Reflection

I think it's pretty clear that we should all have a much better understanding of the relationship between technology, business processes, people, and the organization.  But what sticks out most to me is what we can learn from the Caregroup case.  Though very technical in background, there are many interesting concepts.  Most importantly, we see how important documentation is to a firm.  We must fight the urge to put aside the tasks associated with process documentation.  Also, change management in terms of the technology and people is key.  Controlling the levels of access users have to the system is crucial to keeping systems running and free of issues.  Finally, I think this case illustrates how delicate the relationship between an IT organization set up as subsidiary and the other business units can really be.  While there is the urge to support teamwork and get things done quickly, the fact is, taking the time to complete projects correctly benefits everyone more in the long run.  This was certainly my favorite case that our group presented. Does anyone have any thoughts to add?

IT in Untapped Markets

In talking about Enterprise Resource Planning packages, it is hard to deny what great benefits they can offer.  Here you have one system, a couple of databases, and modules allowing every business unit to work in harmony and utilize near real-time information.  This seems like the natural way to conduct business.  This, however, can be difficult to achieve.  There are many very successful firms that are operating off of very archaic tools.  I recently had the opportunity to hear a local CFO describe their IS in terms of its database and CRM capabilities.  This company provides remodeling products for homes.  Their position is high quality at a really good price.  Their prices are too high for contractors, but they blow the competition away in terms of remodeling.  One of his chief complaints is how unorganized their data is and how much they have going to waste.  No one is looking at the information.  Also, he found himself having trouble getting additional licenses for MS Access 2003!  I couldn't believe they were using Access and Access 2003 nonetheless.  This industry is one in which none of the local competition relies on IT to add strategic advantage.  This CFO also cited their problem of scheduling their salespeople.  He wants to find a way to efficiently schedule appointments to keep salespeople from driving halfway across the state to get from one meeting to the next. 

I guess we see all these great ideas and presentations about companies undertaking huge implementations, but the reality is that there are plenty of good companies using very basic information systems.  It is a company like this that could really see strategic advantage due to the competition not even thinking about utilizing IT.  In contrast, I was blown away when I recently had my carpets steam cleaned by Stanley Steemer.  With a hand held device (a rugged PDA), they were able to completely get all my information, run a credit card, and even print a receipt right there in my living room.  It was nearly paperless (other than the receipt), and that information will be transmitted into their database ready for analysis much sooner than processing a paper copy. 

Outsourcing

I personally feel outsourcing will take the same path many other advantages take.  That is, it will become an activity undertaken because it is almost required.  Like many other competitive advantages, they only last as long as it takes competitors to follow suit.  I think large companies will have to outsource to keep up with others in the industry.  Management of these resources will eventually be what separates the good companies from the great ones.  Efficient networks, communication, and the ability to harvest the greatest benefits from such an arrangement will be key to success.  We have heard the term core competency very many times this semester.  I think firms would benefit by truly working at making IT management a core competency.

Outsourcing. Again.

Outsourcing decision making seems to carry incredible risk.  Pulling the trigger on a decision with such sweeping implications must be tough to do.  I think it is obvious that no one business group should solely make this decision.  But who has the ultimate say in whether or not to go forward with outsourcing?  I think it depends on the type of business and the functions being outsourced.  IT outsourcing should ultimately decided by IT management, with the input of the rest of management, while other functions to outsource are finally decided by their managers.  This may not work in every situation, depending on the company structure, but the decision to outsource should ultimately fall on the people who know that area of the business best.

Outsource Carefully

There are a lot of good examples and discussion about outsourcing.  One thing I think about relates to how do we determine what to outsource.  We have seen the criteria presented in class about costs, effectiveness, etc.  Outsourcing payroll is probably a pretty easy decision to make.  What about outsourcing functions that are closely intertwined with the company's core competency?  For example, I worked at a well established engineering firm here in Baton Rouge.  The company sends a sizable portion of its engineering design work to an office it has set up in Mumbai, India.  Clearly, this is done to cut cost and extend the workday as there is about a ten hour time difference.  The issue, however, is an intense difficulty to manage the work.  All drawings, like here in the United States, must be checked once completed.  The problem is that the quality of work is lower, and the work has to be redone more often than the drawings done in-house.  Managing the people is more difficult as well, and managers are sent from US offices to Mumbai for several months at a time to monitor the work.  While this is not outsourcing in terms of having a different company doing the work, it is some type of outsourcing.  I just find it strange that they have outsourced part of it's main function, engineering services, and have kept other things in house, such as IT and payroll. 

KM vs. Innovation

The term knowledge management can describe a wide range of practices organizations use to harness valuable information within the firm.  In some instances, knowledge management is used to compile information on everything from how specific tasks should be done, to lessons learned from major company-wide projects.  KM is intended to be used by the company to shed light on future projects and processes.  One thing to consider, however, is how does this impact original thought and innovation?

Personally, I don't think there is an easy answer to this question.  There's no doubt that repetitive tasks benefit from having a predefined preferred way to approach them.  This maintains consistency and provides less experienced employees with concrete methods to complete tasks.  What about something a little more abstract?  Lessons Learned from past projects, for example, can give insight into pitfalls as well as possibly new approaches that worked in previous projects.  These can be very useful for future ventures.  The problem is that no two projects will be alike, so these may be relevant much less frequently.

So how does the use of KM affect innovation?  I don't think it does because truly innovative people won't look to knowledge management to solve their problems.  That's not to say they won't gain insights from it.  I think that is certainly a possibility, but they will continue to approach problems in different ways.  This may be one reason knowledge management is so difficult to implement.  Strategic initiatives are much less likely to benefit from KM than more operational processes.  So the majority of information will pertain to more routine work.  And, how useful would metrics from an incredibly unique process improvement project be to future ones that are in no way similar?  I agree we must be sure we're not reinventing the wheel every time we undertake a project, but I think KM has its limits.

Change and Implementation

How, as managers, are we to make sure IT projects succeed beyond implementation?  A major factor in determining if an IT project is a success is how it is utilized after installation.  If implementation is an enterprise wide activity, so too is emphasizing the importance of how the adoption of it will improve the firm. 

We all know this is no easy task.  Employees get set in their ways, and the last thing they want to do is "lose" time learning a new system when they already know the technology in place.  I think we need to keep this in mind when unveiling the new system.  There will, without doubt, be many questions and objectors, both active and passive.  I think it's our job to reassure them of the benefits of the system and to encourage participation in training programs.  I personally don't feel like mandatory training is the proper approach.  I think approaching this in a way that makes the employees feel we are learning with them, rather than strictly monitoring their progress is more effective. 

The only real experience I have with something like this comes from my teaching days.  We, as instructors, had the choice of using WileyPlus, an online homework suite.  The students had to use it to complete homework assignments.  Many students openly objected to the technology.  It had many benefits for both teachers and students.  Eventually, they all embraced it as an instructional tool.  The only complaint that persisted was the network problems everyone had. I made sure I was understanding of these issues and took measures to make sure they didn't give up on the system.