Myths, Narratives and the Dilemma of Managerial Support: Organizational learning as an alternative? PDF
Preview Myths, Narratives and the Dilemma of Managerial Support: Organizational learning as an alternative?
Alexander Dreiling Myths, Narratives and the Dilemma of Managerial Support GABLER EDITION WISSENSCHAFT Alexander Dreiling Myths, Narratives and the Dilemma of Managerial Support Organizational learning as an alternative? With forewords by Prof. Dr. Jörg Becker and Prof. Dr. Iris Vessey Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag Bibliografische Information Der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über <http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar. Dissertation Universität Münster, 2005 D 6 1. Auflage Juni 2007 Alle Rechte vorbehalten © Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag | GWVFachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2007 Lektorat: Frauke Schindler / Nicole Schweitzer Der Deutsche Universitäts-Verlag ist ein Unternehmen von Springer Science+Business Media. www.duv.de Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlags unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbe- sondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. indiesem Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme, dass solche Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei zu betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften. Umschlaggestaltung: Regine Zimmer, Dipl.-Designerin, Frankfurt/Main Gedruckt auf säurefreiem und chlorfrei gebleichtem Papier Printed in Germany ISBN 978-3-8350-0279-1 To my parents, my wife, and my children Foreword by Jörg Becker Managerial reporting systems traditionally aim at satisfying the information needs ofmanagerstosupporttheirtasks. Thereby,thequalityofmanagementdecisionsis highlydependentontheinformationtheyarebasedon. Consequently,relevantman- agerialinformationhastobeprovidedinanappropriatewayattherighttimeand place. At the same time it has to be avoided that unnecessary information is sup- plied and the manager “drowns” in information. Most contemporary organisations have implemented managerial reporting systems and it is commonly acknowledged that they support managers both ad-hoc, in quickly changing business situations, andonaregularbasisthroughstandardreports. Inadditionthereisavastamount ofresearchondifferentfacetsofManagerialReportingSystems,suchasinformation requirementsanalysis,conceptualdesign,technicalrealisation,orsocialimpact. Organisational learning as a part of organisational theory is concerned with the question of how an organisation can create a learning environment and, through its members, can constantly learn and adapt. Although there are many parallels between the concepts of managerial information and organisational learning, their relation has not yet been subject to an in-depth analysis within the Information Systemsdiscipline. TheworkofAlexanderDreilingisbasedontheassumptionthat reporting systems can be a facilitator for organisational learning. Consequently, managerialreportingisnotbasedonacontrolparadigminhiswork. Infact,heuses managerial objectives as a basis for managerial reporting. In doing so, he supports thenotionoforganizationallearningasconceptualizedbyArgyrisandSchön. Dreiling introduces a method for the conceptual design of managerial reports basedonthenotionoforganizationallearning. Subsequently,heapplieshismethod in three case studies and examines its applicability, usefulness, and practicality. Combined with other management tools such as coaching, the method helps to significantlyenhancethepersonaldevelopmentofmanagers. Withhisoriginalandwell-groundedworkDreilingmakesanimportantcontribu- tion to the body of knowledge in the Information Systems field. His intensive dis- cussion of the sense and nonsense of information provision to management has the potential to significantly impact the competitiveness of organisations. It is charac- terizedbyenormouseffortsindevelopingamethod,applyingit,andsubstantiating it. Apart from making this book an interesting reading, his discussion provides a goodstartingpointfortheredesignofasystemofmanagerialreports. Jörg Becker Foreword by Iris Vessey Whatinformationshouldbeprovidedtosupportmanagementisacentral,age-old, and oft-neglected issue in Information Systems. Over its history, IS researchers have taken a number of approaches to address this issue including specific types of systemssuchasdecisionsupportsystemsandknowledgemanagementsystems,tech- nicalsolutionssuchasdata warehousing andenterpriseportalsand,morerecently, content-specific reference models such as the balanced scorecard. Notwithstanding the variety of approaches currently available, managerial reporting systems have beenthemostprevalent,andseemdestinedtoremainsointheforeseeablefuture. AlexanderDreiling’sworkonmanagerialreportingsystemsismorecloselyaligned withthebodyofresearchthatinvolvescontent-specificreferencemodels. Hetakes, however,arefreshinglydifferentapproach. Incontrasttothetypicalcontrolstance with its negative connotations, he takes a positive stance in focusing on the abil- ity of such systems to facilitate organizational learning. Providing managers with information on the extent to which they have achieved their objectives facilitates direct evaluation of their expectations against the outcomes thereby encouraging thedevelopmentofnewstrategieswhengoalsarenotmet. Dreiling’swork,whichisoperationalizedviatheMetaMISapproachtomodeling organizational information requirements developed over a number of years at the UniversityofMünster,presentsamethodbymeansofwhichmanagerialobjectives firstcanbedecomposedandoperationalized,andsecondrigorouslytransformedinto conceptualmodelsthatcanbeexaminedfortheirsupportformanagerialobjectives. Heapplieshismethodtothreecasestudies,examinestheextenttowhichtheexisting managerial reporting systems are capable of facilitating managerial learning, and, further, outlines a set of conceptual models that would enable the implementation oforganizationlearningenvironmentsineachofthecasecompanies. The work described here is original, important, and ground breaking. Dreil- ing presents a very impressive justification for the research approach taken that is grounded in philosophical assumptions with regard to organizations, management, informationtechnology,andlanguage,aswellastheoryonorganizationallearning. Andhedemonstratesmasteryovertheontologicalandepistemologicalimplications ofboththeMetaMISmodelingmethodandthecasestudiesthatareusedtoevaluate theapplicabilityoftheapproachtopractice. Theideasdevelopedinthedissertation havethepotentialtomakealastingimpactonmanagementtheoryandpractice. Iris Vessey Preface The importance of managerial support has been established for modern business- related sciences at least as early as 1922. It was then in the first issue of Harvard BusinessReview,thatWallaceB.Donhamcalledforapropertheoryofbusiness toavoidbusinesstocontinuetobe“unsystematic,haphazard,andformanymena pathetic gamble.” The past century witnessed significant development in terms of theory. Common examples attracting considerable attention for scientific enquiry aredecisiontheory,knowledgemanagementandtransfer,ororganizationallearning. Eachsetoftheoriesfocusesaspectsofmanagerialwork. Methodsandtoolsbased upon decision theory are concerned with finding one appropriate course of actions amongst a myriad of possibilities. Knowledge management methods and tools es- sentially seek to conserve and transfer expert knowledge so that repetitive errors can more easily be prevented and repeating success more easily be achieved. Fi- nally,methodsandtoolsbuildinguponthenotionoforganizationallearningaimat significantlyloweringtheresourcesinvolvedincreatingexperts. I focus organizational learning for two main reasons: Firstly, learning is an “un- avoidable” phenomenon. Learning does not have to be pursued as an additional activity to daily responsibilities. It is thus not the question if managers learn but what they learn and how this learning process can be directed. Secondly, a new dimension of criticism emerged from postmodern discussions of knowledge man- agement or decision making, which at least hints at the need to investigate other mechanismsforsupportingmanagement. Itismystrongbeliefthatthe“learningorganization”performssuperiorly. Ithus dedicate the following discussion to this topic. More specifically, I will discuss a method that allows for specifying managerial reporting systems that enable orga- nizational learning. Furthermore, I will describe the conduct of three case studies in which I was able to apply the developed method in three distinct organizational settingsandreportonmyexperiences. This work would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. I shall therefore attempt to appropriately acknowledge the help, direction, and sup- portIreceived. I am deeply indebted to both of my supervisors, Prof. Jörg Becker, and Prof. Iris Vessey. Jörg Becker kindly provided me with the opportunity to obtain a PhD at the University of Münster. I had the privilege of being supported through an excellent infrastructure and working together with colleagues who be- came close friends. Iris Vessey deserves my sincere thanks for devoting lots of hertimeforfeedback,encouragement,anddiscussions. Shesharedalotofherout- xii standing academic expertise, which enabled me to strengthen the line of argument significantly. Prof. Michael Rosemann provided me with the extraordinary possibility to visit Queensland University of Technology (Australia) for the period of one year during my PhD. I am grateful for this experience and the chance of significantly alteringthecourseofmyPhD. Prof.MichaelzurMühlenandProf.RolandHoltenarousedmyinterest forfurtherresearchduringmymasterstudiesandlatersignificantlycontributedto shapingmyresearchtopics. Thomas Klug and Jan Faerber patiently devoted their time within the case studiesandprovidedvaluablefeedback. Jan Recker, Stefan Seidel, Christian Janiesch, and Dr. Boris Wys- susek, in addition to my supervisors, provided valuable feedback to and input for previousversionsofthescript. My colleagues in Münster accompanied and influenced significant parts of my academic journey. In addition to the colleagues mentioned above and all other formercolleaguesfromMünsterwhoremainunnamedhere,Dr. Christian Bre- lage, Jens Crisandt, Karsten Klose, Dr. Florian Kupsch, Dr. Chris- tian Probst, Dr. Michael Ribbert, and Michael Thygs were extremely reliableandsupportiveineverysituation. Dr. Lars Kamper, Martin Otten, Vincent Strukamp, Thomas Spli- ethoff, and Marc Cäsar have always been close friends. I would be a different persontodaywithoutthem. Andlastbutnotleast,Ioweeverythingtomyfamily. MyparentsHans-Michael and Jolanta provided my with love and encouraged me in every situation. They successfully equipped me with “roots and wings.” My dear wife Katrin has sup- ported me with her unconditional love ever since I met her. Without her I would not have been able to dedicatedly work on this thesis. My children Michael and Sarah became my greatest joy. They gave my life a new meaning. This work is dedicatedtothem. Alexander Dreiling Contents Table of Contents xiii List of Figures xv List of Tables xvii 1 Exposition 1 1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2 ObjectandInterestofExamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3 MethodologicalGrounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.4 PositioningoftheResearch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.5 Contribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.6 StructureoftheThesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.7 RemarksonFormat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2 Foundations 17 2.1 Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.1.1 HistoryofOrganizationTheory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.1.2 ParadigmsinOrganizationTheory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.1.3 Management: ControlversusLaissez-Faire . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2.2 OrganizationsandIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 2.2.1 FromMIStoES—Re{defin|ify}ingConceptsasHistoricalDe- velopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 2.2.2 ParadigmsinInformationSystemsDevelopment . . . . . . . . 65 2.2.3 CommonAssumptionsandMisperceptions . . . . . . . . . . . 75 2.3 Organizations,IT,andLanguage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2.3.1 TheLinguisticTurnwithinPhilosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 2.3.2 Influential Discussions within Linguistics and the Philosophy ofLanguage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 2.3.3 LanguageintheContextofOrganizationsandIT . . . . . . . 94 2.4 ManagementSupport(Dilemma) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 2.4.1 Onthe‘Achievable’andthe‘Non-Achievable’ . . . . . . . . . 99 2.4.2 ManagerialLearningandOrganizationalLearning . . . . . . . 107 2.4.3 OrganizationalandManagerialObjectives . . . . . . . . . . . 117 2.4.4 ManagementSupportinthisResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 2.5 Synopsis—ConclusionsforthisResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
The list of books you might like
