Series Editor
Jean-Charles Pomerol
First published 2019 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd
27-37 St George’s Road
London SW19 4EU
UK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
111 River Street
Hoboken, NJ 07030
USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2019
The rights of Daniel Alban, Philippe Eynaud, Julien Malaurent, Jean Loup Richet and Claudio Vitari to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018967671
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-84821-855-0
We all live and think in boxes, or starting from boxes. It may be those of our practices, our personal lives or our working lives. The same applies to knowledge. Modern science – and therefore techniques – is so specialized that neighbors in a biology laboratory, for example, do not understand each other’s work, or only at the cost of lengthy and patient studies. Yet by their own admission, scientists who would like to take an interest in the work of colleagues with slightly different specialisms from their own do not do so, due to lack of time. This observation can easily be made more generalized: we do not take an interest in other people’s work due to lack of time, time that flies more and more quickly and nips in the bud our desire to properly understand what is happening in our world and to help ensure that its future is as bright as possible for everyone.
We are all capable of talking about what is going on in the world. Talking about it as non-specialists, talking about it superficially, at the local bar. We can all come up with theories on what should be done to make the world a better place, and set the world to rights. When it comes to putting theories into practice, that is a different matter, because changing our practices based on specific problems is a very big ask, and it seems insane – especially, of course, if we would be trying to do this on our own. The effort must be made by a number of people. Changing our practices based on well-expressed theories is a collective or political effort, in the strong sense of the term, encompassing the history and stories of women and men with all their inconsistencies, their chaotic progress and their possible sense. Policy is a position at the point where thought and action meet. In other words, the world progresses towards satisfactory solutions for the dual question of effectiveness and sense without a collective commitment, which consequently must be multidisciplinary and transversal. Until we understand the need to take the time to genuinely share our practices, knowledge and understanding of the world (not just say that we do), we will not be able to genuinely change things to make the world better.
However, there is an urgent need to do this. Developments in science and technology and the subsequent social developments are such that if we do not tackle certain key issues, including the relationship between man and machine, we will soon be overwhelmed not by the machines themselves but by the lack of structured dialog and thought about them. If we do not succeed now in taking control of a minimum of technological development, which is not so much due to the technologies themselves and their manufacturers (on this point, moreover, the issues are more to do with economics and politics rather than science and technology), but rather, it is due to our failure to think about them. We let ourselves be fascinated by technology and the promises of prophets with their visions, such as those of the transhumanists. To put it bluntly, it is all very well to start considering the rights of robots, but that means forgetting the rights of the real live men and women whose numbers are far greater and whose living conditions are morally, socially, economically and politically unacceptable. Developing robust, rigorous and fertile thinking, practice-based and clear on the material conditions of the lives of women and men, in relation to new technologies, is a crucial issue if our humanity and our lives, and those of our children, are to remain meaningful. This is where complex thinking makes a decisive contribution.
This book reflects the authors’ preoccupation with the concrete practice of the organizational stakeholders on the ground in their day-to-day work. There are stakeholders whose function is indeed, within organizations and businesses, to manage the “information system” of the organization, of the business, etc. Thus, the authors’ starting point was the concrete, everyday life of managers of organizations’ information systems. But they do this by integrating the said information system “in its complexity” into the manager function. That is, in its context, taking into account as far as possible all the parameters involved in and via the life of the information system of any kind of organization based on a three-phase approach: via stakeholders, territories and projects. In other words, they step back to get the necessary perspective to relevantly, usefully and meaningfully problematize the issues now being raised by the most routine management of an information system. They thus show, at the most concrete level possible in the daily life of business, how irrevocable relationships are inevitably woven, for the worse if we do not take heed, but for the best if we are careful, between machines and men, between technologies and questions of meaning, and between ownership of the machines by stakeholders and complex, living organizational systems. The usage made to this end of the concepts of governance, urbanization and information system alignment is very enlightening.
This kind of effort towards a concrete understanding of organizational complexity was, of course, embarked on long ago, in particular by Jean-Louis Le Moigne in his General Systems Theory, in the context of Morin’s complexity thinking. Many subsequent publications have continued the work, and yet, management sciences have still not sufficiently taken ownership of the concepts pertaining to complexity for it to become a central topic in the preoccupations of researchers and teachers on the one hand, and practitioners on the ground on the other hand, ideally in permanent correlation. The task is challenging. It calls for perseverance, the ability to step back, concrete knowledge of businesses and organizations, and tenacity towards the question of the sense of our practices and our knowledge. It is achieved by unfailingly keeping sight of the bigger picture in every concrete situation by leveraging the most productive characteristics of complexity (non-linearity, uncertainty, self-organization, etc.). Through this book, the authors also show how taking stock of stakeholders, territories and projects on the ground requires continuous learning based on trial and error on a daily basis, taking a stance that these days we would call “agile”. In other words, a sufficiently flexible stance to lead stakeholders not only to do but also to think about what they are doing. And this, in real life, is not easy for anyone.
Information Systems Management is therefore enlightening. Not only because it takes a fresh look at the concrete, taking as its starting point the tools of complex thinking, which is the essential challenge embarked on by Le Moigne and Morin and to be continued going forward, but because it offers a number of essential elements of the methodology of doing this. The best way to thank them is to leverage their work to extend its spirit and its application to all fields that may appear relevant.
Laurent BIBARD
Professor at ESSEC Business School, Department of Management Holder of the Edgar Morin Chair on Complexity
The purpose of this work is to raise awareness among managers in organizations (businesses, administrative bodies, associations and groups of individuals within a collaborative economy) on the issues raised by information systems. This book does not set out to to try to cover all the questions raised by information systems, or to offer an exhaustive list of ready-made answers. The authors’ intention is rather to provide a framework for analysis and the keys to a coherent understanding, to help information systems stakeholders to deal with questions that are rich in diversity and constantly evolving. Information technologies are by nature difficult to pin down. They are paradoxical in nature. On the one hand, they are forward-looking, and indispensable in that they pave the way to innovations full of potential (Big Data, artificial intelligence and connected objects). On the other hand, they are vectors of major vulnerabilities (cyber security, digitization and loss of privacy), and it is still difficult today to gauge their scope and consequences. This is why the study of information systems is both necessary and fascinating. Beyond the purely operational issues [ALB 09], we can clearly see that information systems management has to do with ethical questions and the complexity of the world. Insofar as they structure the processes of business departments and increasingly condition the relationships between the stakeholders in a value chain, decisions taken about information systems have strategic impact. Insofar as they are no longer confined to the world of work, but increasingly offer a continuum to personal spaces, decisions about information systems also have an impact on everyone. This book is pedagogical in nature, aiming to make a contribution towards ensuring that issues relating to information systems are not left exclusively to the experts in this field.
To approach the topic of information systems management, we propose to jointly associate and consider three key concepts of information systems science: governance, urbanization and alignment.
Information systems governance entails the implementation of a certain number of resources, bodies and procedures in order to better manage the information system. Governance aims to handle questions such as: How should decision-making for information systems stakeholders be structured? How can value creation be measured? How can stakeholders be involved in value creation? How can all information resources be integrated into a single approach? How can internal and external challenges be coordinated?
Information systems urbanization uses visualization methods to help the manager take stock of the different organization levels of an information system and their coherence. Urbanization detects the constraints, opportunities and contradictions that are acting upon the information architecture and can provide the decision-makers with tools to help them envision the continuous development of the information systems construction process. Urbanization thus answers the following questions: How can information flows be organized? How can their fluidity be improved? How can they be adapted to current and future changes?
Information systems alignment evaluates the information system’s capacity to make a significant contribution to the organization’s strategy. In a context of rapid technological change and highly competitive markets, alignment enables responsiveness and aims for proactivity. It is a vector for creativity and promotes the emergence of comparative advantage. Because it requires a concrete response and rejects intangible, standardized answers, strategic alignment recognizes the diversity of organizations and issues to be taken into account: How can we make the information system responsive to strategic agility? How can we facilitate the adaptation of tools and humans in the face of changing objectives?
From a pedagogical perspective, the book sets out to make the link between the theory of information systems and the theory of organizations. Thus, we link the three specific information systems concepts mentioned above (information systems governance, information systems urbanization and information systems alignment) with three other, more generic, keys: stakeholder, territory and project.
The stakeholder is the crucial element that makes it possible to envision governance, because they are the source of value creation. However, the human stakeholder engages in collective action via sociotechnical interfaces and systems. The interweaving in information systems is so strong that it is sometimes difficult to differentiate, within the organized activity, what is human in scope and what stems from computer applications. It is thus possible – as the sociology of innovation proposes [LAT 07] – to think of technical artifacts and information systems in particular as agents.
The territory is the operative field embraced by a self-regulating information system. Territory is a key concept of the urbanization process and is characterized by a multiplicity of levels: geographic, functional, virtual, represented, etc. This means that thought must be given to maintaining coherence between the various territorial levels of the information system, in the face of the disruptive influence of the context.
The project is an important element in information systems strategy. Management of the project portfolios allows an implementation of strategic alignment. Once the management direction has been set, the projects will define the path towards the target information system. These projects feed into each step of the information system upgrade: acquisition, processing, storage and distribution of information.
Using these three concepts, we propose to define the information system as: “A set of actors (human and/or non-human) that are interdependent, interacting via socio-material systems on a plurality of territories in the framework of an information management project (acquisition, processing, storage, distribution)”.
The great challenge of our three-dimensional proposal (stakeholders, territories and projects) is how this can be turned into a system. To do so, we must, behind this didactic breakdown, open an analysis of the overlaps, intersections and cross-influences. In doing this, the danger is then that the manager will feel overwhelmed by the challenges. Taking these three perspectives into consideration simultaneously can indeed seem tricky, if not impossible. How should it be addressed? What methodology should be used? Is it reasonable to try to bring these three aspects together in sync? To meet these challenges, we propose the adoption of an operational approach based on complexity thinking [LEM 90, MOR 90].
For the sake of clarity, the book introduces each of the three aspects in turn before seeking to combine them in the final part. The book thus has a four-part construction:
Finally, this book is a follow-up to a book published in French by Hermès–Lavoisier in 2009: Le Management opérationnel du système d’information (operational management of the information system). Its purpose is to address a wide audience: students (business schools and their masters of science in business and masters of business administration) and professionals working in information systems management.
Its target is to describe and analyze organizational information systems with reference to the problems encountered in businesses and also the problems (always more numerous) that emerge from public, not-for-profit organizations.
Figure I.1. Manager in complexity
The first part of this book sets offers information systems stakeholders a reflective contribution to the possible future developments in their roles and responsibilities. In this part, we will sketch a portrait of the stakeholders in information systems (IS) governance. We will show how today’s stakeholders are driven to seek shared mechanisms for organization, decision-making and audits in order to anticipate successive technological innovations. This sharing is particularly important, to the extent that it is considered a priority in the strategic agenda of organizations. We will show that IS governance encompasses the complexity of the issues arising within organizations (value creation, skills sharing, capitalization of knowledge, etc.).
In Chapter 1, we will address the issue of technological change and describe its impact on the collective organization of IS stakeholders. We will highlight, in particular, the semantic shifts in the job title of this function, which provides evidence both of the growth in opportunities provided by technology and of the acknowledgment of its strategic importance within the organization. Chapter 2 will show the link between global organizational governance and IS governance. We will identify three separate theoretical approaches that enable us to take stock of the issues related to information systems management. We will then consider information systems through, in turn, taking stock of transaction costs [WIL 81], the concept of a hybrid coalition organization [AOK 01, AOK 10] and the prospect of the coming together of an organization’s stakeholders [FRE 10a, FRE 10b]. Chapter 3 will conclude this first part with a consideration of the practicalities of implementing IS governance. We will describe the organizational forms of governance and good practice benchmarks relating to IS, which are most frequently used as guidelines during implementation and whilst achieving compliance.