Discussion Board Unit IV

DBA 8671, Technology and Innovation Management 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit IV Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

3. Evaluate the role of portfolio management in governing the innovation management process. 3.1 Evaluate governance in regard to portfolio management.

6. Synthesize communication methods, leadership skills, and business acumen in the development of a

new technology strategy. 6.1 Assess the role of internal collaboration between technology and business functions.

Course/Unit Learning Outcomes

Learning Activity

3.1 Unit IV Research Paper

6.1

Unit Lesson Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Unit IV Research Paper

Reading Assignment Chapter 9: Building a Strong Relationship with the Business Chapter 10: Enabling Collaboration with IT

Unit Lesson Collaboration is Difficult One of the more difficult jobs in an organization is that of the information technology (IT) manager or director. The reasons are many. To begin with, this position is at the nexus of collaborative effort between the technology of the company and its business operations. Any given organization is likely to have its technology experts. The experts design products, create intellectual property, or develop software. The intensity and focus of their effort naturally leads them to think of their work as having depth and significance beyond that of the IT department. Because of this, there is a tendency for the technical experts, be they within research and development (R&D) or another related function, to insist upon supporting their own systems and keeping them separate from the business operation. After all, R&D and related functions may not even use operating systems (OSs) favored by the business side of the house but, rather, may work exclusively within development environments connected by advanced networks. The message from technical operations to IT managers or directors is often, “You are not as smart as we are, so stay away!” The business side of the house is commonly where IT managers or directors spend quite a bit of their time. This could be resolving a personal computer (PC) or application issue, installing software, or handling networking issues for business stakeholders. Often, the IT department is not welcome within the domain of business—but for different reasons than that of the technical stakeholders within the company. IT is typically the department that, for business stakeholders, says “No!” The reason for this view is that IT managers and directors carry out and implement policies in regard to the following areas:

 bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policy;

 computer administrative rights management;

UNIT IV STUDY GUIDE

The Importance of Collaboration and Relationships

DBA 8671, Technology and Innovation Management 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

 applications, such as configuration management (preventing non-standard application installation);

 acceptable use; and

 hardware (individual computing device specifications). In most cases, the aforementioned requests will involve a “No” or a “You cannot have this” from IT personnel. It is for these reasons, to name a few, that the IT manager or director role is a thankless job. It is a special person who can foster collaboration between IT, business, and technical domains within the company. However, it can be done, and when all of the stakeholder groups of the organization are able to engage with each other, good things tend to happen. The Case for Collaboration Risk management in IT informs us that small problems can cascade into large ones, and the result of cascading risks can be difficult to imagine. The same is true of innovation. A small idea developed within R&D that leaks out and inspires a new way to think about this idea within the business operation could cascade into an interesting product or business solution. In fact, it is observed that the first Sony Walkman was envisioned by the chief executive officer (CEO) of Sony after witnessing an employee attempting to listen to an audio tape with a rudimentary headset on a small tape recorder not originally intended for this purpose. This spurred a technology development effort that spiraled into a great success. In a generic sense, interaction and relationships that cut across organizational silos tend to seed innovation and create synergies. Another case for collaboration is that of strategic alignment. While the technical side of the business seeks to control its own destiny, and the business side of the house seeks to avoid limiting constraints, all stakeholders would be better served if they thought of IT as a means for aligning all functions with the strategic goals of the business. While developers desire to work with the most recent technology, the supporting budget is not unlimited. In addition, incorporating new systems requires training and the development of know how to extract productivity from the investment. The IT manager as the nexus of collaboration would be an individual who understands these issues while being grounded in the strategy of the company. The information systems of the company are not just systems but are understood as the technologies, which, along with the people who use them, are a part of a holistic system. Collaboration between groups, who do not necessarily desire collaboration and constraints being placed on stakeholder groups who wish that they did not have constraints, are expressions of strategy. Innovation informs new strategies and aids in carrying out existing ones. Standardization of information system policies, whether desired by stakeholders or not, play a role in making systems more secure and efficient. These are essential to the strategic implementation role of information systems. Collaboration and Systems Thinking The systems view of the operation provides an additional lens for visualizing the benefits of collaboration. The products and services produced by the company do not originate from a single function but, rather, come from all functions. It is often the case that some companies would not be able to successfully deliver their products at all without the precise fitting together of key elements of the operation. For example, Google is known for its search engine technology, but this is only a single component of many that interact in such a way as to produce synergies. Some of the additional domains of expertise within Google include products, such as Google Docs, YouTube, Google Calendar, the Android OS, and Gmail. The synergies generated by Google’s products and services feed into each other, and it multiplies the revenue it generates. It is interesting to observe that Google generates its revenue from selling ads. The paying customers are not primarily those who use Google products and services in their daily lives but, rather, are those companies that sell advertising. Each of these product lines are linked, and each magnify the benefits of the others. Note that the Google search engine features sponsored links and—depending upon search terms employed—may direct users to ad-supported YouTube videos. The Android OS is preferentially compatible with Gmail, Google Chrome, Google Maps, and Google photos. Google’s search engine technology aids users who are employing any of these products and services in finding other information within the application or within other preferentially compatible Google products. The resulting systemic linkages produce a virtuous cycle that tends to keep users within the Google ecosystem, thereby maximizing revenue and generating opportunities for the company with nearly every action undertaken by the user. In what way does the Google example of self-reinforcing systemic interaction help managers think about internal collaboration associated with its technologies? Whereas Google’s self-reinforcing business model

DBA 8671, Technology and Innovation Management 3

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

involves different lines of business, there is no reason why each of the functional domains within a given company cannot collaborate in such a way as to create synergy and perhaps additional revenue. When, for instance, the company is producing a product to be manufactured and sold to customers, each function will seek to optimize the overall revenue and efficiencies rather than seek to optimize sub-units. What is most efficient for manufacturing may not be so efficient for product repair and maintenance. Likewise, the product architecture that is easiest to implement within engineering may make it difficult to sell future hardware and software upgrades. Finally, it is when all functional domains recognize that optimization of the entire system is the goal to be attained so that there will be less concern in matters, such as carrying out information systems standards, guidelines, and policies. Implementing Collaboration The examples of the failure to collaborate within the technology domain illustrate the organizational inertia inherent to functional organizational structures. Each function tends to have its own ideas about how best to serve the interest of the company, its own policies and procedures, and sometimes even its own language. While this tendency creates efficiencies, it does tend to impair communication and collaboration or promote an us-versus-them attitude, particularly when work involves the IT department. Collaboration can be improved by implementing structures that naturally lend themselves to collaboration. For example, it has been observed that governance of technology projects is often carried out by a cross-functional committee of senior executives. This is an example of collaboration at the top levels of the operation. Likewise, cross-functional project teams could be implemented to carry out projects, such as those involved in selecting systems and applications, implementing them, and perhaps even creating suggested policies. A team with a mission is likely to adopt a more holistic view of the issues, and as the team carries out the assignment, individual members can aid in communicating the visions to each respective functional group. Unlike the vertical orientation of the functional organization, cross-functional teams are horizontal structures that cut across the vertical “stovepipes,” thereby fostering holistic thinking and collaboration that policy and procedure cannot match. Technologies may also be brought to bear in cutting through vertically oriented stovepipes. One example of such a technology is the Intranet. Instead of communicating information via e-mail, which must be initiated and sent prior to being consumed, information for the good of the whole company may be made available in a central location. Every employee computer can also feature the Intranet on the homepage, thereby fostering a holistic view by continuously sharing information in an automated manner that may have otherwise have been bottled up within a vertical and functional hierarchy.