Subscribe to Newsletter
Tell a Friend
Print this Page
06/12/2007New-Technology Rollouts: Avoid Putting Lipstick on the Pig!
The introduction of new technology in an organization is always a difficult and sometimes jarring event. Workers do not change their work habits, and if a new application arrives with promises of automation, seamless integration and mobile connections, it is first and foremost put through the sieve of change! If it changes or threatens to change existing process, it may be resisted and ultimately discarded for this all too human reaction of resistance to change. If on the other hand the technology follows existing paths and conventions, and simply speeds them up a bit, then the chances for success increase considerably. So what is the proper management response to this dilemma? Should one attempt to install technologies as tightly fitting on existing process as possible? Or is it wiser to allow the technology to take us to higher levels of effectiveness and productivity, escaping the clutches of tradition and process mired in the past? In order to think about this very important question, let us use a simple two-by-two matrix of Process vs. Technology. Each axis will have an Existing and New entry, and their intersect will define management strategies for introducing new technology.
| Existing Process | New Process | Existing Technology | 1 | 2 | New Technology | 3 | 4 |
The traditional way of procuring and installing new technology is defined by the vertical pathway 1=>3. We automate the existing process with new technology; in other words, we slap some lipstick on the pig! And this strategy fails on two grounds: First, because the existing process is probably old and creaky, and applying new technology to it only allows us to make mistakes on a faster and broader scale! Second is because of our inability to experience the new capabilities of the technology and allow them to transform and change our existing process. Interoperability of disparate stovepiped departments and resources, geographic awareness of applications, real-time updating of management information and dynamic team forming in response to events are all transformation options that new communications and applications technology makes available to modern, progressive managers of systems which might be ignored on the Lipstick path. So how would we change this approach? Well, Business Line analysis can help us understand what we do now, and a re-engineering effort can then organize our strategies along different ways- informed by the technologies around us! Only then, after we complete the pathway 1=> 2 are we ready to specify and procure the new technology along the pathway 3=>4, and enjoy the new, stronger solution. A concrete example will make this theoretical construct explicit. If police-officer productivity in the field is an issue because of report writing difficulties of time, accuracy and timeliness, the simplest, lipstick-on-the-pig solution would be to "spec out" a field-report writer which is enabled by a broadband-wireless solution and deploy it in the squad cars so that individual reports are made available faster. However, a little time spent in the front end with a Business Process analysis might reveal a lot of new information essential to a good solution: - Perhaps the report content does not reflect new management needs, and a data base redesign is in order.
- Perhaps the ability of the officers to produce hard copy of the reports in the field is a new, desired capability by the officers and/or the population served.
- Perhaps instead of feeding a static, monthly report on incidents, every report can be integrated into a real-time screen of activities that informs shift commanders in real time of field conditions.
Each of these hypothetical situations may impact the bandwidth requirements, application capabilities and training requirements of the system. Better to know and define them before the procurement stage starts…. Applying technology to re-engineered systems is perhaps the simplest of all steps in such a wise deployment of technology. The kinks and suspicions of the users can all be worked out beforehand, and the “Orgware” dimensions of the solution (as opposed to the Hardware and Software) can really be made explicit and addressed. This timing and phasing of solutions will be explored in more detail in subsequent columns. I invite readers to weigh in with examples and questions in order to start a dynamic conversation on this important topic! Costis Toregas is President Emeritus, Public Technology Institute, and a lecturer at George Washington University. He chairs the Business Processes reengineering Roundtable at the W2i Digital Cities Convention.
back
Related Items:
• Groningen
• W2i, IBM Host Digital Cities Workshops at 2007 Global Forum
• City Services Drive Network in St. Louis
• Riverside, Calif., Taking Multipurpose to the Max
• Doug Townsend, IT Director, Medford (OR) - Part 2
• Webinar: The Emerging Role of Broadband Wireless Networks in Emergency Response Crises
Comments
Noopur Jhunjhunwala
Costis, can you give an example of a city/county that has used the process you described?
01:58 PM, 06/13/2007
Post new comment:Only registered users can add comments.
Please Log-in
| 
