Sheila's Foundational Philosophies of Management - Essay Example

Foundational Philosophies of Management-Sheila Introduction With regard to how senior people process information in the digital age, different management philosophers seem to have different views. Some may postulate that senior citizens don’t have to understand the information technology and therefore can only depend on built systems in order to survive in the modern world while others may believe that there is a way to help the senior citizens to cope in a technology ridden world. How a management philosopher regards this issue of senior citizens with regard to how they can interact with information technology determines their management style. One of the most rigorous management philosophers is Sheila Walton who is an investment investor in Spenser Investments Company. Sheila Walton is involved in developing complex and advanced investment products which can be used b investors in the firm. Unlike other management philosophers, Sheila seems to have a management philosophy that bends on the side of not needing to have the older people to understand the technology, or the information. She believes that as long as the information technology can be used to design the best investment policies, the seniors don’t have to understand it and they can depend on investment advisors in order to develop this. As a result, her main challenge is to develop advanced investment policies using advanced analysis tools (Holroyd-Leduc, 2011). Other management philosophers seem to not really be very comfortable with this kind of a way and therefore look for better ways to deal with the issue. For instance, Felip (2010) is an ambassador for modern systems that are made to help older citizens to be able to interact with information technology. This as Nejmeh (2012) says, means that there is a need to guarantee that senior people who may not be well exposed to modern information technology to have a way to access, analyze and use information rather than depending on others to do it. Felip (2010), unlike Sheila Walton, does not believe that the older generation does not have the capacity to understand and relate with the modern technology. In retrospect, he believes that it is possible to have a system that helps the senior citizens to be able to access and use information without necessarily needing the aid of other persons. This, Felip (2010) believes, can be useful in helping them to make their own decisions. Felip’s philosophy seems to be geared towards empowerment of the individual by placing the information and the power to decide on their own hand. This is unlike Sheila who seems to believe that this power of the individual to decide is not necessarily important and that as long as the person ends up well, it is justified. As a result, it seems that Sheila, in light of information processing, believes that the end justifies the means. In her philosophy then, although the person is not given the power of having the information, the end (a good investment product that helps them make profits) justifies that lack of access to the information. Mohan, Bishop and Mallows (2013) also argue that information systems can be used to enhance service delivery, especially in a healthcare setting. At the same time, O’ Malley, Cohen and Grossman (2010) have the same view with regard to this issue. Felip (2010) however sees it the other way. However, he does not advocate for the lack of better analysis tools to help in making better products for the older citizens for investments. However, his emphasis is on the fact that information systems and information technology should be used as a barrier against the older people who don’t already have a way to access the information since they may to be computer literate. The other management philosopher who may have a view that differs from that of Sheila is the Sharpe (2011). The differences between Sheila and Sharpe are on the basis of how they believe that older citizens are able to adopt the new technology. Unlike the differences between Felip and Sheila which is based on their belief with regard to right to information, the differences between the philosophy of Sheila and Sharpe are based on their belief on the ability of the senior citizens to be able to successfully adopt new technology and use it effectively. Sheila’s philosophy seems to edge on the belief that older citizens are not able to adopt new technology, especially information technology. As a result, she seems to believe that instead of trying to develop ways to help them adapt to the new technology, it is better to use the same technology to develop services and systems which will help them get the services they need. This stand is very different from that of Sharpe who believes that with the right planning, it is possible to create a system that is able to help senior citizens to be able to adopt the information. Felip and Sharpe’s philosophies on the issue of availing technology and information to the older people seem to be in agreeing with each other. However, unlike Felip whose concern is mostly on the side of making sure that the senior citizens can aces their information rights, Shrpe’s philosophy is informed by the belief that this is a possibility. Both of them however seem to differ significantly on the way Sheila looks at the issue. Other researchers such as Sittig and Sigh (2012) also seem to have the same attitude towards how IT systems can be used.  Due to her view that there is no need for senior citizens to be given access to information technology or the information, Sheila focuses on the delivery of high class investment portfolios. She regards this as the only way to guarantee that the technology can and will benefit these people. Her philosophy is then informed by two fundamental realities; The first one is based on the fact that she does not believe that there is a way to help senior citizens to be able to access and use IT in an effective manner. She does seem to believe that even if there was such technology to help these people access the information technology, the results would be futile because they still would not be able to use the technology and information to make useful decisions. Secondly, she seems to believe that the end justifies the means. In this regard, she seems to think that instead of having the senior people be able to adapt to new technology, it is better to helps them to indirectly use the technology for their own benefits. These two factors separate her from the way she looks at the way the information technology should be utilized and the way it can be made available to the people. Part II: Research trail The articles were found as a process of looking at two fundamental issues. The first one is the issue of senior citizens learning infuriation systems. By searching for articles and information sources that dealt with this issue, it was now possible to identify how some different authors have tried to look at the issue. This search on the part of information systems and e-learning perspectives provides this research with the materials on how some management philosophers look at the way new technology can be made easy to use by the senior citizens who are not well exposed to this new technology. One article that really was useful in this area was Felip’s article which talks about Senior citizens e-learning needs as well as how this can be achieved. Sharpe’s article was also important in this research as he provided for the online resources for senior citizens. The research also looked at other issues including the book on software development written by Zain, Jasni Mohammad et al (2011) and the one written by McMurtrey et al (2011). These books provided the information relevant on how software engineering can be used in making systems that are useful and easy to use by any category of people, including the senior citizens. This deal with Sheila’s perceived belief that senior citizens cannot be able to use technology because there is no way to make the technology easy to use for such people. The credibility of the articles is based on the qualifications of the authors and their publishers. For instance, Zain, Jasni Mohammad et al (2011) are all high level computer and information systems experts and were published by Springer-Verlag which is publisher which only publishes highly vetted academic and professional works. Flow chart for the research process References Felip, M. (2010). Senior citizens e-learning needs report. Senior Learning. Adapting E-Learning Techniques for Integrating Senior Citizens in the New Digital World. Senior Citizens E-Learning Needs Report. McMurtrey, M., Zeltmann, S., Downey, J. & McGaughey, R. (2011). Seniors and technology: results from a field study. Journal of Computer Information Systems. Nejmeh, B. A. (2012). Service-learning in information sciences: Practical applications in engineering education. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Sharpe, C. C. (2011). Online resources for senior citizens. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Co. Zain, Jasni Mohammad, Wan Mohd, Wan Maseri, & El-Qawasmeh, Eyas. (2011). Software engineering and computer systems, part I: Second international conference, ICSECS 2011, Kuantan, Malaysia, and June 27-29, 2011. Proceedings, Part I. Springer-Verlag New York Inc. Holroyd-Leduc, J, M., Lorenzetti, D. Straus, S, E., Sykes, L & Quan, H. (2011). The impact of the electronic medical record on structure, process, and outcomes within primary care: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18:6, 732-737 Published Online First: 9 June 2011 doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000019 Mohan, M, K., Bishop, R, O & Mallows, J, L. (2013). Effect of an electronic medical record Information system on emergency department performance. The Medical Journal of Australia. 198 (4): 201-204.doi: 10.5694/mja12.10499 O’ Malley, A, S., Cohen, R, G & Grossman, M, J. (2010).Electronic Medical Records and             Communication with Patients and Other Clinicians: Are We Talking Less? Retrieved from http://www.hschange.com/CONTENT/1125/ Sittig, D. & Sigh, H. (2012).  Electronic Health Records and National Patient-Safety Goals. The New England Journal of Medicine. 367:1854-1860 Read More