Policy, Team and Information Technology - Case Study Example

POLICY, TEAM AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Affiliation POLICY, TEAM AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Thesis ment The paper is intended to discuss the differences that exist among policy, team and information technology in the departmental and enterprise information systems (IS) groups in an organization. Various factors inform the installation of information systems in departments and enterprises. The paper looks into those factors and probes the possible ways of harmonizing the differences using the available communication networks. The study even goes further to investigate some of the ways the performances of both systems can be enhanced. Introduction The policy refers to the principles formulated by the management entities of an organization to be followed by everyone. These policies guide every stakeholder in the organization towards achieving organizational goals. Teams are temporary groups of individuals formed by organizations to achieve some particular objective (Malecki, 2013). The teams are dissolved once their mission is accomplished. Apart from policies and teamwork, the modern organizations have also integrated information technology in their systems for better performance. Organizations have sub-units that collectively help in realizing its mission. Departmental and enterprise systems are some of these subunits. These two systems have got a host of differences in their Information Systems (IS), and these differences have got wide-ranging implications on the organizational performance. Policy and teams of the information systems Technology is a very dynamic sector where innovation is at a high level, and there is a mass influx of new products into the market every single day. This pace of technological advancement has posed various challenges to organizational and departmental leaders who must keep abreast. (Chang & Wang, 2011). These leaders must integrate these emerging technologies into their systems to modernize how things are done. The organizations are structured in a hierarchical manner where the person at the top wields the most power. Everybody is expected to implement the policies within their jurisdiction down the hierarchy. According to Malecki (2013), enforcing policies do not go down well at times for organizations. The policy enforcement may be jeopardized because the changes in question may seem necessary to the top management, but the individuals down at the departmental levels may be out of touch with them. The departments fall under the organizations, and they get instructions from above, but they may lack the structures necessary to execute the group policies at their levels. For that matter, teamwork should be encouraged for efficient communication and policy delivery. It is important to note that technological innovations change with time and cannot entirely solve organizational problems (Chang & Wang, 2011). Information Systems policy implementation can only yield desired results when both the organizational and departmental leaderships are engaged. To remain competitive in the first changing economies, organizations must embrace information technology in their planning and clearly define their roles. These technologies must be in tandem with the organizations policies. Departmental performance is enhanced by teams that operate cooperatively among them. These teams need to collaborate on an online platform at times, and that has implications for the network systems of departments. The systems must be designed in a manner that facilitates the interdependent relationships among the departments (Chang & Wang, 2011). Coming up with teams is not such a difficult task. What is of importance is whether the teams will be sufficient enough to deliver the goals for which they are created. For the teams to be competent, they should be formed with both the departmental and organizational policies in mind. The effectiveness of a team is measured by its performance and adherence to the corporate culture (Kmieciak, Michna & Meczynska, 2012). As organizations crave to promote collaborations by creating the necessary environment, they must choreograph them with the requirements of the departments that fall under them. That will ensure a holistic achievement of goals because the departments are just but sub-units of the entire organization (Malecki, 2013). Poor work relations are likely to emerge when the organizational policies are not in synch with the departmental policies because of the inherently broken communication. Team members enjoy the freedom of free interaction, but they must know the sides they belong to. These groups must be subject to supervision to curb deviation from the entrenched policies. In case of a breakdown of the work relationships between departments and organizations, it is the workers who bear the brunt (Leonardi, Huysman & Steinfield, 2013). Departmental performances have a cumulative effect on the organizational ranks, and any deviation from policies at the lower levels of authority will lead to misreporting related errors. Upon embracing information technology, organizations must craft clear structures for sharing and managing knowledge. They must come up with ways of handling security matters. Differences between departmental and enterprise information systems Departmental information technology implementations are a standalone entity that can deliver all the corporate needs so that the department does not face any deficiency (Yang & Maxwell, 2011). These systems have simple architectures because they are customized only to meet the needs of the department involved and has nothing to do with other ministries in the organization. In as much as they ensure efficiency within the departments, such systems pose challenges to transactions across departments. Take, for instance, a department that deals with expenditures. It has to be reconciled with the staff dealing with accounts and an architecture that hinders this will thoroughly hinder teamwork in organizations. At the enterprise level, various departmental information solutions are blended to deliver business requirements. This level of organizational information technology is more sophisticated than its corporate counterpart and is considered a superior brand. It is established with a wide user base in mind. The many users have different needs, and the system should provide what every user requires. The systems juggle up the objectives, data requirement and priorities of various users, and all these should be coordinated such that organizational goals are not compromised. Every user is important in the enterprise system, and the desired result will not be achieved if their interest is not taken care of by the information technology system (Yang & Maxwell, 2011). Unlike in departmental setup, the software layout at enterprise levels synchronizes operations from various parts of the organization that is not entirely under the supervision of one person. The systems must have the capacities to know where information is originating from and its destination. For efficient service delivery, such systems should be flexible and standardized (Liang,You & Liu, 2010).It should be clear to everyone that enterprise information technology is not like the widely used departmental technologies. Corporate software are employed to solve problems realized only in a corporate environment, and a software of companies goes beyond this. This, however, does not mean that business technology is better than corporate technology. My contention, simply, is that the enterprise software is more sophisticated than the ministerial one. Using department communication networks to solve arising issues Communication systems directly refer to channels through which information flows in an organization. There are formal communication channels where information flows in an organizational hierarchy through channels such as memos. There are also informal information flows that may be in electronic form. Their interactions can be categorized into vertical and horizontal communication networks. The vertical form flows down the organizational hierarchy or up depending on what is to be conveyed (Uddin, Hamra & Hossain, 2013). Horizontal communication applies where no pecking order exists between the communicating entities. An example is an interaction between departmental heads. Communication can also take place between persons at different levels and performing different functions in an organization. Such a communication network is called diagonal communication. Departmental communication systems can be used to resolve the differences discussed in the previous section. The organizational management should bring together departmental heads and clearly communicate what is expected of every department. The management should create parameters for interdepartmental communication that guide all the units towards the organization’s mission. Departmental meetings are also common communication platforms used by organizations. These meetings are held regularly, and they should be used to resolve the disparities resulting from corporate and enterprise systems.According to Castells, (2011) organizations can also use Wikis as communication tools for sharing information. With the help of Wikis, organizations can store data so that it can be shared by all the stakeholders. They are dynamic and are efficient in information accessibility for both departmental and enterprise setups.Besides, they are very cheap as compared to other systems of data management and circulation. Wikis, therefore, circumvent barriers erected by departments to allow simultaneous data use. Another communication tool popular in organizations is Microsoft SharePoint. With the use of this dynamic software, employees can share office documents within and outside their departments (Uddin, Hamra & Hossain, 2013). Besides, they can also compare notes on common or interrelated projects being undertaken by various ministries. Departmental social networks have taken root in organizations. The social networks such as LinkedIn have become very powerful tools for professional interactions among organizational members. People use them for both formal and informal interactions with departments. These communication networks expand the scope of the information sharing and help in alleviating the perennial problem of communication breakdown in organizations (Castells, 2011). Encouraging the participation of all the organizational stakeholders is another way of using communication networks to solve the differences discussed above. The junior staff should be given the freedom to contribute freely ideas and opinions either verbally or through social media. Through such means, these individuals may bring to surface the happenings within departments and enterprises that may not have been realized by the management but are very crucial to the organizations information system (Garvin, 2012).With advancement in the mobile industry, organizations can also use technologies such as Skype and smartphones to communicate with the stakeholders from different places. Other tools as the project management tools enable companies to share efficiently information on project implementation. Conclusion Departmental and enterprise information systems are very fundamental to the organizational operation. The two must co-exist. However, it is imperative that both of them are implemented such that the regulatory policy is not hindered in any way. The departmental architecture is limited in scope in comparison to the enterprise system, but it is crucial for corporate performance. Teamwork should be encouraged in creating corporate and business infrastructure because this will facilitate synchrony. By teamwork, the stakeholders develop content together, and everybody’s interest is taken care of. This collaboration also helps in identifying the possible security loopholes that may expose the organizations information system to risk. Connectivity in an organization should be developed in such a manner that the policies and regulations are adhered to. The policies should be those that encourage connectivity because failure to do so may lead to network breakdown, and this will lower the output of the personnel. References Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and culture (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons. Chang, H. H., & Wang, I. C. (2011). Enterprise Information Portals in support of business process, design teams and collaborative commerce performance. International Journal of Information Management, 31(2), 171-182. Garvin, D. A. (2012). The processes of organization and management. Sloan management review, 39. Kmieciak, R., Michna, A., & Meczynska, A. (2012). Innovativeness, empowerment and IT capability: evidence from SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 112(5), 707-728. Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M., & Steinfield, C. (2013). Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 19(1), 1-19. Malecki, E. I. (2013). Network models for technology-based growth. Regional Innovation And Global, 187. Uddin, S., Hamra, J., & Hossain, L. (2013). Exploring communication networks to understand organizational crisis using exponential random graph models. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 19(1), 25-41. Yang, T. M., & Maxwell, T. A. (2011). Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 164-175. Read More