European Journal of Information Systems (1997) 6, 25–40

 1997 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/97 $12.00

Infusing learning into the information systems organization R Agarwal1, G Krudys2 and M Tanniru3 1

Information and Management Sciences, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1042; 2 Pass and Seymour, legrand, Syracuse, NY, 13221; and 3School of Management, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-2130, USA Contemporary information systems (IS) organizations need mechanisms to cope with both the complexity that is created by rapid technological change and escalating business demands, and the resulting uncertainty engendered in organizational operations and policies. The IS function will not be in a position to manage such changes effectively unless it undergoes a fundamental restructuring towards becoming a ‘learning’ organization. This paper presents a framework that identifies the core drivers than an IS organization can proactively influence as it attempts to become learning-oriented. The framework identifies three essential components: (1) the learning context that defines various dimensions for measuring organizational and individual performance; (2) procedures and management initiatives that will facilitate individual learning to improve such performance; and (3) norms and culture that are established by the leadership to encourage learning. Using a case study methodology, the actions taken by one specific IS organization in its attempts to infuse learning capabilities among its members are examined. The conceptual framework for examining what it takes to be a learning IS organization and the detailed documented experiences of one specific organization may provide valuable insights to other IS organizations in their efforts to become more adaptive and responsive to change.

1. Introduction Contemporary information systems (IS) organizations operate in turbulent times. The IS organization must contend with two major sets of forces that simultaneously drive as well as circumscribe its activities: demands emanating from the business that require new and innovative technological solutions, and rapid changes in technology that necessitate constant scanning and evaluation and create the need for new competencies. The challenge confronting this organization then amounts to finding information technology-based solutions that can effectively address business concerns, and indeed, become enablers of business strategy, in as timely a manner as possible. At the same time, in order to effectively manage the diversity of demands placed on it, the organization must maintain an internal state that is flexible, responsive, and adaptive. Although advances in software development technology such as CASE, object oriented analysis and design, prototyping, and joint application development have provided the IS area some flexibility in it application development to meet business and technology changes, its overall success is often impeded by the lack of compensating adjustments to its role and the infrastructure that governs these development activities. Organizational action is necessary in order to manage both the complexity that is created by escalating external demands and the uncertainty such demands engender in operations and policies. These uncertainties give rise to

the need for flexibility which is often impeded by a narrowly defined role and a rigid infrastructure that is inherently resistant to change (Elam et al, 1988). Given the inevitable and well documented difficulties encountered in instituting organizational and individual change (e.g. Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Rogers, 1983), the IS organization will not be in a position to substantively alter its role and operations until it can incorporate the philosophy and practices of a learning organization (Senge, 1990). There has been significant interest recently in building learning organizations (e.g. Hedberg, 1981; March, 1991; Dodgson, 1993a; Nevis et al, 1995); the impetus for this interest stems from the difficulties firms are having in coping with the rapid changes in the business environment. Indeed, as Dodgson (1993b) notes, ‘The greater the uncertainties, the greater the need for learning’ (p 378). The inability of organizations to cope with uncertainties has often been attributed to a non-existent, yet needed, social and organizational infrastructure for individual and collective learning, and insufficient leadership skills within management personnel (Senge, 1990; Nevis et al, 1995). Writers who have studied organizational learning and related phenomena have proposed a variety of definitions of organizational learning (see, for example, Garvin, 1993; Dodgson, 1993b). In spite of the multiple conceptualisations however, there are a few recurrent themes that pervade all the definitions. Pedler et al (1989) describe a learning organization as one that facilitates learning by all its members and continually transforms

26

Infusing learning into the IS organization

itself by providing a climate for learning both within and outside organizational boundaries; thus, organizational learning is viewed as a metaphor for individual learning (Dodgson, 1993b). A similar opinion on organizational learning which equates it to the notion of learning by individual members has been expressed by Huber (1991), he observes that “an organization learns if any of its units acquires knowledge that it recognizes as potentially useful to the organization” (p 89). Nevis et al (1995) treat organizational learning as “the capacity or processes within an organization to maintain or improve its performance based on experience” (p 73). In the light of these alternative conceptualisations, organizational learning may be viewed operationally as the collection of procedures, management initiatives, norms and culture that allows individuals to learn, with the objective of achieving a higher level of performance. This implies that useful learning is outcome focused and, to a large extent, context dependent; i.e., the goals of learning will vary with the strategies of the organization. The motivation underlying this paper is to examine how IS organizations may be infused with such learning capabilities. Although prior research has looked at several organizational characteristics, communication structures, and leadership styles that can influence organizational learning (e.g. Levitt & March, 1988; Senge, 1990; Nevis et al, 1995), we are not aware of any study that specifically focuses on the ‘core drivers’ a firm can proactively influence as it attempts to become a learning organization. We present a framework that identifies these core drivers, essentially derived from the operational view of organizational learning discussed above. The framework identifies three crucial components: the learning context that defines various dimensions for measuring organizational and individual performance, procedures and management initiatives that will facilitate individual learning to improve such performance, and norms and culture that are established by the leadership to encourage learning. These components are summarised in Figure 1. The predictive validity of the framework is examined by analysing the experiences of one specific IS organization in its attempts to become learning oriented. It is hoped that

R Agarwal et al

the framework as well as the documented experiences of this organization will stimulate further theoretical and empirical inquiry into organizational learning for the IS function. The paper is organized as follows. Drawing upon prior theoretical and empirical work in individual and organizational learning, Section 2 discusses how the context for learning can act as a driver in the definition of an appropriate organizational mission and a corresponding role/responsibility structure. Section 3 examines how organizational procedures and management practices can act as drivers to facilitate the acquisition and revision of knowledge needed for individual learning; while the role of leadership as a driver in inculcating a learning culture in an IS organization is discussed in Section 4. The penultimate section presents evidence from a case site with dual objectives: (1) to illustrate how the framework provides a useful conceptualisation of organizational learning; and (2) to provide field-based insights on specific management practices that may be used to infuse learning into an IS organization. The final section presents conclusions and directions for future research.

2. The context for learning An old Chinese parable describes a man who spends his entire life learning how to slay dragons. After many years of hard labour when he becomes a master of his craft, he goes looking for work. Unfortunately, dragons are no longer in existence. Ruefully the man reflects on the years wasted learning a skill that nobody wants. The parable illustrates one fundamental aspect of learning. While learning does have inherent value, from the perspective of an organization, learning is useful if it is tied, in some fashion, to key measures of organizational performance. As Dodgson (1993b) observes, although some form of learning is inevitable; in order for such learning to result in organizationally desirable outcomes, it must be goal-directed. This section argues that explication of an organizational mission and the subsequent alignment of this mission with individual goals and performance measures provides the context for inducing such goal-directed learning.

Figure 1 The core drivers of learning.

Infusing learning into the IS organization

2.1 The definition of an organizational mission At a systemic level, measures of performance are usually the mission and the goals of the organization. For an IS organization, it is reasonable to suggest that the mission has always been to meet effectively organizational needs using appropriate information technology (Elam et al, 1988). However, fulfilling this mission has come under great stress lately as both the business environment (with globalization, networking across many different entities that have evolved out of alliances, acquisitions, and the need for reduced response times for orders and inquiries) and the technology environment (e.g. networks, smaller powerful workstations, and advanced user-oriented software) are changing rapidly. Thus, an IS organization’s mission of ‘meeting organizational needs effectively’ has become exceedingly broad, as the role of IS has expanded from information processing efficiency to include improved customer service and greater competitive business support (Elam et al, 1988). In recent times many IS organizations, recognizing the breadth of mission they are asked to fulfil with limited internal resources, are making decisions to limit the scope of their mission by focusing on a few strategies. For example, a manufacturing organization (company A) decided to outsource its systems development activity, so it can focus on proactively assessing the business needs and evaluating technologies. On the other hand, an insurance company (company B) decided to outsource all its IS operations, thus limiting the mission of its chief information officer (CIO) to one of overseeing the outsourcing entity so that competitive business needs are met using appropriate technologies. On the low-end, a bank (company C) has decided to oursource IS maintenance and data centre activity, so it can focus on new application development. In other words, the mission of IS has to reflect the changing dynamics of the business and technical environment it is intended to support, in conjunction with an assessment of its own competencies and the role it is asked to play (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Cash et al, 1992). If the mission is not articulated coherently, or even if it is articulated, if it resides in the minds of a few individuals and is not communicated widely, it becomes extremely difficult to use the mission as a driver to affect learning that, in turn, influences individual and organizational performance. In the absence of a clearly defined mission that is performance-driven, purposeful and goaldirected, learning consistent with the intentions of the designers of the organization cannot occur because there is no guidance for individual members to focus their learning activities. Mission definition, however, must be followed up with an appropriate organization design that will enable mission fulfilment (Elam et al, 1988). This involves creating a set of organizational roles and an individual performance measurement system that will encourage mem-

R Agarwal et al

27

bers to learn and improve their own performance, while simultaneously improving organizational performance. Cohen (1991) suggests that organization structure essentially represents a design for organizational learning. The importance of well-defined roles and performance assessment in IS is underscored by the fact that career management and career paths in IS still continue to be the subject of much research, controversy, and debate (Elam et al, 1988; Ginzberg & Baroudi, 1992), partly due to the relative infancy of the IS field compared with other business functions.

2.2 Measures of performance and their alignment It has been suggested that individual learning is triggered by a perceived gap in desired performance (Cangelosi & Dill, 1965) or unfulfilled aspiration levels (Cyert & March, 1963). In so far as ‘useful’ individual learning is purposeful, intentional, and goal directed and results in changes in the “way work gets done” (Garvin, 1993), individuals have an incentive to learn if it results in an improvement in the criteria used to appraise their performance. Thus, a sales person may seek methods that improve his/her ability to influence customer buying behaviour, while a programmer might be motivated to learn about new tools to debug software, if the former is evaluated on sales generated, and the latter is evaluated on the time taken to generate correct code. In such a context, expecting the programmer to focus on developing better relations with users is futile; Kerr (1995) succinctly summarizes this as “the folly of rewarding A while hoping for B”. Improvements in performance may be observed either on the outcome of a process, or on the process itself, such as the policies, procedures, and norms that guide organizational action. While the former might be measured by viewing the relative improvement in the outcome generated (e.g. quality of the output, timeliness, etc), improvements in the process can often be measured in terms of the organizational resources expended to generate the desired outcome. In an IS organization, if the focus is on increasing development productivity, then a measure such as function points implemented per development hour (Albrecht & Gaffney, 1983) (an outcome measure) may be adequate to evaluate performance and promote an individual’s learning along this dimension. However, if the focus is on building better solutions that satisfy customer needs, then the performance measure may need to be programme flexibility (a process measure) assessed by the number of reusable programme modules. Note that reusable modules may, in fact, result in an increase in the total function points needed for an application. In general, ‘function points’ expended in systems development are in conflict with ‘system flexibility’ or ‘responsiveness to change’ measures. Thus, on occasion, the goals of learning, i.e., the desired improve-

28

Infusing learning into the IS organization

ment in performance, related to either outcome or process, may be conflicting in nature. Such conflicts are exacerbated when multiple individuals are involved in performing a task. If the learning objective of an IS organization is to build ‘effective’ systems, then the performance improvements of several individuals (e.g. analysts, designers, and programmers) may need to be examined to assess the extent of learning that is taking place. In many IS organizations analysts and programmers are often evaluated on different metrics such as user satisfaction and lines of code, respectively. Research in group decision processes and team work, however, emphasises the need to establish group performance measures as opposed to individual assessment to obviate the potential for suboptimisation and conflicts (Sundstrom et al, 1995). The temporal dimension of performance measurement is also crucial as short term improvements in performance may come at the expense of long term gains. Many IS organizations are often evaluated on measures such as ‘on-time, within budget’, as opposed to ‘effective use over time’. Such definitions of performance improvement can be detrimental to learning in that they induce undesirable behaviours. For instance, when systems requirements cannot be adequately ascertained a priori, short term measures such as ‘completion time’ might compel one to prematurely define requirements, with the net result being higher maintenance costs and greater user dissatisfaction over the life of the system. In a similar vein, productivity versus innovativeness research (Clark et al, 1987) has often considered the trade-offs between learning to improve performance here-and-now as opposed to a higher level of learning whose impact may not be felt for some time. Thus, IS organizations are faced with the challenge of defining performance measures: individual versus group, outcome versus process, and short-term versus longterm, that are consistent with each other and lead to individual and, in turn, organizational learning. Evidence that this challenge has been recognised is manifest in some recent organizational actions such as establishing team-oriented performance goals; creating dual responsibility via matrix organizational structures so as to balance any potential conflicts in appraisal; or defining specific individual performance objectives that, when achieved at the local level, also lead to the satisfaction of corporate objectives. The mission of the organization and the design of the organization have to be constantly monitored for their alignment with each other. Any change in the mission statement necessitates an appropriate change in the organizational design; indeed, the truism “structure follows strategy” was proposed over four decades ago (Chandler, 1962). Unfortunately, altering the manifest mission or direction of an IS operation is far less traumatic than altering all the internal job descriptions. As

R Agarwal et al

IS organizations begin to outsource some of their activities such as data centre operations, systems development, or systems maintenance, these activites are, in effect, eliminated from the organizational structure and replaced by those that manage relationships with outsourcing agents. In company A, since the development activity has been delegated to an external agent, all remaining business analysts are called ‘project consultants’ to reflect their consulting role today: identifying user needs and communicating them to the external system developer. In addition, each of these project consultants are assigned to different business units so they can better focus their analysis activities. Further, to improve the provision of business support at the managerial level, IS operations have been decentralised across various product lines and geographical regions, under a new role: divisional information officer (DIO), with similar responsibilities as a CIO, but with limited scope. The CIO in company B now reports to the chief executive officer (CEO) (since all IS operations are outsourced) and, under this new role, interacts with the outsourcing firm to make sure that it works effectively to meet corporate objectives. The examples illustrate the importance of changes in the organization design commensurate with changes in organizational mission. In the absence of these compensating changes, individuals might continue to improve performance in the roles they assumed prior to the mission alteration. As Chandler (1990) points out, the use of structure which defines the way processes interact, can be a powerful lever to manipulate the extent of learning that is taking place. Changes in roles and performance appraisal criteria have to be supported by individuals who are appropriately trained to fulfil these roles. It is not simply a matter of calling an erstwhile systems analyst a project consultant if she is not equipped to handle the new job. In the past, the emphasis was on seeking out specialists whenever new roles were defined, in order to realise productivity gains. A recent trend has been to move towards either a generalist who can do many different things as the situation demands, or one that is learning oriented and is willing to learn and adapt as things change (Drucker, 1991). IS organizations, in particular, are constantly asked to re-evaluate their human resource skills as changes in technologies are rapidly rendering existing skills obsolete (Fryer, 1994). In many cases, the skill disparity has contributed to a firm’s decision to outsource. A major driver of company B’s decision to outsource its IS function was the lack of sufficient skills within its staff to economically migrate from legacy systems to object-oriented, client server-based systems. Similarly, the decisions made by company A about which IS staff to keep and which to let go as it outsourced its system development activity was partly based

Infusing learning into the IS organization

on the skills needed to fulfil the new role of project consultants. In summary, the first step towards creating a learning organization is to ensure that a performance-driven mission is clearly articulated and communicated. This must be followed by an organizational design that defines roles, responsibilities, and performance criteria that provide the appropriate incentives for individuals to engage in purposeful learning. Indeed, as Dodgson (1993b) notes, ensuring compatibility of individual learning with organizational aims is an important managerial challenge; we have argued here that this may be accomplished through mission definition and performance alignment.

R Agarwal et al

29

3. The facilitation of individual learning

suggested that one way to enhance an individual’s ability to learn is by increasing their ability to relate new knowledge to their existing knowledge base; a phenomenon termed the absorptive capacity of an individual (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Both observation as well as exploration require the influx of knowledge. It is widely recognised that obtaining knowledge is imperative for learning to occur (e.g. Huber, 1991). Thus, an IS organization has to institute a set of policies and procedures to support the acquisition of knowledge from internal as well as external sources and to facilitate their effective interpretation by those whose actions are influenced by such knowledge. In addition, to reflect one of the characteristics of a learning organization, facility should be available to revise such knowledge as needed. The rest of this section will discuss these two issues in greater detail.

The learning context furnishes the background against which learning efforts can be systemic and goal-directed. However, the context represents a precondition and by itself does not provide the necessary elements to facilitate learning. These elements are the focus of this section. Huber (1991) proposes that individuals learn in a variety of ways, including congenital learning, experiential learning, vicarious learning, grafting, and searching and noticing. Further examination of his taxonomy reveals that these learning modalities all fall into two major classes of learning behaviour: observation and experimentation. Learning by observation is valuable as it enables people to acquire large, integrated patterns of behaviour without a tedious trial and error process (Bandura, 1977). Organizational agents that play the role of boundary spanners (Michael, 1973) and technological gatekeepers (Allen, 1977) are often utilised to facilitate learning by observation. The innovation literature also emphasises the significance of learning through experimentation or exploration (Rogers, 1983). Experimentation, however, is inherently risky in nature, as there are no guarantees that positive results will come out of such experimentation. The literature underscores the fact that a significant amount of learning can occur even when the outcome is not positive (Maidique & Zirger, 1985). For example, within an IS organization, interpreters and interactive diagnostic tools are often used to improve programmer productivity and enhance learning by isolating coding errors made. Facilitating learning through observation or experimentation can be impeded by two factors. An individual’s ability to learn may be inhibited by the difficulty in interpreting complex reality (a phenomenon termed the bounded rationality problem (Simon, 1957)). Secondly, an individual’s learning is often influenced by the extent to which new knowledge is recognised as consistent with or contrary to existing knowledge and expectations of individuals (March et al, 1991). It has been

3.1 Knowledge acquisition and sharing Knowledge comes in a variety of forms. In examining different types of knowledge, Corsini (1987) identifies five core knowledge categories: verbal (or declarative) knowledge, intellectual skill (or procedural knowledge), cognitive strategies, attitudes or the learned states which influence the choices a person makes, and motor skills. The first four knowledge categories are of relevance here. Typically, organizations can influence the acquisition of declarative knowledge through the use of mechanisms such as training, observation, and recruitment; what Huber (1991) terms knowledge acquisition through grafting. Within IS, declarative knowledge might include process and testing standards; project management guidelines; performance criteria; career paths; and training opportunities. Simply making the information available might not be sufficient, however. As underscored repeatedly in the literature (e.g. Huber, 1991) a significant amount of learning can also occur through a sharing of this type of knowledge with others. Knowledge sharing allows for plurality of interpretations and more innovative uses of the knowledge. Thus, in order for collective learning to occur not only must the knowledge be widely disseminated, opportunities must be provided for using this knowledge in a group setting, possibly through team-oriented tasks. March (1991) underscores the value of such heterogeneous groups and diversity for organizational learning. Attempts to encourage knowledge sharing and interpretation are evident in several organizations today with the implementation of technologies such as electronic mail systems and group decision support systems (Fulk & Steinfeld, 1990; Satzinger & Olfman, 1995). However, the extent of learning that is taking place still appears to be somewhat limited. Perhaps one possible explanation for this paradox is that the provision of mechanisms to facilitate knowledge sharing is of little

30

Infusing learning into the IS organization

R Agarwal et al

value in the absence of the organizational structures alluded to earlier that can channel learning in a purposeful way. The current IS emphasis on knowledge reusability in application development (Prieto-diaz, 1993) and the payoff such reusability can provide to IS shops perhaps signals a recognition that reusability represents a powerful mechanism for knowledge sharing. Reusable knowledge (domain specific insights, programme constructs, system architectures, etc) not only contributes to improving application development productivity, a desired outcome in most IS organizations, but also represents a repository of synthesised knowledge acquired by others. In that sense, it is equivalent to learning through observation and mitigates the necessity for reinventing the wheel each time. Not all knowledge is internally generated or even available, and an organization needs diverse ways to facilitate learning dictated by developments in the external environment. Although learning could occur within R&D or through other initiatives such as internal training, hiring key individuals, and reverse engineering of products and processes (Hobday, 1990), learning might also occur through external sources such as customers and users (Rosenberg, 1982; von Hippel, 1988) and through external partners using strategies such as joint ventures, strategic alliances, and R&D contracts (Ciborra, 1991; Dodgson, 1993b). The infusion of external knowledge may be critical in order for an organization to learn beyond the capabilities of its individual members. Knowledge acquisition from external sources, in general, is expensive and, at times risky as it may not be directly relevant or timely. Thus, IS firms have to determine the nature of knowledge they would acquire from outside, from what sources and when.

and impact depending on the extent to which the underlying organizational knowledge base is allowed to change. Three modes of learning are possible: single loop, double loop or duetero learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Single loop learning focuses on detecting and correcting errors and corresponds to updating organizational knowledge bases, competencies and routines. Double loop learning allows for the alteration of the nature of these knowledge bases, competencies and routines, thus contributing to the development of intellectual skills. Duetero learning requires continued reflection on the organizational learning process, assessing the context when learning was impeded, inventing and developing new strategies for learning, and evaluating the strategies for possible generalisation. Double loop and duetero learning are considered equivalent to learning appropriate cognitive strategies and attitudes, and may be influenced by organizational culture (a learned product of collective experience (Schein, 1985)). Many organizations, including IS, facilitate single loop learning (i.e. are reactive), but very few have mechanisms to adapt their knowledge bases and routines quickly to external changes (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Dodgson, 1993b). For example, large numbers of IS organizations still rely on life cycle oriented systems development methodologies although the nature of applications is shifting from mainframe-based to enduser based; and continue to use project effort estimation techniques that are programme code based (e.g. LOC) although applications are becoming more iterative and end-user developed/oriented (Boehm, 1981). Hence, organizations have to ensure that the knowledge gathered in diverse areas such as process methodologies, testing standards, applications of tools and techniques, and domain concepts, is kept current by reflecting the IS professionals’ successes and failures.

3.2 Knowledge revision Procedures for acquiring and disseminating declarative knowledge or ‘know-how’ are a necessary condition for learning to occur. The more challenging problem, however, is that of creating an environment for the learning of intellectual skills, cognitive skills and appropriate attitudes. Skills require individuals to engage in the understanding, exploration, revision cycle of perceptual learning (Neisser, 1976). This knowledge corresponds to ‘know-why’ (Leonard-Barton, 1988) and is facilitated by cognitive systems and organizational memories which preserve certain behaviours, mental maps, norms, and values of an organization (Hedberg, 1981). Some of this knowledge may be stored as an organizational knowledge base (Metcalfe & Gibbons, 1989) or organizational routines, which describe the way an organization operationalises its memories and knowledge bases (Nelson & Winter, 1982). The ‘know-why’ type of learning can vary in depth

4. The leader’s role in creating a culture of learning Thus far, we have examined the necessary elements of an environment that provides the appropriate incentives and enablers to facilitate purposeful learning by individuals. However, while the environment is intended to provide support to individuals as they learn and adapt to changes, creating the creative tension (deciding on what one wants to be and comparing it where one is today) within the organization to foster generative learning (Senge, 1990) is the task of a leader. While adapting to changes is important, learning to ‘learn’ or meta-learning is crucical if an organization wants to operate in a generative learning mode. IS organizations ultimately need to provide the leadership not just to adapt to change, but to seek and manage change in a creative manner. The culture of an organization has been defined as the “pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has

Infusing learning into the IS organization

invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that have worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.” (Schein, 1984). Culture is conceptualised as all pervasive and ubiquitous, it permeates every action and every reaction of members of the group. Within the context of creating a culture where continuous learning and performance improvement are perceived as correct modes of behaviour, leaders may play the role of a designer, a teacher, and a steward (Senge, 1990). Senge (1990) argues that the leader’s role in a learning organization involves a multitude of responsibilities. For instance, the leader is responsible for creating a social architecture that governs the communication of ideas/purpose, vision, and core values of the organization. This architecture involves the design of policies, strategies and structures that translate these guiding ideas and vision into appropriate actions. The leader is also responsible for enabling the facilitation of individual learning; by creating an environment for individual learning, providing the means to update organizational knowledge bases to reflect environmental changes, and challenging organizational assumptions embedded in an existing knowledge base. In other words, the leader has to empower an individual to create change when operations seem inconsistent with the organizational mission. A leader’s role also involves the communication of a personal vision as well as a commitment towards meeting the organizational mission. This is especially critical in a learning organization where people must operate under a shared vision. As Nevis et al (1995) observe, an important responsibility for the leader of a learning organization is to serve as a ‘role model’. The characteristics of a learning oriented leader identified above are particularly salient for leaders of IS organizations that necessarily operate in fluid and evolving environments. For instance, as an IS organization shifts its focus from one set of activities to another, it has to shift both its investment in alternative activities and its human resource management strategies to reflect this change in focus (Cash et al, 1992). In many IS shops, the investment made in design and development is higher than what is made in planning and analysis (where new ideas are being explored and planned for), anywhere from 70–90% of the overall system development costs (Boehm, 1981). However, with the evolution of applications such as decision support systems and executive information systems, due to uncertainties in the early phases of these decision-driven applications, it becomes necessary to alter the manner in which resources are allocated over the life cycle of the project. Further, uncertainties associated with estimating the potential success of projects of this type are higher (due

R Agarwal et al

31

to uncertainties in requirements), thus making the investment risk of these projects high, compared to what one would have experienced in the past, when systems were more transaction driven. It is the leader’s role to take such risks and make sure the investment made by the organization reflects the mission the organization is intended to fulfil. From a human resource management perspective, while certain types of learning can occur incrementally through the refinement of existing knowledge, occasionally one may need to make a dramatic shift from one knowledge set to another. As Mody (1990) points out, the focus of learning in an organization may vary depending on what stage of learning one is in a firm: initiation, exploration, or maturity. By the time an individual reaches the mature stage of learning, the individual has learnt all that there is to learn in that arena. Of course, the organization can influence the speed at which such learning can occur using a variety of diffusion strategies (Leonard-Barton, 1988). However, it is much harder to unlearn what was learnt, and start at the initiation stage again, especially when one reaches the mature stage of learning, unless the underlying concepts of what is being unlearned can potentially be reused in the learning of another tool or technique. For example, moving from the life cycle approach to prototyping and moving from procedural thinking to object-oriented programming require a fairly major change in the way problems are conceptualised, formalised and implemented (e.g. Fichman & Kemerer, 1993). In such cases, a radical shift in the learning of methodologies may be appropriate (i.e. discarding everything that was learnt to start something new); this often necessitates a significant investment of organizational resources. Such unlearning, or discarding obsolete or misleading knowledge, is as important as adding new knowledge; slow unlearning has often been considered a crucial weakness in organizations (Hedberg, 1981). Again, it is the leader’s role as a designer to assess the nature of shifts that are necessary and not only to provide mechanisms to facilitate learning (as discussed in section 3), but also to commit to change the direction of the organization when appropriate. In summary, we have identified and discussed three essential drivers of a learning organization; argued for their relevance to IS organizations; and examined how these drivers may be manipulated. Using the theoretical framework presented thus far, we now present the results of an in-depth case study that provides some empirical evidence for the validity of the framework.

5. Infusing learning into the IS organization at Pass and Seymour 5.1 The organizational context The organization studied here is a subsidiary of the world’s largest manufacturer of electrical wiring devices

32

Infusing learning into the IS organization

with a sales volume of over $2 billion. Historically the company utilised information technology primarily as a back-office operation; the IS organization was labeled “Data Processing” (DP) and the IS staff consisted of a few programmers and a DP manager. The DP organization had witnessed several changes to its role and structure: at one time it was centralised; subsequently, when a new Chief Financial Officer (CFO) came in, it was distributed to different functions. Persistent problems related to the inability of users to manage IS, and the inability of the distributed staff to communicate resulted in the function becoming recentralised again after 9 months. Approximately 5 years ago the company, in an effort to become a more competitive player in the industry, replaced the entire executive staff with a new breed of managers. Simultaneously, the firm started to look to information technology as a key facilitator in its drive towards profitability; and brought in a new Director of IS; this Director was specifically assigned the charter of evolving the IS organization towards a more strategic role in the business. Faced with the challenge of transforming an erstwhile reactive organization to one that was more forward looking, the Director made several changes to the practices, management methods, and culture of the organization. These changes were analysed utilising the theoretical framework for learning presented earlier with twin objectives: (1) to seek empirical validity for the proposed drivers of organizational learning (Miles & Huberman, 1984; Benbasat et al, 1987; Yin, 1993), and (2) based on the experiences of this organization, to identify specific management practices and initiatives that can lead to a learning oriented IS function. In order to gain a deep understanding of the specific actions taken at Pass and Seymour and their effectiveness in inculcating learning into the IS organization, as recommended by prior research (Yin, 1993; Benbasat et al, 1987), multiple data collection methods were utilised. First, documentation regarding the company background such as the Information Systems Plan and various organizational charts were reviewed. Next, several indepth semi-structured interviews with key IS staff as well as senior end-user manages who interact with the IS staff on a regular basis were conducted; the managers included a representative from every functional area within the business that was supported by IS. Each interview, which lasted approximately one hour, provided qualitative insights into the changes instituted, as perceived by those affected by the changes, as well as an assessment of these changes (Miles & Huberman, 1984). Finally, IS staff were surveyed in order to determine the relative efficacy of the various changes instituted. The data collection methods as well as the interview schedules are summarised in Appendix A. Appendix B describes the items contained in the survey of IS staff.

R Agarwal et al

Below we analyse the findings of the case; first the specific actions taken in each of the learning facilitators are discussed and then an assessment of these actions is presented. 5.2 Creating the learning context The first step taken by the IS Director was to establish and articulate a clear mission for the IS organization. This mission was stated as follows: “The IS mission is to promote the pre-eminence of Pass & Seymour through the proactive and effective use of information, information systems, and information technology. IS will foster a continuous partnership with all business functions to ensure that information technology is business driven, business supported, and business implemented”. To facilitate mission achievement, the design of the organization was altered. The IS organization has been restructured in the form of ‘IS Business Teams and Specialists’. IS business teams (composed of business analyst, systems analyst, and programmer analyst) are charged with understanding and supporting business area processes and their relationship to specific business plans and informational needs. Specialists are chartered with providing specific technical support functions relative to some key technologies that the organization considers important. These include hardware (mini- as well as PCbased support and interfaces); electronic data interchange (EDI) (to leverage interaction with multiple suppliers and customers that are distributed across the country); and other technologies such as development tools and networks. IS business teams are vertically aligned with business areas, so they may specifically concentrate on user needs, business requirements, and application solutions, thus providing them the incentives to focus on the ‘effective’, ‘partnership’, and ‘business-driven’ elements of the mission. As a way to further reinforce the importance of the new role IS plays under the revised organizational structure, the IS business team is measured on how well it facilitates the achievement of business strategies, goals and objectives; and how well it helps users create new and differentiated solutions (from a competitive standpoint). The manifest rationale for this infrastructure is that it forces the IS professional to be an active participant in the business area, while still reporting to the IS functional area, thus ensuring that the basis on which the IS professionals are rewarded is consistent with the overall mission. The IS Director has asserted that the ultimate metric for testing the effectiveness of this infrastructure will be the following: for an objective third party, it will be difficult to ascertain who is the technologist (IS person) and who is the business unit person. In order to obtain consistency between organizational goals as articulated in the mission statement and the goals of individual actors, a key procedure that has been revitalized is the setting of ‘standards of performance’

Infusing learning into the IS organization

(SOP). As noted earlier, such consistency is critical to ensure systemic and goal-directed learning. At Pass and Seymour, these standards explicate the mutually agreed upon goals and objectives for an individual employee developed in conjunction with their manager. Although the concept of standards of performance had been in existence for some time, the earlier process was a lot more informal. The new Director chose to assign greater meaning and depth to the manner in which they were constructed; they now form a key element of the IS staff appraisal process. To ensure that teams of people assigned to various tasks are adequately trained, skill sets needed for task performances have been identified and individuals have been moved to the new positions based on how best they match the skill set. Recognising that the IS professional under the new mission needs to be a proactive participant in the business, certain non-technical skill requirements such as negotiation, conflict resolution, listening, intra/inter-team interactions, and expectation management have been identified as critical. The organization has focused its efforts in 1994 on team building skills, and has worked with the human resource department in training its employees on negotiation and conflict resolution skills in 1995. 5.3 Facilitating individual learning Both observation and exploration as modes of knowledge acquisition are encouraged and supported at Pass and Seymour. For example, providing regional sales managers with consistent sales performance information in a timely manner was considered critical for competitive advantage. To fulfil this need, business analysts were provided the opportunity to explore how this may be accomplished by partnering with an external research facility to generate alternative means to support the sales managers. They were also asked to acquire relevant knowledge by observation: through benchmarking and communicating with others who have experience with similar efforts. The Director of IS has long been an advocate of exploiting externally created knowledge. Recognizing that no organization has all the knowledge it needs or the resources necessary to examine each new technology, he frequently participates, along with his employees, in research and educational conferences, and uses external resources such as university labs, faculty, and graduate students to assist him in evaluating new technologies and their applications. Given the logistical difficulty of having all IS professionals participate in these conferences and training, a special multimedia lab has been set up within the organization, so all other employees have access to external information in audio, video, and text form. In addition, this lab also provides access to research findings of agencies that conduct research in the information technology area such as the Gartner group.

R Agarwal et al

33

The organization has partnered with external stakeholders to the extent possible, such as the use of EDI technology for supplier assisted inventory management technology and arrangements with IBM for collaborative work on a special project. These examples are indicative of how alliances are forged to advance the acquisition of new knowledge from external sources. To further facilitate learning, all IS professionals are equipped with workstations and a standard suite of desktop applications; thereby providing the tools necessary for exploration-based learning of new technologies. Given the diversity of demands placed on the IS professional in terms of the range of applications and technologies that need to be supported, the IS professional can no longer afford to be a narrow specialist and is increasingly asked to be a master of all trades. The collective knowledge base of the IS organization that includes knowledge about methodologies, technologies, and specific domain areas is very large and beyond the cognitive capabilities of any single individual. In such a context, knowledge about knowledge or meta-knowledge is crucial to help individuals decide what they need to know in order to perform a task they may be assigned on an ad hoc basis and how they might use this knowledge to improve their performance over time. Thus, it becomes necessary to clearly define tasks so that knowledge acquisition efforts may be focused. At Pass and Seymour, such encapsulation of knowledge is accomplished by means of a clearly defined application taxonomy. Within the firm, applications are classified as: personal, work-group, information access, operational and business process automation. They are analysed within the context of end-user constituencies, classified as: the entire enterprise, cross-departments, within departments, work-group, and individuals. This classification allows IS to identify application complexity from a user as well as an application perspective. For example, an application that calls for providing an individual access to sales database on a PC for internal analysis may be classified as: individual/information access, while a similar access of sales data by the entire sales force using PCs may be classified as: departmental/operational. The classification forces an encapsulation of knowledge that is needed to support each application such as knowledge about methodologies for process and project management; educational requirements for staff involved in implementing various technologies; testing and quality standards for application development; and change management practices. To facilitate the sharing of knowledge, a local area network that links IS professionals has been established, and email introduced to support communication. In addition, a groupware product has been installed to allow for more efficient team work, to foster collaboration among teams through the sharing of technical and application specific knowledge, to add value to the application

34

Infusing learning into the IS organization

development process through non-deterministic, nonprocedural and unstructured communications among IS staff, to monitor major and minor project initiatives, and to facilitate general discussion and support planning. Moreover, the concept of discussion data bases (DDB) has been initiated to keep a trail of discussion and debate on any issue that is of interest within IS. All IS professionals (and users) may add relevant comments and observations to the database on the topic under discussion. A similar approach has been initiated for group discussion in user areas on topics such as company-wide budgeting, monthly financial projections, engineering design, and market research. The notion of knowledge encapsulation around the classification of tasks alluded to earlier serves an important role for knowledge revision as well. Knowing what specific methodologies and tools to utilise for particular types of applications allows the IS professionals to continually monitor the applicability and relevance of these methodologies and tools to the problem being addressed. At this time, weekly or ad hoc meetings are used to specifically discuss the status of goals and their attainment. Any issue that is of concern can be brought up as an agenda item by IS personnel for discussion and resolution; employees are thus empowered and encouraged to suggest changes and updates. Again, discussion databases are widely used for such a purpose, so that much of the preliminary discussion on any standard, policy or procedure revision can be discussed electronically prior to making it an agenda item. 5.4 The role of the leader in creating the learning culture In addition to providing the impetus for the IS plan as well as associated structural changes, the IS director has instituted an executive steering committee that meets three times a year to review plans, and started to hold regular monthly planning sessions and off-site brainstorming sessions with key IS staff to keep individual and organizational missions in alignment. Users are encouraged to attend these sessions, so they may have ample opportunity to participate in IS activities. Moreover, to effectively manage the human resource within IS (through career planning, facilitating learning, etc), he has initiated activities such as the development of training and educational plans based on individual needs and organizational drivers, and placing value on skills acquired and educational goals reached. In this organization IS professionals were initially oriented to using a mini-computer for most of their transaction processing and report generation. The shift towards the use of PCs for sales report generation and the move towards rapid prototyping in systems development have necessitated changes in the mindset of organizational members (users as well as IS professionals). For

R Agarwal et al

example, the previous emphasis was solution oriented, i.e., automate certain tasks, as opposed to process oriented, i.e., understand the business process prior to arriving at an appropriate solution alternative. While many of the changes in the IS structure and training are oriented to facilitate this shift, such an organizational shift has to continue in the future as the technology and the application portfolio change. The IS organization has recognised that certain development skills and technology paradigms have to change as the environment changes; this requires a movement of its employees from one learning curve to another. The director of IS has also recognised his role as a teacher in facilitating learning. To fulfil this role, his daily activities include active participation in setting realistic schedules and deadlines; recognising underachievers and doing something about it; communicating honestly and frequently with his staff; maintaining IS management presence by walking around and interacting; keeping a market focus by doing business with business people; and practising a team focus (peer as opposed to boss/subordinate approach). As a steward, he has recognised that the ultimate success of his organization depends on the way its members view technologies and applications: not as individual entities to explore, but a collective group to serve a customer need and fulfil an organizational objective. To this end, he frequently communicates the vision and the mission to IS staff so all actions are in alignment and focused; instils core values (such as customer service, quality, communication, user centric focus and partnership); and advocates a holistic/systems approach to solving problems and addressing IS activities. In summary, the IS organization at Pass & Seymour has recognised the need to ensure that the mission of the IS organization be clearly articulated and communicated. At the same time, the organization redefined its organizational structure and responsibilities, as well as individual performance assessment so that they remain consistent with the overall mission; thereby providing individuals with the incentive to engage in appropriate behaviours. The IS director is demonstrating that, through an appropriate combination of management interventions and the creation of a nurturing work climate, it is possible for an erstwhile reactive organization to evolve towards an adaptive one. The specific strategies used at Pass and Seymour to infuse learning are summarised in Figure 2. 5.5 An assessment of actions The initiatives described above all represent deliberate management actions taken to create a learning-oriented culture in the IS organization. While several of these initiatives are not novel or unique, their utility is best appreciated by examining the evolution of this specific organization. As noted earlier, the IS function has under-

Infusing learning into the IS organization

R Agarwal et al

35

Figure 2 Strategies used to infuse learning in an IS organization.

gone a radical change in the role it plays in the business; consequently, the attitudes of the actors as well as the prevailing culture also needed to undergo a radical shift. Data was collected from multiple stakeholders to gain insights into the effectiveness of these actions. The learning context Recall that the learning context is concerned with articulating a clear organizational mission, defining an appropriate organizational structure, identifying performance measures, and ensuring that individual actors are capable of fulfilling their roles. Although the IS mission is primarily intended to guide the efforts of IS staff, it also plays an important role in setting user expectations. During the interviews all users indicated that they had witnessed a significant change in the IS organization; phrases such as ‘key partner’, ‘more in tune with the business,’ and ‘proactive as opposed to reactive’ dominated their assessment of the role that IS played in the business. Users also pointed out that IS was instrumental in allowing the organization to successfully restructure itself and that they perceived its role in the organization to be strategic. As noted by a senior manager who has been with the organization for 15 years and witnessed its evolution, “IS now allows us to operate as a bigger player, even though we are third in the industry”. A manager in the finance function claimed that IS plays a key role in the definition of standards of performance for the whole organization in terms of establishing needs and evaluating what can be supported through information technology. The effects of the IS mission on the IS staff have been similarly positive. The IS interviewees noted that the “mission help focus individual efforts”, and that it “compels us to focus attention on the user at all times”. The

reaction to the new organizational structure was also positive. All interviewees felt that the structure was consistent with the emphasis on user support that was highlighted in the mission; it helped them get “closer to the customer”, “allows for a better understanding of business knowledge”, and “supports a single theme – i.e. client orientation”. Furthermore, the structure was seen to facilitate better communication among IS staff themselves; specially between developers and technical specialists who were previously disparate groups. A senior business analyst characterised the structure evocatively as one that allows them to be “business specialists and technology generalists”. The revitalisation of SOP as part of the performance appraisal process in the IS organization were viewed as allowing “one to see the relevance of what they do in the context of the company’s mission”. A technical specialist felt that it was “good to put them in writing as they provide focus”, while a business analyst echoed similar sentiments. In her perception, standards of performance are “set to challenge and stretch IS capabilities”. A programmer/analyst noted that the “SOP provide a clear indication of how IS supports the client’s needs”, while another senior business analyst viewed the SOP as useful in so far as they allowed an assessment of whether goals had been met or exceeded. SOP were also identified as important in allowing individuals to maintain an inventory of the skills they possessed and those they needed to develop. On the survey completed by IS staff, two items were utilised to assess their overall reaction to the new structure: “The structure of the IS department helps me to achieve my personal career goals”, and “The structure of this department is consistent with my own development goals”.1 The average response for the two items across the eleven senior IS staff surveyed was

36

Infusing learning into the IS organization

6.0 out of a maximum possible of 7; a strong indicator that the structure was generally regarded as well aligned with individual goals. The facilitators of individual learning Although the context helps focus learning efforts, of equal if not greater importance is the provision of the means to learn. As discussed before, several levers are being utilised at Pass and Seymour to facilitate individual learning. To understand the extent to which each of these initiatives was instrumental in contributing to an individual’s personal growth, IS staff were asked to rate each initiative on a scale of one to seven; where one indicated that the initiative had no effect on their personal growth, and seven indicated that the activity had a significant role to play in personal growth. Average scores for nine specific initiatives are listed in Table 1; as the data reveal, all activities were viewed in a positive light. Comments from IS staff during the interviews further substantiate these results; all interviewees strongly believed that the initiatives assisted them in broadening their knowledge bases and acquiring diverse skills. For instance, service on the help-desk, which is a shared responsibility among all IS staff, was regarded as a useful mechanism for exposing IS staff to systems and technologies that they may not be directly responsible for supporting, thereby providing cross-function and cross-platform training. Furthermore, the weekly meetings were viewed as highly effective means to supplement the electronic communication that took place; the meetings were used as a forum to resolve problems by bringing multiple perspectives to bear on them and to ensure ‘face time’ with the IS Director. The business analyst responsible for the commercial and IS functional areas reported setting up a discussion database for problems and issues related to the customer service systems; she was surprised by how actively the national customer services manager had been involved in the discussion.

R Agarwal et al

The staff also indicated that a significant amount of training was offered to them, both internal as well as external. Indeed, several staff members mentioned that the learning of a new technology had been specifically identified as a SOP item for them. As noted by a senior business analyst, “. . . we make time for training – I’ve told my staff that’s what they need to do”. Perhaps the most compelling evidence of the contribution of these activities is their overall effect on the prevailing environment within the IS organization in terms of inculcating an innovative, learning-oriented climate. To assess this environment, two constructs that have been rigorously developed and validated in prior research were utilised: a 16-item support for innovation scale and a six-item resource supply scale (Scott & Bruce, 1994). The constructs represent two dimensions of the perceived climate for innovation within the department which, as argued earlier, is a crucial characteristic of a learning organization. The mean score for the two scales was 5.58 and 4.62, respectively. Whereas IS staff perceived the organizational climate as one that is highly supportive of creativity and change, they did perceive resources to be a minor constraint. When asked to comment on the IS environment during interviews, the staff overwhelmingly characterised it as one that “encourages learning and education”, “provides opportunities to explore technologies”, “highly receptive to change”, and “open to new ideas”. The leader and the learning culture The final core driver of a learning organization, the learning culture, represents a set of shared values within the organization that are created, in part, by the leader of the organization. While all the actions discussed above are critical elements of this culture, it is also important that the leader symbolise the learning-oriented values. Indeed, Nevis et al (1995) note that it is critical for the leader of a learning organization to be involved

Table 1 Survey results Item/Construct

Mean

Standard deviation

Contribution of facilitators of individual learning Training in non-technical skills Exploration of new technologies Discussion databases Electronic mail Explicit standards of performance Participation in research and technical conferences Weekly status meetings Multi-media workstation Service on the help-desk Perceptions of new organizational structure Perceived support for innovation Resource supply for innovation

5.40 5.55 4.20 5.82 5.91 5.73 5.64 4.82 5.18 6.00 5.58 4.62

1.51 1.92 1.93 1.83 0.94 1.85 1.36 1.94 1.83 1.04 0.60 0.71

Notes: All items/constructs are scored on a 1–7 scale.

Infusing learning into the IS organization

‘hands-on’ in the implementation of the vision; including being visible and engaged in the activities of the department. Clearly the perceived support for innovation is an indicator of how the IS staff view their leader as being oriented towards change. In addition to this evaluation of the culture, qualitative assessments of the leadership of the IS function were sought during the interviews. The opinion of the users is particularly salient here as all the managers interviewed had experience with the old DP organization and the new IS organization and were in a position to ascertain the depth of change that had occurred. Users felt that the IS Director had been a crucial catalyst for the changes that occurred; indeed, they felt that the changes would not have happened in his absence. They also were of the opinion that the new leader had managed to make IS a lot more “visible and at the forefront”; and that the efforts of the department seemed to have a greater focus and clarity than they did before. All the IS staff interviewed indicated that the IS Director constantly encouraged them to develop their skills and capabilities and provided support for such development as necessary. Moreover, the importance of persistent learning was a recurring theme in the conversations with IS staff, clearly pointing to their assimilation of learning-oriented values.

6. Conclusions In this paper we addressed what we perceive to be a very critical problem: how to make the IS organization become more flexible and adaptive and to continually seek to improve its performance? The problem was mot-

R Agarwal et al

37

ivated by our own observations as well as reported evidence of the turmoil many IS organizations are going through as they struggle to cope with the demands placed on them. We suggested that one plausible way of addressing the problem is to create an IS organization that is learning oriented. We then proceeded to describe what the components of such a learning-oriented IS organization might be, and illustrated the operationalization of these ideas in the context of the changes made by one specific IS organization. Although we have presented evidence from a single case, the data indicate that the effort is steering the organization in the right direction. Moreover, the strategies described have support both from prior research in individual and organizational learning and some recent research on organizational learning systems (Nevis et al, 1995); suggesting that the strategies may indeed be successful in infusing learning into IS organizations. These strategies may prove to be of value to other firms who desire similar outcomes. Several areas remain for future research. Others may wish to utilize the framework to analyse the actions of additional IS organizations, thereby providing additional support for the framework. Future research may also wish to investigate how IS organizations build meta-learning capabilities, perhaps even before they engage in systematic efforts to infuse learning.

Notes 1 Scale reliability as measured by Chronbach’s alpha was 0.85.

References Allen T (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology. MIT Press, Boston, MA. Albrecht AJ and Gaffney JE (1983) Software function, lines of code, and development effort prediction: a software science validation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-9(6), 639–648. Argyris C and Schon D (1978) Organizational Learning. AddisonWesley, London. Bandura A (1977) Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Benbasat I, Mead M and Goldstein D (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems research. MIS Quarterly 11(3), 369–386. Boehm B (1981) Software Engineering Economics. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, pp 57–71. Cangelosi VE and Dill WR (1965) Organizational learning: observations towards a theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 10, 175–203. Cash J et al (1992) Corporate Information Systems Management. Irwin Publishers, Boston, MA. Chandler AD (1962) Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of American Industrial Enterprise. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Chandler A (1990) Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Harvard/Belknap, Cambridge, MA. Ciborra C (1991) Alliances as learning experiences: cooperation, competition, and change in high-tech industries. In Strategic Part-

nerships and World Economy (Mytelka L, Ed), pp 51–77, Pinter, London. Clark K, Hayes R and Lorenz C (1987) The Uneasy Alliance: Managing the Productivity–Technology Dilemma. HBR Press, Cambridge, MA. Cohen WM and Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 128–152. Cohen MD (1991) Individual learning and organizational routine: emerging connections. Organization Science 2(1), 135–139. Corsini R (1987) Concise Encyclopedia of Psychology. John-Wiley, New York. Cyert RM and March JG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Dodgson M (1993a) Learning, trust and technological collaboration. Human Relations 132–149. Dodgson M (1993b) Organizational learning: a review of some literature. Organization Studies 14(3), 375–394. Drucker PF (1991) The new productivity challenge. Harvard Business Review, Nov–Dec, 69–79. Elam JJ et al (1988) Transforming the IS Organization: The Mission, The Framework, The Transition. ICIT Press, Washington, D.C. Fichman RG and Kemerer CF (1993) Adoption of software engineering process innovations: the case of object orientation. Sloan Management Review Winter, 7–22. Fryer B (1994) Send ‘em to boot camp. Information Week 14 November, 90–102.

38

Infusing learning into the IS organization

R Agarwal et al

Fulk J and Steinfeld C (Eds) (1990) Organizations and Communication Technology. Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Garvin DA (1993) Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review 71(4), 78–91. Ginzberg MJ and Baroudi JJ (1992) Career orientations of IS personnel. Computer Personnel 14(1 & 2), 15–29. Hedberg B (1981) How organizations learn and unlearn. In Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol 1, (Nystrom P and Starbuck W, Eds) pp 3–27. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hobday M (1990) Telecommunications in Developing Countries: The Challenge from Brazil. Routledge, London. Huber G (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science 2(1), 88–115. Kerr S (1995) On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B: More on the folly. Academy of Management Executive 9(1), 7–16. Kotter JP and Schlesinger LA (1979) Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review March/April, 106–114. Leonard-Barton D (1988) Implementation characteristics of organizational innovations. Communication Research 15(5), 603–631. Levitt B and March JG (1988) Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology 14, 319–340. Maidique MA and Zirger BJ (1985) The new product learning cycle. Research and Policy 14, 299–313. March J (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2(1), 71–87. March J, Sproull L and Tamuz M (1991) Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organization Science 2(1), 1–13. Metcalfe S and Gibbons M (1989) Technology, variety and organization. In Research in Technological Innovation: Management and Policy (Rosenbloom R and Burgleman R Eds), JAI Press, NY. Michael D (1973) On Learning to Plan – and Planning to Learn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Miles MB and Huberman AM (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Mody A (1990) Learning through alliances. The World Bank, Washington. Nelson R and Winter S (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press, MA.

Nevis EC, DeBella AJ and Gould JM (1995) Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan Management Review Winter, 73–85. Neisser U (1976) Cognition and Reality. WH Freeman, San Francisco, CA. Pedler M, Boydell T and Burgoyne J (1989) Towards the learning company. Management Education and Development 20(1), 1–8. Prahalad C and Hamel G (1990) The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review May–June, 79–91. Prieto-diaz R (1993) Status Report: software reusability. IEEE Software May, 61–66. Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York. Rosenberg N (1982) Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Satzinger JW and Olfman L (1995) Computer support for group work: perceptions of the usefulness of support scenarios and enduser tools. Journal of MIS 11(4), 115–148. Schein E (1984) Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review 25(2), 3–16. Schein E (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Scott SG and Bruce RA (1994) Determinants of innovative behaviour: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal 37(3), 580–607. Simon H (1957) Administrative Behavior. MacMillan, New York. Senge P (1990) The leader’s new work: building learning organizations. Sloan Management Review 32(1), 7–23. Sundstrom E, DeMeuse KP and Futrell D (1995) Work Teams: Applications and Effectiveness. In The Organizational Behavior Reader, (Kolb DA, Osland JS and Rubin IM, Eds), pp 268–289, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. von Hippel E (1988) The Sources of Innovation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Yin RK (1993) Applications of Case-Study Research. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Appendix A: data collection procedures

(3) Survey of IS Staff

Methods used (1) Document review Company Annual Reports IS Plan Organizational Charts (2) Semi-Structured Interviews

Notes: *The IS Director heads the IS organization; business analysts and specialists report directly to him; while systems analysts and programmer analysts report to business analysts.

Management Manager of Financial Planning Accounting Manager Corporate Master Scheduler Vice-President of Human Resources Marketing Manager National Customer Services Manager

IS Staff* IS Director Business Analyst – Finance and Human Resources Business Analyst – Manufacturing and Engineering Business Analyst – Commercial and IS Manager of Technical Support and Operations Systems Analyst, Finance and Human Resources Programmer Analyst, Manufacturing and Engineering Programmer Analyst, Commercial and IS (3) EDI Specialist

Interview schedule for management • Demographic information – name; designation; number of years at Pass and Seymour; major responsibilities. • Interaction with IS Department: nature of systems used; individuals you interact with. • Perceptions of the role that IS plays at Pass and Seymour. • Assessment of the IS department’s contribution to meeting the strategic goals and objectives of your functional area. • Perceptions about the IS department’s responsiveness to customer needs and new ideas. • Any specific changes you have observed in the way the IS department is structured and the way it functions. • Reactions to observed changes – positive and negative.

Infusing learning into the IS organization

• Comments on the way applications are developed and your interaction with IS staff in such application development. • General observations on changes in IS, particularly the role of the leader. • Things you would like to see done differently. Interview schedule for IS staff • Demographic information – name; designation; number of years at Pass and Seymour; major responsibilities. • Prior experience. • Perceptions of the role that IS plays at Pass and Seymour. • Assessment of the IS department’s contribution to meeting the strategic goals and objectives of Pass and Seymour. • Opinion about the new organizational structure for IS; the contribution of the structure to your personal goals and objectives. • Assessment of the work environment within the group: • ability to learn about and explore new technologies; • ability to share knowledge with co-workers; • the extent to which such exploration is supported; • specific changes you have observed; • specific initiatives you have observed and their value; • what you would like to see changed. • Comments and observations about the IS Director.

Appendix B: survey items Specific initiatives to facilitate learning Rate the contribution of each activity listed below to your personal development goals on a scale of 1–7. (1 = no contribution; 4 = some contribution, 7 = a lot of contribution): Training in non-technical skills. Exploration of new technologies. Discussion databases. Electronic mail. Explicit standards of performance. Participation in research and technical conferences. Weekly status meetings. Multi-media workstation. Service on the help-desk. Perceived support for innovation Rate your agreement with each statement on a 1–7 scale. (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree):

R Agarwal et al

39

Creativity is encouraged here. My ability to function creatively is respected by the leadership. Around here people are allowed to solve the same problems in many different ways. The main function of the members of this department is to follow orders which come through channels. This department can be described as flexible and continually adapting to change. A person can’t do things that are too different around here without provoking anger. The best way to get along in this department is to think the way the rest of the group does. People around here are expected to deal with problems in the same way. This department is open and responsive to change. The people in charge around here usually get credit for others’ ideas. In this department we tend to stick to tried and true ways. This place seems to be more concerned with the status quo than with change. The reward system here encourages innovation. Around here a person can get into a lot of trouble by being different. The department publicly recognizes those who are innovative. The reward system here benefits mainly those who don’t rock the boat.

Resource supply for innovation Rate your agreement with each statement on a 1–7 scale. (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree): Assistance in developing new ideas is readily available. There are adequate resources devoted to innovation in this department. There is adequate time available to pursue creative ideas here. Lack of funding to pursue creative ideas is a problem in this department. Personnel shortages inhibit innovation in this department. This department gives me free time to pursue creative ideas during the workday.

Perceptions of new organizational structure Rate your agreement with each statement on a 1–7 scale. (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree): The structure of the MIS department helps me achieve my personal career goals. The structure of this department is consistent with my personal development goals.

40

Infusing learning into the IS organization

R Agarwal et al

About the authors Ritu Agarwal is an Associate Professor of Management Information Systems in the College of Business at Florida State University. Prior to joining FSU she taught at the University of Dayton and at New York University. Professor Agarwal earned her PhD in Management Information Systems and an MS in Computer Science from Syracuse University. Her current research interests focus on the management of information technology in firms, particularly the adoption and diffusion of new information technologies by individuals and organizations. She serves as an Associate Editor for the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies and is currently co-editing a special issue of the Communications of the ACM. Dr Agarwal’s publications are forthcoming or have appeared in journals such as Journal of Management Information Systems, Decision Support Systems, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, and Decision Sciences, and she has presented papers at several national and international conferences. She is a member of ACM, INFORMS, and Decision Sciences Institute. Gary Krudys is the Director of Management Information Systems for Pass & Seymour/Legrand. He is also adjunct faculty for LeMoyne College and SUNY Oswego where he teaches Systems Analysis and Design at the undergraduate and graduate level. Gary received his BS in Data Processing from King’s College, Wilkes-Barre Pa., in 1974 and an MBA in Finance and International Business from the Syracuse University School of Management in 1992. Gary has been in the IT field for the past 23 years with a variety of progressive industrial firms of which the last 18 years have been in a management capacity. In 1993, Gary accepted the position of corporate Director of Management Information Systems with Pass & Seymour/Legrand.

Here he has initiated several business/technology initiates including Electronic Commerce, Vendor Managed Inventory, Sales & Operations Planning, and Application Development Process/Project Management. Prior to his current position, Gary spent 13 years with Bristol-Myers Squibb where he attained the position of Associate Director of Information Systems. Other employers include UTC/Carrier and GTE/Sylvania. He is also a member of ACM, APICS, and DPMA. Professor Mohan Tanniru received his MS in Engineering and MBA in Business Administration from University of Wisconsin System, and received his PhD in MIS from Northwestern University in 1978. His research interests are in the areas of systems development methodology, decision support, expert/knowledge-based systems, and information technology/systems planning. He has published over 60 articles in various journals, books and conference proceedings, and has presented at various national and international conferences. He also directed over 40 projects that explored technologies and methodologies such as IT management in a global arena, business process re-engineering, building a learning oriented IS organization, object oriented development, CASE, expert systems, IS benchmarking, sales force automation, and decision modelling. He has served as a consultant to Proctor & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Carrier-UTC, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Tata Consultancy Services of India. He directs an advanced technology transfer lab at Syracuse University for introducing/exploring new information technologies in upstate NY. He is a member of SIM, DSI, ACM and AIS organizations.