Information & Management 20 (1991) 61-70

North-Holland

61

SOS

Technology diffusion in a centralized MIS environment

Experiences at Carrier

Ritu Agarwal Department of MIS and Decision Sciences, Uniuersity OJ’ Dayton,

Dayton. OH 45469, USA

Charles Higgins MIS Department, The Carrier Corporation, Syracuse, NY 13057,

USA

Mohan Tanniru School of Management, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

13244-2130, USA

Creating user awareness of new technology and managing its organizational diffusion effectively is a major objective of

many contemporary MIS organizations. In a centralized MIS

environment, the onus of technology introduction and diffu-

sion often falls upon the MIS function. This article recounts

the experiences of the MIS department of the Carrier Corpora-

tion in introducing expert systems technology to its users.

These experiences highlight the importance of effective mana-

gement of the process, of tempering user enthusiasm so that

expectations remain realistic, and of ensuring that the ultimate

adoption of the technology can be adequately cost-justified.

Lessons learned at Carrier from the technology introduction

effort are presented.

Keyw0rd.y; Technology Introduction, Centralized MIS Organi-

zation, Expert Systems, Management of Technology, Technol-

ogy Diffusion.

1. Introduction

The volatile nature of computing technology over the last three decades has placed pressure on

Ritu Agarwal is an Assistant Professor in the Department of MIS and Deci- sion Sciences at the University of Dayton. She received her Ph.D. in MIS and MS. in Computer Science from Syracuse University in 1988. Professor Agarwal’s publications are forthcom- ing in Journal of MIS and Knowl- edge-Based Systems and she has pre- sented papers at national and intema- tional meetings. Her research interests are in knowledge acquisition. expert system development and validation,

:ms, and group decision making. Mohan R. Tanniru is an associate pro- fessor in MIS in the School of Mana- gement at Syracuse University. He re- ceived his Ph.D. in 1978 from North- western University and has worked at U. of Wisconsin - Madison prior to joining SU. He has published in a number of journals and presented papers at various meetings. His re- search interests are in systems analy- sis, decision support systems and ex- pert systems. He has been a con- sultant to Carrier-UTC, Bristol and

has directed projects for Mutual of NY in the area of expert systems.

Charles Higgins is a manager of appli- cation development at United Tech- nologies - Carrier. He has a B.S. de- gree in Information Systems Manage- ment from Empire State College SUNY. He was the project manager for the development of the product configurator expert system, the first productional expert system at Carrier. He is currently responsible for the de- velopment of expert systems training classes and the investigation/selection of intelligent workstation based expert

system software

0378-7206/91/$03.50 0 1991 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)

62 SOS

the MIS function to manage new technology effec- tively. While the initial challenges were in educat- ing user personnel who did not grow up with computers, more recent challenges have been in deciding when and how to introduce new technol- ogy without seriously undermining existing invest- ment. This investment may be manifest in the form of applications that have been developed, existing pools of trained MIS personnel, and users who have been persuaded to adopt these technolo- gies. Contemporary MIS organizations have to contend with the dual pressures of, on the one hand, being quick to react to new technology and, on the other, managing adaptations to new techni- cal environments with a minimal disruption of existing operations [8].

Most business organizations are constrained by resources in their exploration of new technologies, unlike many scientific, research, and vendor in- stitutions. This places additional responsibility on MIS management to evaluate new technology carefully and introduce it in a manner that is both efficient and effective. The latter point is critical as the situation is no longer one of converting a few old manual systems to automated ones, but of linking applications that use different technologies effectively to solve a particular problem. The pro- cess of technology introduction and dissemination must now address not only a solution to a prob- lem, but also how it can be effectively interfaced with its environment.

In recent times, the problem of technology in- troduction has been confounded by a new phe- nomenon. Vendor promotions of new products through mass media are educating and creating an awareness among user clientele. This ‘ technology hype’, while beneficial to a certain degree in mak- ing users accept new technology more readily than in the earlier days of computing, can create unre- alistic expectations as to how soon new systems can be brought onboard cost effectively. This creates an unusual predicament for MIS organiza- tions. For a long time, it was the MIS group that complained about user resistance to new technol- ogy. Now, with increasing user demand, it often appears that MIS is not quick in adapting to technology. One-time pioneers in providing tech- ology to users, MIS organizations may now have to adopt a somewhat cautious and conservative attitude towards introducing new technology and

assume the responsibility of making users ‘tech- nology literate’. i.e., ensuring that the focus of the effort remains on the business needs and not on the technology itself [2].

Facilitating organizational learning of new technology has been identified as a key concern by MIS managers [2]. When the technology is sub- stantially different from the conventional comput- ing environment existing in an organization, as is the case with Expert Systems (ES), the importance of effective management of the “change” process becomes even more critical, because the impact of such systems can be much broader [12]. Leonard- Barton [7] suggests that for state-of-the-art tech- nologies, the old model of “handing off” technol- ogy to users is no longer appropriate, and recom- mends a new paradigm of integrative innovation. The paradigm involves both altering the technol- ogy to fit the organization and shaping the user environment to exploit the potential of the tech- nology. Argyris and Schon [l] term such a process “double loop learning”: where users simulta- neously learn to utilize the technology both to improve current practices and to address entirely new functions.

Creating user awareness of new technology and its optimal usage, and managing its organizational dissemination effectively is one of the major ob- jectives of MIS organizations today. Some of the pertinent concerns that any organization has in this regard include the effective management of user expectations with respect to what the technol- ogy can deliver and how soon, ensuring that re- source commitments to exploring new technology are reasonable, and ascertaining if the technology can really benefit the business in terms of either improving existing operations or providing it with a competitive edge [13].

This article recounts the experiences of the MIS organization at the Carrier Corporation in intro- ducing ES technology to its users and presents an evaluation of this effort. Since the MIS activity at Carrier is centralized and largely mainframe ori- ented, the strategy for technology introduction had to be tailored to fit the operating principles and the organizational philosophy of a centralized organization; this raised some interesting issues. The manner in which the process of technology introduction was managed at Carrier may prove valuable to other organizations.

Informarm & Management R. Agamal et al. / Technology Dgffusron 63

2. Technology introduction in a centralized MIS organization

Centralized MIS organizations are those that control all system development activity from one centralized location. This does not suggest that all personnel involved in system development have to be located physically at one central site, but that the activities in which these individuals participate are coordinated by a central organizational unit. This structure implies that all user requests for MIS support are handled by the centralized unit through appropriate resource allocation mecha- nisms [6].

The intrinsic characteristics of a centralized MIS organization have important implications for the introduction and management of new technol- ogy [8]. These are summarized in Table 1.

Technology integration is critical if existing cor- porate data bases and other applications are to communicate with new systems under design so as to avoid redundant development and maintenance efforts. While this requirement is appropriate un- der distributed or decentralized environments. each application group must then decide on the extent to which they are willing to integrate without totally sacrificing autonomy. However, in a centralized operation, the MIS organization is responsible for overall resource allocation, project management, and system integrity. This makes the integration capability of all hardware and applica- tion software a major concern.

Minimizing risk associated with introducing new technology involves important considerations that may surface along a variety of dimensions. Personnel involved in the development may be inexperienced, technology used in the application

Table 1

Organizational Requirements for the Successful Introduction

of New Technology

. Technology must be integrated with existing applications

. Risks associated with the technology must be minimized

. Costs/Benefits associated with the technology must be

clearly understood

. Application development using the new technology must be carefully planned

. Commitment from multiple users and the corporate com-

munity must be obtained

environment may not be proven, the product pro- duced may not be effective in delivering what was promised, and development/maintenance may be more expensive than current system costs. All of these can contribute to a failure of the initial effort at introducing technology. It is crucial for centralized MIS organizations that they do not appear to users as ineffective in managing technol- ogies: such a perception will increase pressures to decentralize the organization.

Establishing procedures for estimating costs and

benefits is important for budgeting purposes. The procedures should be well understood by the users, so that the charge back for services or projects does not discourage constructive use of computer resources. Issues involving the understanding of how new technology affects costs of develop- ment/maintenance, when the benefits actually accrue to the organization, how the benefits and costs are to be measured, the life-cycle of the technology, when the costs of development end and enhancement start, etc.; these become im- portant for users who requested the development. A clear understanding of these issues is critical in order to reduce surprise and gain broader user commitment.

Planning the application development process is critical as user groups need to comprehend the implications of this new approach. especially when it is non-standard; e.g. prototyping, as opposed to the structured development life-cycle. In a tradi- tional life cycle approach, user interaction is not as intensive, especially in the design phase, as opposed to the prototyping strategy, which re- quires continual involvement of the user [ll]. At the same time. users need to be made aware that the prototype is not always the actual system that can be delivered for use, but one used to define system requirements accurately. The same is true with respect to user responsibilities such as testing and enhancements: the onus of these tasks may gradually shift from MIS to user groups.

Obtaining commitment from the user and corpo- rate communitv for the assimilation of new tech- nology significantly depends upon their percep- tion of the ability of the MIS area to manage and control technology effectively [lo]. ‘The MIS organization must provide a plan for introducing and evaluating new technology, organize resources effectively to this end, staff the appropriate tasks with capable individuals, coordinate the overall

64 SOS lnformalion & h4unagemenr

effort and assess the implications. This plan must be communicated to various individuals in the user/corporate community through forums such as steering committee and informational meetings in order to gain overall commitment and support.

These considerations are critical for the success of technology introduction in a centralized shop. Some issues will not be crucial if the MIS organi- zation operates in a decentralized mode. On the other hand, a few issues, such as compatibility, may become more important to a decentralized MIS operation.

3. Introducing Expert Systems Technology at Car- rier

Carrier is the world’s leading manufacturer of heating, ventilating. and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, with sales over 3 billion dollars in 1987. Headquartered in Syracuse, New York, Car- rier is part of the building group of United Tech- nologies which had over 16 billion dollars in sales in 1987. The Carrier computing environment con- sists of two IBM 3090 mainframes networked to about 300 domestic and several international loca- tions. The structure of the MIS function at Carrier is described in Figure 1.

Carrier adopted a cautious attitude at the out- set of the expert systems initiation project, ensur- ing that its stages and deliverables were clearly delineated and understood by all the parties con- cerned. It was important for both top manage- ment and user groups to be aware of exactly where resources were being commited and ex- pended.

3.1. The Plan

The goal of the MIS organization was to ex- amine ES technology and evaluate its potential within the Carrier Corporation. Three basic steps were identified as critical to accomplishing this goal:

obtain the technology for exploratory purposes, with no long term commitment; design applications to evaluate its potential and study the issues; make an evaluation of the technology and de- cide on its future.

MIS identified these steps in its planning docu- ment and various members of the corporate steer- ing committee were informed. This provided an organization-wide visibility to the plan and created an initial spark of interest in the corporate user

DIRECTOR

INFORMATION SYSTEMS

MANAGER MANAGER bfANAGER bUNAGER

Appltcatio” Development _ Application Development __ Application Development - Appllcatlon Development

Manufacturing Marketing Sales BSS Systems

MANAGER

Application Development

F-inance/ Human

Resource

MANAGER

~~nanclal and

Admln1stratwe svcs.

MANAGER

-, computer/ comm.

SMVlCeS

COORDINATOR

MIS Q+

Fig. 1. Organization Strcuture of the MIS Department at Carrier.

InJormarion & Management R. Agumal et al. / Tee-hnology Diffusion 65

community. The issues of visibility and the crea- tion of a “support network” in terms of individu-

als who actively sponsor the project within the organization can have a significant impact on the eventual success or failure of the technology intro- duction effort [7].

3.2. Implementation of the Plan

Table 2 summarizes the subtasks that were identified in order to accomplish the overall objec- tive and successfully evaluate the role of ES tech- nology.

(i) Resource Identification and Allocation

The identification of monetary, personnel, and capital resources needed to implement the plan was the first step in the project. The core of the project team consisted of three individuals: a pro- ject manager, a consultant, and a project coordi- nator. It was important to Carrier that all resource commitments be variable in nature so that a long- term commitment could be delayed.

The project manager, who was drawn from the MIS group, was to coordinate the overall focus of the effort, to arrange for the presentation of pro- ject outcomes to various individuals to obtain feedback and retain their interest in the project,

Table 2

Subtasks in the Technology Introduction Effort

1. RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND ALLOCATION

l allocate capital resource for exploratory purposes

. identify personnel who will manage the effort

. identify external personnel who may assist in the exploration

. identify computing resource (hardware/software) that may

be used temporarily for exploratory pm-poses

2. PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT

. inform individuals about the technology in order to generate

ideas

. select a candidate problem for prototype development

. develop the prototype and obtain feedback, both on the

process and the product

. examine the issues of implementation. integration, costs

3. PROJECT AND TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

. evaluate the integration capabilities of the technology

. evaluate the ability of the technology to sell itself, based on tangible benefits

. evaluate its ability to Improve the organization’s competitive

position

and to evaluate the project from management’s perspective; i.e., identify what resources might be needed in the future, how the technology could be cost justified, how well it could be integrated, etc.

A consultant was hired to build the prototype and demonstrate it to various individuals, high- lighting not only the product, but also the process that went into its development. While it is not always necessary to go outside in order to build prototypes for evaluating technology, for Carrier this proved to be an effective strategy, for three reasons. First, hiring a consultant made the devel- opment the sole responsibility of one person, who was not involved in any other activities. If an employee had been chosen, it would have been difficult to isolate him/her from their prior re- sponsibilities. Second, the presence of an outside consultant provided instant visibility to the pro- ject. Often people perceive the recommendations made by a consultant to be less biased and they attach more credibility to such evaluations. Fi- nally, management is less inclined to ease their commitment to the project, as a definite cost is being incurred. If the person chosen is from the organization, it is relatively easy to change priori- ties and discontinue the project before a realistic evaluation has been made. The consultant’s role was viewed as that of an innovator [15].

The final member of the project team, a coordi- nator for the prototype development was again drawn from Carrier’s employee pool. The duty of the coordinator was to coordinate the project from the prototype development standpoint. The coor- dinator’s administrative experience allowed him to manage all the details of project coordination so that the consultant could focus his efforts on prototype development and the project manager could concentrate on ensuring that the project retained its visibility and remained consistent with the overall goal.

In terms of monetary resources, the initial ex- penditure involved a contract with the consultant for specific duties such as prototype development, training and preparing an overall plan for the technology based on the outcome of the evalua- tion. The other significant expense was the train- ing cost for the project manager and the project coordinator. In addition, the project manager and the coordinator were required to allocate a certain amount of their time to this task. All the costs were thus variable in nature and involved no fixed

66 SOS Information & Munagement

commitment until an evaluation had been made. Carrier viewed this resource expenditure as ‘ ven- ture capital’, and therefore, an extensive cost- justification was not perceived as necessary. This was consistent with the prevailing view of the drawbacks of an “efficiency oriented” approach to information systems resource allocation during periods of technological instability, where en- couragement of creativity in research and develop- ment is needed [9]. However, in the event that users later expressed a need for ES development, all expenditures would clearly need a cost-benefit justification.

The equipment/software, in this case, was pro- vided by a vendor for evaluating the technology, free of cost. This helped minimize the cash outlay for technological support. Some preliminary inves- tigation was conducted using a university com- puter facility under a prior agreement. An im- portant concern of Carrier was addressed in this manner: ensuring that no major commitment was made to specific hardware or software with the possible locking of the organization into a particu- lar environment,

(ii) Prototype Development and Assessment

Problem Identification A candidate problem was identified: it was to

be built successfully in order to explore the fea- tures of the technology. It was not important that the application be complex, preference was given to a manageable subproblem that could be of interest to user groups. This proved to be a correct philosophy in the long run, as the risk of user disenchantment was not incurred.

An initial presentation on expert systems and their role in application development was made to the MIS organization (managers who were in charge of various functional areas and business analysts who worked closely with a variety of user groups). This encouarged application identifica- tion at the “grassroots level” with the intent of finding a problem for which a prototype could be

Table 3 Motivations for Application Selection

s Cooperative and committed expert . Well-defined and well-documented knowledge . Application consistent with CEO’s objectives

. No time pressure on task completion

constructed relatively quickly. Three systems (‘product configuration’, ‘insurance coverage as- sistance’, and ‘warranty claims processing’) from among those suggested by managers, business analysts, and user groups were selected for initial prototype development. Based upon the consider- ations in Table S, the product configuration appli- cation was targeted for further exploration.

The expert was willing to teach, explain, and provide feedback on the prototype as it was being developed. The knowledge base required for this system was fairly well defined and reasonably well documented, minimizing the extent of interaction needed between the expert and the knowledge engineer. The application happened to tie in with some of the CEO’s statements about providing better service to the customer quickly and effi- ciently, lending added credibility to and interest in the project. This configuration had previously been addressed for some other product line using dif- ferent methods and found to be time consuming and somewhat inflexible. Thus, the system under development using expert systems technology created an obvious comparison.

This product configuration is currently per- formed manually; it has not experienced many problems. Thus, the problem provided a good illustration for other product configurations and yet there were no time pressures. This allowed for an objective evaluation of the development effort without rushing the task to completion [14]. It also allowed for an integration of the system with other systems such as pricing, scheduling etc. The expert had a direct interest in project success as it facili- tated the dissemination of expertise to the sales person in contact with the customer, reducing many order verifications. All these factors made it an attractive problem to select for building a prototype.

Prototype Development The expert system was developed interactively

with frequent discussion with the expert, to extract his knowledge and to identify the issues that he considered critical for system success. The issues included: access to existing data bases, a user friendly interface, control over the line of ques- tioning that is put to the sales person, validation of certain data that is input, etc. Because the eventual users of this system are not experts, but sales people relatively inexperienced with respect

InJormation & Management R. Agamal et al. / TechnologL, Diffusion 67

to design intricacies, close attention was paid to man-machine interaction issues. A user friendly interface with quick interaction were accorded more importance than efficiency or the needed memory. Flexibility of the system was emphasized extensively. It was important to be able to change the design dependencies or introduce new features and allow integration with other existing software.

The prototype was demonstrated to people who were involved with systems of this nature, users of this system’s output, MIS management personnel, etc. The presentations were invaluable for gauging the reaction of individuals from multiple func- tional areas, their concerns with respect to integra- tion, and the overall benefit that each of these individuals gained from either the experience or the product itself. From the perspective of MIS management, a demonstration of the product (even a prototype) made these individuals aware of the technology, what it could do, how it was being introduced, etc. Their interest and commitment to this development was needed to make technology introduction successful.

With each demonstration, the prototype was improved and, without prior planning or intent, the product reached a stage that it could be imple- mented and used. Interestingly enough, it was useful to the field personnel that have to deal with configuration every day. This further enhanced the involvement of users as codevelopers in the project [7], as opposed to users as customers who are delivered a final product. The product reached its production stage in small increments and a multitude of users were involved in its evolution; a novel outcome for an organization that has tradi- tionally followed the SDLC (structured develop- ment life cycle) approach for most of its applica- tions. System development was also novel for users who received a product much faster than if they had followed the normal request channels. The timing factor in product delivery is critical if users are to retain their interest in learning about the new technology.

The successes of the project can be attributed to the nature of the problem (fairly small), its usability, even in a relatively incomplete state (as not all orders need complete configuration capa- bility and a system that is 80% complete can still deliver a useful functionality), the ability of the expert to be actively involved in the project, and the interest and support provided by MIS mana-

gement. Adequate administrative support has been identified as a key factor in the routinization of

organizational innovation [ 151.

Prototype Assessment While introducing technology to solve a par-

ticular type of problem is of interest to the academic or scientific community, its commercial viability is of paramount significance to the busi- ness community. A software product cannot be- come commercially viable until it is in the hands of the ultimate user and it cannot get there until all the issues of its implementation into a produc- tion system have been resolved by the MIS organi- zation [8]. Stand alone systems cannot always be built: they need access to data from data bases, they operate through existing networks that link multiple users, and they need the support of MIS personnel for maintenance once they are com- pleted [5]. Such issues are more significant in a centralized MIS organization as any application must go through certain procedural guidelines and standards before it can be implemented for widespread use. Carrier considered the following issues critical for implementation success:

1. Security

How does this technology deal with security, i.e. how can it assist in providing limited access to the knowledge bases and only the knowledge bases of interest, how can it separate the development knowledge base from the production knowledge base, and when should these be revised?

2. Databuse Access and Update Since the expert system can create, modify, or

access tables of data from the data base, what precautions can be taken to preserve the integrity of the database? This access via an expert system shell is atypical in many organizations as most data base calls from an application environment are controlled by a data base administrator.

3. Personnel Requirements

The procedures used to implement expert sys- tems should not be radically different from those used in other application environments so that existing personnel and skills can be utilized. If the technology demands new resources in terms of skills, the organization must assess what the over- all skill requirement will be in order to make a realistic cost estimate.

Carrier personnel spent several hours discuss- ing the ability of the existing mainframe facility to

68 SOS Information & Management

monitor, control and facilitate access to the sys- tem. An assessment was made of resources needed and procedures to be implemented in order to make the system operate smoothly. Training an individual to interface the expert system environ- ment with other application and data base en- vironments was considered essential. The training of business analysts from different functional areas in building expert systems was considered critical and sessions were planned appropriately to pro- vide such training. Carrier sought to institutional- ize ES technology within the organization so that expertise stayed resident after the consultant had departed [4].

4. Project and Technology Assessment

Application Integration: One of the major concerns at Carrier was to ensure that the new technology can work with existing technologies. Throughout the development of the prototype this issue was addressed by:

The prototype has now been transferred to a production environment and is currently available to two users. The feedback from this group has been used to revise the system by expanding its scope and modifying the screen features, and a new version of the system is set to be released to a larger user group.

Application Interfaces-Demonstrating the proto- type to people who were involved in the design of systems that interface with the product of this new technology. After implementation, the CONFIG- URATOR was interfaced with an order schedul- ing system to process orders that have been vali- dated by the expert system.

Network Interfaces-Evaluating how it can work with the current network in terms of communica- tion, as most of the remote locations that have to use the CONFIGURATOR already use an office information network for moving messages and

Obtain

unit lnformatlon

c Obtain

Accessory InformatIon

GLoML Obtain

Motor/ mve

I Information

c Obtain

Cdl Obtain

Information Preheat I Infolmatlon

Obtain Filter

InformatIon

Check Futer/ AIrflow

compatlblllty

Obtain

Cdl 1 Information

Obtain

Cdl 2

Fig. 2. Organization of Modules in the CONFIGURATOR.

Information & Management R. Agmwul et al. / Technology Diffusion 69

data. Currently, the CONFIGURATOR works in conjunction with the office information network.

Effect on Controls-Ensuring that the system was presented to the users of other systems so that its interface will not affect controls they may have instituted. Because of some of these control issues, the pricing system has not yet been interfaced with the CONFIGURATOR.

While these issues deal with the application system interface, another issue of importance was the interaction of the CONFIGURATOR with existing system utilities such as data base software and procedural languages. The CONFIGUR- ATOR has access to data base tables residing in a DB2 environment and the system also interacts with a COBOL program for certain information.

The objective of risk reduction was achieved through a well laid-out plan and close adherence to it, thereby demonstrating management exper- tise and competence, Specifically, Carrier mini- mized risks by: _ the selection of a problem that was operation-

ally manageable _ relatively small and well bounded;

~ the selection of a problem that could illustrate technology strengths _ one that was demonstrably effective in reduc-

ing errors; _ the management of the process with clearly

defined goals and plans - all deadlines were met and the system in-

stalled in record time; _ the administration of the project by people who

could perform effectively _ the consultant and the organization person-

nel worked closely to ensure effective imple- mentation of the system.

Cost/benefit Assessment: A sales person process- ing an order does not provide all the information. Some information can be deduced on the basis of existing design relationships and constraints. These dependent fields are filled in by personnel at the order processing office. But the order completion process is subject to a variety of data errors: they may be (1) inconsistent, (2) missing, (3) incom- pletely specified, and (4) inaccurately specified. Any of these anomalies result in additional time spent in contacting either the sales person or the

customer for clarifications, thus creating order processing delays. The CONFIGURATOR has been shown to have reduced errors from the cur- rent 8% to close to 0%. The architecture of the system is described in Figure 2. It has been imple- mented on a mainframe facility using a rule based ES shell, specifically, IBM’s ESCE/ESDE prod- uct. The benefits obtainable from the system have convinced Carrier to initiate similar configurators for a variety of other air conditioning equipment

models. In the case of the CONFIGURATOR, saving

personnel time and reducing delays in service, while intangible benefits on the surface, will im- pact costs in the long run. This point was demon- strated by showing how the system can speed up the acceptance of an order that is correct.

Table 4

Lessons Learned at the Carrier Corporation

Develop a plan for the introduction of new technology detail-

ing

. the resource requirements (monetary, personnel, equipment)

. phases of the project

. deliverables of each phase

Establish a “support network” of

. users with a professed interest in the new technology

. senior management who will provide sponsorship to the

project

Select a candidate business problem that

. is manageable operationally

. illustrates technology strengths and weaknesses

. is of interest to user groups

. addresses some strategic requirement of the company

Staff the project with individuals who

. are technically competent with the new technology

. exhibit adequate administrative experience

. can undertake system implementation

. are able to communicate with users

Retain the visibility of the project by

. informing relevant user groups about the outcomes of each

phase

. actively soliciting feedback on potential uses of the technol-

ogy l keeping top management informed through presentations,

meetings, steering committees, etc.

Maintain high user-involvement in the project by

. explaining the implications of the development methodology

. ensuring they comprehend the life-cycle of the technology

. identifying potential costs of development and maintainance

l highlighting the worth of the technology for business prob- lems

70 SOS

The process of technology introduction was carefully planned and closely monitored so that it stayed on course. The features of the technology were demonstrated for maximum effectiveness; feedback from several individuals who have an interest and stake in the project was constantly solicited to retain their interest and commitment. In the overall perspective, the project was consid- ered a ‘huge’ success. Guining commitment from multiple users: The ex- perience with respect to ES development and the technology introduction effort were presented to other sites to create an awareness of the overall approach and the potential of this technology. Presentations were made to the corporate steering committee in order to inform others how they might benefit from ES technology. To ensure sys- tem success at all sites where it is to be used, the system was tested by site personnel and ap- propriate feedback was obtained.

A summary of the lessons learned at the Carrier Corporation is provided in Table 4.

5. Conclusions

Information systems in organizations can ex- ploit technological advances to find better solu- tions to problems. The technology, before it can become a part of the organizational tool-kit, must be learned and assimilated by its users. For any new technology to be effective in a centralized MIS shop, it must be consistent with the ideology of the MIS department as well as the overall operating philosophy of the organization. Further, a process of organizational learning must be in- stituted so that users can comprehend the strengths and benefits of the technology and what it can do for their operations. The experiences of the Car- rier Corporation in introducing ES technology to its users highlight the importance of effective management of the process, of tempering user enthusiasm so that expectations remain realistic, and of ensuring that the cost of the technology is able to justify its usage.

The focus of our effort was to introduce ES technology in a centralized, mainframe-based organization through a strategy premised on the five management activities of planning, organiz- ing, staffing, coordinating and controlling [3] (or assessing, in our case). It is not clear if such an approach will work equally well in a decentralized

InJormatron & Management

organization. While we anticipate that, for the most part, the issues of technology management will remain the same, additional complexities in the form of problems with standardization, com- patibility, and control could be encountered. On the other hand, because risk can be localized and application development isolated in decentralized environments, the overall effort in demonstrating the viability of new technology might be consider- ably less than what was expended in our case.

References

111

121

[31

[41

[51

[61

[71

PI

[91

PO1

u11

u21

[I31

[I41

[I51

C. Argyris and D.A. Schon, Organrrational Learning: A

Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading,

MA, 1978.

G.W. Dickson, R.L. Leitheiser. J.C. Wetherbe and M.

Nechis, “Key Information Systems Management Issues”,

in Informution Systems for Management: A Book of Reod-

ings, H.J. Watson. A.B. Carroll. and R.I. Mann (eds.),

Business Publications, 1987, 307-320.

H. Fayol, General and Industrul Management, translated

by C. Storrs. Pitman, London, 1949.

P.G.W. Keen, “Information Systems and Organizational

Change”, Communicutlons of the ACM, Vol. 24, No. 1,

1981, 24-33.

J. Keyes, “Why Expert Systems Fail”, AI Expert, Vol. 4, No. 11, November 1989, 50-53.

J.L. King, “Centralized versus Decentralized Computing:

Organizational Considerations and Management Op-

tions”, Computing Surueys. Vol. 15, No. 4, December

1983, 319-349. D. Leonard-Barton, “The Case for Integrative Innova-

tion: An Expert System at Digital”, Sloan Management

Reuiew, Vol. 29, No. 1, Fall 1987, 7-19.

H.C. Lucas, “Utilizing Information Technology: Guide-

lines for Managers”. Sloan Management Reuiew. Vol. 28,

No. 1. Fall 1986, 39-47.

F. Warren McFarlan. “Information technology changes

the way you compete”, Hurvard Bwness Review, Vol. 62.

No. 3, 1984, 98-103.

F. Warren McFarlan and J.L. McKenney. “The Informa-

tion Archipelago: Governing the New World”, Huruurd

Business Reuiew, July/August 1983.

J.D. Naumann and A. Milton Jenkins, “Prototyping: The

New Paradigm for Systems Development”, MIS Quarterly,

Vol. 6, No. 3, 1982. N.J. Nilsson, “Artificial Intelligence, Employment, and Income”. The AZ Magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1984.5-14.

G.L. Parsons, “Information Technology: A New Compe-

titive Weapon”, Sloan Management Review. Vol. 25, No.

1, Fall 1983, 3-13.

J.R. Slagle and M.R. Wick, “A Method for Evaluating Candidate Expert System Applications”. The AI Mag-

azine, Winter 1988, 44-53. R.K. Yin, “Life Histories of Innovations: How New Prac-

tices Become Routinized”, Public Admrnistration Review.

Vol 41, No. 1, 1981, 21-28.