Incorporating Information Technology for the Two Campuses - Assignment Example

? IT Systems Case Study IT Systems Case Study There has been a slow shift away from top-down hierarchical structures to flat, decentralized and virtual organizations with units, which maintain a rising measure of liberty from direct central control. A study was carried out by Kahn (2000) concerning two universities This paper will look at how the two campuses changed their informal work relationships and patterns in reply to a crucial technological modernism in their field. Challenges That Faced Each University Campus A In the late 80s, record-management and archival offices— those that maintained, kept, granted access to and disposed of institutional records—discovered that the manner of their management was undergoing a significant technological changed from ink on paper to computer-based records (Kahn, 2000, 328). The institutional archives manager at Campus A learned the tough way that he could not inactively wait till electronic records were conveyed to his office for long-standing access and retention. A research of the records at the campus, aided by the National Historical Publication and Records Commission grant, discovered that over 90 percent of the data sets did not have adequate documentation, hence making archival evaluation impossible (Kahn, 2000, 332). Campus B The archives department at Campus B opted for a method to handling electronic records, which was extremely diverse from Campus A’s. Rather than working with groups all through the university system, the archives department opted to work with a minute group of mainly external experts on creating an electronic-record policy (Kahn, 2000, 336). The challenge to this is that it left out vital departments of the institution meaning that the final policy did not incorporate every department’s view about the endeavor (Kahn, 2000, 337). Also, the campus had limited resources unlike Campus A, which opted to use all the resources they could together for the endeavor. Unlimited resources translated into unlimited support for the system. Strategic Responses to the Challenges Campus A In response to the campus’ IT report, the institution archives director begun by strengthening internet record management in his office and also by seeking the assistance of relevant and significant offices and departments all round the institution. He also started to make use of a new budget-management scheme, which rewarded record-management endeavors all through the university system (Kahn, 2000, 334). The director’s initial move to deal with this problem was to add the role of electronic-record management to the archives department. The appointment of the electronic-record administrator in the archives department was a departure from normal practice whereby record management was housed in an administrative scheme. Campus B The archives department allocated a majority of its internal budget resources and a US$130,000 national grant for creating a conceptual strategy for managing electronic records (Kahn, 2000, 335). The money was largely used to recruit a small team and pay faculty to oversee pilot record-management plans and create policy. The archives department director also hired a counseling board which included national specialists in the field of electronic-record management. Just two people in the institution’s hierarchy—a university personnel director, as well as a university information resources administrator—were included on that board (Kahn, 2000, 336). This would assist the campus to come to grips with the policy and management concerns surrounding electronic records. Social Action Theory Social action, in sociology, is an act that considers the actions and reactions of people (or 'agents'). Max Weber considers that "an Action is 'social' if the performing person considers the behavior of others and is thus oriented in its course. Campus A Campus A’s archives department is situated at the library adjacent to the geographic center of the main campus. The department is in walking distance to several university schools, offices and the main administrative block where the chancellor’s and the public relations offices are situated (Kahn, 2000, 337). The library is at the center of the campus and is toured frequently by thousands of students, staff, faculty and administrators. According to the social action theory, it is much easier to note the social significance of a matter by making it the central issue in any situation. For instance, they way Campus A opted to position the archives department close to the library. Therefore, the social action theory is a useful framework for understanding the relative success or failure of this campus because the campus knew that they had to make their endeavors social in order for them to succeed. Campus B Campus B’s department was located on a private administrative complex distant from most of the academic campuses. It was also not part of any library. The department is on the 10th story of ‘the tower’, as it is at times referred to, since it is a turreted, arched building situated at the center of a chain of administration structures, which appear similar to a feudal castle (Kahn, 2000, 338). Guests can only park in an expensive garage in a down town area and trek through some buildings past to the archives office. Such a structure does not support the social action theory and; therefore, it would not be a good framework for understanding the relative success or failure of the campus because their endeavors did not incorporate social elements in them. Implications of This Case Study for Organizations That Are Less Bound by Tradition Such a case study is extremely significant to organizations that are less bound by tradition since it helps to know how they could restructure their policies in order to attain maximum success. Giddens, as well as other social action theorists, contend this. In order to understand an organization’s response to innovation, traditional organizations should observe leaders and their teams and the manner in which they thrive or fail to adapt (Kahn, 2000, 341). In doing so, this case study discovered that the victorious archives office responded to change with management plans, which incorporated decentralization of authority, use of a high-tech budget-management system, alliance building and boundary-spanning management ways. Traditional organizations could be persuaded to place value on its constituents and use more physical closeness. Through moving control and power away from upper management and granting micromanagement of budgets, the archives department at Campus A could exercise control through a carefully deliberated argument that better record management brings about efficiency and cost management. Therefore, alliance building was rooted in expertise and trust instead of organizationally dictated hierarchical arrangements or predefined official procedures. Hence, an organization, which is less bound by tradition will be persuaded to do the same things, which Campus A did in order to gain success. Connection of the Case Study to the Attached Documents According to Hitt & Brynjolfsson (1997, 81), organizations, which are wide users of information technology, are more inclined to adopt a harmonizing set of organizational practices that consist of decentralization of decision power, importance on biased incentives and a superior reliance on human capital and skills. This is exactly what is argued in the case studies provided concerning Campus A. Lucas & Baroudi (1994, 10), on the other hand, discuss the role of I.T. in an organization’s design and also give the effects of organizations, which opt to stay traditional in contrast to organizations, which pursue technology. Finally, Mukherji (2002, 497), support the endeavors, which Campus A undertook by discussing the evolution of information systems. Conclusion This paper has looked at how the two campuses changed their informal work relationships and patterns in reply to a crucial technological modernism in their field. Some of the elements that were included in this paper are the challenges faced by the campuses to incorporate I.T and also the strategic responses. Organizations should look at how these two campuses differed in their means and try to incorporate the best method. References Hitt, L. M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1997). Information technology and internet firm organization: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(2), 81-101. Kahn, R. L. (2000). The effect of technological innovation on organizational structure: Two case studies of the effects of the introduction of a new technology on informal organizational structures. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14(3), 328-349. Lucas, H. C., & Baroudi, J. (1994). The role of information technology in organization design. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(4), 9-23. Mukherji, A. (2002). The evolution of information systems: Their impact on organizations and structures. Management Decision, 40(5), 497-507. Read More