|
|
New Jersey Institute of
Technology
|
|
A Public Research University |
Quick Links: [677
Home] [Schedule]
[WebBoard access/info]
[To
Know] [Links]
[Homeworks]
[Discussion]
This week’s readings and lectures gave a variety of theories
and frameworks with which to understand systems, organizations, and
the environments in which they operate.
Organizations and their IS are probabalistic, open systems. That is,
there is always some uncertainty as to the outputs and they interact
with their environment. This makes them complex to characterize. Most
large, complex systems are composed of subsystems. Decoupling them
makes them more or less independent and easier to understand and
maintain. Methods of decomposition are using buffers, slack capacity,
flexible resources, and standardization. There are risks in
decoupling. One is that if the independent subsystem has goals that
are inconsistent with the organization’s overall goals or other
subsystems with which it interacts, there can be a negative effect on
other subsystems and, indeed, the entire organization. Up until now
we have been talking at length about how the IS has to be designed to
meet the organization’s goals. That has meant, in this current
environment, to design across organizational lines for processes not
for individual functional entities in the organization. Yet, the
decoupling of the subsystems would seem to me to defeat that design
for process goal. Is it the integration that IS can provide between
subsystems that keeps the IS process oriented? I think so and the
discussions and diagrams section 10.4 of Zwass chapter 10 seem to
support my inference. IS acts as a coordinator, provides an
interface. I think that, for example, the clustering of subsystems
described would enable a process subsystem to be developed.
The flow of products and services through a value chain can be
coordinated as either a market economy or a hierarchical one. A basic
feature of the market economy is one of choice where market forces
influence the value added. A hierarchical coordination has
predetermined steps. The advances in technology make both
coordination approaches more effective but, in all, create pressures
to move more towards an electronic market economy. Factors that make
a hierarchical coordination necessary are better handled, and
therefore become less problematic for market coordination, with new
technology. Asset specificity is less of a barrier to market
coordination as IT advances make customization easier. Likewise,
complex product descriptions can be less daunting because of the
electronic brokerage effect in which technology is used to filter the
many choices available for presentation of a more readily handled
subset. In fact, Malone et al assert that the forces towards an
electronic market are such that even efforts to start out by
providing an electronic hierarchy or a biased electronic market will
eventually be driven to an unbiased market.
In Alter’s article we are presented with a more in depth
understanding of the work system that is at the core of the WCA
framework we have already been discussing. The role and impact of
information systems on work systems is discussed in depth. I was
particularly struck by the discussion on the conflicts that can arise
between the business managers and the technical specialists in the
design, implementation and maintenance of an information system. I
wonder if the future will be less contentious if more curriculums
have courses such as this one for IT people so that they will
understand the business aspects better.
These different views are interrelated and I will attempt to show a
few ways the content of one can be synthesized with another. I am not
sure that my understanding of this week’s material is deep
enough to engage in this exercise so please feel free to comment,
correct, and add to what I say.
All the frameworks discussed include as important components the
human participants. Churchman includes in his framework of what
constitutes a system the client, decision-maker and designer. This is
consistent with Alter’s theory of information system in which he
includes in the definition of a work system the human participants.
In the Malone article we see how the power struggle of participants
can effect the resultant form of electronic interconnection
established. For example, a project linking a suppliers to a firm is
a project to create a work system. The participants in this system
include the representatives of the organizations involved. In
Churchman’s terminology, the clients for this project are the
participants just mentioned. Sometimes such a relationship has power
struggles over who will control the data &endash; will it be shared?
Will it be controlled by the procuring firm? The resolution of that
question will effect the receptor and boundary properties, in the
terms of Witworth (sp?) of the system. If the relationship is an
exclusive “just-in-time” one then the supplier and procurer
are taking advantage of the electronic integration effect and are
becoming more tightly coupled in terms of the business relationship
and a hierarchical market is established. But, of course, the systems
used exist and are maintained within the separate organizations. The
information systems are used to coordinate the two relatively
decoupled systems. Although this example is of the relationship
between two organizations, the project to interconnect the supplier
and procurer meets the Churchman’s criteria for a system and
Alter’s definition of a work system.
Topic: Views on system concepts (6 of 39), Read 80 times
Conf: Discussion - DL (L-P, and Y)
From: Ranjini Nair rnair@mail.intracorp.com
Date: Monday, March 04, 2002 10:14 AM
This weeks’ reading and lecture focused on System
concepts.
A system has been defined as a collection of components that
constitute a whole. A system operates in an environment from which
the system is delimited by a boundary. Organizations are
probabilistic, open systems. An organization is thus influenced by a
wide variety of inputs. A system is decomposed into subsystems. Such
subsystems in an organization share resources. The modular nature of
software is an example of system decomposition. Reusability is one of
the advantages of software decomposition.
Interactions make systems difficult to manage. In software if two
mathematical modules require interactions with each other, then it
becomes very difficult to test one in the absence of the other. Also,
modifications need to be made to both in order to get the proper
results. Various decoupling techniques that have been discussed are
inventories and buffers, slack capacity, flexible resources and
standardization.
While decoupling in software makes sense, if we consider the
maintenance benefits offered, this does not hold for organizations.
Decoupling involves significant costs when applied to an
organization. In an attempt to make independent subsystems we may
overlook the factors contributing to the well being of the company.
An alternative to decoupling in organizations, is tight integration
between subsystems. But, closely integrated systems tend to be more
complex to manage and a failure can have a much greater impact than
on individual subsystems. MIS provides the balance between this
independence and integration, by helping to exchange information
between subsystems. In their article on Electronic Markets and
Electronic Hierarchies, Malone and his colleagues argue that lowering
coordination costs or making coordination possible, can lead to the
expansion of options in both integration and market-oriented
organizational activities.
In his lecture, Prof. Turoff mentioned that you cannot draw a system
unless you have people in it. This is akin to Alter’s theory of
information systems wherein, he says that participants are elements
of a work system. Churchman identifies the client, decision maker and
the designer as three individuals who are prerequisite in achieving
the desired objectives of a system. Thus as seen in previous readings
and lectures of this class, the human factor is one of great
importance in any system.
Information feedback is an important factor in determining the
success of a business. A company promoting a new product in the
market relies on feedback from its customers to address issues
related to the product. Increasing competition demands that companies
act on these issues in a timely manner. MIS plays an important role
in the feedback loop of an organization. Information systems can be
used by management to formulate corrective actions. Management can
also act based on the feedforward principle. In this case information
systems may be employed to forecast the projected performance of an
organizational unit on the basis of current internal data and of
certain system inputs, such as external information. The example that
comes to mind is that of Firestone tires. Their sales suffered last
year due to reports of major accidents caused by bad tires. They had
been previously warned by technicians within Firestone and I believe
that if the management had taken some corrective actions then, they
would have been able to control the situation.
Thanks,
Ranjini.
More to come...
Four sample reviews from Fall 2001 are posted in the General Administration (All Sections) conference.
This page: http://ccsweb.njit.edu/~bieber/CIS677S02/example-analysis.html
To comment on this Web site, please email bieber
@ homer.njit.edu
