Making Management-DP Conflict a Thing of the Past

SUKHEN DEY, ROBERT 0. PVIEIZGER, AND JAMES D. BANKS

The data processing information systems (DP/IS) field is changing by leaps and bounds. There’s been a revolution in hardware and an explosion of sophisticated software. The costs of in-house systems have fallen so that almost any small firm can now afford the equivalent of systems used by the Pentagon just a few years ago. Today, individual business people and other professionals have 4- and 6-megabyte RAM CPU’s and 1- or 2-gigabyte hard-disk storage on their desktops. In their daily commute to and from work, executives are bombarded with newspaper and radio ads for IBM, Wang, and Apple that try to make them feel guilty for not havingbought this month’s state-of-the-art capability for their company.

As a result, a large number of organizations that had been using DP service bureaus are bringing their DP functions in-house, with high expec- tations of enhanced effectiveness. But the real promise of the powerful new hardware and software systems is often confounded by unanticipated human problems.

Along with this new, more affordable hardware has come a new breed of DP/IS professional. Like their predecessors, these specialists possess highly technical skills; unlike their predecessors, they also have broader expectations for their role in the organization. Unfortunately, while senior executives and small-company owners readily acknowledge the rapid evolution of hardware and software, they often ignore this human side of the DP/IS field. Poor communications and lack of understanding between senior managers and technical specialists have become so acute in the last few years that a leading IS consulting firm recently announced the forma- tion of a new division to do nothing but provide DP/IS technical and user training to client firms. And this evolving technology-education field is estimated to be a $40 billion market over the next ten years.

Simply put, the lack of effective communications between senior execu-

Sukhen Dey, Ph.D.. isanassktantprofessorofcomputersciencesintheDepartmentofCom- puter Science at Indiana University Southeast in New Albany, Indiana. He also serves as a consultant to several national and international firms. Robert 0. Mazger, PhD.. is senior vice president of Furash & Campany in Washington, D.C. James D. Banks k manager of information system at the Kentucky Medical Insurance Com- pany in Louisville. Kentucky.

~~

National Productivity ReviewlVol. 8, No. IIWinter 1988189 59

DEY, METZCER, AND BANKS

tives and DP management can lead to a host of organizational, financial, and strategic difficulties. Yet, regardless of the size or structure of a particular company, this communications gap can be narrowed. And, in the process, the cost-effectiveness and planning aspects of the organization’s DP can be improved. But before an organization can attempt to bridge the communi- cations gap, it first must analyze the roots of the problem.

DIVERGENT PERCEPTIONS According to information systems managers, many senior executives

have what is known in the trade as “Bonzo-Banana!” mentalities: They expect everything delivered at the push of a button without any understand- ing of the complexity of the systems or of the limitations of the hardware and software. Far too often, IS people complain, top management views the hardware as a magical device which, especially since it costs a great deal of money, is supposed to solve all the firm’s infomation problems. And when they’re not solved in short order, the DP/IS budget shrinks.

Moreover, many executives consider Information Systems as merely a technically oriented support function. Consequently, systems management is seldom included in the organization’s strategic planning efforts. Com- pounding the problem is senior management’s lack of knowledge concern- ing both the technology and its implementation. A common systems management complaint is, “How can management decide whether or not we need a statistical multiplexer when it doesn’t even know what it does?’ Or, senior management may announce that a major project is to be underway by a certain date, not realizing that the design would take much longer to install. Commonly, an IS manager will report that a new system will take so many months or years to set up; management demands that the system be developed in halfthe time required-and the result is anightmare of systems that are perceived as too late, over budget, or failures.

DP professionals also resent the bases on which they are evaluated. A typical lament is that senior management, in its ignorance of the discipline, frequently treats the DP/IS area as if it were a public utility, quick to recognize when there is a loss of service and aloof when operations run smoothly. “Senior management doesn’t realize how hard we work,” goes the DP/IS manager’s complaint. ‘‘They only notice when things aren’t working!”

Senior executives, on the other hand, have a legitimate gripe list of their own. One of the most common complaints about DP/IS departments is that they don’t provide the information management needs to make good decisions fast enough. “I need the new sales temtory reports by tomomw,” says a marketing executive. “I was told all the data was in the machine, so why do they now tell me it will take three weeks? Why can’t DP keep its promises?’

~~ ~ ~

60 Natwnal Productivity ReviewNoL 8, No. IWinter 198811989

MAKING MANAGEMENT-DP CONFLICT A THING OF THE PAST

Additionally, senior managers often view DP/IS personnel as being committed more to state-of-the-art technology than to any particular employer. “Those IS people don’t understand company loyalty,” is a typical executive complaint. “If we tell them we can’t afford to acquire the absolute latest in hardware, even if it is 50 percent more efficient, they threaten to leave.” And when management does approve requested fund- ing, it often fails to experience any immediate benefits of the “more timely and accurate” systems. Typical complaints go like this: “Although they installed the new systems six months ago, it still takes the same amount of time to get our reports.”

Another common management complaint is that too much information is presented in undecipherable formats. For example: “We just received two reams of market profile data and we don’t know where to begin” or, “The new billing statement has so much data on it our customers can’t find the line that shows how much they owe us. Now I have accountants spending more time explaining the statement to irate customers than performing their own work.” Such information overload leads executives to complain that their systems personnel don’t understand the “business” of the company and to accuse them of designing systems around hardware and software efficiencies while ignoring the way the firm operates.

As incidents accumulate, each side hardens in its position that it is the deficiencies of the other that prevent the organization from reaping the full promise of the technology. And the more these divergent perceptions become operating assumptions, the more the organization loses. To break down the barriers, managers and technical specialists need programs of education in each other’s fields, and an ongoing structure within which they can work together.

MANAGEMENT TRAINING: PART OF THE SOLUTION To create a successful, productive, and cost-efficient information sys-

tems environment, senior executives and business owners must have a solid, fundamental understanding of systems, their development, and their use. An effective management education and training program is undoubt- edly one of the keys to bridging the gap in understanding between senior management and DP/IS professionals. Since most managers are far more aware of systems operations and terminologies today than ever before, management training sessions need to go beyond computer literacy issues to yield the best results. Here are some suggestions to keep in mind when designing an education and training program on DP/IS:

Make sure that the program is championed by the CEO and senior DP management. Naturally, this entails giving the program adequate financial support. But moral support is also important. This can be accomplished by having the CEO and senior managers announce the

Nntional Productivity ReviewlVol. 8, No. llwinter 1988189 61

UEY, METZCER, AND BANKS

program and subsequently drop in on training sessions from time to time. Unless they actively support internal training, the message that management-DP conflict is a thing of the past will not be heard. Design the sessions so that they cover relevant topics that use existing corporate systems as illustrations. For example, when informing management of the comparative power and features of new informa- tion processing technology, examples that compare the abilities of the new systems with those of the old should be used. Discuss the short- and long-term benefits of a new technology by emphasizing cost/time savings and simplicity of operation. To justify the expense of the DP operation, provide detailed costbenefit analyses. Explain the system’s flexibility in expanding and making major program changes. In many instances, the source of misunderstanding between IS professionals and senior executives is management’s misinterpretation of the system’s normal capabilities. This confusion stems from the lack of distinction between DP systems and manage- ment information or decision support systems. The difference in capabilities of each should be clearly explained. Set up adequate group interaction and problem-solving modules to stimulate discussion. This requires that the trainer present appropriate real-life case studies to inform participants of similar problems in other organizations and how they were handled. Regularly stress the need for, and the value of, management commit- ment to systems excellence.

KNOWING THE BUSINESS: THE OTHER PART OF THE SOLUTION

Teaching DP/IS personnel about the business of the company and its industry is just as important to narrowing the communications gap between their department and management as is educating senior manage- ment about systems development and use. Systems professionals should have a clear understanding of the company’s values, philosophy, strategic objectives, and competitive advantage and of how the business operates overall. Specifically, every systems professional who makes decisions affecting systems design or user training should have an operational knowledge of:

Short- and long-term corporate goals and current industry trends. . The firm’s products or services, pricing and merchandising methods,

The accounting and financial systems and cost allocation budgeting,

Organization hierarchy, reporting relationships, and methods of

and manufacturing and distribution processes.

billing and payment application methods.

communication.

62 National Productivity RcviewlVoL 8, No. l/Winter 198811989

MAKING MANAGEMENT-DP CONFLICT A THING OF THE PAST

Informal structure within the organization and corporate values,

No one would dispute the fact that technical knowledge is important in a highly technical field. But DP personnel must recognize that it is the business that should guide the information processing requirements, and not the other way around. Broadening DP/IS experts’ general knowledge about the firm and its markets, competition, and history helps ensure that those professionals will apply their expertise in a way that meshes with corporate objectives. Only with a fuller understanding of the organization and its objectives can senior systems personnel deal with requests to sacrifice systems efficiency standards in order to accommodate business standards.

history, and champions.

MEETING IN THE MIDDLE VIA THE STEERING COMMITTEE

To ensure a continuous flow of open communications between manage- ment and systems personnel-so that both parties understand each other’s responsibilities in light of corporate objectives-management should in- clude DP/IS senior personnel in the business planning process, especially when planning discussions may affect systems operations.

In addition, senior management, especially in large firms, must recog- nize that today’s graduates with advanced computer science degrees consider themselves technical professionals able to serve any client first, and members of the corporate family second. As a result, senior manage- ment must actively foster loyalty among DPDS personnel by offering them technical growth opportunities and stimulating career paths.

Almost every Fortune loo0 company has set up MIS steering commit- tees to provide DP/IS and user departments with an equal say in the systems development process. Ideally, this committee comprises senior executives representing all user areas and DP/IS management. In addition to ensuring ongoing education and two-way communications between management and systems personnel, the committee can guide the overall improvement of the systems being developed by establishing:

Organizational priorities and policies concerning all DPDS systems and support. This will allow senior management to integrate the corporate strategy with DP/IS systems strategies and investment needs. Priorities for projects to determine how DPDS and user department funds and staff time should be allocated. . A process to control and coordinate the acquisition of PCs and work stations throughout the organization so that all personal and depart- ment-level systems are compatible for electronic mail, etc., and can be cost justified. A forum for providing progress reports and discussing problems.

~

National Productivity ReviewlVol. 8, No. IIWinter 1988189 63

DEY, METZCER, AND BANKS

Now more than ever, information systems personnel and managers are being asked to work more closely with one another. The days of the centralized, “closed-door‘’ DP organization are over. While executives and business owners are becoming more aware of DP/IS technology via academic and on-the-job training programs, DP professionals are striving to know more about the businesses they work for. The rapidly changing technology has established a direct correlation between systems and man- agement effectiveness. Those who are still intent on blaming others for the lack of communication will have to leave the scene. The formation of an effective partnership between systems technicians and senior management is crucial to the foundation of future effective business systems.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

H. L. Capron, Computers: Toolsfor an Information Age (The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1987).

R. E. Carlyle, “Technology-Sword or Shield?” Datamation (March 15, 1987),

M. Freedland, “What You Should Know About Programmers,” Datamation

Allen, Leinani. ‘‘How Companies Plan,” Computenvorld (September 21, 1987),

C. McCoullough and R. Wooten, “Education, Exposure Help Top Executives Accept Computers,” Data Management (September 1986), pp. 38-40.

R. 0. Metzger, Profitable Consulting: Guiding America’s Managers Into the Next Century (Addison-Wesley, 1989).

J. Ostle, Information Systems Analysis and Design (Burgess Communications, 1985).

M. J . Powers, D. R. Adams, and H. D. Mills, Computer Information SysfemsDevel- opment: Analysis and Design (Southwestern Publishing Co., 1984).

P. L. Tom, Managing Information as a Corporate Resource (Scott, Foresman & Co., 1987).

pp. 85-86

(Mach 15, 1987), p ~ . 91-102.

pp. 100-101.

64 Natwnal Productivity ReviewNoL 8, No. IiWinter 198811989