A Generic Change Management Decision Model: - Putting Galliers and

Sutherland’s ‘Stages Of Growth’ Model into a Broader Context

Dr. Cathal M. Brugha, University College Dublin, Ireland

ABSTRACT:

Adjustment decision making is shown to be based on having a balance between pairs

of alternatives, leading to two, four and eight kinds of activities, the latter which

corresponds to McKinsey’s Seven Ss.

Development decision making is shown to have three extroverted levels embedded

within three introverted levels, and to underpin Maslow’s hierarchy, Jung’s thinking

types and the Systems Development Life Cycle.

Change management is shown to correspond to a combination of development and

adjustment, and then is applied to Information Systems management. Advantages of

the approach include increasing decision maker understanding of the change process,

mapping expected change in any situation, and adding prescriptive suggestions.

Key words: Decision analysis, Information systems, Hierarchical planning, Nomology

PREFACE

This article is a development of a paper (Brugha, 1998d) given at the United

Kingdom Academy for Information Systems 1998 Conference at Lincoln University.

INTRODUCTION TO NOMOLOGY

The theory on which this article is based is contained in three foundational articles

(Brugha, 1998a, 1998b and 1998c) on the structure of qualitative decision-making,

adjustment decision-making, and development decision-making which provide the

basis for Nomology, the study of the decision making processes of the mind. This

science was named Nomology by Sir William Hamilton (1877, pp. 122-8) after the

Greek word for law. It is based on the fundamental premise that the choices of

intelligent beings tend to follow simple decision rules. Hamilton, who I would

describe as the Father of Nomology, was a philosopher. His work has been influential

in philosophy and sociology, but not in management to any great extent.

The above articles apply a decision science approach to Nomology and build a set

of principles and axioms that together constitute a system. These principles and

axioms were justified (Brugha, 1998a, 1998b and 1998c) using common sense and

then verified by reference to numerous qualitative categorisations found in

management. The system was constructed using principles and axioms because such

statements reflect truisms that hold in general. The broader statements are described

as principles, the more specific statements as axioms. While the rules that the mind

tends to follow are simple, the mind itself is far from simple. Consequently there are

many axioms. The departure from Hamilton’s philosophical approach is the use of a

scientific methodology. Usually axioms, proofs and principles are confined to

quantitative fields. An aim of this work on Nomology is to provide a basis for

combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to management science and, in

particular, to assist in the advancement of Information Systems management. A

practical outcome of the first papers was that well-known qualitatively-based

categorisations of activities such as Maslow’s (1987) hierarchy of needs, Jung’s

(1971) orienting functions and McKinsey’s 7 Ss (Waterman, 1982) were interpreted,

corrected and integrated into one system. Of particular interest is that the Systems

Development Life Cycle (SDLC) also fits into this system, but did not require

correction.

This article develops the theory of Nomology in the area of Change Management,

and introduces the idea of a Nomological Map, a two dimensional representation of

the stages of change which combines adjustment and development. For a full

introduction, and for clarification of references below to Nomology, the reader is

referred to the foundational articles. For the purpose of this article it is sufficient to

review the first few axioms.

Axiom 1: When people have a complex and not obviously structured decision-

making problem that cannot be solved using standard quantitative techniques they try

to analyse it by breaking it down into dimensions with which they are familiar by

means of asking simple questions.

Axiom 2: The natural way that problem-solvers structure their answers to such

questions is in terms of dichotomies, i.e. questions with either/or answers.

Axiom 3: The first dichotomy to be considered relates to the question what should

be done. If we are relatively unclear about what should be done then we will focus on

a planning aspect. If, on balance, we feel relatively clear about the direction that

should be taken we will focus on a putting aspect.

Axiom 4: Every system involving qualitative decision-making will have an inbuilt

tendency to try to find a balance between all the relevant dichotomies.

Axiom 5: The second dichotomy relates to the question where it should be done.

Should we be doing something in a particular place, for instance in some part of the

company or organisation, such as spending some money on a project or restructuring

an institution? Or should we be focusing more on the people involved, agreeing what

should be done or motivating the participants?

Axiom 6: Because the key questions asked are independent of each other so the

answers should find their own balance independently of the others.

Axiom 7: The activities based on combinations of dichotomies of different

dimensions have meaning and importance in the practice of decision-making.

A planning activity within place is described as a proposition. Planning amongst

people corresponds to developing a perception. Putting a solution into effect amongst

people is a pull activity. And push describes the activity of putting the remaining

aspects of the solution into place.

Figure 1: The four phases of activity

In summary, the basis of Nomology is that decision-makers tend to analyse

problems which involve qualitative distinctions by breaking them into activities, or

categories of behaviour, which are each important in themselves and follow natural

sequences. Qualitative decision making has two main types: adjustment and

development. The difference lies with the ownership of the decision. With

adjustment it is outside of the decision maker and the emphasis is on finding a balance

between various dichotomies. The fundamental generic set of adjustment activities is

shown in Figure 1, of which there are numerous examples in management in

particular. These are developed in Figure 2 with the inclusion of another dichotomy:

which focus should be used, relying on one’s position or on a more personal approach.

McKinsey’s 7 Ss (Waterman, 1982) is an example of an empirically found set of

adjustment activities that comes close to the generic set. (See discussion below.)

Figure 2: Principal adjustment activities

A central characteristic of adjustment is the need for balance between the different

categories of activity. This is reflected in Figure 3.

Figure 3: The cycle of principal activities

With development decision making the decision maker owns the process and

consequently cannot "pull" himself or herself to make the decision. Hence the pull

activity in Figure 1 disappears. The emphasis then is on building on levels.

Development decision making can be introverted or extroverted. The first introverted

level is the somatic, and refers to tangible things such as needs. Then there are

psychic (psychological) aspects such as preferences. Finally the pneumatic level

refers to values or higher goals. Hamilton (1877) introduced the terms cognition,

affect and conation as a triad of mental activities corresponding to the somatic,

psychic and pneumatic levels. Thus Nomology takes a broader view than cognition.

It incorporates feelings, but also includes the more neglected area of will

corresponding to the highest level of introverted commitment.

The extroverted dimension starts with technical or self-orientated issues. Then it

relates to other people, and finally it takes account of situations. The introverted and

the extroverted combine as two dimensions and lead to the construction of nine levels,

stages of activity and types of thinking of which an example, shown in Figure 4, is a

reconstruction of Maslow's (1987) hierarchy of needs combined with a reconstruction

of Jung’s (1971) orienting functions.

Extroverted Development Proposition Perception Push Technical Others Situational Self End-users Business Proposition Somatic Physical / Political / Economic / Have / Need Intuiting Recognising Believing Introverted Perception Psychic Social / Cultural / Emotional / Do / Prefer Sensing Learning Trusting Development Push Pneumatic Artistic / Religious / Mystical / Are / Value Experiencing Understanding Realising

Figure 4: Levels of developmental activities and types of thinking

The Systems Development Life Cycle (Whitten, Bentley and Barlow, 1989) fits

this nine phase structure. (See Table 1.) It has been the subject of controversy,

possibly because of varying interpretations about how strictly its stages should be

followed. The overlapping of stages is often forced by the situation, particularly

where there is interaction such as between the design of the new system and the

acquisition of hardware and software. In this author's experience it has been very

helpful to explain each stage by reference to the nomological structure described in

this article. The study phase, for example, emphasises the somatic, i.e. tangible and

measurable aspects that exist in the current system; it also focuses on the end-users.

Introverted Orientation

Extroverted Orientation

Technical Others Situational Somatic Survey project scope

and feasibility Study current system Define the end-user's

requirements Psychic Select a feasible solution

from candidate solutions Design the new system Acquire computer

hardware and software Pneumatic Construct the new

system Deliver the new system Maintain and improve

the system

Table 1: Systems Development Life Cycle activities

THE STRUCTURE OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT

Adjustment and development processes differ from each other on the key question

of who controls the decisions. Consequently, where change is considered at a deeper

level and combines both processes, being independent of each other they form an

orthogonal two dimensional space of categories of activities. The question that should

be answered before making a map of such a space is: which if any is the dominating

issue: adjustment or development? This is determined by the nature of the problem.

We will call the description of the categories of activities involved in a adjustment /

development combination a Nomological Map.

The best known and most frequently used Nomological Map is the Twelve Step

Programme of Alcoholics Anonymous (Anonymous Authors, 1955). Here the

dominating issue is adjustment. The alcoholic proposes an adjustment (Figure 1) that

he should make, forms a perception of himself and what the adjustment will entail,

allows himself to be pulled along to a new kind of behaviour, and finally pushes this

changed behaviour into effect in all aspects of his life. The success of this change

programme has led to its extension into the other areas: drugs, emotions, marriage

breakdown. Each adjustment phase is non-trivial. Consequently it is necessary for the

decision maker to take ownership of each phase, which is where the development

comes in. In the classic Twelve Step programme each adjustment phase has three

development stages. See Tyrrell (1982) for a full discussion including a list of the

twelve steps. The Twelve Step programme is used for changing people who perceive

themselves as trapped in dysfunctional behaviour. It can also be used to change

people to a higher level of spiritual activity in the world. The Spiritual Exercises of

St. Ignatius of Loyola is such an example. It follows the same pattern as the Twelve

Step programme and has been presented classically (Tyrrell, 1982; Fessard, 1956) as:

First Week: “To reform the deformed.”

Second Week: “To conform the reformed.”

Third Week: “To confirm the conformed.”

Fourth Week: “To transform the confirmed”

Such a representation could be applied to any adjustment process, depending on

how broadly one interpreted the idea of being “deformed”. Table 2 gives further

examples including from strategy (Johnsen, 1993), personal development (Chopra,

1994) and information systems (Woolfe, 1993).

Generic Strategy Chopra Jesuits IT Impact (Woolfe) Proposition Coalition Attention Reform Functional Automation Perception Mission Intention Conform Cross-Func. Integration Pull Vision Desire Confirm Process Automation Push Strategy Detachment Transform Process Transformation

Table 2: Examples of adjustment phases

The other form of the change process is development led. As described in Figure 4

and Table 1 the process works through three phases which behave as levels. The key

aspect is that the decision maker controls the process and builds on the platform of the

previous level or phase. Examples of these in Information Systems are: Analysis,

Design, and Implementation; Intelligence, Design, and Choice (Simon, 1977); and

Understand the Problem or Opportunity, Develop a Solution, and Implement a

Solution (O’Brien, 1993). The only commonly used development-led twelve step

programme that this author has come across was proposed by an woman in the United

States who dedicated her life to campaigning for peace (Peace Pilgrim, 1981). Her

twelve steps involved four preparations, four purifications, and four relinquishments.

The essential difference between this and the Jesuit model is the following. With her

twelve step programme the individual controls the process; the Jesuit model is carried

out as part of “directed retreat” which usually takes place before ordination to the

priesthood, i.e. the process is controlled by the retreat director. Thus it is closer to the

Eastern religious model of submitting oneself to the direction of a guru or teacher.

INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT

Most empirically found Nomological Maps occur as twelve step programmes such

as described above. It is clear however, from Figures 2 and 4 that the structure could

extend to eight adjustment stages and nine development stages. The closest to a full

Nomological Map that this author has seen is Galliers and Sutherland’s revised ‘stages

of growth’ model (Galliers & Sutherland, 1991; Galliers, 1991) from which Table 3

was extracted, which we will refer to as Galliers’ model. We will now consider the

implications of Nomology for their revised model, in particular for Table 3, and will

work using the content of the category descriptions in their article.

Galliers represents the “growth in IT maturity in an organisation” as having six

stages. It is obvious that these are development stages. Using the levels concept from

Figure 4 and the SDLC concept from Table 1 it is easy to match their six stages to a

growth pattern which involves a mixture of both the levels and stages concepts.

Broadly speaking their first stage, ‘Ad Hocracy’ matches Nomology’s physical or

survey stage: the emphasis is on the physical presence of IT . Stage Two, Starting

the Foundations, corresponds to the political or study stage: IT is starting to have

impact on the organisation; IT people are beginning to look for recognition and

influence. A particular benefit of matching the development stages to generic cycles is

that it can help increase our understanding of some of the results of research.

Research by Bob Galliers’ colleague Tatiana Chameeva when visiting Warwick some

years ago indicated that IS in Russia seemed to have not developed beyond the second

stage. A possible interpretation of this might be that it was due to a problem not with

IS as such, but more to do with the maturity of Russian business practices, i.e. their

emphasis on political issues of control and ownership within organisations and within

society generally. If this were the case it would affect how one should try to improve

the situation. It would imply that one should define the problem on a broader level of

improving business practices or of social construction on a new democracy.

With Stage Three, Centralised Dictatorship, the political battle has mainly been

won; this corresponds to the economic stage during which the argument is about the

definition of end-user requirements: what would be best for the organisation, who

would do it best, and how should it be done. In all cases economic type issues of

efficiency and effectiveness are paramount. Galliers’ Stage Four, Democratic

Dialectic and Co-operation, corresponds to three development stages. There are the

social, cultural and emotional levels, and the selection, design and acquisition stages

of the SDLC. This gives the first indicator of how their model could be extended, i.e.

by developing this psychic phase into its three stages. A useful avenue of exploration

would be to take on board the suggestion (Doukidis et al, 1994) that “the concept of

organisational culture should become central in the study of Information Systems

growth”. This cultural aspect of the IT/business relationship is also being explored in

Cranfield (Ward and Peppard, 1996). Their “troubled marriage” analogy suggests that

they are alluding to more than just business or organisational culture, but to the

panoply of psychological problems associated with this phase.

Galliers’ Stage Five, Entrepreneurial Opportunity, corresponds mainly to the

artistic level / construction stage, but also partly to the religious level / delivery stage.

Here the entrepreneurial, individualistic product champion behaves like an artist and

creatively constructs a new business opportunity. Delivering the benefits of IS to end

users is implied in both this and Galliers’ final stage; this idea of truly helping people

corresponds to the religious level. Galliers’ Stage Six, Integrated Harmonious

Relationships, matches to some extent the religious but mainly the mystical level

where everything works together as it should in some kind of harmony. Maintenance

and improvement continues at this final stage but without any major issues on the

agenda.

Galliers uses McKinsey’s Seven ‘Ss’. (Peters and Waterman, 1991; Waterman,

Peters and Phillips, 1980; Waterman, 1982) as a basis for describing in greater detail

what occurs within their six ‘stages of growth’. These are: style, skills, superordinate

goals, strategy, staff, structure and systems. The difference between the Nomological

adjustment terms (see Figures 2 and 3 above and Brugha, 1998b for a description of

the terms) and the Seven ‘Ss’ is that the McKinsey set focus on the characteristics of

the output of each activity. An output orientation focus would be particularly

appropriate for a consulting company whose work tends to be measured by its results

or outputs. The nomological adjustment terms focus on generic activities. Activities

are more helpful than outputs because they are less tied to a particular context, and

because they can provide indicators about what decision makers should do at a

particular stage.

The first of our activities, pounce, a sudden shift in direction of resources or

emphasis that has not been widely discussed or agreed, does not have a clearly

characterisable output, which may explain why the McKinsey set does not have a

corresponding term. The pounce activity is not included in Galliers’ model. We

would think that it should, that IT is changing so rapidly that management must use

their position to respond quickly to change and not always go through long planning

cycles.

McKinsey’s style corresponds to the different habits that companies form over a

long period, representing different ways of considering new propositions. Many

companies are successful partly because they are prepared to venture into new

territory. A consequence of this is the need to develop a procedure for dealing with

each new situation. In time these procedures become reused and can embody some of

the company's culture or style. In the context of evaluating an organisation’s growth

in IT maturity a company’s style is not as interesting as the procedures it uses to

evaluate new ideas, IT, software, business processes, etc. McKinsey’s skills criterion

corresponds with our price. One’s perception of the value of your product or service

will determine what you can buy in, or afford to keep. Similarly, if you were

considering employing someone new, or a take-over bid, the price you would pay

would be based on the what you expect to get. McKinsey deals more with internal

management issues and with people, with restructuring organisations and forming new

groupings of people. In IS we have a broader set of things that we value, i.e. with IT,

software, and business processes which form the basis for a ‘market’ which

determines IS-based competitive advantage. So, confining the concept to skills is too

narrow; it should encompass all the elements that give IS advantage. This criticism is

directed at the likely interpretation of the word, not at McKinsey’s current practices.

A conversation the author had with an executive of McKinsey & Company, Inc.

Ireland indicated that they use a much broader interpretation of the word skills

including broad corporate skills.

McKinsey's superordinate goals corresponds with our policy. In their framework

this criterion plays a larger and more central role than the other six. Again, this may

be due to the nature of much of McKinsey's work, i.e. assisting in policy making.

Their strategy corresponds with promotion, a pull activity, i.e. the process of getting

support for a new plan and its putting into effect. Sometimes strategy is associated

with a policy, i.e. a perception activity. Johnsen (1993), referred to above, uses it as a

fourth phase push activity, coming after mission and vision. A major contention of

this article is that there is a need to develop and use generic terms that are not bound

up with a particular culture. The McKinsey use of the word strategy is an example

where confusion could be caused by varying interpretations of the meanings of words.

By contrast, the value of the approach proposed here is that any word for a key activity

can be understood in a particular context by reference to the structural meaning of the

word. In this case, see Figure 2 above, policy means a planning activity with people

using a personal approach.

McKinsey’s staff criterion relates to the productivity activity, implying that

productivity in the McKinsey context is delivered mainly by the organisation’s staff.

In an I.S. context a good use of I.T. and systems could enhance productivity.

Structure matches pliability; the emphasis of pliability is on the need for an

organisation to be flexible in order to facilitate re-structuring. There may not be any

“correct” structure. Finally their systems corresponds to our practice. The four

putting activities in both systems match very easily, whereas there are obvious

imbalances on the planning side. See Brugha (1998b) for a more detailed review.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO GALLIERS’ MODEL

Galliers model is used for identifying how far an organisation has developed on

the road to IT maturity. In using McKinsey’s Seven ‘Ss’ the emphasis is on visible

outputs which are relevant to a consulting organisation. We would suggest that it

would help to change over to more generic adjustment activities. They would match

better the development activities and so combine better into a table. They would be

more easy to describe and identify in an organisation. The Seven ‘Ss’ also miss the

sense of a cycle in the adjustment activities (Figure 3). Galliers’ revised model (Table

3) has been revised below as a Nomological Map in Table 4 and presented using the

correct cyclical order of the adjustment activities, and also matching the stages of

growth to the hierarchy of development levels. In order to take account of the

difference between the Seven ‘Ss’ and the adjustment approaches, a new content has

been suggested for some of the cells using the descriptions in Galliers and Sutherland

(1991). Occasionally some speculative filling-in has been done, such as the inclusion

of pounce, the first adjustment activity. In Table 3 the cells read well across each row,

but not as well down each column. An attempt has been made to improve the

adjustment aspects so that they flow well in each column. Ideally each cell should

clearly reflect the combination of a development and an adjustment activity, but

should be grounded in the language of the particular system, in this case IS.

The titles of the columns in Table 4 need to be addressed. We suggested above

that generic adjustment names (pounce, procedure, etc.) should be used. We would

not for the development activities. Why? We would refer back to the basic

difference between adjustment and development (Brugha, 1998a). The difference is

based on ownership. With adjustment there is an outside owner of the decision

process, as it were a sense of the objective ‘right’ thing to do in any situation. This

creates a certain standardisation. With development the owner is ‘inside’ whether it

be a single decision maker or, as in this case, an organisation. There is a subjectivity

about developmental decision making which creates its own culture. Within

development decision making introverted development focuses on one’s self view,

and extroverted development focuses on one’s world view. The perceptions of

oneself in the world describe one’s culture (see Figure 4 above). Consequently we

would propose that the titles of the stages of development in Table 4 should fit the I.S.

culture. In the first row of Table 4 three alternatives have been included: Galliers’ six

titles, the hierarchy of levels, and the systems development life cycle (SDLC). The

latter two reflect extremes in the process; the levels are very distinct, long-term and

relate to personal development; the SDLC generally overlap a lot, are short term and

relate to I.S. Correct terms probably fall somewhere in between all three but probably

closer to Galliers’ set. Obviously the main changes would be in the extension of Stage

4 to three stages, and Stages 5 and 6 to three.

We finish with some suggestions about how a Nomological Map can be used.

We refer the reader to the section in Galliers and Sutherland (1991) on the application

of the revised model, and would propose to add some ideas based on the following

axioms which are slight modifications of ones in Brugha (1998b and c).

Axiom 15: The eight principal adjustment activities operate in a cycle when

solving a problem in management.

Axiom 22: Development decision making is comprised of extroverted stages

nested within introverted phases, making nine kinds of behaviour or stages of relating

to or dealing with a problem.

As we mentioned earlier we can interpret change as adjustment within

development or development within adjustment, or a combination of both. Where

there is a block to change we believe that one should focus on the reasons for that

block, and that it is most likely to be based in an ability to move between stages in

cycles of adjustment and development. These cycles are generic to human behaviour.

Such blocks are known to operate in many other areas of individual and group

behaviour. Consequently we should expect to see them in Information Systems. The

way I.S. has been presented in Galliers’ model would suggest that the primary focus is

on development of the organisation through the use of I.S. This may not be always the

case. In some situations the primary issue might more one of adjustment to the

introduction of IT. We conclude this section with the following new principle in

Nomology.

Principle 6: Nomological change is most effectively achieved when directed at

the appropriate level and stage within a nomological map.

CONCLUSION: TOWARDS A NEW APPROACH

In this article we have used a meta-modelling or ‘outside-in’ approach

(Nomology) to show how Galliers’ ‘stages of growth’ model for I.S. can be seen in a

broader context. This has two values. Firstly it gives a sense of comfort that one has

a complete picture or map, that nobody is likely to appear in the future and suggest

that that there are several more adjustment or development stages. Also it is helpful

for identifying where an organisation is on such a map, as has been done by Galliers

and his colleagues. Furthermore it helps to take such a mapping beyond the narrow

I.S. context into the broader issues of organisational and business / industry change.

The second value is the way one can operationalise such a map to provide advice

and assistance to an organisation to move onwards, possibly overcoming some blocks

to change. This is done by dealing with the behaviour associated with each stage, as it

is exhibited and manifested in the feelings of the organisation and its members. The

four primary feelings and responses are given in Figure 5 (from Brugha, 1998a).

Figure 5: The four primary feelings and responses

These correspond to the four main phases of adjustment activity. Thus for the

eight adjustment activities (Figure 2) policy making, for example, would exhibit a

feeling of anxiety in one’s personal activities with others. Likewise, there would be a

feeling of guilt if one was not as productive as was expected of someone in that

‘position’.

The nine development activities correspond to an introverted dimension with

corresponding feelings and levels (Figure 6) and an extroverted dimension with its

aspects (Figure 7) (Brugha, 1998c). Properly speaking the nomological map should be

viewed as a cube based on three dimensions which could be paraphrased most simply

as adjusting, convincing (extrovert) and committing (introvert). Usually development

activity is primarily about committing, and secondarily about convincing: one moves

through a process of convincing oneself about one’s commitment at some level. With

the kind of nomological map described in this paper, adjusting is about fine-tuning at

a third or lower level. Thus, when one is on a new level one becomes convinced

about its requirements, and then one adjusts to the new situation.

At any point in this cube one can distinguish the activity from the nature of the

feelings, particularly by where they are directed. Consequently there are three types of

fear. There is ‘committing fear’ with which the focus is on threats to or undermining

of oneself or one’s organisation. There is ‘convincing fear’ which would usually be

associated with considering some task. And there is ‘adjusting fear’ where one is

challenged by a new problem that has arisen and one is unsure about what direction to

take to deal with it.

Figure 6: The three general subjective (introverted) activities and corresponding primary

feelings and levels

Figure 7: Aspects of extroverted development

It is not necessary to take these latter two separately. The combination of the

feelings associated with convincing within committing levels have their own well

defined characteristics as stages of relating: Figure 8 (Brugha, 1998c). These can be

combined with the other descriptions (Figure 2). For example, an organisation can

behave like an individual and get stuck in inertia. This is essentially an emotional

problem in which they cannot trust themselves (or others) when judging what to do in

some situation. Obviously this occurs at the point in the SDLC where the major

expenditure decision occurs whether or not to make some major purchase. It also

applies to more general emotional commitments. In the context if I.S. development

the issue would be a commitment to real incorporation of I.S. in the main stream of

the organisation.

Orientations Self Others Situational

Somatic Confusion Denial Upset

Psychic Bargaining Depression Inertia

Pneumatic Jealousy Compliance Enthusiasm

Figure 8: Stages of relating

In summary the way one can operationalise a nomological map is by working on

an ‘inside-out’ basis, in contrast to the way one developed the model which was from

‘outside-in’. The feelings of the stake-holders and decision makers are reliable

indicators of where there are on the map, that is of what activities are currently taking

place.

In conclusion, a word about ‘hard’ approaches and ‘soft’ approaches. The

criticism of ‘soft’ approaches is that they are ‘soft-in-the-head’ approaches. We

would hope that this decision science based approach will be seen to be rigorous and

well founded, and yet soft in the sense of relating to the real human dynamic

underlying change management. The criticism of ‘hard’ approaches is that they are

excessively prescriptive and mechanistic. The analogy of the escalator has been used:

the idea that are steps to be taken and targets to be met regardless of what is

happening within the organisation. We would hope that this ‘inside-out’ approach

would help people to move away from rigid frameworks, while not abandoning the

idea of using frameworks as maps.

REFERENCES:

Anonymous Authors, (1955), Alcoholics Anonymous, 2nd Edition, New York:

Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc.

Brugha, C. (1998a), The structure of qualitative decision making, European Journal

of Operational Research, 104 No.1 p. 46-62.

Brugha, C. (1998b), The structure of adjustment decision making, European Journal

of Operational Research, 104 No.1 p. 63-76.

Brugha, C. (1998c), The structure of development decision making, European Journal

of Operational Research, 104 No.1 p. 77-92.

Chopra, D. (1998c), The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success, San Rafael, CA: Amber-

Allen Publishing / New World Library.

Doukidis, G.I., Mylonopoulos, N.A., and Lybereas, P. (1994), Information Systems

Planning within Medium Environments: a Critique of Information Systems Growth

Models, Int. Trans. Opl. Res., Vol. 1, No. 3 pp. 293-303.

Fessard, G. (1956), La Dialectique des Excercises spirituels de saint Ignace de

Loyola, vol. 1, pp. 40-41, Paris: Aubier.

Galliers, R.D. (1991), Strategic information systems planning: myths, reality and

guidelines for successful implementation, European Journal of Information Systems,

No.1 p. 55-64.

Galliers, R.D. and Sutherland, A.R. (1991), Information systems management and

strategy formulation: the ‘stages of growth’ model revisited, J. of Information

Systems, No.1 p. 89-114.

Hamilton, W. (1877), Lectures on Metaphysics, Vols. 1 and 2, 6th Ed., in Lectures on

Metaphysics and Logic, Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons.

Johnsen, E. (19993), Strategic Analysis and Synthesis - An Axiomatic Model,

Copenhagen Business School Management Research Institute.

Jung, C. (1971), Psychological Types, in The Collected Works of C. J. Jung Volume

6, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Maslow, A. (1971), The Farther Reaches of Human Nature, New York: Penguin.

Maslow, A. (1987), Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper & Row.

O’Brien, J.A. (1993), Management Information Systems: A Managerial End User

Perspective, Second Ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Peace Pilgrim (1981), Steps Toward Inner Peace, Friends of Peace Pilgrim, 43480

Cedar Avenue, Hemet, California 92544.

Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1991) Successful American Companies, Marketing

Classics - A Selection of Influential Articles, 7th. Ed., Ed. Ben Enis and Keith Cox,

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Simon, H. (1977), The New Science of Management Decisions, Rev. Ed. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Tyrrell, B.J. (1982), Christotherapy II, New York: Paulist Press.

Ward, J. and Peppard, J. (1996), Reconciling the IT/business relationship: a troubled

marriage in need of guidance, Strategic Journal of Information Systems, No.5 pp. 37-

65.

Waterman, R., Peters, T., and Phillips, J. (1980), Structure is not organisation,

Business Horizons (June).

Waterman, R. (1982), The seven elements of strategic fit, The Journal of Business

Strategy, Vol. 2, No.3 (Winter).

Whitten, J., Bentley, L., and Barlow, V. (1989), Systems Analysis and Design

Methods, 2nd Ed., Homewood, IL, IRWIN.

Woolfe, R. (1993), The Path To Strategic Alignment, Information Strategy: The

Executive’s Journal, (Winter), pp. 13-23.

Table 3: A revised ‘stages of growth’ model (Galliers & Sutherland, 1991, p. 111; Galliers, 1991, pp. 61 - 62)

Stage

Element 1 2 3 4 5 6

Strategy Acquisition of hardware, software, etc.

IT audit

Find out and meet user needs (reactive)

Top-down IS planning Integration, co-ordination & control

Environmental scanning & opportunity seeking

Maintain comparative strategic advantage

Monitor futures

Interactive planning

Structure None Label of IS

Often subordinate to accounting or finance

Data processing department

Centralised DP shop

End-users running free at Stage 1

Information centres

Library records, OA etc. in same unit

Information services

SBU coalition(s)

(many but separate)

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

Systems Ad hoc unconnected

Operational

Multiple manual & IS

Uncoordinated

Concentration on financial systems

Little maintenance

Many applications

Many gaps

Overlapping systems

Centralised

Operational

Mainly financial systems

Many areas unsatisfied

Large backlog

Heavy maintenance load

Still mostly centralised

Uncontrolled end-user computing

Database systems

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

Some DSS ad hoc

Integrated office technology systems

Decentralised systems but central control & co-ordination

Added value systems

(more marketing oriented)

More DSS-internal,

less ad hoc

Some strategic systems (using external data)

Lack of external & internal data integration

Integration of communication technologies with computing

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

New IS-based products

External / internal data integration

Staff Programmers / contractors Systems analysts

DP Manager

IS planners

IS manager

Data Base Administrator

Data Administrator

Data analysts

Business analysts

Information Resources Manager

(Chief Information Officer)

Corporate / business / IS planners (one role)

IS Director /

member of board of directors

Style Unaware Don't bother me

(I'm too busy)

Abrogation / delegation Democratic dialectic Individualistic

(product champion)

Business team

Skills Technical (very low level), individual expertise

Systems development methodology

IS believes it knows

what the business needs

Project management

Organisational integration

IS knows how the business works

Users know how IS works (for their areas)

Business management (for IS staff)

IS Manager - member of senior executive team

Knowledgeable users in some IS areas

Entrepreneurial marketing skills

All senior management understand IS and its capabilities

Superordinate goals Obfuscation Confusion Senior management concern

DP defence

Co-operation Opportunistic

Entrepreneurial

Intrapreneurial

Interactive planning

Table 4: Galliers & Sutherland ‘stages of growth’ model represented as a Nomological Map of Adjustment within Development

Galliers 1. Ad Hocracy 2. Starting the Foundations 3. Centralised Dictatorship 4. Democratic Dialectic and Co-operation

5. Entrepreneurial Opportunity 6. Integrated Harmonious Relationships

Brugha Physical / Survey Political / Study Economic / Definition Social, Cultural, Emotional /

Selection, Design, Acquisition

Artistic, (Religious) /

Construction, (Delivery)

(Religious), Mystical /

(Delivery), Maintain & Improve

Pounce

Acquisition of hardware, software, etc.

Attempts to get IT people under control within some department

Attempts by senior management to rationalise DP

Head of IT chosen to work for and with rest of organisation

Opportunities given to innovators (product champions)

Senior management abandons hierarchical control

Procedure /

Style

Technical evaluations by IT personnel, none otherwise

IT people work in isolation from the rest of the organisation

Role confusion; abrogation / delegation of responsibility

Democratic dialectic ensures IT / rest of organisation co-operation

Senior managers develop strategic IS projects in teams

Interdependence, IT just one part of the business team

Price /

Skills

Technical (very low level), individual expertise

Isolated IT and software associated with the technical interests of individuals

Not perceived as of value to the business / organisation

IT people with systems development methodology skills are seen as providing a valuable link between IT and the organisation

IS believes it knows what the business needs

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

Organisational integration

Emphasis on the mutual gains to be got from IS knowing how the business works, and users knowing how IS works (for their areas)

Business oriented managers (for IS staff) get appointed

Senior executive team includes IS Manager as a member

Knowledgeable IT users used to full potential

Entrepreneurial and marketing skills within selected IT personnel are important

IS valued as central to the success of the business

All senior management understand IS and its capabilities

Policy /

Superordinate Goals

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

IT function clearer about the contribution of technological developments to the organisation. Everyone else still confused

Senior management raise their concerns about value from IT investment. DP department under threat defends itself.

Co-operation leads to mutual understanding, good relationships and integrated policy making

Opportunistic

Entrepreneurial

Intrapreneurial

Interactive planning

Promotion /

Strategy

IT people seek to buy the latest hardware, software, etc. Business managers want very simple applications; tend to use external suppliers

IT function seeks to find out and meet user needs reactively. They use the IT audit to consolidate their activities and extend into new business areas

Top-down IS planning used to try to bring emphasis on serving real business needs into the DP department

Integration, co-ordination & control changes orientation of the DP department towards having more focus on the business

Environmental scanning & opportunity seeking

Maintain comparative strategic advantage

Monitor futures

Interactive planning

Productivity /

Staff

Use of programmers and contractors

Little contribution to business expected from IS

Introduction of DP Manager, Systems Analysts and some management control in order to ensure delivery matches end user requirements

DP tries to become IS & grows.

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

Business analysts in line departments work directly with IS

Information Resources Manager (Chief Information Officer)

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

IT / business cross-disciplinary

IS Director / member of board of directors

Pliability /

Structure

Traditional organisational systems unaffected by the presence of IT despite sporadic and uncoordinated purchase of IT by senior executives

Internal IT staff form into a structure, maybe with the label of IS, and probably subordinate to accounting or finance. Resistance by them to ‘outside’ interference

Powerful DP department, but still not part of ‘business’ decision making

End-users ignored by unfriendly centralised autocratic DP shop

Some decentralisation of DP department into Information Centres. Information systems provides integrated service. Senior role for (new) IS manager.

SBU coalition(s)

(many but separate within a federal structure)

Strategic coalitions between IT and business units are now centrally co-ordinated.

Corporate view based on individual SBU views

Practice /

Systems

Ad hoc unconnected

Operational

Multiple manual & IS

Uncoordinated

Concentration on financial systems

Little maintenance

Many applications

Many gaps

Overlapping systems

Centralised

Operational

Mainly financial systems

Many areas unsatisfied

Large backlog

Heavy maintenance load

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

Uncontrolled end-user computing

Database systems

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

Some DSS ad hoc

Integrated office technology systems

Decentralised systems but central control & co-ordination

Added value systems

(more marketing oriented)

More DSS-internal, less ad hoc

Some strategic systems (using external data)

Lack of external & internal data integration

Integration of communication technologies with computing

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

New IS-based products

External / internal

data integration