AgCredit ORGANIZATION CHANGE STUDENTS NAME INSTITUTION DATE Table of Contents 1.0. AgCredit Hybrid Organizational Structure Proposal 3 2.0. Outline a Project Selection Process for AgCredit to ensure enlignment with the Enterprise bus
AgCredit ORGANIZATION CHANGE
STUDENTS NAME
INSTITUTION
DATE
Table of Contents
1.0. AgCredit Hybrid Organizational Structure Proposal3
3.0. AgCredit Service Oriented Architectural implementation.. 5
4.0. New Internal IT capabilities to be Developed. 7
5.0. Importance of IT Governance. 8
1.0. AgCredit Hybrid Organizational Structure Proposal
Organizational structures define the relation of the pieces (departments) to the whole organizations. New world business requirements are versatile, and a successful business structure guide end users to either where they could retrieve or input information in an orderly manner (Dinsmore & Cabanis-Brewin, 2011).
Ultimately, the hybrid structure proposed herein for AgCredit reduces time wastage in classifying information, employee role identification, and alignment of business processes to the strategic operations. In the words of Mujumdar (2014), a combination of hierarchical and sequential structures are the building blocks of a process centric organization. This proposal defines hierarchical organization structure in which the enterprise architecture focal point rests on the business strategy and aligning all resources towards that end.
Legacy IT structures are provisioned to drive top-down business processes which are non-functional today. For instance, each department at AgCredit’s operates distinctively. As a result Moeller (2013) notes, all activities are thrown into disarray. In the case study, IT department at AgCredit is poorly staffed, IT employees lack clearly defined roles, and the information is stored in redundant forms amongst other vices.
In solution, AgCredit should define a hierarchical structure that defines flow of information in a top down manner and combine it with a sequential structure that defines the order of business activities. According to Watkins (2012), there exists a lot of potential by analysing the value generated by each business activity in relation to the organizations strategy.in effect, the business is the product of its integral activities. Porter's value analysis model endorses a process based structure that respects hierarchy as well as the sequence of activities with regards to the strategic business goals (Calder & Watkins, 2012). In practice the hybrid structure connects activities into chains, classifies this chains into a top down command structure for accountability while simultaneously defining the cost benefit implications.
The hybrid structure recognizes horizontal and vertical business operations alike, and negotiates means to harmonize IT incorporation allowing smooth interdepartmental coordination. As a result, the scalable and flexible environment allows IT systems to be more efficient in that organization activities are combined to allow centralized information access and control (Calder & Watkins, 2012). In contrast to the legacy activity based structure at AgCredit, no hierachy is defined, information is thrown all over, and customers get poor response for requested services because no distinct system exists to define roles.
The proposed hybrid structure identifies information flow and linkages within this flow to form the hierarchy structure as well define sequence in a bid to establish process centric structure (Norfolk, 2005). In this regard, associated activities are classified together by the IT department to form the organizations departments (Dinsmore & Cabanis-Brewin, 2011). In contrast to other structures like the activity oriented one at AgCredit, the process model not only emphasise on employees roles but also how departments relate to realize long term goals.
With the hybrid structure in place, AgCredit will evade client frustration like long wait for services due to muddled systems. Hybrid structure effects better client management as relative activities are grouped together and all information are stored centrally with clear protocols on how to access data (Mujumdar, 2014).According to Weiss & Solomon (2011), such a process cantered setting, faults upraised due to data redundancy and unsupported file formats are eradicated. A centrally managed organization can clearly articulate its processes to the set vision and mission, and drive up employee motivation.
2.0. Outline a Project Selection Process for AgCredit to ensure enlignment with the Enterprise business vision
The four operational departments at AgCredit each run counterproductive projects and lack a definitive goal. The business model and project portfolio at AgCredit are disorderly. According to Watkins (2012), projects have to be interlinked between departments to build the synergy that drives organizations. As Weiss & Solomon (2011) note, projects have to complement each other to uphold the organizations mission and vision. To examine the benefits of a project prior to implementation, cost-benefit analysis techniques come in handy in the project assortment process.
The cost-benefit technique is conducted to list out all pros a project would yield against the cos. In the words of Mujumdar (2014), this technique ensures benefits are ascertained prior to implementation and could be measured against the organisations strategy. This technique therefore will ensure the organization's goal are met by augmenting benefits of individual activities and integrating them to achieve organizations strategy (Moeller, 2013).
On top of the costs versus benefit analysis, the Strength Weaknesses Opportunities and threats technique offers an upper hand in mitigating against poor integration of projects. A project could prove profitable per department but pose a threat to another department. For instance an easy to access loan scheme would be a great project for the credit department but pose a security threat to the IT department. In this regard, project selection and implementation should be initiated at the department level and reviewed at the management level to incline it with the organizations strategy (Calder & Watkins, 2012).
3.0. AgCredit Service Oriented Architectural implementation
The Service Oriented Architecture can be actuated via a multi-tier unit architecture. That is, at the ground level a transactional unit, mid-level, and top-level management (Betz, 2007).
At the lowest level of the hierarchy, tellers and help desk personnel engage directly with clients and input data into the system. The mid-level management receive this data and refine it to fine report, and the top level management use the generated reports to make management decisions (Moeller, 2013).
This process is crude representation of a process based system. Thus, essential business activities like credit provision, account deposits or withdrawals are executed in an orderly fashion. In parallel the Solution Competency Centre functional business unit support also complements the process driven model realized over a sequential structure (Betz, 2007). The Solution Competency Centres emphasize on Agcredit code of conduct and populates a list of all activities. This activities are further classified into units that are managed collectively. In the end, a review of business functions cuts down on redundant tasks and give AgCredit good ground in determining employees tasks (Betz, 2007).
AgCredit could implement a redundant reporting protocol to help achieve efficiency, reliability and integrity. In effect, transaction level employees submit records to the IT head of department and the head of Solution Competency Centres. The audit process is viable because designers have grasp of the technical components, whereas the process analysts understand respective business activities (Betz, 2007).
The Enterprise Integration Program manager must champion departmental cooperation because business activities will not work if departmental activities are not inclined to organizations strategy (Calder & Watkins, 2012. To effect this cooperation an enterprise large system will be centrally managed. This system will run on similar application to ensure data integrity and eliminate unsupported data formats.
4.0. New Internal IT capabilities to be Developed in order to create an IT Department to Support AgCredit’s Future business architecture
The current IT capabilities at AgCredit are muddled because the systems are built with a legacy perspective. First, numerous applications are being used to support departmental activities. As a result the IT department is highly disintegrated with a lot of solutions being outsourced. According to Watkins (2012), long run IT solutions must be built in-house. In-house system implementation allows for fast customization, easy repair and most importantly preservation of an IT competitive advantage. For instance, as it is AgCredit system secrets lie with outsourced firms who could leak the secrets to competitors. Moreover, in the event that the system breaks down the AgCredit has to rely on external support which may cause more downtime (Moeller, 2013). In solution, building the system in-house offers internal IT staff more knowledge in solving any IT problems reducing downtime.
Also AgCredit has to develop specified roles for its IT staff to avoid unclear roles. This aspect will ensure all roles are handled by a team and improve reliability (Calder & Watkins, 2012). AgCredit will have to build a data centre and a distributed network all centrally managed. This system will offer the capabilities to run the Information system centrally using the client-server architecture. Eventually, all systems will have the capabilities to be updated in real time (Norfolk, 2005).
5.0. Importance of IT Governance at AgCredit
The focal point of IT governance are information systems, optimizing IT performance and managing risks. In totality the primary goals of IT governance is to drive assurance that AgCredit investments in information systems generate business value. To that end, IT governance is implemented through distinct allocation of roles and responsibilities, processes, policies, and effective deployment of infrastructure (Moeller, 2013). IT governance is defined as the planning, organization, oversight, and general management processes which guarantee the delivery of projected benefits of IT in a well-ordered fashion to uphold long run business sustainability.
IT governance cannot be narrowly scoped within the IT departments. In it broadest sense it is a core entity in the overall management of AgCredit. However as Calder & Watkins (2012)delineates it, IT governance specifically focuses on the improvement of control and management of information systems. This definition fosters a shared responsibility for all stakeholders to make decisions with regards to the business performance and not otherwise. In this regard, IT governance’s prime importance rests on the ability to ensure consolidated ideas generate a value-reward-mitigate model of IT equipment to drive value and avoid failure (Calder & Watkins, 2012).
Business transformation powered by IT is prime to AgCredit l success. Nevertheless, it brings forth risks that may incapacitate operations. The dilemma presented therefore becomes how to balance the reward and risk when using IT to actuate organizations change or operations (Calder & Watkins, 2012). All these information can be summed up into five key areas or aspects: first core aspect is aligning IT strategy to the overall business objectives. Secondly, value delivery aspect ensures maximum business value is derived from IT equipment. Herein a return on investment (ROI) is specified and used as the baseline in judging performance (Norfolk, 2005). Thirdly, resource management aspect ensures the current and future business requirements are met by the IT capabilities. Fourthly, performance measuring aspect periodically verifies the delivery of promised business value (Moeller, 2013). Lastly the risk management face ascertains that methodologies are in place to counter adversities and ensure business continuity (Calder & Watkins, 2012). Jointly all this aspects characteristically share linkages and form a continuous process.
The following benefits will arise from good IT governance at AgCredit. First, transparency and accountability is upheld. Herein, improved transparency and efficiency have been reported in framing IT costs and IT portfolio. As a result, the overall management arm of the organization can effectively plan operation with precise information for better future planning (Norfolk, 2005). Also, clear decision-making process, accountability, and distinct role and responsibility allocation speeds up service delivery improving the quality of service. Secondly, IT governance ensures excellent investment decisions are made not only improving contribution to stakeholder’s returns, but also boost work place relations (Moeller, 2013).
Stakeholders play a key role in IT governance. Collectively, they are held responsible for setting strategy, identifying risks as well as setting mitigation procedures. Stakeholders can be classified into three groups with regards to performance measuring (Calder & Watkins, 2012). This are investors, controllers and providers. Investors are the business owners, partners and IT management who are responsible for funding and aligning objectives. Controllers are auditors’ internal and external alike, human resource team, finance department, and industry regulators and so forth. They are charged with the responsibility to monitor risks and execute mitigation parameters. Lastly providers are IT services and product suppliers who are responsible to meet client’s expectations (Moeller, 2013).
In conclusion Organizational structures define the relation of the pieces (departments) to the whole organizations. There exists a lot of potential by analysing the value generated by each business activity in relation to the organizations strategy. In effect, the business is the product of its integral activities. The proposed hybrid structure identifies information flow and linkages within this flow to form the hierarchy structure as well define sequence in a bid to establish process centric structureThe cost-benefit technique is conducted to list out all pros a project would yield against the cos. In the words of Mujumdar
6.0. References
Calder, A. & Watkins, S. (2012). IT governance (1st ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Moeller, R. (2013). Executive's guide to IT governance (1st ed.).
Norfolk, D. (2005). IT governance (1st ed.). London: Thorogood.
Weiss, M. & Solomon, M. (2011). Auditing IT infrastructures for compliance (1st ed.). Sudbury, Mass.: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Dinsmore, P., & Cabanis-Brewin, J. (2011). The AMA handbook of project management. New York: American Management Association.
Betz, C. (2007). Architecture and patterns for IT service management, resource planning, and governance. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann.
Chew, E., & Gottschalk, P. (2013). Knowledge driven service innovation and management. Hershey, Pa.: IGI Global (701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, Pennsylvania, 17033, USA).
10 years ago
