Center for Information Systems Research
Massachusetts
institute of
Alfred P, Sloan School of
Technology
Management
50 Memorial Drive
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139
617 253-1000
USER MANAGERS' SYSTEMS NEEDS
It appears that tomorrow is here today.
We need to change the rules of the game
and play catch-up ball.
Robert M. Alloway
May,
1980
CISR No. 56
Sloan WP No.
1125-80
-1-
User Managers' Systems Needs *
Managers
information
need
a
means
relevant
data
and
intended
to
latter
is
the
provide
former
the
to
ability
Managers
end.
analyze
to
means to make
the
information
computer-based
not
this
flexible
need
Computer
data.
that
possible,
systems.
economic,
The
access
to
systems
are
easy
for
with an
eye
and
managers.
toward
appropriateness
their
answered
the
appropriate
systems needs,
assesses user managers'
This paper
those
systems,
many
how
and
ends.
have asked and
We
users currently
systems do
how many
questions,
are
various managerial
for
means,
the
systems
new
have,
want?
users
do
how
Systems were classified by type into monitor, exception, inquiry, and analysis.
The
results
are
The differences
dramatic.
of systems types has already caused
by
systems type.
This
user
departments.
each
type
managerial
and
in
significant
a
appropriateness
managerial
shift
users'
in
demand mix
presents serious management challenges to both DP and
Moreover,
the
collectively,
is
level
simply
necessitating
challenge;
of
demand
user
for
This
overwhelming.
processes
improved
new
and
systems,
for
increases
the
criteria
for
prioritization of systems needs.
Introduction
As
part
industrial
of
senior,
of
a
larger
research
firms completed
middle,
and
an
project
user
and
extensive questionnaire.
junior managers
finance, and DP departments.
114
Exhibits
was
1
and
selected
2
A
from
managers
DP
stratified
in
six
sample
the manufacturing,
provide some basic information
about the firms and respondents studied.
*I wish to
thank the
research, Christine
Jerome Nolte for
Information Systems
anonymous companies and managers who participated in this
Bullen for her management of the data gathering process,
his
statistical analysis support, and the Center for
Research of M.I.T. for partial funding.
"User N'eeds Survey:
Preliminary Report", Robert
Sloan Working Paper 1096-79, December 1979.
M.
Alloway,
et al
,
M.I.T.
.?_
To establish the base case,
the
they
systems
already
user managers listed and classified by type
have.
A
straightforward
classification
of
application syster s type was used in the questionnaire:
SHORT NAN1E
DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM TYPE
Monitor
The system monitors daily detail activity producing standard
reports on a fixed schedule (daily, weekly, or monthly).
Exception
The
exception
The
where
reports
conditions is fixed
Inquiry
daily
processes
system
system
activity
detail
definition
the
produces
but
of
exception
.
provides
a
database
with
flexible
inquiry
capability, enabling managers to design and change their own
monitoring and exception reports.
Analysis
The
system
(modeling,
provides
powerful
simulation,
capabilities
data analysis
optimization,
statistical
or
routines) and the appropriate database to support managerial
decision making.
The first
applications
two
types, monitor and exception,
traditionally
called
transaction
fall
into
processors.
the
category of
These
systems
have been the bread and butter of DP, helping to capture, store, manipulate
and
report
Transaction
the
structured,
processing
high
volume
systems generate
activities
management
of
daily
reports
by
operations.
successive
-3-
stages
increasingly
of
summarized
detail
activity.
lowest
The
level
summaries are provided to supervisors and managers directly responsible for
daily operations.
Successively higher level
approach to management information
in this traditional
which
is
_is
2
In
the limited extent that this is true,
To
—
summarized daily
appropriate for first line managers, further summarized
appropriate for higher levels of management.
true.
to
There is an implicit assunption
successively higher levels of management.
activity,
summaries are distributed
general,
this
is
not
transaction processors do
provide some relevant information to higher level managers.
Inquiry and
are more managerially oriented
however,
analysis systems,
in their intention, design, and use than transaction processors.
difference between starting
the
most
managers
managers'
needs
likely
them
find
to
working
and
the data
with
down
to
the
and
It
is the
sending summary reports
relevant
and
data
analysis
and
starting
to
with
necessary
a
to
support those needs.
inquiry systems were
Flexible
originally developed
provide flexible monitor and exception reporting.
management
(database
system
provide
ad-hoc
They have been enhanced to also
inquiry into transaction processing data.
software
to
and
high
They require specialized
level
inquiry
language),
hardware (disks and terminals), and are generally limited to accessing one
database at
time
a
(eg.,
order
entry or purchasing)
although progress is
being made in linking databases together.
Analysis
systems
include
a
diverse
mix
of
approaches
to
supporting
judgemental decision-making, from problem- finding and contingency planning
to
selecting "best"
particular
set
of
alternatives.
decisions
(eg.,
They are
financial
necessarily customized
forecasting
or
for
a
production
scheduling) and include flexible access to the required database.
2
"A Framework for Management Information Systems", Garry and Scott Morton,
Sloan Manaoement Review, Fall 1971.
-4-
What Systems do Users have ?
Eighty-one
personally
monitor,
the
managers in six companies listed the systems which they
us';r
on
use
exception,
regular basis.
a
inquiry or
installed base of
They
analysis.
then
classified each system as
This
provides
application systems shown in Exhibit
277 installed systems in the sample, of which 228 or 82
systems.
contrast
In
breakdown of
the
only
3.2%
of
installed
the
.
3?o
3.
There are
are monitor type
systems
are
the
of
analysis type.
There are no real surprises here;
expectations.
managers'
which approximately
oriented.
90?c
The average manager regularly uses 3.4 systems, of
are transaction processors and
almost said "only
I
rather there is confirmation of most
were transaction processors.
10?o"
but
wasn't
it
10?c
are managerially
ago that
too long
100?o
Improvements in technological capability have
been pushing inquiry systems, and improvements in the "DP-literacy" of user
managers have been pushing analysis type applications.
Ninety
percent
transaction
of
the
processors.
collective
experience
simple
observation
This
of
of
and
DP
systems
users
mix
in
is
of
the
installed base has seme interesting implications.
DP
'
s
policies
and
procedures,
evaluation/reward
structure,
applications
are
dominated
by
depth
criteria,
transaction
of
and
organizational
skills,
expertise
processors.
in
Thus,
developing
there
is
a
strong tendency for any systems request that goes into DP to come back out
implemented as
transaction processor.
perceived use of computers, expectations of systems development
Users'
anticipated benefits,
procedures,
dominated
a
by
their
transaction
and justification criteria are similarly
processing
experience.
Thus,
there
is
a
tendency for any systems requests that go
strong
many
processors has
inquiry
same
the
especially
and
DP
already look
to
The interaction of DP and user biases toward
like transaction processors.
transaction
into
effect
as
systems
analysis
conscious
a
needs
are
conspiracy
—
implemented
as
transaction processors instead.
Moreover,
in
identification,
needs
companies
most
established
the
selection,
project
and
standard
procedures
for
systems development are
the
result of institutionalized transaction processing experience.
This
further increases the probability that an inquiry or anlaysis systems need
will be implemented as a transaction processor.
The creation and use of inquiry and analysis systems are different from
transaction processors.
by
a
Recognition of this simple fact has been hindered
superficial appearance of systems similarity
are indeed computer-based.
is
affected
adversely
by
—
all four systems types
The development of inquiry and analysis systems
the
requirement
policy
to
follow
established
standard procedures which are appropriate only for transaction processors.
Companies
standard
have
refined
procedures and
their
experiences
self-fulfilling
is
tionalized
organizationally difficult
standard
procedures
and
institutionalized
expectations oriented
to their predominate transaction processing past.
problem
into
Recognition of this as
ackward.
and
expectations
development of additional systems types is
a
exclusively
Reassessing
to
a
institu-
facilitate
true management challenge.
the
-6-
How Appropriate is the Installed Base ?
In
separate
a
important
tasks
questions,
of
set
which
decisions
or
they
was then classified by systems type.
important
listed 229
tasks
listed
could be
felt
The support actually available
computer system.
Users
managers
user
most
their
supported
by
a
these important tasks
for
These results are shown in Exhibit 4.
decisions of which 79 or
or
35?o
had
no
systems support of any type.
Clearly the
base
dissatisfaction
user
appropriate
not
is
for
the
which
35?o
are
This alone is an important source of demand for new systems
unsupported.
and
installed
given
backlog
DP s
'
Monitor systems provided support for 120 or
activities
although,
will
be
Exhibit
4
as
creating
in
53?o
new
systems.
of the important managerial
demonstrated,
necessarily
not
appropriately.
The
second
portion
activities which
by
systems
are
by
unsupported
This
type.
distribution
of
systems
Apparently whether
a
and
omits
of
managerial
re-computes the percent distribution
distribution
type
important
79
the
the
is
very
not
total
different
base
installed
system is intended to support
a
in
from
the
Exhibit
2.
managerially important
activity or not makes little if any difference in the type of system which
is
Presumably,
developed.
this
is
because
of
the
institutionalized
standard procedures for systems development which reinforces DP and users'
biases resulting in transaction processors irrespective of the intended use
of the system.
Exhibit
5
compares the total installed systems base from Exhibit
those systems cited as supporting users'
Of
the
277
total
installed
systems
2
with
important activities in Exhibit 4.
only
150
or
55%
were
cited
in
-7-
conjunction with users'
systems
activities
important
managers'
v^ich
important activities.
installed
ars
not
do
unsupported,
completely
go
relate
other words, while 35% of
In
to
managers'
45%
most
of
the
important
needs.
The
installed systems v^ich were not cited are probably necessary
127
for daily operations
and
presume
all
However,
to
some of the respondents secondary needs.
fulfill
monitor
installed
228
the
of
management information is apparently in error
—
systems
provide
108 of them were not even
mentioned in conJLnction with important managerial activities.
Transaction
processors should be recognized for the valuable functions they do perform
and not tarnished by being labeled MIS,
function
a
of them do not even
1x1%
address.
There is
a
definite pattern in Exhibit
systems
analysis
installed
systems were cited.
were
5
by system
important managerial
For
only
whereas
cited
needs,
All
type.
the
of
53%
of
the
monitor
inquiry and analysis
systems appear to be more relevant.
This
was
investigated
in
greater
depth
by
asking
user
managers
to
designate their desired systems type for each important activity they had
listed.
In
Exhibit 6 the systems type is considered to be appropriate when
the installed and desired systems type are the same.
Only
or
46,
activities
are of
of
31%,
the
the
systems
v^ich
appropriate type.
In
support
other
users'
words,
69%
important
of
the
150
currently installed systems which do relate to important managerial
activities
do
so
only
partially
or
in
an
inappropriate
fashion --
inconvenient, inflexible or incomplete.
—
unjustly I think.
This is a reality which incites many user managers
In fact, if the "managerially unimportant" 45% of the installed base did
not exist, many managers' most important tasks would be managing those
These systems have enabled
daily operations which these systems support.
managers to spend more time managing.
-8-
Again
better
than monitor
analysis
and
users
of
66?o
the
analysis
and
exception systems.
and
systems,
be
to
inquiry
that
see
we
and
appropriate
a
very
strong
significantly
fare
The vast majority of
respectively,
18%
type.
appropriateness percentages for monitor
this makes
systems
(25?o)
are
contrast
In
and
considered
exception
analysis systems to be significantly more appropriate for
by
their
low
the
to
(ll?c')
User managers consider
statement.
inquiry
systems
inquiry and
their
important
needs than monitor and exception systems.
Exception systems are seen as particularly inappropriate for important
managerial needs because,
I
think, of the fixed nature of the definition of
exception conditions embedded in the application software.
definitions
exception
of
necessitate
conditions
Managerial
re-
maintenance,
software
thereby constantly involving users in DP backlog delays and red tape
in
a
thankless quest to update inevitably obsolete reports.
the
Of
120
monitor
systems that
relate
to
important
activities the breakout of desired type is shown in Exhibit
managerial
7.
Thirty of
these systems are considered by their users to be of the appropriate type.
remaining
The
75?o
should have been
a
different
systems type to appropri-
ately address their users' important needs.
Sixty-four percent of these systems (38% inquiry plus
of
a
basically inappropriate type.
It
is
difficult
28?o
analysis) are
user managers
for
to
consider the projects which created those inappropriate monitor systems to
be responsive to their needs.
no matter
in
on
A
how technically competent
budget
system;
a
No matter
and
schedule,
and
no
how hard the project team worked,
they were,
matter
no matter
how bug-free
the project came
and
efficient
the
monitor system cannot behave like an inquiry or analysis system.
well-designed
and
implemented,
but
inappropriate,
monitor
system
-9-
contributes to the generally recognized user feeling of DP unresponsiveness
When this occurs frequently the reputation of DP as
needs.
to managerial
unresponsive and :omputer systems as inappropriate to important managerial
needs is confirmed and spread.
Exhibit
effect
managerial
appropriateness
on
system typss is dramatic.
cited
with
conjunction
in
between
Of
the
difference
The
monitor/ exception
and
systems
total base of installed systems 5h% are
managerially
see only
managers,
type.
17?o
of
The
in
inquiry/ analysis
important
activities.
systems which do relate to important managerial activities
appropriate
their
emphasize
to
perceptions.
managers'
user
cumulative
previous exhibits
from
juxtaposes lines
8
effect
cumulative
those
Of
are of the
31?i
devastating.
is
User
the installed base of application systems to be
appropriate to their important needs.
This
does
imply that
not
the
remaining
83?o
the
of
inappropriate for other necessary corporate functions.
not
intended
necessarily
to
provide
support
This exhibit does not
important activities.
for
installed
is
These systems were
middle
reflect
base
managers'
level
the recent mix of DP
system development by type inasmuch as most monitor systems were developed
years
ago
Moreover,
and
when
appropriately
accounting,
so
all
inquiry
originally
addressed
and
developed,
important
successfully that
systems
analysis
many
they
are
no
fairly
systems
monitor
managerial
are
recent.
directly
and
payroll
and
needs,
such
longer
important
as
managerial
needs.
this literary of extenuating circumstances,
Even accepting
convinced that this
believe DP to be
is
how user managers
unresponsive
been spent on developing,
to
their
I
am
still
perceive DP systems and why they
managerial
needs.
Millions
running and maintaining existing systems.
have
Only
-10-
17% of the installed base is relevant and appropriate to important managerial
Although
activities.
relevant
ically more
inquiry
especially
and
appropriate
and
managerial
to
systems
analysis
are
these
needs,
dramat-
types
are
such a small percent of the total installed base as to be considered atypical
Moreover,
DP applications.
important managerial
of
35?o
activities have no
systems support of any type.
A search for the cause of user dissatisfaction with DP need go no
further
important needs and the installed
than this mismatch between user managers'
base of applications.
What System Types do Users Want ?
preceeding
The
transaction
question
comments
processors
many
for
and
according to Exhibit
The answer,
this
will
9,
demand
system
shift
away
from
types.
The
occur
predicted mix
often
this
user
in
analysis
and
when
is
meet
to
shift
a
inquiry
toward
departments
DP
should they begin preparing
demand.
foreshadow
shift
a
dramatic
shift
currently installed base.
•
processors,
inquiry
of
40?o
and
the
analysis
in
Whereas
known
proportion
the
90°o
backlog
systems.
The
of the
is
in
system
of
in
user
already
from
types
the
installed base is transaction
requests
shift
when
is last year.
The known backlog of user requested systems development projects
exhibits
and
for managerially-oriented
user
demand
mix
has
already
occurred.
Users
are
expecting
implementation
increased
of
managerially-oriented
systems types in the near term and DP should already be able to perceive this
shift.
attitudes
4
If
standardized
result
in
the
procedures
and
ingrained
transaction
implementation of monitor systems where
"Defining Success for DP", Robert
March 1980.
M.
processing
inquiry
or
Alloway, M.I.T., CISR Working Paper 32
,
-11-
systems
analysis
needed,
are
requested,
and
dissatisfaction
user
expected
will surely increase.
basically
the
foreseeable
proportional mix
same
demand
user
future
systems
(desired
backlog
invisible
The
as
not
known
the
continue
will
requested
yet
to
DP)
has
For
the
analysis
and
of
backlog.
emphasize
inquiry systems over transaction processors.
summarizes the planning horizon for DP in terms of
The total demand mix
the
This obvious mix shift emphasizes
relative importance by systems type.
the necessity of modifying historically derived standard systems development
procedures.
order
In
to
be
successful
and
responsive to managerial needs,
DP's attention, priorities, and proportion of effort must be cut in half for
increased by a factor of three for inquiry and six for
monitor systems and
analysis systems.
dramatic
This
dramatic
shift
in
shift
DP
in
demand
user
procedures
and
must
be
matched
by
equally
an
Most DP departments are
capabilities.
currently perceived by user managers to be managerially unresponsive.
extent
that
DP departments
have
demand early enough to match
failed
supply
to
to
To the
recognize this mix shift in user
demand,
these
perceptions
are
well
founded.
DP's
internal
structure
evaluation criteria,
types,
shift
corresponding
to
and
to
in
supply
procedures
—
requires
from
pervasive
training
changes
and
programs
its
personnel
project design and procedures for different
defining success and strategic planning for DP.
to
system
Recognition of
Alloway
"Planning Skill Development for Systems Analysts", Robert M.
Jerome T. Nolte, M.I.T., CISR Working Paper 31 November 1979.
and
,
"Temporary
Economics,
Management Systems", Robert M. Alloway, Stockholm
Institute of International Business Working Paper
,
School of
September
1977.
^"Defining Success for DP", Robert
March, 1980.
M.
Alloway, M.I.T., CISR Working Paper 32
,
-12-
the magnitude of change necessary should not induce general paralysis, but
rather,
explicit
the
challenge,
a
managerial
the
of
benefits
significant
the
necessity for
realization
to
gained,
be
nature
and
of
this
undeniable
the
flat-out effort to play catch-up ball.
What Systems Types will Users Want?
to
allow me considerable latitude with cross-sectional
you will
If
longitudinal
"kludge"
implications,
Exhibit
can
10
data
interpreted
be
as
demand trends for systems types over the next five years.
Implementation
triggered
small
a
of
managerially
relevant
and
appropriate
systems
disproportionate increase in demand for these systems.
has
Today's
installed base of inquiry and analysis systems has already resulted
in a significant mix
fulfilling
installed
today's
reflective
of
demand
relevance
the
known
the
Tomorrow's
base.
As DP departments
shift in demand.
demand
backlog
becomes
new
systems
for
appropriateness
and
of
are successful
tomorrow's
of
part
in
be
similarly
tomorrow's
installed
will
base.
The best predictor available
tomorrow's demand mix
of
the
managerially
The
percentage breakdown of desired system type
important
tasks
which
are
today
completely
for
the
are
35°i
of
unsupported.
Lnsupported
important
managerial activities was used for tomorrow's demand in Exhibit 10.
The
chronology
proportion
of
by
systems
type
monitor
systems
as
is
a
thus
percent
dropped from 100% yesterday to 82.3?o today.
forecast
systems
to
drop
from
constituted
0%
40?o
of
today
the
to
traced
22?o
installed
of
and
the
forecast.
installed
The
base
has
Demand for monitor systems is
tomorrow.
base
By
contrast,
yesterday
and
analysis
3.2?o
today.
13-
Today's demand has surged to
grow to
20?o
forecast to continue
and tomorrow's is
to
40?o.
DP used to play a leadership role vis-a-vis users in the application of
DP has lost this leadership
computer technology to organizational needs.
position by failure to shift the mix of delivery capability early enough to
Today DP must
meet emerging demand.
play catch-up-ball just to rebalance
delivery capability and demand.
Theoretically
providing
However,
a
of
is
such
term for most,
To
if not
regain
to
appropriate
users should
of
growing
into
position
the
leadership role by
tomorrow's
impossible
to
deliver
their
target
structures
organizational
policies,
for
be
to
achieve today's demand mix as soon as possible,
to create
its
demand.
the
in
near
DP departments.
and
DP
DP
dramatic change as
a
all,
practical,
be
for
types
systems
mix
this
possible
is
it
change planning
yesterday preferably,
and
to
and
procedures facilitative
within
tomorrow's demand mix
3
years.
How Many New Systems do Users Want ?
The previous sections of this paper discussed the proportions or mix of
This section introduces the quantities of new
user demand by systems type.
systems needed
attempt
has
to
been
made
man-months required
systems,
counts
some
also
maintenance.
are
the picture of
canplete
to
to
create
larger
include
standardize
or
them.
more
systems
new
user demand.
systems
Just like
complex
than
replacements
the
by
size
Exhibit 11 no
or
number
of
installed base of 277
others.
but
In
not
The
new
systems
enhancements
or
-1^-
backlog
known
The
of
systems,
all
currently installed base) that
188,
is
large
so
of
(68?o
the
results in the commonly observed 2-3 year
it
Systems development personnel are already
backlog in most DP departments.
flat-out dealing with this known backlog.
invisible backlog of all systems,
The
known backlog or 115^0 of the installed base)
is not
not
(164% of the
staggering
is
309,
The invisible backlog number
.
reliable as the known backlog because these desired systems have
as
passed
"rigors"
the
preparation
proposal
of
approval.
and
However,
this figure is probably in the right ballpark.
invisible backlog implies that
the
The size of
No matter
any shorter.
never get
how fast
users will keep the known backlog full.
backlog
known
not
is
indication
an
DP can create new systems the
The
length of
department's
DP
a
than
other
anything
of
known backlog will
the
users
the
planning horizon and perceived stability of need.
Total
the
demand
installed
There
is
for
base,
no way
that
all
which,
any
Priority setting
demand.
systems,
by
497,
the
is
simply
took
way,
10
overwhelming
to
years
15
—
179?o
to
create.
of
DP department can actually fulfill this level of
important
as
is
in
determining
success
as
the
number and quality of systems developed.
Conversely,
needs
even
user
using
a
departments
consortium
will
of
important
in
fulfilling
their
hard
suppliers
software vendors (package and custom).
as
be
Users'
information
pressed
—
DP,
fulfill
to
own
their
staff,
DP
and
prioritization of needs is
needs
as
number
the
and
quality of systems implemented.
User
management
must
fulfill
its
responsibilities
individual systems, levels of effort, and type mix.
have DP constantly "play the heavy"
in
telling
It
in
prioritizing
is simply unfair
user after
user
that
to
their
-15-
Moreover, DP should not be forced into the
needs are not important enough.
position of indirectly determining corporate capabilities and strategy.
The demand
systems,
fo
monitor systems is not growing
:
however,
versus 1077?o,
88°o
is significantly larger.
analysis
rapidly as
as
installed base of monitor systems
the
Hence, Exhibit 12 reveals greater demand in terms
of absolute numbers for monitor systems than analysis systems.
more
hundred
Two
entire
department
DP
monitor
very
systems
busy
foreseeable
the
for
sufficient
itself
is
keep
to
cannot
DP
future.
the
simply stop creating monitor systems in order to meet the dramatic growth
in
demand
other
for
systems.
is
It
types.
must
DP
are
committed
already
continue
to
create
or
how many
process,
in
monitor
backlogged
how many of the 82
question of priorities;
a
applications
monitor
system
are
necessary foundations for other systems, how many of the 118 invisibles can
be obviated by installing inquiry or analysis systems,
what priority should
be assigned to each monitor system given the demand for all system types?
Demand
exception
for
surprising growth given their low
shows
systems
appropriateness ratings in previous exhibits.
First,
possible.
are
exception reporting
even
for
their
own
structured
high-volune
systems are
managerially
considered
by
where
user
and
experience
the
with
fixed
exception
There
systems.
actual
support
provided
when
implemented.
definition of exception conditions is not emphasized
proposed
Only
1
system
of 22
managers,
flexibility
difference between the abstract concept of exception reporting
systems
fixed
applications,
appropriate
activities,
important
explanations
is
Second, user managers may not have realized the lessons
they are not.
key,
of
though
for
two
least
At
but
becomes
only
too
evident
installed exception systems
is
in
in
their
considered
is
for
a
real
future
The
fixed
conceptualizing
implemented
to
be
a
use.
relevant
to
-16-
appropriate
and
consider
seriously
managerially
for
implications
the
iinplementa':ion --
actual
activities.
important
difference
this
of
frustrations,
the delays,
should
Users
and
concept
in
resources consumed
and
in revising obsolete exception condition definitions.
inquiry systems has already jumped by
The demand for
base
installed
known
the
and
backlog.
And
it
exponential growth with the invisible backlog nearly
backlog.
known
To
meet
shows
between the
sign
every
of
greater than the
100?o
require
would
demand
total
100?o
times
the
fulfilled
the
five
over
number of inquiry systems already installed.
Hopefully,
proportion
requests)
of
this demand
as
DP
effort
expended
maintenance
and
on
exisitng
of
systems
inquiry
for
is
"little
systems"
systems
will
report
(special
Flexible
decrease.
inquiry systems have the desireable characteristic of converting users into
"programmers"
"maintenance
respect
with
evolve
and
to
personnel".
inquiry
an
As
users'
needs
revise
their
they
database,
systems'
information
ad-hoc queries and modify their stored report commands accordingly.
In
will
fact,
have
the
general
approach of converting
be
heavily
pursued
to
in
serious
any
demand for inquiry or analysis systems.
is 10 times greater than the
Total
installed base.
users
into
attempt
to
"programmers"
fulfill
total
demand for analysis systems
Without "user-programmers" DP
does not have the capacity to fulfill even the known backlog of 40 analysis
systems
while
systems.
V/ith
simultaneously developing
82
monitor systems and 36
the invisible backlog included there is simply no hope of DP
fulfilling demand
alone.
In
addition
to
DP-developed systems,
play a facilitative and supportive role for user-developed
High
Level
inquiry
Languages,
access
provided to user managers.
to
databases,
and
relevant
DP should
systems.
Very
training must be
-17-
DP should initiate a major shift in resources, structure and procedures
inquiry and analysis systems.
to provide more
sufficient.
procedures
The
for
creating
This
is
necessary but not
systems
analysis
basically
are
p
different from the procedures for creating transaction processing systems.
change
DP must
its
procedures accordingly to increase the supply of this
type of system in its application portfolio.
It
like a
is
demand,
due
capability
to
to
company adding a new product line.
shifts
supply
needs,
old
in marketing, manufacturing,
must
existing
be
planned,
product
must
be
or
realized
field service, etc.
supported,
and
the
new
lines
preference
new
technological
for
the
long
term
New procedures and departments must be created
viability of the company.
line
consumer
in
Changes in customer
and
Growth in the new product
Competition
protected.
product
line
for
between
resources
and
management attention must be resolved based upon profit potential.
The necessity for DP to realize and respond to user manager demand for
analysis systems should be clear from their high appropriateness
especially for managerially important activities.
ratings,
Failure to respond will
leave DP in the unenviable position of being not only unresponsive to users
needs but increasingly managerially irrelevant.
p
Decision Support Systems
,
Keen and Scott Morton, Addison-Wesley,
1978.
-18-
Conclusions and Recommendations
summary conclusions emerge
Two
unequivocally from the preceding
exhibits:
*
A
*
User demand for new systems is simply overwhelming.
dramatic shift in user demand has already occurred.
recognized
have
Users
appropriateness
the
differences
system
between
types
in
managerial
accordingly
have
and
transaction processors toward
demand away from
relevance
shifted
and
their
inquiry and analysis
The growth rate in user demand for analysis systems is especially
systems.
surpassing the capability of typical DP departments to deliver.
high;
for
demand
nonetheless
required
new
monitor
staggering
fulfill
to
numbers.
absolute
in
combined
the
declining
although
systems,
demand
user
proportionately,
number
The
all
for
The
of
systems
new
system
is
types
is
clearly beyond the capacity of any DP department to deliver.
Individually, mix shift and demand level present
a
serious challenge to
management.
Together they confront management with the necessity for basic
changes
the
in
company's
strategy
and
structure
for
fulfilling its
information systems needs.
is
It
very important
to adequately
recognize the nature of the changes necessary
to
address the issues raised by these empirical results.
Doing
more of the same thing, either through increased productivity or increased
total
expenditures,
different.
past.
This
Moreover,
and
analysis
and
for
the
is
sufficient.
not
requires
a
The mix
what must
of
fundamentally different
done
be
approach than
in
is
the
new systems development procedures customized for inquiry
systems are
required
volume of demand
for
for
the
success
these systems.
of
individual
projects
The degree and extent of
-19-
change
is
pervasive
so
strategy
the
that
structure
and
providing
of
information systems must be reassessed.
The
recommendations to begin addressing
necessary strategy/
the
structure changes can be divided into four areas:
*
all managers must prioritize information systems needs
*
DP must modify its approach to information systems fulfillment
*
Users must modify their approach to information systems fulfillment
*
Senior
management,
recognize,
must
committee,
steering
a
the changes necessary within
and support
enable,
of
form
the
in
DP
and
User departments, and in the relationships between DP and Users.
All Managers
—
The first set of recommendations is obvious
prioritize its systems development efforts by systems
DP must
prioritize.
type, by User department,
their
prioritize
within each type.
procedures
Both
Senior
development.
and by application within each type.
Users must
by
application
needs
systems
information
needs
for
prioritize,
prioritize,
users
and
must
DP
policies
their
reconsider
recognize
must
and
type
prioritization,
identification,
management
by
as
a
and
priority
and
systems
role
its
responsibility in policy formulation and supporting DP and user departments
in their necessary structural
and procedural changes.
DP Managers
The
first
and
most
fundamental
change
significant differences between systems types.
sounds.
perceives
It
is
the
a
fundamental
functional
change
in
benefits of
for
DP
is
to
recognize
the
This is much harder than it
how DP understands
systems
to
its
own
organizations,
past,
and
conceptualizes the information systems creation process.
Most DP personnel acknowledge that every system is unique.
Contrary to
-20-
seeking
compromise:
practial
a
At best,
is
more
a
development
development
process
procedures.
The
this self-contradictory position is recognized as
systems
all
realistic
typology used
in
this
user demand.
If
DP
match users'
be
their
systems
unique
are
but
it
is
impossible
to
customized systems development procedure for each project.
There
will
tighten,
their
systems development procedure for the creation
right
one
is
of all systems.
devise
meaning
improve,
to
implicit goal
a
periodically modify
they
belief,
this
obsolete
should
processors and
systems development
the
to
40?o
system
The
different
trends
in
appropriately by shifting its supply mix to
60%
development
systems
standard
mix,
for
approach.
research clearly distinguishes
responds
demand
practical
still
and
continue
procedure
to
new
the
of
J^
used
be
procedures
applications.
appropriate
for
of
them.
systems development procedures should be devised;
The
the
past
current
transaction
for
Two new,
additional
one for inquiry and one
for analysis systems.
The point
is
analogous to introduction of additional
an automotive company.
In
product lines in
the past, many different models of cars with V-8
engines were developed, manufactured
marketed.
and
A
broad
product
line
varying in body style, engine displacement, and appointments was supported.
Within
that
practical.
theme
variations
like
V-6
engines
or
sports
cars
were
This reinforced autcmative management's belief that any kind of
car could be effectively and efficiently developed with variations on their
current process.
Recognition
of
a
shift
in
customer
difference in small cars was difficult.
past procedures with limited success.
a
V-8
engine
block
transfer
line
it
preference
and
Down-sizing was
the
a
fundamental
modification to
No matter how hard you try to modify
cannot make 4 cylinder diesel engine
-21-
blocks.
the end it was recognized that complete redesign was necessary
In
to add a new product
line.
Heavy investment
and marketing approaches.
and
was made
re-tooling
required new development, manufacturing,
This
produce
to
small
new plant,
in
cars
high
in
transfer lines,
quality,
economic
volume.
There remains this superficial appearance of similarity
new
lines
product
remain
economic,
both
are
the
—
cars
production
but
achieve
to
processes
volume,
specialized
are
—
the old and
quality,
and
type.
The
by
manufacturing of one type on another's production line would dramatically
lower success.
DP
is
currently
trying
to
develop
inquiry and
systems with
analysis
manufacturing techniques developed for transaction processing systems.
The
entire life cycle of systems development, beginning with needs recognition
and proposal preparation, must be re-assessed.
9
Not in order to improve it
for all systems but to differentiate it into three manufacturing processes
—
transaction processors, inquiry, and analysis.
It
will take some time but the biggest delay is in recognition of the
From this recognition the
fundamental differences between systems types.
inevitable
readily
necessity
follows.
systems by type,
differentiated
of
So
too,
does
re-structuring
systems
planning
the
portfolio
organization
DP s
'
procedures
development
of
application
accordingly,
and
modifying the desired skill mix of systems development personnel.
"The Complete Life Cycle of CBIS Projects", Robert M. Alloway,
of International Business Working Paper
February 1977.
Institute
,
"Temporary
Management
Systems",
International Business Working Paper
Robert
,
M.
Alloway,
Institute of
September 1977.
"Planning Skill development for Systems Analysts", Robert M.
Jerome T. Nolte, MIT, CISR Working Paper 51 November 1979.
,
Alloway and
-22-
DP must reallocate it resources to achieve a balance between its supply
demand mix
capability and users'
mix
requirements
mix
today's
tomorrow's demand mix.
in
such
needs.
Moreover,
manner
a
as
DP
should achieve
achieving
facilitate
to
DP should never again allow itself to fall
into the
trap of lagging behifid users' changing needs by institutionalizing its past
mix.
Rather,
resources
to
DP
continually reallocate
should
balance
portfolio
its
and
regain
its
systems
development
leadership position in
the future mix.
should
DP
needs
with
number
of
help
also
users
fulfill
some
of
new systems
required,
should
DP
systems
Recognizing the overwhelming
than DP-developed systems.
other
information
their
seek
identify
to
those
needs
which could be successfully met with less burden on DP resources.
Three alternative sources of information systems exist.
could
purchase
software
outside vendors.
Second,
custom
First,
users
applications
developed
from
packages
or
DP could
provide users with access to processing
databases and Very High Level Languages for "user-developed"
power,
systems.
Third,
user
departments
could
create
their
specialized
own
systems development groups.
These alternatives could be
pursued
simultaneously or different
alternatives could be pursued by different user departments.
of
these
users'
alternatives
require
DP
support.
DP
would
have
However,
to
all
supplement
capabilities with consulting, provision of facilities, and technical
expertise.
There are several
policy and procedure questions to be resolved if any
"user-developed" alternatives are to be pursued.
How will
capabilities
increased?
and
specific
sufficiently
users'
general
Under
what
conditions should non-DP-developed systems be authorized and by whom?
What
DP
be
-23-
conpany
standards
favored vendor?
how
And,
can
must
fulfilled
be
will manage
Who
resources
DP
the
by
hardware used
expertise
and
be
Should
systems?
such
these
run
to
utilized
best
to
DP
be
a
systems?
help
user
and
user
departments achieve successfully implemented systems?
Collectively,
relations
are
changes
the
pervasive
so
reassessment for DP.
12
systems mix,
in
they
levels of demand,
constitute
strategy-structure
a
General management must encourage and support DP in
these traumatic times if this transition is to be successful.
User Managers
The
combined
effects
several
of
present
realities
users
and
user
management with serious challenges.
*
users'
needs and demand for new systems is high
*
users'
demands by systems type have shifted
*
DP cannot supply all the new systems users demand
*
users capabilities in even general DP issues is low
*
users
must
initiate
and
participate
in
systems
development,
especially for inquiry and analysis systems.
*
capabilities
users'
systems development
in
affect
the
quality
and
type of systems implemented.
*
users'
need and desire more general DP training.
Users must
change
project selection,
in
internal
"Defining Success
pre-project
procedures
project prioritization.
procedures
departments and DP.
March 1980.
and
their
and
working
This
their
needs
recognition,
necessitates changes
relationships
Users must not only accept
for DP",
—
with
other
user
responsibilities in
Robert M. Alloway, MIT, CISR Working Paper 32
,
-24-
information systems fulfillment but also possess the required skills.
Users
need
issues.
Needs
assessment
of
recognition,
project
risks
development
systems
requirements,
considerably more
desire
and
in
general
DP
identification of appropriate systems type,
organizational
and
impacts,
clarification
expenditures,
capability to
and
training
participate
development are all user responsibilities.
justification of
functional
systems
of
effectively
The more capable
in
systems
users are in
these managerial aspects of systems needs fulfillment the more successfully
their needs will be fulfilled.
Beyond this, users must recognize that DP cannot provide enough systems
to meet
seek
must
successful
alternative
stringent
After
their needs.
all
sources
obtain
to
users
prioritization of needs,
some
of
their
systems.
How
these alternatives become depends heavily on users capabilities
and establishing a new working relationship with DP.
It
the
is the user
lack
uninvolved
departments and the corporation as
information
of
recipients
responsibility
and
systems,
of
role
not
systems.
in
Users
DP.
Users'
systems
a
whole which suffers
should
acceptance
of
be
passive,
their
integral
not
fulfillment
must
be
increasing
impact
of
backed
by
significantly increased capabilities.
Senior Hanaoement
Senior management must
recognize the
systems on corporate performance.
their
ability
to
perceive
and
Corporations are enabled or inhibited by
respond
rapidly
to
"User Needs Survey:
Preliminary Report", Robert M.
loan Working Paper 1096-79 December 1979.
S
information
environmental
Alloway,
change;
et al
,
MIT,
,
"User Capabilities and Their Relation to DP Success", Robert
forthcoming.
and Vivian R. Pratt, MIT, CI5R Working Paper
,
M.
Alloway
-25-
activities;
coordinate departmental
and
plan
efficiently
systems
Information
effectively.
and
functional tasks
and execute
already
are
affecting
corporate competitive positions and premise to become significant, although
transparent, differentiators of corporate success.
this
Once
senior management must communicate its
recognized,
is
position.
The
importance
throughout
the
organization
information
of
their
if
systems
potential
must
recognized
be
benefits
are
to
be
A
DP
the
DP
effectively realized.
Senior
management,
Steering
Committee must
Steering
Committee
projects
is
a
without
mis-use
created
be
review
action
an
the
progress
senior
of
—
an
of
arm,
can
only
enable.
effective one.
time.
development
systems
individual
management
have
To
Rather,
the
critical
management issues raised by these empirical results should be addressed by
the
Steering
Committee.
and
support
the
The
necessary
Steering
Committee must
strategy-structure
enable,
changes
in
coordinate,
and
DP
User
departments.
Information Revolution:
Winners and Losers",
3an-Feb
Harvard Business Review,
1978, p. 14.
"The
Harvey
L.
Poppel
EXHIBIT 1
PROFILE OF INDUSTRIAL FIRMS SURVEYED
FIRM
EXHIBIT 3
82.3%
6.5%
3.2%
INSTALLED BASE BY SYSTEM TYPE
MONITOR
COUNT
228
PERCENT
82.3%
EXCEPTION
22
INQUIRY
ANALYSIS
277
18
6.5%
TOTAL
3.:
100%
EXHIBIT
SYSTEi^lS
NONE
L\
TYPES FOR IMPORTANT TASKS
EXHIBIT 5
SYSTEMS CITED WITH IMPORTANT TASKS
100
A
ANALYSIS
80
M
60-
I
INQUIRY
M
MONITOR
E
EXCEPTION
IXI
o
LU
a.
^(}
20
EXHIBIT 5
APPROPRIATENESS OF SYSTEMS TYPE FOR IFIPORTANT SYSTEFiS
120
T
100
LLI
I—
C/3
>-
HOO
80
•
60
..
40
-.
UCD
or
UJ
OQ
ZD
20
•
9
EXHIBIT
7
DESIRED TYPE FOR MONITOR SYSTEMS CITED IMPORTANT
EXHIBIT 8
USERS' PERSPECTIVE ON THE INSTALLED BASE
100%
INSTALLED
5A%
INSTALLED
IMPORTANT
17%
INSTALLED
IMPORTANT
APPROPRIATE
EXHIBIT
SHIFT
IN
9
USER DEMAND (PERCENTAGES)
EXHIBIT 10
PROJECTED DEMAND MIX OVER TIME
»u
CD
EXHIBIT 11
MEW SYSTEMS DEMAND GROWTFi BY TYPE
1000-1
800-
UJ
»-
600
o
q:
i|00
<
200.
MONITOR
INSTALLED
EXCEPTION
INQUIRY
ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT 12
V0LUP1E OF NEW SYSTEMS DEMAND BY TYPE
200
118
101
99
71
97
63
57
82
22
i
MONITOR
EXCEPTION
imWWN INSTALLED
MONITOR
30
18
36
.
INQUIRY
BOTTOMj BACKLOG
EXCEPTION
INQUIRY
9
^0
ANALYSIS
|
TOP
|
INVISIBLE
ANALYSIS
TOTAL
INSTALLED
/