/90/oooO/0195$ IEEE TOWARDS A THEORY OF EXECUTIVE INFORMATION SYSTEMS 2. COMPUTER SUPPORT FOR EXECUTIVES AND TOP MANAGERS

Transcription

1 TOWARDS A THEORY OF EXECUTIVE INFORMATION SYSTEMS Sven A. Carlsson Department of Information h Computer Science Lund University Soelvegata 14A S Lund, Sweden ABSTRACT Individual and organizational effectiveness is a central COnStKUCt for different computer-based support systems for top-level managers and executives. We suggest that the recent development of an effectiveness Construct has made it a possible framework for understanding Executive Information Systems (EIS). In this paper we present and discuss the use of the competing values framework of organizational effectiveness that has been developed by Robert Quinn and his associates. We then map different types of information systems into this framework and use it to explicate the concept of EIS. The paper also discusses implications of this perspective for design and research. Keywords: Executive Information Systems, Organizational Effectiveness, Information Systems Framework 1. INTRODUCTION Executive Information Systems (EIS) and Executive Support Systems (ESS) have become a major topic at Information Systems conferences and in journals. As far as we know EIS was first launched as the name of a specific computer-based information system by Nash in EIS and ESS have in recent years been established as generic labels OK categories of computer-based information systems that are supposed to be used, or at least to support, executives and top-managers. We make a distinction between EIS and ESS that we present in Section 4 and therefore we must leave these c oncepts somewhat ill-defined. Comparing EIS research with DSS research we find that the former seems to lack a well-grounded theory, which at least was a landmark of early DSS research (e.g., Keen and Scott Morton 1978). The concept of DSS is based on decision making and problem solving. In particular DSS can be defined to be computer-based systems to help decision makers solve semi-structured problems. What we are looking for is a comparable understanding of EIS. Effectiveness is a critical concept in Information Systems (IS) research and practice, although, it is seldom addressed formally. Improved effectiveness is often claimed as a George R. Widmeyer School of Business Administration University of Southern California Los Angeles, California desired end for many computer-based information systems. The IS field has borrowed from one of its reference disciplines, organizational science, the construct of effectiveness. Unfortunately, this construct has not been without problems (Campbell, 1977). We suggest that recent developments and research on effectiveness have made it, from an EIS-perspective, an interesting construct to explore. In this paper we present the "competing values model" as a framework for understanding what EIS and ESS is OK can be. We discuss the applicability of the framework by explaining certain developments and types of computer-based information systems in organizations; we discuss also the competing values framework as a basis for analysis and design of EIS. The primary contribution of this paper is the linkage between EIS and recent research on organizational and individual effectiveness. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses computer support for executives. We do this by trying to understand what executives and top managers do. Section 3 then presents the competing values framework for describing the concept of organizational effectiveness. Section 4 presents a mapping of the different types of information systems into the framework and identifies the role of EIS and ESS. This section also discusses effectiveness emphasis changes, which provide an understanding of the changing character of ESS. The final section presents some conclusions and recommendations for further research. 2. COMPUTER SUPPORT FOR EXECUTIVES AND TOP MANAGERS There are differences in the types of information systems that support the tasks in which members of an organization are engaged. In particular, we focus on the tasks of executives and what they need in terms of computer-based systems. 2.1 Why not Decision Support Systems? Decision Support Systems (DSS) is a notion close to EIS. Some argue that there is no need for a new "buzz-word" and that the main purpose of the differentiation is to push more and new information technology by getting the attention of top managers and executives. Sti1,l we feel /90/oooO/0195$ IEEE I95

2 that the emergence of the term suggests a different type of Computer Based Information Systems (CBIS). This difference is not in the Information Technology (IT) used in these systems, but in the context, purpose and impact of system use. We assume that in the future we will find more and more organizations where different types of systems are integrated and connected. We also think that different types of CBIS serve different purposes and should be designed and evaluated based on these purposes. The actual support that an organizational member receives will come from various types of CBIS. Empirical and theoretical organizational decision making research, most notably the work of Herbert Simon, James March and their associates, was a major contributor to advances in the DSS field. It is a truism that a view (explicit or implicit) of what executives do, can do, or should do has an impact on what purposes EIS are to achieve. Currently it seems that the field is lacking an agreement on what such views should encompass. There is research on what executives do but this research has so far made only a minor impact on EIS research. The practical implications of executive activity research on existing EIS is even more difficult to discern. Rockart & De Long (1988) present the results of several different empirical studies on executive activity. For example Mintzberg's (1973) activity view with its ten executive roles; Kotter's (1982) process view with the two key processes agenda setting and network building; and Isenberg's cognitive view focusing on managerial cognition. It is questionable if this literature helps us in designing CBIS for executives and top managers. One thing that we do realize from this literature is that executives do more than make decisions and hence need more than DSS. 2.2 Executives as Decision Makers Rockart & De Long in their review of some current "executive" research point out that the executive as decision maker view is not complete. In fact we could almost make the case that executives don't make decisions. In &iscussing March and Simon's view of authority, Perrow (1986:125) states: the superior has the power or tools to structure the subordinate's environment and perceptions in such a way that he or she sees the proper things and in a proper light. The superior actually appears to give few orders (confirming my own observations in organizations), but rather sets priorities ("we had better take care of this first;" "this is getting out of hand and creating problems, so let's give it more attention until the problems are cleared up") and alters the flow of inputs and stimuli. Our conclusion, which has also been put forward by others, is that the executive as decision maker is not a good theory for doing research on EIS nor for designing EIS. The competing values framework presented in the next section has several advantages over the executive as decision maker theory: - It is related to a critical concept, organizational effectiveness, - The effectiveness constructs have been translated into terms of managerial roles and problem orientations, and - The framework can be used to understand all types of CBIS. 3. EFFECTIVENESS: THE COMPETING VALUES FRAMEWORK This section argues that organizational effectiveness is an important concept for Information Systems. It then presents a particular model of organizational effectiveness, the competing values framework, and translates that into terms of managerial roles and problem orientations. 3.1 Why Organizational Effectiveness? Organizational effectiveness is one of the foundations of management theory, research, and practice (Lewin h Minton, 1986). It is also central to Information Systems (IS) research, design, and practice; it is one of the constructs the IS field has imported from its reference disciplines. It is not an exaggeration to say that the construct has been hard to define, characterize, and operationalize (Campbell, 1977). In recent years we have seen new efforts in developing the organizational effectiveness construct. The necessity of perceiving organizations as paradoxical has been urged (Cameron, 1986; Quinn & Cameron, 1988). This necessity suggests that there are and should exist contrary criteria to achieve effectiveness. As pointed out, individual and organizational effectiveness is a critical construct in the IS field. For several reasons we are interested in transferring the competing values framework to the IS field. First, it links organizational effectiveness with individual effectiveness. Second, it links effectiveness with managerial roles. Third, the framework integrates much of the previous research on effectiveness and it is supported by both empirical and theoretical research. 3.2 The Competing Values Framework The competing values framework of effectiveness was developed by Quinn and associates. Starting from the premise that organizational effectiveness is a social construct, and based on previous criteria of effectiveness, the researchers developed their competing values approach. The framework acknowledge the necessity of perceiving organizations as paradoxical (Quinn h Cameron, 1988). This necessity suggests that there are and should 1%

3 exist contrary criteria to achieve effectiveness. The framework incorporates three fundamental paradoxes acknowledge in the literature: flexibility vs. stability (related to organizational structure); internal vs. external (related to organizational focus); and means vs. ends. Quinn & Rohrbaugh (1983) found that most measures of effectiveness reflect one of four organizational models: the human relations model, the internal process model, the rational goal model, or the open systems model. The human relations model is characterized by its focus on internal flexibility and uses cohesion and morale for human resource development. The internal process model is characterized by its focus on internal control and uses information management, information processing, and communication to develop stability and control. The rational goal model is characterized by its focus on external control and uses planning and goal setting to gain productivity and efficiency. The open systems model is characterized by its focus on external flexibility and uses readiness and flexibility to gain growth and resource acquisition. 3.3 Competing Values Framework and Managerial Roles - Quinn (1988) translated the abstract construct of effectiveness into managerial roles, personal motives, cultural values, and models of power and influence. In an empirical test of the framework Pauchant et al. (1989) found strong support for the managerial roles; they found weaker support for the underlying models, although they found strong support for the internal- external paradox. Quinn (1988) points out that his managerial roles are consistent with existing categories found in the literature. Table 1 shows the translation of effectiveness into managerial roles; it presents the four organizational models and the associated managerial roles. The descriptions of the organizational models and the roles here focus on aspects related to "information and knowledge work." Quinn (1988) suggests, based on his and his associates experience, that the framework has more value if minor adaptations are made. 4. EXECUTIVE SUPPORT SYSTEMS We are now ready to map different types of CBIS into the competing values framework. This mapping can then be used to understand the concept of EIS. An important result of Quinn and associates work is that effectiveness emphasis is not stable and constant. This result has implications for EIS. 4.1 Mapping Information System Types The competing values framework and the associated managerial roles provide an understanding of the different computer-based support systems for managers. To put it differently, the framework Table 1. Organizational models and managerial roles (adapted from Quinn (1988)) INTERNAL PROCESS MODEL: Emphasizes measurement, information management, and information processing; present and historical oriented; focus on analyzing static data, cross-sectional view (a snapshot view) Monitor Role: Knowing facts and details; quantitative analysis Coordinator Role: Maintain structure and flow of the system; scheduling; organizing and coordinating activities; logistical issues; housekeeping issues. RATIONAL GOAL MODEL: Task clarification; goal setting; decision making; decision implementation (action); achievement oriented Director Role: Clarify expectations, goals, and purposes through planning and goal setting; define problems, establish goals, generate and evaluate alternatives, generate rules and policies, evaluate performances Producer Role: Performance emphasis; motivating members to accomplish stated goals; feedback to members; the action phase of decision making OPEN SYSTEMS MODEL: Future oriented; analyze cues and information from a dynamic and longitudinal view (a moving picture view); multiple focus; influence and being influenced by the environment; adaptability and flexibility Innovator Role: Interaction with the environment, external monitoring, identify important trends; business intelligence; relies on induction and intuition; develops mental models; convinces others about what is necessary and desirable; "image" distribution Broker Role: obtain external resources; external communication; influence the environment; maintain external legitimacy HUMAN RELATIONS MODEL: Process-oriented; stresses cohesion, consensus and healthy conflicts, and teamwork; human resources and the development of commitment; information sharing and participative decision making Facilitator Role: Foster collective effort; build cohesion and teamwork; build the trustful organization; facilitate participation; facilitate group problem solving and decision making; pursue "moral" commitment; conflict management Mentor Role: Engage in the development of people by listening; be supportive; develop individual plans; give feedback 197

4 Table 2. Matping of CBIS Types to Competing Values Models MODEL MEANS ENDS FOCUS Internal Rational Open Process Goal System Information Planning; Flexibility; Management; Goal Readiness Communication Setting Stability; Productivity; Growth; Control Efficiency Re s our c e Acquisition Development Internal External External Human Relations Cohesion Morale Human Resource Internal STRUCTURE CBIS USER'S OBJECTIVE Control Control Flexibility Solving Solving Identifying Structured Unstructured Problems Problems Problems CBIS Information Decision Issue DOMAIN Management Making Management CBIS TYPE MIS DS S EIS Flexibility * * * ("*" designates entries intentionally left blank) makes it possible to put different types or categories of systems into perspective. Table 2 presents four ideal types of computer-based information systems and how they relate to the competing values framework. We place Management Information Systems (MIS) in the "Internal Process" column with its internal and control emphasis. The ends for this type of systems are stability and control such as we find for example in traditional accounting systems and inventory systems. From the user's point of view the performance objective of MIS is to provide support for solving structured problems. The managerial roles associated with the use of MIS are those of the Monitor and Coordinator. In the "Rational Goal" column, with its external and control emphasis, we place Decision Support Systems. This is certainly not a good fit if this is all that is considered. But if we look at the means of planning agd goal setting and we look at the ends of productivity and efficiency then we are more comfortable with this assignment. The user views this as support for solving semi-structured and unstructured problems. DSS are used by managers when they are acting the roles of Director and Producer. We place EIS into the "Open System" column with its external focus and emphasis on structural flexibility. The means and ends listed in the table are not commonly associated with EIS, but we would say that these should be properly associated with the type of support an "ideal" EIS should provide. This type of support is different from that provided by MIS and DSS. EIS should help in the identification of problems through environmental scanning, issue tracking, and issue probing. Therefore, the domain for this type of system is what we would term as "issue management.'i If we accept this mapping then we would suggest that an EIS supports managers in their Innovator and Broker roles. Finally, there is the "Human Relations" column. We think that there is a type of information system that fits but has not been labeled or identified in IS research. This type of CBIS is not a Human Resources Information System, which we could consider an example of an MIS. Rather these types of systems help in the development of the human capital of an organization. Education and training systems could be placed here. Some, but not all, computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) systems belong to this class. Certainly, in the future when more employees are "telecommuting" this type of system can become very important since these employees might feel less a part of the organization. Hence, systems that increase organizational cohesion and employee identification and morale need to be developed. This type of system would support the manager in his or hers role as a Facilitator or Mentor. We would suggest that the Groupware concept (Johansen 1988) could benefit from being considered as an ideal type of IS that is more fully grounded in the human relations model. We do not attempt to give this type of system a name since our emphasis is on EIS. We can now answer the question of: What is an ESS? We see Executive Support Systems as a combination of the four different ideal types of information systems. ESS is not just another term for EIS nor is it a DSS used by executives.

5 This is in partial agreement with Watson and his associates who include in ESS not only EIS but also electronic mail, decision support, and office support (Watson and Frolick 1989, Turban and Watson 1989). We see ESS from less of a technological basis (e.g., electronic mail and office support) and more from an information systems domain (e.g., information management, decision making, and issue management). We don't disagree with Watson; we just take a somewhat different perspective. Rohrbaugh (1989) has attempted to link the competing values framework with the work of Jaques (1976) on stratified systems. He does this by juxtaposing Jaques' strata with the competing values model but Jaques' strata are based on the longest time that it takes to complete a representative task. Rohrbaugh then goes on to equate types of information systems with the various strata. For example, stratum I is associated with clerical workers, stratum I1 with first line supervisors, and stratum 111 with department managers. Rohrbaugh aligns transaction processing with stratum I, MIS with stratum 11, and DSS with stratum 111. There are eight strata that are associated with eight organizational levels and corresponding organizational positions. For Rohrbaugh there is a type of information system that can be assigned to each level. We disagree with trying to link types of information systems with organizational levels. Rohrbaugh assigns these levels to each of the four competing values (some of them overlap two models, so that all eight levels are assigned to the four models). Since persons at any level of the organization can use any type of CBIS, this approach is not fruitful. The task domain and not organizational level is what constrains the type of system used. Therefore, we can see ESS as a type of CBIS that has characteristics of the four ideal types of systems. An interesting idea that comes from Quinn and his colleagues, which includes Rohrbaugh, is that the mixture of the different types of systems that comprise a specific CBIS can vary over time in addition to organizational level. 4.2 Changing Emphasis of ESS The competing values framework stresses that all four organizational models are always present in an organization. Hence, for a manager all roles are always relevant. At the same time, Quinn and associates' research suggest that there are emphasis changes in the competing values; changes over time in emphasis and changes in emphasis that are related to organizational management level. Quinn & Cameron (1983) used the competing values framework to identify changes in criteria of effectiveness over organizational life cycle states. They hypothesized that the four models of organizational effectiveness receive different degrees of emphasis in each of the different states. Quinn h Cameron describe the states of an organization's development as: 1. The entrepreneurial state, with its focus on innovation, creativity, and gaining external support. This state emphasis criteria associated with the open systems model and the roles associated with this model. 2. The collectivity state, with its focus on informal communication, structure and, commitment. This state emphasizes human relations criteria. 3. The formalization and control state focus is on organizational stability, productivity, formal rules and procedures, planning and control. Heaviest emphasis is on criteria associated with the internal process and the rational goal model. 4. The elaboration of structure state in which the organization scans and monitors the external environment to renew itself and/or expand its domain. Heaviest emphasis is on criteria associated with the open system model, although there is at least moderate emphasis on the other three models. It should be noted that all four models are always present in all states, but between the different states there are major differences in emphasis. Changes in emphasis can also be found at different management level. Quinn, Faerman, and Dixit (Quinn, 1988) studied what emphasis is placed on the different managerial roles at different managerial levels. Of the four roles associated with the rational goal model and the internal process model (see Table 1) only significant difference were found for the producer role. Quite different patterns are found for the four roles associated with the open systems model and the human relations model. The broker and innovator roles increase in criticality as you moved up in management level. The facilitator and mentor roles drop in criticality when moving to the middle management level; the criticality of these roles increases when moving above the middle management level. Implications of these findings are that importance and criticality of effectiveness criteria will vary over time as well as between managerial levels. Hence, the importance of different managerial roles will vary over time. A consequence of this is that for an ESS to be effective it must also change over time. That different types of computer-based support will be more or less effective in different states of an organization's life and that different types of computer-based support will be more or less effective for different managerial levels is not new. The competing values framework gives a means to understand these different ESS requirements. For example, if an ESS supports

6 only the lower roles, the realm of HIS and DSS, then it is likely to be ineffective. Quinn et al.'s results, although tentative, suggest that it is possible to develop diagnosis tools as well as to generate prescriptive guidelines for ESS design. 5. CONCLUSIONS We started this research by trying to understand what characteristics really differentiated EIS from other types of CBIS. We tried various ideas from Sprague and Carlson (1982). We discarded a distinction based on technologies, whether we were talking about a specific CBIS, a CBIS generator or a CBIS tool. Likewise we discarded distinction based on conceptual architectures such as Data-Dialog-Model or Input-Process- Output. We also considered the development methodology such as structured design or ROMC (Representations, Operations, Memory Aids and Controls) design. Finally, we considered the user's view of CBIS. But several of the performance objectives that Sprague suggests for DSS, such as providing domain support for users at all levels or being user friendly, seem to apply to all types of CBIS in addition to DSS. We believe that the domain and focus of each type of system has to be identified. Certainly, any type of CBIS must in some way support organizational effectiveness. Based on our search of the literature, we choose Quinn's competing values framework as a basis to identify ideal types of CBIS. Using his dimensions we have come to consider EIS as a ideal type of CBIS that supports executives in their search for organizational growth and resource acquisition. This is done by providing a system that contributes significant flexibility and readiness with regard to a focus on the external environment of the organization. We then go on to define ESS as computer-based information systems grounded in the four organizational effectiveness models (internal process, rational goal, open system, and human relations). We believe that the competing values framework can provide a basis for a more active role in the design of any type of CBIS. We can identify two main approaches in the design of information systems : - A passive approach, which means that a designer takes the user's view of his and the organization's "situation" as given and tries to fit the computer support to his perception. - An active approach which means that a designer challenges the user view explicitly. The framework presented here can serve as the basis of this active role since its purpose is to identify characteristics of CBIS that directly contribute t o organizational effectiveness. The following research is needed. The mapping of information systems types into the different models of the framework must be validated. Second, design criteria for EIS must be generated. Finally, a design approach for the implementation of EIS in an organization recognizing the necessity for the changing character of such a system must be developed. REFERENCES K. S. Cameron, "Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness," Management Science, 32(5), pp , J. P. Campbell, "On the Nature of Organizational Effectiveness," in P. S. Goodman & J. M. Pennings (editors), "New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness," Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, E. Jaques, "A General Theory of Bureaucracy," Gower Publishing, Hampshire, England, R. Johansen, "Groupware: Computer Support for Business Teams," Free Press, New York, P. G. W. Keen and M. S. Scott Morton, "Decision Support Systems: An Organizational Perspective," Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, J. P. Kotter, "The General Managers," Free Press, New York, A. Y. Lewin and J. W. Minton, "Organizational Effectiveness: Another Look, and an Agenda for Research," Management Science. 32(5), pp , H. Mintzberg, "The Nature of Managerial Work," Harper & Row, New York, D. R. Nash, "Building EIS, A Utility for Decisions," Data Base, 8(3), pp , T. C. Pauchant, J. Nilles, 0. El Sawy, and A.M. Mohrman, Jr., "Toward a Paradoxical Theory of Organizational Effectiveness: An Empirical Study of the Competing Values Model," Working Paper, Lava1 Univiersity, Quebec, C. Perrow, "Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay," third edition, Random House, New York, R. E. Quinn, "Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Performance," Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, R. E. Quinn and K. Cameron, "Organizational Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some Preliminary Evidence," Management Science, 29(1), pp , R. E. Quinn and K.S. Cameron, editors, "Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management," Ballinger, Cambridge,

7 R. E. Quinn and J. Rohrbaugh, "A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis," Management Science, 29(3), pp , J. F. Rockart and D. W De Long, "Executive Support Systems," Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, Rohrbaugh, "A Competing Values Approach to the Study of Group Decision Support Systems," HICSS-89, Vol. IV, pp , R. H. Sprague and E. D. Carlson, "Building Effective Decision Support Systems," Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, E. Turban and H. J. Watson, "Integrating Expert Systems, Executive Information Systems and Decision Support Systems," DSS-89 Transactions, (edited by G. R. Widmeyer), H. J. Watson and M. Frolick, "Determining Information Requirements for an Executive Information System", Working paper, The University of Georgia, mi