Large organization rely on the application of rules to enable business transactions to proceed. Each IS is a perfect bureaucrat follows the company rules exactly and allows no exception. I believe some level of bureaucracy is necessary and healthy. How do we adopt flexibility in a perfect bureaucrat IT company? Has anyone come across this type of situation?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Bureaucracy in IT 6
- Thread starter yuni
- Start date
Tight processes, small teams, ownership, empowerment of development team, good leadership...at all levels, allowing people to make mistakes while taking risks.
Back in the 70's and 80's, Citicorps Systems Division (ever heard of an ATM ?) examplified flexibility in a bureaucratic environment. It was a real joy to have spent 12 years there.
pivan In not now, when?
If not here, where?
If not us, who?
Just do it!!
Back in the 70's and 80's, Citicorps Systems Division (ever heard of an ATM ?) examplified flexibility in a bureaucratic environment. It was a real joy to have spent 12 years there.
pivan In not now, when?
If not here, where?
If not us, who?
Just do it!!
-
2
- #3
MasterRacker
Active member
All too rare, I fear. That sounds exacly like what Continuous Improvement and TQM processes are supposed to encourage. Unfortunately, you need enlightened management to make it work. It's good to know someone did it right.
Jeff
I haven't lost my mind - I know it's backed up on tape somewhere ....
Jeff
I haven't lost my mind - I know it's backed up on tape somewhere ....
MasterRacker
Active member
Unclear on my part again I'm afraid. What I was trying to get across is that it sounds like enlightened management is exactly what Citicorps Systems Division had, but seems to be rare elsewhere.
Enlightened management is mgmt that understands how to balance the structure necessary to run an orgainzed and consistent business with empowering the staff enough to give them some freedom to operate stretch themselves.
What seems to be more common unfortunately is holdover 70's style management that is based purely on a heirarchy and "climbing the ladder". It leads to middle managers whose sole purpose in life is to protect their own jobs. You hear too much about it still, even in technical companies. It's why so many "quality" and "reengineering" initiatives fail. They pay lip service, but don't really change.
It's always good to hear of the places that did manage to do it right, such as your previous employer.
Jeff
I haven't lost my mind - I know it's backed up on tape somewhere ....
Enlightened management is mgmt that understands how to balance the structure necessary to run an orgainzed and consistent business with empowering the staff enough to give them some freedom to operate stretch themselves.
What seems to be more common unfortunately is holdover 70's style management that is based purely on a heirarchy and "climbing the ladder". It leads to middle managers whose sole purpose in life is to protect their own jobs. You hear too much about it still, even in technical companies. It's why so many "quality" and "reengineering" initiatives fail. They pay lip service, but don't really change.
It's always good to hear of the places that did manage to do it right, such as your previous employer.
Jeff
I haven't lost my mind - I know it's backed up on tape somewhere ....
-
1
- Thread starter
- #6
changing for ... changing is not a good idea either !
i've been working in a company where they changed everything, reorganized everything, on a regular basis - thanks to andersen and other consulting crap (and when you know how much they pay for this !!!!). That meant that you were working on a project, and suddendly, this project wes no more a priority and was stopped - or the people you were reporting to just moved to another division, and you had to explain all again to new people - or the head of the project just "disappeared" to work on another project, and then again you were dumped ....
------
please review FAQ183-874 - this will help you to get the best out of tt
[ "you" is not someone in particular - don't take it too personnal ]
i've been working in a company where they changed everything, reorganized everything, on a regular basis - thanks to andersen and other consulting crap (and when you know how much they pay for this !!!!). That meant that you were working on a project, and suddendly, this project wes no more a priority and was stopped - or the people you were reporting to just moved to another division, and you had to explain all again to new people - or the head of the project just "disappeared" to work on another project, and then again you were dumped ....
------
please review FAQ183-874 - this will help you to get the best out of tt
[ "you" is not someone in particular - don't take it too personnal ]
MasterRacker
Active member
pivan, I'm flattered. Good to know I'm not completely nuts (my wife might beg to differ... X-) )
iza, I think everyone here would agree that changing just to follow the latest fad is a bad thing. Changes need to be well thought out and have a specific purpose.
Jeff
I haven't lost my mind - I know it's backed up on tape somewhere ....
iza, I think everyone here would agree that changing just to follow the latest fad is a bad thing. Changes need to be well thought out and have a specific purpose.
Jeff
I haven't lost my mind - I know it's backed up on tape somewhere ....
- Thread starter
- #10
I do agree with you again Jeff. "Changes need to be well thought out and have a specific purpose". So what are the criterias to have well thought purpose and plan, if a company do would like to change? If so, is it better for a company to have nimble changes or a complete turnover changes?
Any organization plan should support the core business vision, strategy and objectives.
Within an IT organization (or any org for that matter) it should be further broken down into goals and objectives for individual groups and staff members.
The result should be (in a perfect world) that any employee, at any given time should be able to explain what he is doing and how it supports the overall objectives of the business.
Management By Objectives was a good concept all though few companies had the leadership experience to implement it.
pivan
In not now, when?
If not here, where?
If not us, who?
Just do it!!
Within an IT organization (or any org for that matter) it should be further broken down into goals and objectives for individual groups and staff members.
The result should be (in a perfect world) that any employee, at any given time should be able to explain what he is doing and how it supports the overall objectives of the business.
Management By Objectives was a good concept all though few companies had the leadership experience to implement it.
pivan
In not now, when?
If not here, where?
If not us, who?
Just do it!!
-
1
- #12
Yuni,
When I worked in a large government organisation, the bureaucracy was extensive and I thought that it was restrictive and inflexible for some of the IT projects I was involved in. However, then I moved to a medium size software house and found that there were no policies and procedures outlined for the software design processes. I found it inefficient not to have procedures and indeed the lack of corporate methodologies resulted in lack of consistency across products. Ultimately this affects the marketing of the 'brand' and indeed the corporate image as well as the efficiency of development processes.
To me the term bureaucracy implies stringent 'hard' methodologies that might hinder the progress of IT projects, but my experience has been that you need a balance and formal procedures do indeed have a place in IT. An organisation does however need to adapt its procedures where they are not aiding IT processes or where more flexibility is required. For example, I imagine that for the Atari corporation in the 1970's and 1980's, fostering creativity in gaming was the priority rather than adhering to formal system development methodologies.
So, I would agree with you that some level of formality in IT/IS management can not only be healthy but also very efficient, but there are exceptions and indeed determining an appropriate level of formality in policies and procedures would very much depend on the organisation.
Amidala
When I worked in a large government organisation, the bureaucracy was extensive and I thought that it was restrictive and inflexible for some of the IT projects I was involved in. However, then I moved to a medium size software house and found that there were no policies and procedures outlined for the software design processes. I found it inefficient not to have procedures and indeed the lack of corporate methodologies resulted in lack of consistency across products. Ultimately this affects the marketing of the 'brand' and indeed the corporate image as well as the efficiency of development processes.
To me the term bureaucracy implies stringent 'hard' methodologies that might hinder the progress of IT projects, but my experience has been that you need a balance and formal procedures do indeed have a place in IT. An organisation does however need to adapt its procedures where they are not aiding IT processes or where more flexibility is required. For example, I imagine that for the Atari corporation in the 1970's and 1980's, fostering creativity in gaming was the priority rather than adhering to formal system development methodologies.
So, I would agree with you that some level of formality in IT/IS management can not only be healthy but also very efficient, but there are exceptions and indeed determining an appropriate level of formality in policies and procedures would very much depend on the organisation.
Amidala
Today, change is not common question around in the organisation. Most organisation decide to change because change is based on the size of IT project, resources such as knowledge and skill, and capital.
Also, change is depending on how complexity of the organisation structure they are set up to run the business.
Another fact is customer wish they could pay less but return with a good quality system. By this impact, most organisation have to adopt bureaucrat methods to make a change to meet the customer demands.
So I agree change could bring advantage and disadvantage but depending how we are interpret the term of change.
Also, change is depending on how complexity of the organisation structure they are set up to run the business.
Another fact is customer wish they could pay less but return with a good quality system. By this impact, most organisation have to adopt bureaucrat methods to make a change to meet the customer demands.
So I agree change could bring advantage and disadvantage but depending how we are interpret the term of change.
-
1
- #14
StefanusJHendra
IS-IT--Management
Hi,
Bureaucracy is widely understood as a working legacy system, which has been implemented by previous generations. It is still being used because it is considered as the best thing for bureaucrats, or older generations. Often it is not efficient, but still, people resist changing. This is all about organisational culture.
You CAN’T change a culture…, you HAVE to adapt with it.
But as IT comes into play in modern organizations, it should be changed, or at least, improved to comply with new business opportunities. It may take another or several generations to make it change completely and run at full efficiency.
Bureaucracy is not completely a bad thing. It is good to have it in organization. As a matter of fact, it keeps the company healthy, when it is done properly. It should not create diversion, incompetence within the organization. Instead it should make clear of what options the organization has when it needs to choose its path to the future.
Functions of bureaucracy - based on Weber
· it involves a carefully defined list of tasks
· authority is impersonal based on rules
· recruitment based on merit
· secure jobs and salaries
· hierarchy
Sadly, bureaucracy still has a negative connotation attached.
That’s my two cents worth.
Bureaucracy is widely understood as a working legacy system, which has been implemented by previous generations. It is still being used because it is considered as the best thing for bureaucrats, or older generations. Often it is not efficient, but still, people resist changing. This is all about organisational culture.
You CAN’T change a culture…, you HAVE to adapt with it.
But as IT comes into play in modern organizations, it should be changed, or at least, improved to comply with new business opportunities. It may take another or several generations to make it change completely and run at full efficiency.
Bureaucracy is not completely a bad thing. It is good to have it in organization. As a matter of fact, it keeps the company healthy, when it is done properly. It should not create diversion, incompetence within the organization. Instead it should make clear of what options the organization has when it needs to choose its path to the future.
Functions of bureaucracy - based on Weber
· it involves a carefully defined list of tasks
· authority is impersonal based on rules
· recruitment based on merit
· secure jobs and salaries
· hierarchy
Sadly, bureaucracy still has a negative connotation attached.
That’s my two cents worth.
-
1
- #15
CitrixEngineer
Technical User
Without wishing to be insulting, I'd like to say That's a funny list, Stefanus! LOL.
Let me elaborate;
"Functions of bureaucracy - based on Weber
· it involves a carefully defined list of tasks "
Hmm. Carefully defined list of tasks. I don't believe I've ever worked for anyone that has a list of tasks, let alone carefully defined! Usually it's total chaos along the lines of "We'd like to get this done, but we don't know how - could you sort it out?" or "This has happened, could you react to it?"
"· authority is impersonal based on rules "
Now this IS funny! In my experience, people in authority tend to get very personal in order to make you feel like you are not doing your job well, although everyone else is. Therefore the reason you aren't getting a pay rise, promotion or whatever is your fault entirely.
Also, although there may be rules and procedures, no-one adheres to them because they're not really practical.
"· recruitment based on merit "
Merit being whether the person being employed undervalues him or herself to the point that they are too good for the job they are applying for and don't know it, and are so desparate for work that they will accept less than they are asking for.
"· secure jobs and salaries "
The job is secure as long as your salary is securely stuck at a particular level and you don't ask for any more.
"· hierarchy "
1) The boss is always right
2) See 1)
3) In case of any doubts with clause 2), see clause 1).
...or am I just getting a little cynical in my old age?
Let me elaborate;
"Functions of bureaucracy - based on Weber
· it involves a carefully defined list of tasks "
Hmm. Carefully defined list of tasks. I don't believe I've ever worked for anyone that has a list of tasks, let alone carefully defined! Usually it's total chaos along the lines of "We'd like to get this done, but we don't know how - could you sort it out?" or "This has happened, could you react to it?"
"· authority is impersonal based on rules "
Now this IS funny! In my experience, people in authority tend to get very personal in order to make you feel like you are not doing your job well, although everyone else is. Therefore the reason you aren't getting a pay rise, promotion or whatever is your fault entirely.
Also, although there may be rules and procedures, no-one adheres to them because they're not really practical.
"· recruitment based on merit "
Merit being whether the person being employed undervalues him or herself to the point that they are too good for the job they are applying for and don't know it, and are so desparate for work that they will accept less than they are asking for.
"· secure jobs and salaries "
The job is secure as long as your salary is securely stuck at a particular level and you don't ask for any more.
"· hierarchy "
1) The boss is always right
2) See 1)
3) In case of any doubts with clause 2), see clause 1).
...or am I just getting a little cynical in my old age?
MasterRacker
Active member
"Cynical" = "Realistic"
Jeff
I haven't lost my mind - I know it's backed up on tape somewhere ....
Jeff
I haven't lost my mind - I know it's backed up on tape somewhere ....
- Thread starter
- #18
Hi everyone,
From these thread of conversations it seems to me that everyone agrees some form of bureaucracy is good in any kind of company. However, I feel that today in this modern IT oriented world, IT has created stringent bureaucracy in companies. For example: the other day I was calling up the gas company to make a complaint
regarding a fault in the gas system at my home. I was put into one personnel after another and at last the person who is able to help me was not at her desk. And a few days later, the personnel called and she just said, "Oh, I see, so there is a fault in your system." It's seems to be the norm of life now, one gets replayed every day for millions of people worldwide. System has been implemented in companies and people are abided by bureaucracy that IT has created within the company.
It allows no flexibility for workers to move around except in their own vicinity.
My next question is: if IT is better suited to hierarchy than the newer 'flatter' structures, and can IT create flexibility in bureaucratic structures?
Because the structure can change to fit new IT directions (often without people consciously knowing until after it has happened).
From these thread of conversations it seems to me that everyone agrees some form of bureaucracy is good in any kind of company. However, I feel that today in this modern IT oriented world, IT has created stringent bureaucracy in companies. For example: the other day I was calling up the gas company to make a complaint
regarding a fault in the gas system at my home. I was put into one personnel after another and at last the person who is able to help me was not at her desk. And a few days later, the personnel called and she just said, "Oh, I see, so there is a fault in your system." It's seems to be the norm of life now, one gets replayed every day for millions of people worldwide. System has been implemented in companies and people are abided by bureaucracy that IT has created within the company.
It allows no flexibility for workers to move around except in their own vicinity.
My next question is: if IT is better suited to hierarchy than the newer 'flatter' structures, and can IT create flexibility in bureaucratic structures?
Because the structure can change to fit new IT directions (often without people consciously knowing until after it has happened).
Hi Yuni,
I do think it is possible for Information Systems to be flexible in their workings, but the flexibility must be built in during the design phase. Just as systems should be scalable to support future developments, they should also be adaptable to changing needs. Having said that, this does not necessarily mean being able to change the system overnight, rather being able to adjust the business rules and its workings without having to rebuild the system.
In your example, I would think that the failure in the systems are the business processes in place, which are not necessarily IT, but IS in the broader sense. In the past, many corporations, whether bureaucratic in nature or not, designed systems to merely automate existing processes, instead of reengineering the business processes themselves.
I would think that most companies have learnt that simple automation of processes do not offer competitive advantage or significant productivity gains, but a rethink of how the business works and its goals during the system design process could benefit greatly.
So, in my opinion, I think that flexibility should be possible with all information systems, if this has been considered during design and implementation. In some systems, such as manufacturing, the systems rigidity and reliability are what make them successful, so it is all relative to the purpose of the IS.
Amidala
I do think it is possible for Information Systems to be flexible in their workings, but the flexibility must be built in during the design phase. Just as systems should be scalable to support future developments, they should also be adaptable to changing needs. Having said that, this does not necessarily mean being able to change the system overnight, rather being able to adjust the business rules and its workings without having to rebuild the system.
In your example, I would think that the failure in the systems are the business processes in place, which are not necessarily IT, but IS in the broader sense. In the past, many corporations, whether bureaucratic in nature or not, designed systems to merely automate existing processes, instead of reengineering the business processes themselves.
I would think that most companies have learnt that simple automation of processes do not offer competitive advantage or significant productivity gains, but a rethink of how the business works and its goals during the system design process could benefit greatly.
So, in my opinion, I think that flexibility should be possible with all information systems, if this has been considered during design and implementation. In some systems, such as manufacturing, the systems rigidity and reliability are what make them successful, so it is all relative to the purpose of the IS.
Amidala
Hi Yuni,
I am working as an IT analysis position almost 4 years, but I have been facing 3 times of restructuring in our consulting company within 4 months recently. I agreed Amidala view, flexible is very important in the design phase.
However flexible theory does not work on our company because we have to match our customer requests and our ability to delivery the quality system to the customer. Besides that, we have to think 3 factors such as economic, competitor advantage, and project size to match our strategy and goal. Therefore change can happen any time in our company without surprise.
Also, flexible will not guarantee it will work till future development. Reason are we don't know where is the technology up to and how is the economic movement. However at the end of the day, as an employee in our company. We must understand the company methodology and objective in order to achieve the main goal.
KKKM
I am working as an IT analysis position almost 4 years, but I have been facing 3 times of restructuring in our consulting company within 4 months recently. I agreed Amidala view, flexible is very important in the design phase.
However flexible theory does not work on our company because we have to match our customer requests and our ability to delivery the quality system to the customer. Besides that, we have to think 3 factors such as economic, competitor advantage, and project size to match our strategy and goal. Therefore change can happen any time in our company without surprise.
Also, flexible will not guarantee it will work till future development. Reason are we don't know where is the technology up to and how is the economic movement. However at the end of the day, as an employee in our company. We must understand the company methodology and objective in order to achieve the main goal.
KKKM
- Status
Similar threads