Organizations continuously experience changes in technology.The adoption of technology changes by individuals is largely based on their perceptions of how the technology will impact their jobs. Consequently, it appears that individuals who perceive that technology changes will improve their ability to perform their job tasks may be more willing to adopt the technology.
Employee reactions to change, in part, impact the success of change initiatives.It is easier to implement change that is viewed positively by employees than that which is viewed negatively. Therefore it is recommended that managing employee reactions to change when managing the overall process of change.
It is common that employees experience changes in job duties or other functions that were planned and implemented solely by leaders or managers that are not directly impacted by the changes. However, allowing employees to participate in making decisions related to a change initiative has a positive impact on the overall success of the change.In regard to technology, it is known that user involvement and participation in technology decisions is of paramount importance in the successful adoption of new technology. Failure to include employees in the process, however, can have numerous deleterious implications for organizations. These implications can range from resistance to outright sabotage. Further, numerous attitudinal implications are associated with employee participation or lack of participation. Specifically, failing to include employees in the process can lead to cynicism. Cynicism, in turn, is linked negatively to job satisfaction and commitment.
2010年9月18日星期六
Whether or not to inverst in IT
Not Every Organization Should Invest in IT
It is fair to say that there are many, many organizations that get by just fine with undifferentiated IT capabilities. Although they need certain IT services, there's nothing about their business model that suggest that they ought to invest in unique and/or special capabilities.
These are the organizations that tend to outsource, or use a preponderance of external contractors, for example. Before too long, I think they'll be using a preponderance of external cloud-like IT services, simply because that's the cheapest way to deliver what's needed.
The future of these IT organizations are clear: a pronounced focus on external vendor and provider management. And very little internal IT capabilities, if any.
Some Organizations Should Invest in IT
Conversely, many organizations that should -- and do -- invest in differentiated IT capabilities.
It's clear from looking at their business models -- at least, from the outside -- that there are ample opportunities to deliver proportionally outsized rewards for their shareholders through a coordinated IT investment pattern.
In some cases, you can actually point at the specific capabilities that they'll likely need to get good at, and what types of external vendors and internal skills they'll need to work with to achieve those results.
The future of these IT organization are very clear as well: a pronounced focus on delivering unique and differentiate capabilities that can't easily be found elsewhere, and a strong link between these IT capabilities and the overall business model.
Most Organizations Are A Mix Of Both
In larger organizations, IT portfolios can be fairly broad. So, generally speaking, you'll find a mix of areas where IT should spend (vs. invest) and invest (vs. spend). But, what does that picture look like?
1. Places where IT spend was a necessary evil.
It had to be done -- and done well -- but there was no unique advantage to be gained by being the best at it. For these categories, he was open to cost reduction, outsourcing, external service providers -- you name it.
2. Places where an IT investment strategy made sense.
These were the areas where the business could get unique value by being better than what was generally available. He was looking to make a series of investments in these capabilities as a result -- with a payoff horizon that wasn't measured in 90 days :-)
3. Places where the game plan was still an open debate.
In a few areas, there wasn't a consistent view as to whether IT should look at it as an expense to be minimized, or an area to be invested in. Fair enough -- the world is an imprecise place, and things can change quickly.
It is fair to say that there are many, many organizations that get by just fine with undifferentiated IT capabilities. Although they need certain IT services, there's nothing about their business model that suggest that they ought to invest in unique and/or special capabilities.
These are the organizations that tend to outsource, or use a preponderance of external contractors, for example. Before too long, I think they'll be using a preponderance of external cloud-like IT services, simply because that's the cheapest way to deliver what's needed.
The future of these IT organizations are clear: a pronounced focus on external vendor and provider management. And very little internal IT capabilities, if any.
Some Organizations Should Invest in IT
Conversely, many organizations that should -- and do -- invest in differentiated IT capabilities.
It's clear from looking at their business models -- at least, from the outside -- that there are ample opportunities to deliver proportionally outsized rewards for their shareholders through a coordinated IT investment pattern.
In some cases, you can actually point at the specific capabilities that they'll likely need to get good at, and what types of external vendors and internal skills they'll need to work with to achieve those results.
The future of these IT organization are very clear as well: a pronounced focus on delivering unique and differentiate capabilities that can't easily be found elsewhere, and a strong link between these IT capabilities and the overall business model.
Most Organizations Are A Mix Of Both
In larger organizations, IT portfolios can be fairly broad. So, generally speaking, you'll find a mix of areas where IT should spend (vs. invest) and invest (vs. spend). But, what does that picture look like?
1. Places where IT spend was a necessary evil.
It had to be done -- and done well -- but there was no unique advantage to be gained by being the best at it. For these categories, he was open to cost reduction, outsourcing, external service providers -- you name it.
2. Places where an IT investment strategy made sense.
These were the areas where the business could get unique value by being better than what was generally available. He was looking to make a series of investments in these capabilities as a result -- with a payoff horizon that wasn't measured in 90 days :-)
3. Places where the game plan was still an open debate.
In a few areas, there wasn't a consistent view as to whether IT should look at it as an expense to be minimized, or an area to be invested in. Fair enough -- the world is an imprecise place, and things can change quickly.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)