ived 3/79; revised 5 /80 ; accepted 10 /80

is Min tzberg [52] provide s a fu l l d iscussion of the d i fficul t ies ofs t u d y i n g p h en o m en a w h i ch i n v o l v e " so f t " v a r i ab le s an d n eed anintegrat ing perspec t ive. His ow n fie ld research [51] is a s t r ik ing exampleo f h o w m u ch w e can l ea rn f ro m s i m p l e , i m ag i n a t iv e o b se rv at i o n, w h i cho f t en co n f l i c ts w i t h co m p l ex o v e r -n a r ro w ex p e r i m en t a ti o n .

R e f e r e n c e sRefe rence [53] i s not c i ted in text .1 . Al l i son, G.T . Essence o f Decis ion. Lit t le Brown, Boston, M ass.,1971.2 . Ansoff, H.I . , Business Strategy. Penguin , London, England, 1968 .3 . Arg yns, C. Resistance to ra t ional man agem ent systems.Innovation, 10, (1970) pp. 28-35.4 . Argyris , C. Ma nage men t inform at ion systems: The chal lenge torat ional i ty and emot ional i ty . Management Sci . 17, 6, (1971), pp.B275-292.5 . Bardach, E. The Implementation Gam e: What Happens Afte r aBill Becomes a Law. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. , 1977 .6 . Ba r i f f , M.L . an d G a l b ra i t h , J.R , In t rao rg an iza t i o n a l p o w erconsiderat ions for designing informat ion systems. The WhartonSchool , Univ . of Penn. , Phi ladelphia , Penn, , Jan . 1978 .7 . Bower, J . The Resource Allocation Process. I rw i n , New Y o rk ,1970.8 . Bo w m an , E .H . Co n s i s ten cy an d o p t i m a l it y i n m an ag e r i a ld ec i s i o n m ak i n g . Managemen t Sc i. 9, 2, (Jan. 1963) pp. 310-321.9 . Bray b ro o k e , D . an d L i n d b l o m , C .E . A Strategy of Decision. F r e ePress, New York, 1963.10 . Chesler, M. and Flanders, M. Resistance to research and researchut i l izat ion: The death and l i fe of a feedback at tempt . J. AppLBehavioral Sci. 3, 4, (Fall 1967), pp. 465-487.11. Church_man, C.W. M anage ria l acceptance o f scient i f icreco m m en d a t i o n s . Cali f . Management Rev . 7, 1 (Fall 1964), pp. 31-38 .1 2 . Co h en , M.R . an d March , J .G . Leadership and Ambiguity.McG raw -H i l l , New Y o rk , 1 9 7 4 .32

1 3 . Cy e r t , R .M. an d M arch , J .G . A Behavioral Theory of the Firm.Prent ice-Hal l , Englewood Cl i ffs , N. J . , 1963.14 . Dearborn , D.C. and Simon, H.A. The ident i f icat ion ofexecutives. In Administrative Behavior (3rd ed .) . H.A . S imon, Ed.Free Press, New York, 1976, pp . 309-314 .1 5 . D er t h i ck , M. N ew t o w n s i n - t o w n . Th e U rb an In s t it u te ,Washington, D. C. , 1972.1 6 . D o k t o r , R .H . D ev e l o p m en t an d m ap p i n g o f ce r ta i n co g n it i v estyles of problem-s olving. Unpubl ish ed Ph.D. D isserta t ion , S tanfordUniv. , S tanford , Cal i f . , 1969,1 7 . D o k t o r , R .H . an d H am i l t o n , W .F . Co g n i t i v e s t y le an d t h eaccep t an ce o f m an a g em en t sc i ence reco m m en d a t i o n s. ManagementSci. 19, 8 (April 1973), pp. 884--894.18 . Dornb usch, S . and Scot t , W.R . Evaluation and the ExerciseAuthority. Jossey-Bass, San Fran cisco, Cal i f . , 1975 ,19. Drake, J .W. The Administration of Transportation ModellingProjects. Heath , Lexington , Mass., 1972, pp . 14-17 .2 0 . Ed e l rn an , F . F o u r w ay s t o o b l i v i o n - -A sh o r t co u rse o n su rv i v a l.Interfaces August , 1972, pp . 14-17 .21. Galbrai th , J .R. Designing Organizations. Ad d i so n -W es l ey ,Read ing, Mass. , 1977 .2 2 . G i n zb e rg , M.J . A p ro cess ap p ro ach t o m an ag em en t sc i en cei m p l em en t a t i o n . U n p u b l i sh ed P h .D . D i sse r t a ti o n , S l o an S ch o o l o fMan ag em en t , M . I .T . , Cam b r i d g e , Mass ., 1 9 75 .23. Grayson , C.J . Manag emen t science and business pract ice .Harvard Business Rev. 51, 4 (July-A ug. 1973), pp . 41-48 .24 . Greenberger, M., Crenson, M.A., and Crissey, B.L. Models in thePolicy Process, Ru sse l l S ag e F o u n d a t i o n , N ew Y o rk , 1 9 76 .2 5 . H a l l , W .K . S t ra t eg i c p l an n i n g m o d e l s : Are t o p m an ag e rs rea l l yfinding them useful? J. Business Policy 3, 3, 1973, pp. 19-27.26. Hal l , W.K. Rat ional i ty , i rra t ional i ty and the pol icy formulat ionprocess in large organizat ions. Planning Rev . 4, 6 (May 1976), pp . 22-26 .27 . Hargrove, E.C. The missing l ink: The story ofimplementat ion process. The Urban Inst i tu te , Washington, D. C. ,1975.2 8 . H i rsch m an , A.O .Th e Strategy o f Economic Development. Y al eUniv. Press, New Haven, Connect icut , 1958 .29. Hoos, I .R. Systems Analysis in Public Policy, Univ. of Cal i f . Press,Berkeley , Cal i f . , 1972.3 0 . H u y sm an s , H .B .M. Th e Implem entation of Operations Research.W i l ey , New Y o rk , 1 9 7 0.3 1 . K ah n em an , D . an d Tv e rsk y , A. P rosp ec t t heo ry : An an a l ys i s o fdecision under r i sk . Econometrica 47, (Ma rch 1979) p . 263.3 2 . K een , P .G .W . Man ag i n g o rg an i za t i o n a l ch an g e : Th e ro l e o f MIS .in Proc. 6th and 7th Ann . Conf. o f the Soc. for Manage me nt Infor.Syst., J .D . W h i t e , Ed . U n i v . o f Mi ch i gan , An n Arb o r , Mi ch . , Ju l y1976, pp. 129-134.33. Keen, P .G.W . Th e e~,olving concept of opt imal i ty . In Multi-Criteria Decision Making. M.K. S tarr and M. Zeleny, Eds. , The Inst .of Manag eme nt Sci . (TIM S), S tudies in Man agem ent Sci. , 6 , 1977 ,pp. 31-57.3 4 . K een , P .G .W . Im p l em en t a t i o n re sea rch i n MIS an d O R/ MS :Descrip t ion versus prescrip t ion . S tanford Business School ResearchPaper No. 390 , S tanford , Cal i f . , 1977 .3 5 . K een , P .G .W . an d G erso n , E .M. Th e p o l i ti c s o f so ft w areengineering. Datamation 23, 11 (Nov. 1977), pp. 80-86.3 6 . K een , P .G .W . an d S co t t Mo r t o n , M.S . Decision Support Systems:An Organizational Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. ,1978.37 . Klein , B. and Meckl ing, W. App l icat ions of operat ions researchto development decisions. Operations Res. 6, 3 , (May-June 1958),pp. 352-363.38 . Kl ing, R. Informat ion systems in pol icy making. TelecommPolicy, 2, 1 , (Ma rch 1978), pp . 3-12.39. Kl ing, R. Social analyses of comput ing: Theoret ical perspect ivesin recen t em pirical research. Comptng Survey 12, 1 (Ma rch 1980)pp. 61-110.4 0 . K l i n g , R . an d G erso n , E .M. T h e so c i a l d y n am i cs o f t ech ni ca li n n o v a t i o n i n t h e co m p u t i n g w o r l d . Symbolic Interaction, 1, l (Fall,1977) pp. 132-146.4 1 . K o l b , D .A. an d F ro h m an , , A .L . An o rg an iza t i o n a l d ev e l o p m en tap p ro ach t o co n su l ti n g . Sloan Management Rev . 12, 1 (Fal l 1970)pp. 51-65.4 2 . K u n ru e t h e r , H . an d S l o v ic , P . Eco n o m i cs , p sy cho l o g y an dp ro t ec t i v e b eh av i o r . Am. Econ. Rev . P ap e rs an d P ro ceed in g s , May1978.4 3 . Lau d o n , K .C . Com puters and Bureaucratic Reform: The PoliticalFunctions of Urban Information Systems. W i l ey , New Y o rk , 1 9 74 .Co m m u n i ca t i o n s Jan u a ry 1 98 1o f V o l u m e 2 4t he A C M N u m b e r 1

8/3/2019 Is and Org Change

10/10

44. Leavi t t , H.J . Applying organizat ional change in indust ry :S t ructural , technological and hum anist ic approaches. Handbook ofOrganizations, J .G . M arch , Ed . Ran d M cNai l y , Ch i cago , I lL , 1 9 65 .4 5 . Leav i t t, H . J . an d W eb b , E . Im p l em en t i n g : Tw o ap p ro ach es .S tanford Univ . Research Paper 440 , S tanford , Cal i f . , May 1978 .4 6 . L i n d b l o m , C .E . Th e sc i en ce o f m u d d l i n g t h ro u g h. PublicAdministration Rev., 19, 2, (Spring 1959), pp. 79-88.4 7 . L i n d b l o m , C .E . Politics and M arkets. Basic Books, New York,1977.48 . Lucas, H.C. and Pl impton, R.B. Tech nological consul t ing in agrass roots act ion-oriented organizat ion . Sloan Management Rev.14 , I (Fall 1972) pp. 17-36.4 9 . McK en n ey , J .L . an d K een , P .G .W . H o w m an ag e rs ' m i n d s w ork .Harvard Business Rev. 52, 3 (Ma y -Ju n e 1 9 7 4 )p p . 7 9 -9 0 .5 0 . Mi l l e r , R .B . P sy ch o l o g y fo r a m an -m ach i n e p ro b l em -so l v i n gprocess. IBM Data Systems Division Laboratory , Rep t TR00-1246,F eb ru a ry 1 9 6 5 .51. Mintzberg , H. The Nature of Managerial Work. H a r p e r a n d R o w ,New Y o rk , 1 9 7 3 .52. Mintzberg , H . Pol icy as a f ie ld of manage men t theory . Academyof Management Review, Jan u a ry 1 9 77 . (U n n u m b ered p ape r ).53 . Mintzberg , H . Beyond implem entat ion: An analysis of theresistance to policy analysis. In for 18, 2 (Ma y 1980 ) pp. 100-138.54 . Mit roff , I . I . The Subjective Side o f Science: A Philosophic Enquiryinto the Psychology of the Apollo M oon Scientists. El sev ie r , New Y o rk ,1974.5 5 . M u n so n , F .C . an d H an co ck , W .M. P ro b l em s o f i m p l em en t i n gchange in two hospi ta l se t tings. A11E Trans. 4, 4 (Dec. 1977) pp. 258 -266.5 6 . Nea l , R .D . an d Rad n o r , M. Th e re l a t i o n b e tw een fo rm a lp ro ced u res fo r p u rsu i n g O R / M S ac t i v i ti e s an d O R/ M S g ro u psuccess. Operat ions Res. 21, (Ma rch 1973), pp . 451--474.57. Pettigrew, A.M. The Politics of Orga nizational Decision Making.Tavistock, London, England, 1973.58 . Pet tigrew, A.M . Implem entat ion control as a pow er resource.Sociology 6, 2, (May 1972) pp. 187-204.59. Pressman, J , L. and Wildavsky, A. Implementat ions. U n i v . o fCal i f . Press, Berkeley , Cal i fornia , 1973.60 . Roberts , E.B. O n implem ent ing systems studies: S t ra tegies forachieving organizat ional change in response to model-based analysis .P ap e r p re sen t ed a t t h e Am er i can -S o v i e t Co n fe ren ce S e r i e s o nMet h o d o l o g i ca l Asp ec t s o f S o c i a l S y s tem s S i m u l a t i o n , S u k h u m k i ,USSR, Oct . 17-23, 1973.

61. Ross, L. The in tu i t ive psychologist and his shortcoming s inAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology. L. Berk o w i t z Ed .Aca demic, Ne w York, 1964 , pp . 173-220 .62. Rubenstein , A.H., Radnor, M., Baker, N. , Heirnan, D. andMcC oy, J . Som e organizat ional factors re la t ive to the effect iveness ofm an ag em en t sc i ence g ro u p s i n i n d u s try . Managemen t Sci. 13, 8,(Apri l , 1967), pp . B508-518 .63. Saplosky, H.M. The Polaris System Development . H arv a rd U n i v .Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1972.64 . S imon, H.A. A beha vioral model of ra t ional choice. InMode ls o f Man , H.A. S imon , Ed. Wiley , New York, 1957 , pp .241-260.65 . S tew art , R. Managers and Their Jobs. McM i l lan , Lo n d o n ,England, 1967 .66. S t rassman, P . Mana ging the costs of informat ion. HarvardBusiness Rev., .54, 5 (Sept-Oct 1976), pp. 133-142.67. Strauss, A. Negotiations: Varieties, Con texts, Processes, and S ocialCries. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif., 1978.6 8 . Tv e rsk y , D . an d K ah n em an , A. Ju d g m en t u n d e r u n ce r t a in t y :Heurist ics and biases. Science, 185, (Sept. 1974), pp. 1124-1131.69. U rban , G.L . Bui ld ing mode ls for decision makers. Interfaces 4, 3,(M ay 1974) pp. 1-11.70 . Vanci l , R. and Lorange, P . Strategic Planning Systems. Prent ice-Hal l , Englewood Cl i ffs , N. J . , 1977 .71. Vertinsky, I .R. , Barth , T. , and Mitchel l , V.F . A study of O R /M Simplementat ion as a social change process in Implement ingOperat ions Research/Management Science , R.L. S ch u l t z an dD.P. S levin , Eds. A merica n Elsevier, New York, 1975 , pp .253-272.72. W eick, K. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Ad d i so n -W es l ey ,Read ing, Mass., 1969.73. Weiner, S . and W ildavsky, A. Th e prophylact ic presidency.Public Interest 52, 52, (Sum mer 1978), pp . 3-19.74 . W ildavsky, A. The Pol itics of the Budgetary Process. (2nd Ed.),Little, Brown, Boston,, Mass., 1974.75 . Wilensky, H.L. Or ganizational Intelligence: Knowledge and P olicyin Governm ent and Industry. Basic Books, New York, 1967 .7 6 . Z an d , D .E . an d S o ren so n , R .E . Th eo ry o f ch an g e an d t h ee f fec t i v e u se o f m a n ag em en t sc ien ce . Adm inistrative Sci Qua rterly, 20,4, (Dec. 1975), pp. 532-545.77 . Z ionts , S . and WaUenius, J . An in teract ive programm ing methodfor solving the mul t ip le cri teria problem. Managemen t Sci. 22, 6 ,(Feb. 1976), pp. 652-663.

33 Co m m u n i ca t i o n s Jan u a ry 1 98 1o f V o l u m e 2 4t he A C M N u m b e r 1