PARAPHRASE

1. Describe the advantages of TMS’s new decentralized IS structure. What are its disadvantages?

The greatest single advantage resulting from Cooper’s complete “makeover” of TMS’ IS structure was the new-found partnership that emerged between IT and business units in place of former air of distrust. As the article itself states, Cooper’s strategy served to focus the energy of the vast, decentralized, TMS IS organization on the company’s major business segments. The resultant control over overhead costs gained by the business units saved a lot of money in both the short and long terms…no doubt footing the bill for the costs involved in transition. But, while IS, IT, and communication costs may have been greatly reduced, such benefits are offset by increased infrastructure overhead. Since TMS is indeed a global organization, the decentralized system makes it difficult to maintain consistent unit standards and data organization, and is endemic to duplication of support staff as well.

2. How did the new structure change decision rights? How did it change accountability for IS project success?

The decision rights did not change considerably because Cooper’s strategy for restructuring was veritably ingenious. Her plan involved the identification of each of the business units top-performing senior personnel and recruiting and specifically empowering them with…basically…the same rights they had before, albeit with a bit more range. What really changed was that after designating them with the ‘official’ title of DIO, (divisional information officers), she made them “accountable”. The DIOs were “charged with forging relationships with, and gaining the respect of, the high-level business executives who headed the management committees on which the DIOs sat”. Again, ingenious. The same people – recognized by their peers, subordinates, and superiors – who used to make decisions for which they were formerly unaccountable, were now totally accountable for “IS strategy, development, and services”.

3. Why, in your opinion, would business executives shy away from the new approval process? In your opinion, will Cooper’s demand that each project be backed by an executive solve the problem? Explain. As the article states, Cooper’s plan called for centering the approval for all major IT projects in an “executive steering committee”, (ESC), in order to add meat and muscle to the relationship between the IS and business divisions. But there was a hitch…the ESC would also control funding, and distribute them on a project-by-project basis as each phase of a project’s goals was achieved. Control. Centralized control, to an extent. Control that the business executives didn’t want to be levied against them or their ‘pet projects”. They tried their best to get around the new process…but Cooper saw the writing on the wall and ‘upped the ante’. No funding would be approved unless a proposal was backed by a corporate manager at the VP-level or above! And…the business executive him/herself…not a subordinate, was to be held accountable. Playing the game that way gave both IS and the business divisions an equal stake in the game. Even enemies, if faced with a dire common need, can learn to work together. Here, corporate frictions notwithstanding, the ‘competitors’ are part of the same organization, on the same team. The future success of Cooper’s system is virtually assured. (Had to slide one in!)