System Dynamics '95 — Volume II
Paper submitted for the Systems Dynamics Conference,
Soft landing into the 21st Century
Tokyo 1995
by Jane A.O. Young,
Leeds Business School,
Leeds Metropolitan University
Leeds, England
email JYoung@LMU.AC.UK
Culture gap or Culture trap ?
Abstract
The so-called ‘culture gap', between information systems professionals and organisational
management, is often cited as, either a reason for system failure, or the cause of lack of
perceived success. This paper presents the view that organisations get the systems they
deserve, since information professionals in an organisation are no more able to buck the
prevailing organisation ‘culture’, than any other professional.
This leads to the thinking that is not so much a ‘culture gap' as a ‘culture trap', suggesting
that top management need to be considering the organisational climate for change, and the
determinants of organisational culture which impact upon change, if success with
organisational information systems is to be improved. This matter has been become one of
considerable concern as organisations seek to reengineer their business processes, using the
power of information systems.
The case study which prompted the thinking is presented. The associated research was
undertaken using action research with a soft systems approach, which itself prompted some
useful learning. A method of extending the use of rich pictures as a means of developing
influence diagrams is suggested. The aim being a 'rich' but 'soft' qualitative SD model.
Culture Gap or Culture Trap ? - Introduction
As IS & IT become more central to the success of organisations (integrating IT into
the business strategy is seen as the second most important issue for IT managers in the 91/92
Price Waterhouse IT Review ) so the need to understand the factors which impact on the
success of IS throughout their lifecycle increases.
The eighties saw the arrival of the strategic information system - systems which
provide the competitive advantage so eagerly sought by organisations influenced by Michael
Porter (Porter & Millar,1985). There are many examples of these systems which gave the
edge over the competition (see Madnick 1987, Ward et al 1990, or Galliers 1991 ). Thinking
about the role that IS could play, developed further until the concept of a Strategic
Information System (SIS), was extended to include those systems which directly supported
an organisation's business strategy ( Galliers 1991). This was a good time for IS people,
previously accused of being responsible for the ‘Culture gap' (ref. Price Waterhouse 91/92)
967
Parallel Program
they were now being seen as central players in developing and enabling the organisations’
corporate strategy.
Things improved further when ‘Reengineering the Corporation’ from Hammer &
Champy became a best seller. Making radical improvements in business performance using
IT, became top of the management agenda. The systems advocated under this ‘don't automate,
obliterate’ (Hammer 1990) strategy were capable of supporting radical change in the
organisational processes, with associated benefits. There must surely also be radical change
in the organisation itself, some of it planned and intended, some unplanned and emergent.
Newton's law of:- every action having an equal and opposite reaction, in an organisational
context.
In terms of organisational change, Venkatraman( 1991) envisages further possibilities
still, suggesting that the ultimate goal is that of business scope redefinition’. The organisation
will be transformed and reconfigured using IT. The theory therefore suggests that glittering
prizes are available, yet practice is very slow in delivering; Galliers(1991) admits that many
strategic information systems are ‘happy accidents’ rather than part of a planned strategy. It
is claimed that 70% of reengineering initiatives are failures. (quoted at the 1994, Cranfield
BPR conference). Venkatraman sees reconfiguration as a long term goal rather than an
immediate reality.
Using Information Systems
There is also the fundamental dichotomy, to consider, that some organisational information
systems are extremely successful, with clear benefits ( see Ormerod 1994 describing the
situation at Sainsbury's), while others are equally unsuccessful in that they not only do not
perform as expected, but have damaging consequences (London Ambulance case quoted in
Which Computer, December 1992, Taurus quoted in Computer Weekly, 1992).
The tension increases as the demands from within the organisation for the possible
benefits from information systems increases, but IS professionals are painfully aware that IS
enactment is not a deterministic process. Understanding what contributes to success and what
contributed to a perceived failure is a critical area of enquiry. In addition the role of IS within
organisations is not clearly defined or understood, this must also be addressed.
Perhaps the role that is played by IS in organisations is the role that they are allowed
to play. Is it realistic to assume that any particular system plays a defined role ? Is a system's
tole actually defined by the circumstances in which it is conceived, decided upon, developed,
implemented and assessed, i.e. the whole enactment cycle ? At the point of initiation there
will be a unique set of factors or parameters operating within the organisation, within its
market sector, within the global business and technological environment - almost the birth
chart for the new-born system. These parameters will shape its growth and development -
stony ground from the unenthusiastic or intransigent, and growth is stunted. Warmth and
enthusiasm gives food and nourishment and a healthy child develops. The way in which the
immature system is introduced to its foster family is critical. Does it look like them ? (are the
metaphors taking over?) not such a silly question - looking and feeling ‘comfortable’ to the
foster family is crucial. Will it fit in ? Will they have to change - is it intended to make them
968
System Dynamics '95 — Volume II
change ? The system needs a ‘friend’ to speak up for it - to fight its battles to see that it
settles down and starts to fill a useful role. Done well and a healthy infant grows , performs
well and fulfils expectations. Not done well and the reverse occurs - a misfit system that
struggles and fails to fulfil expectations, it also creates a poor perception in its' space, of the
capability of such systems, a perception that can become sedimented into the organisational
mindset, making it incredibly hard to change, and creating a difficult organisational climate
for IS in general.
The essence of understanding this situation, lies in understanding the dynamic
interaction which is taking place, and systems thinking is ideally suited to this task. As Jay
Forrester suggests, 'systems dynamics deals with change. Understanding and managing change
are central tasks in both technological and social systems.'(Forrester, 1994)
Role of culture
Now let us define the basic parameters of the systems study being undertaken. The need for
an IS to 'fit' has been mentioned - what does this mean in organisational terms. The term
generally used to define that ‘je ne sais quoi’ which makes organisations special is culture.
So for a system to fit it must be coherent with the organisational culture. What does this
mean? It is often said that a major reason for the acquisition of inappropriate, or ineffective
information systems is the 'culture gap' between the IS professionals and the organisational
managers.
What is the culture gap ?
The culture gap is the difference in thinking regarding IT, which is dependant on the
background of those involved. Grindley(1992) in the Price Waterhouse IT Review of
1991/1992 describes the situation. On one side is the business manager who does not
appreciate the potential contribution that IT and IS could make to the business, resulting in
lost opportunities. On the other side is the IT specialist who sees great opportunities, but fails
to understand the impact that the proposed technology and systems might have on the people
who make up the business.
Grindley also suggests that often the IT specialists are felt to belong to some invisible
‘computer university’, feeling more fellowship with other IT specialists than with their
business colleagues. The potential for this syndrome to increase, is more likely than ever, now
that the information super-highways of the Internet, and World Wide Web are with us. For
many technical specialists 'surfing the net' is so much easier, than trying to communicate face
to face, with real people.
There are those who think the problem is exaggerated, five per cent of the Price
Waterhouse sample felt that the culture gap, in relation to IT specialists, is no more evident
that with other specialist functions, such as finance, engineering or marketing. That does
however, leave ninety five per cent who do see it as a problem, forty seven per cent of the
IT directors surveyed felt it was their major problem.
969
Parallel Program
A Picture of the situation
Ido not like computers & IT | IT makes me a powerful
because I do not understand organizational player,
them & they threaten my because I understand it
authority and others do not
(1 thought a megabyte I only use jargon to
was a large sandwich ) maintain my image
as a technocrat
Business Manager IT Specialist
Ido not understand
the IT jargon
megabytes, busses
wimps
Figure 1 Culture Gap - Rich Picture
This is of necessity, a simplistic picture of the situation, and one that has changed since
Angell's description in 1991. The huge amount of hype surrounding business process
reengineering has meant that business managers are now very aware that IT has been used
very successfully by some businesses. Many are keen to jump onto the bandwagon,
encouraged by consultants and IT specialists alike, but have little idea of what they might be
being persuaded to espouse. Similarly the perspective of the IT specialist may not be unbiased
or holistic, or so it seems to those of us with a cynical world-view, as the claims made for
the curative properties of this magic IT cure for ailing businesses, bears a strong resemblance
to the claims made for the philosophers stone.( Jackson (1993) echoes similar sentiments. )
The fact remains that there is still a large gap between the perceptions of the business
manager and those of the IT specialist, with regard to the role and place of IT & IS in
business.
Bridging the Gap and the Unintended Consequences
Now to consider a case study of an attempt to bridge the gap, and improve communication,
which suffered from the unintended consequences that so often follow attempts at action in
human activity systems.(see also Forrester 1971 & Senge 1990).
970
System Dynamics '95 — Volume II
Case Study - The organisation in which the intervention takes place consists of a central
management sector, known as 'the centre’, and five divisions, each of which has its own
management team. The management information system being studied, which will be referred
to as (CMIS), is part of a suite of systems. The trigger for development of these systems was
the devolution of control of the organisation from its previous political masters. In the case
of (CMIS) there was also a perceived need, on the part of some senior managers within the
organisation, for a system to monitor more closely the activities of the business. These
involve the work of many, previously autonomous professionals, forced by changes in
circumstances to allow much greater scrutiny of their actions.
The devolution of control necessitated the fast development of systems to enable
survival. Financial systems were given priority and developed relatively quickly. These were
perceived as satisfactory, primarily because they worked sufficiently well, to enable the
organisation to survive financially. A personnel system was also developed. (CMIS) was the
most difficult system to be attempted. (CMIS) could be considered as a customer database,
plus a product database, the primary requirements as outputs, being the fast production of
customer invoices, and provision of statistics to 'the centre' and to central government.
The development of (CMIS) followed the traditional pattern, first a feasibility study
was commissioned, and a report submitted to the organisations' leader, approval was granted
and systems analysis began. The human resources for the systems development consisted of
a team seconded from one division of the organisation.
Development proceeded, many within the organisation were consulted about desired
outputs from the system. Expectations were high that an important information tool was to
be provided, which would benefit all. A manager from outside the organisation was recruited
to oversee all the systems. This manager did not survive long, and was replaced by a member
of the original development team. At this point it seems that a decision to consolidate on the
work done to date, and commence production was taken. For various reasons it also seems
that only a part of the originally envisaged system was to be developed, what could be seen
as the central core, the part most useful to the ‘centre’.
Approval for this decision and proposed method of proceeding was sought from the
top management of the ‘centre’ and the five divisions. They were introduced to the intricacies
of the data model at a series of meetings. This approval was forthcoming, so production and
implementation commenced. A steering group of the top management from each division, plus
other interested parties, was set up to oversee further developments and make decisions as
required.
The Intervention
The author's intervention comes some way into the implementation process, when
commissioned by one division to work on a project to design and build simple information
systems to assist in their management process. Once work began, the existence of (CMIS)
became known, a system which could already offer some of the required facilities, yet it was
not being used. Worse still its reputation, in this particular division was catastrophic. It had
become what Pettigrew(1992) describes as an organisational scapegoat.
971
Parallel Program
The primary operational users and providers of data to CMIS are the administrative
workers in the divisions. They perceive the system to be difficult to use, unfriendly and not
particularly useful. Their immediate managers do not regard the system highly, seeing it as
a tool of the centre which has little relevance for themselves. They do little to ensure adequate
use of the system, which has resulted in a build up of poor quality data. The poor quality data
is itself a contributory factor in the limited benefits which are available from the system. The
managers have little appreciation of the key organisational role the system could play.
On the other hand those at the centre seem unaware of the very real problems in using
the system, particularly since there is little help available, and those in the divisions are
overburdened with other responsibilities. The unfriendly interface became apparent, with the
introduction of the 'Windows' environment as a standard for other applications.
Administrative staff, some of whom may not be very comfortable with IT, have to move from
a multi-coloured WIMP environment one minute, to old-fashioned green text on a dark
screen, needing complex function key use, the next.
Thus the problem which drove the research was very much a ‘soft systems' style
trigger, and was within the larger context of the divisional project to provide management
support systems. Essentially there was a need to understand why the central system was
perceived so badly, to determine if (CMIS) was really just a poor system, or if something
more complex was involved. Whatever the problem, this contextual understanding was crucial
to the planning of divisional systems, and understanding what constraints existed within the
organisational culture in relation to using IT.
A major constraint on the work, is the centrally determined policy that organisational
information systems in general, were within the remit of the manager who had ultimate
control of (CMIS). Within this framework any local development was seen as an additional
criticism of (CMIS), although even when it is fully implemented and working well, it will not
be able to meet all local information needs.
A turning point
The poor use and support of (CMIS) had a serious impact on its possible use for its major
original aim - providing central management information and statistics. This led to the issue
of a major directive from the controlling, steering body. The divisions were to start using a
section of the system and complete data entry within a defined timescale. The directive
caused some coristernation within the divisions, evoked a number of strongly worded
responses, but overall caused little in the way of action to improve system use.
In order to further inform thinking about the situation the author, an experienced
systems developer, undertook a project which required intensive use of (CMIS). This was to
provide a 'users' view of the system, to offer a perspective of it as an information system.
The conclusion from this work was that (CMIS) was a perfectly adequate management
information system, which potentially offered considerable benefits to the division. It was not
a particularly easy system to use, and was not supported as well as it might be, but
nonetheless could be made to work reasonably well, once the user was familiar with its
complex interface.
972
System Dynamics '95 — Volume II
The real problem ?
The real problem seemed to be system ownership. To those at the centre this is an essential
tool to enable them to provide statistical data to. a central government body. They are
perceived as the owners of the system. The system is dependant on the data which is provided
by those in the divisions, but it does little for them - they feel no ownership. More than this
they feel hostility - that it is an imposition, which prevents them completing the work that
they need to do.
Why has this problem arisen ?
One possible cause is the manner in which the IS professionals tried to involve divisional
managers in the development stages of the system. The design methodology required user
participation at a series of meetings. At these meetings the developers presented some of the
system documentation to the assembled managers - seeking approval or signing-off, of
particular stages. This attempt at facilitating participation was seen by the managers as
disastrous - they did not understand the diagrams and documentation presented - were unable
to comprehend the decisions required and reacted with hostility to the IS professionals, and
the concept of the system.
Several of the managers tell the same story of this episode, being presented with
complex wiring diagrams, and being expected to make decisions based on incomprehensible
data. As managers in this organisation of course, they only admitted to the lack of
comprehension later, and never to the IT professionals. They were culturally unable to say
‘I don't understand - please explain ?' Equally the IS professionals were apparently unable
to understand or appreciate this lack of comprehension, and might well have been unable to
explain meaningfully. Thus the vicious circle of negative perceptions began, the unintended
consequence of a well meaning attempt at encouraging user participation and involvement.
It would appear that the inability of the IS professionals to communicate with the
managers at this point is a classic ‘culture gap' scenario - but there is more to the story than
this. The steering group which was set up to oversee the continued system development and
make decisions as required, was another attempt to improve communication, to overcome the
‘culture gap', once more not very successful. Once technical items start to appear on the
agenda, senior management attendance fell, soon those that attend, are those to whom the task
is delegated as a chore, and a few who have a genuine interest. Yet the body is still a quasi-
decision maker, and holder of some political power. Defining a suitable confederation of
delegates to this group is the real challenge for the future. People who can act as a ‘next
friend’ to the system, and facilitate its use, regardless of their hierachical position. Taking this
idea on board however, would probably be a culture-shock for some conservative central
managers.
973
Parallel Program
To sum up the situation:-
Divisional managers, * do not understand system capabilities
* feel no system ownership
* feel threatened by central control
* see the system as a central control tool
Central managers, * always under pressure from national body
* do not understand divisional problems
* maintain central control while paying lip
service to de-centralisation
fail to appreciate divisions real need for IS
Thus this is not a culture gap situation between IT professionals and business managers, but
a conflict situation between central and divisional managers. The CMIS system caught in the
midst of this conflict suffers, a victim of a political culture, where being seen to do -the
politically correct, is assumed to be sufficient for effectiveness. This is why it is more of a
trap than a gap - the organisational culture, a memo-culture, mediates against realistic
communication, and any real understanding of the other side's viewpoint - it traps both sides
in a situation that cries out for metanoia. A dialogue could move the situation forward, on
dialogue the words from Senge(1990) seem appropriate:-
"We are not trying to win in dialogue. We all win if we are doing it right. In dialogue,
individuals gain insights that simply could not be achieved individually. A new kind of mind
comes into being which is based on the development of common meaning’
Notes On Methodology
Initially the author made exactly the same mistake as the system designers, in trying to use
a patticipative, soft, approach in studying the situation. Participative soft approaches do not
work well in political cultures,( the bruises are healing well), the failure was in itself most
instructive, and probably occasioned far more learning, in relation to using a soft systems
approach, than a successful attempt. So the first lesson must be, that nothing is a failure if
you learn from the experience. Secondly Checkland's rich pictures are an ideal way of starting
on the practice fields, that Senge & Kim(1994) advocate so powerfully, but rich pictures do
not necessarily have to be pictorial, and a complementary paper detailing the use of a fairy
story, as an alternative rich picture illustrates the point. (Young 1995).
Senge's archetypes are after all, stories with pictures. A useful way of proceeding is
to draw an initial rich picture, to experience the learning from the construction process.
Follow this with an influence diagram, then use both to make a comparison with the Sengian
archetypes to determine the similarities and differences, but most of all, to encourage the
thinking and debate which is crucial to metanoia.
The final words though, must echo those of Peter Checkland(1981), the situation here, as in
so many problem situations, is the search for that which is both ‘systemically desirable and
974
System Dynamics '95 — Volume II
culturally feasible’, the challenge perhaps, is to persuade both sides that this can be a shared
vision.
Bibliography
Checkland P.B. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice,Chichester Uk, Wiley
Forrester,Jay,1994,Policies, Decisions, and Information Sources for Modelling, in Modelling
for learning Organizations,ed. Morecroft,J.D.W., & Sterman,J.D.,Portland Oregon, Productiviy
Press
Forrester,Jay,1971, Counter Intuitive Behaviour of Social Systems,Technology Review
73,No.3:52-68
Galliers,R.,1991,Strategic information systems planning : myths, reality and guidelines for
successful implementation, European Journal of Information Systems,1,1,55-64
Grindley,K.,ed.,1992,Culture Gap, The Price Warehouse IT Review of 1991/1992,London
Hammer,M.,1990,Reengineering Work: Don't Automate Obliterate, Harvard Business Review,
July-August 1990.
Hammer,M. & Champy,J.,1993, Reengineering the Corporation,London, Nicholas Brealey
Jackson,M.C.,1993,Beyond the fads:systems thinking for managers,University of Hull working
paper no.3.
Kim,D.H., & Senge,P.M.,1994,Putting Systems Thinking into practice, Sytems Dynamics
Review,10,2-3
Madnick,S.,1988,7he Strategic Use of Information technology,New York,Oxford University
Press
Ormerod,R.,1994, Putting Soft OR Methods to work: Information Systems Strategy
Development at Sainsbury's, Warwick Business School research paper
Pettigrew,A.,1987, Context and action in the transformation of the firm, Journal of
Management Studies,24-6
Porter ME. & Millar V.E.,(1985),How information gives you competitive advantage, Harvard
Business Review 63(4)
Senge P.M.1990, The Fifth Discipline, London, Century
Ward,J.,Griffiths,P.,& Whitmore P.,(1990), Strategic Planning for Information
systems,Chichester, Wiley
Venkatraman,N.,1991,J7-Induced Business Reconfiguration,in The Corporation of the
1990's,ed.Scott Morton,M.S..New York,Oxford University Press
Young, J.A.0.,1995, The use of metaphor in a soft systems intervention,to be presented at the
International systems Dynamics Conference in Tokyo.
975
