𖣯Strategic Management: The Impact of New Technologies (Part III: Checking the Vital Signs)

An organization which went through a major change, like the replacement of a strategic system (e.g. ERP/BI implementations), needs to go through a period of attentive supervision to address the inherent issues that ideally need to be handled as they arise, to minimize their future effects. Some organizations might even go through a convalescence period, which risks to prolong itself if the appropriate remedies aren’t found. Therefore, one needs an entity, who/which has the skills to recognize the symptoms, understand what’s happening and why, respectively of identifying the appropriate actions.

Given technologies’ multi-layered complexity and the volume of knowledge for understanding them, the role of the doctor can be seldom taken by one person. Moreover, the patient is an organization, each person in the organization having usually local knowledge about the patient. The needed knowledge is dispersed trough the organization, and one needs to tap into that knowledge, identify the people close to technologies and business area, respectively allow such people exchange information on a regular basis.

The people who should know the best the organization are in theory the management, however they are usually too far away from technologies and often too busy with management topics. IT professionals are close to technologies, though sometimes too far away from the patient. The users have a too narrow overview, while from logistical and economic reasons the number of people involved should be kept to a minimum. A compromise is to designate one person from each business area who works with any of the strategic systems, and assure that they have the technical and business knowledge required. It’s nothing but the key-user concept, though for it to work the key-users need not only knowledge but also the empowerment to act when the symptoms appear.

Big organizations have also a product owner for each application who supervises the application through its entire lifecycle, and who needs to coordinate with the IT, business and service providers. This is probably a good idea in order to assure that the ROI is reached over time, respectively that the needs of the system are considered within the IT operation context. In small organizations, the role can be taken by a technical or a business resource with deeper skills then the average user, usually a key-user. However, unless joined with the key-user role, the product owner’s focus will be the product and seldom the business themes.

The issues that need to be overcome after major changes are usually cross-functional, being imperative for people to work together and find solutions. Unfortunately, it’s also in human nature to wait until the issues are big enough to get the proper attention. Unless the key-users have the time allocated already for such topics, the issues will be lost in the heap of operational and tactical activities. This time must be allocated for all key-users and the technical resources needed to support them.

Some organizations build temporary working parties (groups of experts working together to achieve specific goals) or similar groups. However, the statute of such group needs to be permanent if the organization wants to continuously have its health in check, to build the needed expertize and awareness about occurred or potential issues. Centers of excellence/expertize (CoE) or competency centers (CC) are such working groups with permanent statute, having defined roles, responsibilities, and processes for supporting and promoting the effective use of technologies within the organization, respectively of monitoring and systematically addressing the risks and opportunities associated with them.

There’s also the null hypothesis, doing nothing, relying solely on employees’ professionalism, though without defined responsibility, accountability and empowerment, it can get messy.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

𖣯🧮Strategic Management: Simplicity VI (ERP Implementations' Story II)

Besides the witty sayings and theories advanced in defining what simplicity is about, life shows that there’s a considerable gap between theory and praxis. In the attempt at a definition, one is forced to pull more concepts like harmony, robustness, variety, balance, economy, or proportion, which can be grouped under organic unity or similar concepts. However, intuitionally one can advance the idea that from a cybernetic perspective simplicity is achieved when the information flows are not disrupted and don’t meet unnecessary resistance. By information here are considered the various data aggregations – data, information, knowledge, and eventually wisdom (aka DIKW pyramid) – though it can be extended to encompass materials, cash and vital energy.

One can go further and say that an organization is healthy when the various flows mentioned above run smoothly through the organization nourishing it. The comparison with the human body can go further and say that a blockage in the flow can cause minor headaches or states that can take a period of convalescence to recover from them. Moreover, the sustained effort applied by an organization can result in fatigue or more complex ailments or even diseases if the state is prolonged. 

For example, big projects like ERP implementations tend to suck the vital energy of an organization to the degree that it will take months to recover from the effort, while the changes in the other types of flow can lead to disruptions, especially when the change is not properly managed. Even if ERP implementations provide standard solutions for the value-added processes, they represent vendors’ perspective into the respective processes, which don’t necessarily fit an organization’s needs. One is forced then to make compromises either by keeping close to the standard or by expanding the standard processes to close the gap. Either way processual changes are implied, which affect the information flow, especially for the steps where further coordination is needed, respectively the data flow in respect to implementation or integration with the further systems. A new integration as well as a missing integration have the potential of disrupting the data and information flows.

The processual changes can imply changes in the material flow as the handling of the materials can change, however the most important impact is caused maybe by the processual bottlenecks, which can cause serious disruptions (e.g. late deliveries, production is stopped), and upon case also in the cash-flow (e.g. penalties for late deliveries, higher inventory costs). The two flows can be impacted by the data and information flows independently of the processual changes (e.g. when they have poor quality, when not available, respectively when don’t reach the consumer in timely manner). 

With a new ERP solution, the organization needs to integrate the new data sources into the existing BI infrastructure, or when not possible, to design and implement a new one by taking advantage of the technological advancements. Failing to exploit this potential will impact the other flows, however the major disruptions appear when the needed knowledge about business processes is not available in-house, in explicit and/or implicit form, before, during and after the implementation. 

Independently on how they are organized – in center of excellence or ad-hoc form – is needed a group of people who can manage the various flows and ideally, they should have the appropriate level of empowerment. Typically, the responsibility resides with key users, IT and one or two people from the management. Without a form of ‘organization’ to manage the flows, the organization will reside only on individual effort, which seldom helps reaching the potential. Independently of the number of resources involved, simplicity is achieved when the activities flow naturally. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

Written: Sep-2020, Last Reviewed: Mar-2024