Myths, Narratives and the Dilemma of Managerial Support: Organizational learning as an alternative?

288 Pages·2007·1.937 MB·English

by  Alexander Dreiling (auth.)

Alexander Dreiling
Myths, Narratives and the Dilemma
of Managerial Support
GABLER EDITION WISSENSCHAFT
Alexander Dreiling
Myths, Narratives
and the Dilemma
of Managerial Support
Organizational learning
as an alternative?
With forewords by Prof. Dr. Jörg Becker
and Prof. Dr. Iris Vessey
Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag
Bibliografische Information Der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der
Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über
<http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar.
Dissertation Universität Münster, 2005
D 6
1. Auflage Juni 2007
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
© Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag | GWVFachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2007
Lektorat: Frauke Schindler / Nicole Schweitzer
Der Deutsche Universitäts-Verlag ist ein Unternehmen von Springer Science+Business Media.
www.duv.de
Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt.
Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes
ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlags unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbe-
sondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die
Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. indiesem
Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme, dass solche
Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei zu betrachten
wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften.
Umschlaggestaltung: Regine Zimmer, Dipl.-Designerin, Frankfurt/Main
Gedruckt auf säurefreiem und chlorfrei gebleichtem Papier
Printed in Germany
ISBN 978-3-8350-0279-1
To my parents, my wife, and my children
Foreword by Jörg Becker
Managerial reporting systems traditionally aim at satisfying the information needs
ofmanagerstosupporttheirtasks. Thereby,thequalityofmanagementdecisionsis
highlydependentontheinformationtheyarebasedon. Consequently,relevantman-
agerialinformationhastobeprovidedinanappropriatewayattherighttimeand
place. At the same time it has to be avoided that unnecessary information is sup-
plied and the manager “drowns” in information. Most contemporary organisations
have implemented managerial reporting systems and it is commonly acknowledged
that they support managers both ad-hoc, in quickly changing business situations,
andonaregularbasisthroughstandardreports. Inadditionthereisavastamount
ofresearchondifferentfacetsofManagerialReportingSystems,suchasinformation
requirementsanalysis,conceptualdesign,technicalrealisation,orsocialimpact.
Organisational learning as a part of organisational theory is concerned with the
question of how an organisation can create a learning environment and, through
its members, can constantly learn and adapt. Although there are many parallels
between the concepts of managerial information and organisational learning, their
relation has not yet been subject to an in-depth analysis within the Information
Systemsdiscipline. TheworkofAlexanderDreilingisbasedontheassumptionthat
reporting systems can be a facilitator for organisational learning. Consequently,
managerialreportingisnotbasedonacontrolparadigminhiswork. Infact,heuses
managerial objectives as a basis for managerial reporting. In doing so, he supports
thenotionoforganizationallearningasconceptualizedbyArgyrisandSchön.
Dreiling introduces a method for the conceptual design of managerial reports
basedonthenotionoforganizationallearning. Subsequently,heapplieshismethod
in three case studies and examines its applicability, usefulness, and practicality.
Combined with other management tools such as coaching, the method helps to
significantlyenhancethepersonaldevelopmentofmanagers.
Withhisoriginalandwell-groundedworkDreilingmakesanimportantcontribu-
tion to the body of knowledge in the Information Systems field. His intensive dis-
cussion of the sense and nonsense of information provision to management has the
potential to significantly impact the competitiveness of organisations. It is charac-
terizedbyenormouseffortsindevelopingamethod,applyingit,andsubstantiating
it. Apart from making this book an interesting reading, his discussion provides a
goodstartingpointfortheredesignofasystemofmanagerialreports.
Jörg Becker
Foreword by Iris Vessey
Whatinformationshouldbeprovidedtosupportmanagementisacentral,age-old,
and oft-neglected issue in Information Systems. Over its history, IS researchers
have taken a number of approaches to address this issue including specific types of
systemssuchasdecisionsupportsystemsandknowledgemanagementsystems,tech-
nicalsolutionssuchasdata warehousing andenterpriseportalsand,morerecently,
content-specific reference models such as the balanced scorecard. Notwithstanding
the variety of approaches currently available, managerial reporting systems have
beenthemostprevalent,andseemdestinedtoremainsointheforeseeablefuture.
AlexanderDreiling’sworkonmanagerialreportingsystemsismorecloselyaligned
withthebodyofresearchthatinvolvescontent-specificreferencemodels. Hetakes,
however,arefreshinglydifferentapproach. Incontrasttothetypicalcontrolstance
with its negative connotations, he takes a positive stance in focusing on the abil-
ity of such systems to facilitate organizational learning. Providing managers with
information on the extent to which they have achieved their objectives facilitates
direct evaluation of their expectations against the outcomes thereby encouraging
thedevelopmentofnewstrategieswhengoalsarenotmet.
Dreiling’swork,whichisoperationalizedviatheMetaMISapproachtomodeling
organizational information requirements developed over a number of years at the
UniversityofMünster,presentsamethodbymeansofwhichmanagerialobjectives
firstcanbedecomposedandoperationalized,andsecondrigorouslytransformedinto
conceptualmodelsthatcanbeexaminedfortheirsupportformanagerialobjectives.
Heapplieshismethodtothreecasestudies,examinestheextenttowhichtheexisting
managerial reporting systems are capable of facilitating managerial learning, and,
further, outlines a set of conceptual models that would enable the implementation
oforganizationlearningenvironmentsineachofthecasecompanies.
The work described here is original, important, and ground breaking. Dreil-
ing presents a very impressive justification for the research approach taken that is
grounded in philosophical assumptions with regard to organizations, management,
informationtechnology,andlanguage,aswellastheoryonorganizationallearning.
Andhedemonstratesmasteryovertheontologicalandepistemologicalimplications
ofboththeMetaMISmodelingmethodandthecasestudiesthatareusedtoevaluate
theapplicabilityoftheapproachtopractice. Theideasdevelopedinthedissertation
havethepotentialtomakealastingimpactonmanagementtheoryandpractice.
Iris Vessey
Preface
The importance of managerial support has been established for modern business-
related sciences at least as early as 1922. It was then in the first issue of Harvard
BusinessReview,thatWallaceB.Donhamcalledforapropertheoryofbusiness
toavoidbusinesstocontinuetobe“unsystematic,haphazard,andformanymena
pathetic gamble.” The past century witnessed significant development in terms of
theory. Common examples attracting considerable attention for scientific enquiry
aredecisiontheory,knowledgemanagementandtransfer,ororganizationallearning.
Eachsetoftheoriesfocusesaspectsofmanagerialwork. Methodsandtoolsbased
upon decision theory are concerned with finding one appropriate course of actions
amongst a myriad of possibilities. Knowledge management methods and tools es-
sentially seek to conserve and transfer expert knowledge so that repetitive errors
can more easily be prevented and repeating success more easily be achieved. Fi-
nally,methodsandtoolsbuildinguponthenotionoforganizationallearningaimat
significantlyloweringtheresourcesinvolvedincreatingexperts.
I focus organizational learning for two main reasons: Firstly, learning is an “un-
avoidable” phenomenon. Learning does not have to be pursued as an additional
activity to daily responsibilities. It is thus not the question if managers learn but
what they learn and how this learning process can be directed. Secondly, a new
dimension of criticism emerged from postmodern discussions of knowledge man-
agement or decision making, which at least hints at the need to investigate other
mechanismsforsupportingmanagement.
Itismystrongbeliefthatthe“learningorganization”performssuperiorly. Ithus
dedicate the following discussion to this topic. More specifically, I will discuss a
method that allows for specifying managerial reporting systems that enable orga-
nizational learning. Furthermore, I will describe the conduct of three case studies
in which I was able to apply the developed method in three distinct organizational
settingsandreportonmyexperiences.
This work would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. I
shall therefore attempt to appropriately acknowledge the help, direction, and sup-
portIreceived.
I am deeply indebted to both of my supervisors, Prof. Jörg Becker, and
Prof. Iris Vessey. Jörg Becker kindly provided me with the opportunity to
obtain a PhD at the University of Münster. I had the privilege of being supported
through an excellent infrastructure and working together with colleagues who be-
came close friends. Iris Vessey deserves my sincere thanks for devoting lots of
hertimeforfeedback,encouragement,anddiscussions. Shesharedalotofherout-
xii
standing academic expertise, which enabled me to strengthen the line of argument
significantly.
Prof. Michael Rosemann provided me with the extraordinary possibility to
visit Queensland University of Technology (Australia) for the period of one year
during my PhD. I am grateful for this experience and the chance of significantly
alteringthecourseofmyPhD.
Prof.MichaelzurMühlenandProf.RolandHoltenarousedmyinterest
forfurtherresearchduringmymasterstudiesandlatersignificantlycontributedto
shapingmyresearchtopics.
Thomas Klug and Jan Faerber patiently devoted their time within the case
studiesandprovidedvaluablefeedback.
Jan Recker, Stefan Seidel, Christian Janiesch, and Dr. Boris Wys-
susek, in addition to my supervisors, provided valuable feedback to and input for
previousversionsofthescript.
My colleagues in Münster accompanied and influenced significant parts of my
academic journey. In addition to the colleagues mentioned above and all other
formercolleaguesfromMünsterwhoremainunnamedhere,Dr. Christian Bre-
lage, Jens Crisandt, Karsten Klose, Dr. Florian Kupsch, Dr. Chris-
tian Probst, Dr. Michael Ribbert, and Michael Thygs were extremely
reliableandsupportiveineverysituation.
Dr. Lars Kamper, Martin Otten, Vincent Strukamp, Thomas Spli-
ethoff, and Marc Cäsar have always been close friends. I would be a different
persontodaywithoutthem.
Andlastbutnotleast,Ioweeverythingtomyfamily. MyparentsHans-Michael
and Jolanta provided my with love and encouraged me in every situation. They
successfully equipped me with “roots and wings.” My dear wife Katrin has sup-
ported me with her unconditional love ever since I met her. Without her I would
not have been able to dedicatedly work on this thesis. My children Michael and
Sarah became my greatest joy. They gave my life a new meaning. This work is
dedicatedtothem.
Alexander Dreiling
Contents
Table of Contents xiii
List of Figures xv
List of Tables xvii
1 Exposition 1
1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 ObjectandInterestofExamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 MethodologicalGrounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 PositioningoftheResearch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.5 Contribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.6 StructureoftheThesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.7 RemarksonFormat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2 Foundations 17
2.1 Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.1 HistoryofOrganizationTheory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1.2 ParadigmsinOrganizationTheory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.1.3 Management: ControlversusLaissez-Faire . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.2 OrganizationsandIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.2.1 FromMIStoES—Re{defin|ify}ingConceptsasHistoricalDe-
velopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.2.2 ParadigmsinInformationSystemsDevelopment . . . . . . . . 65
2.2.3 CommonAssumptionsandMisperceptions . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.3 Organizations,IT,andLanguage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.3.1 TheLinguisticTurnwithinPhilosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.3.2 Influential Discussions within Linguistics and the Philosophy
ofLanguage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
2.3.3 LanguageintheContextofOrganizationsandIT . . . . . . . 94
2.4 ManagementSupport(Dilemma) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2.4.1 Onthe‘Achievable’andthe‘Non-Achievable’ . . . . . . . . . 99
2.4.2 ManagerialLearningandOrganizationalLearning . . . . . . . 107
2.4.3 OrganizationalandManagerialObjectives . . . . . . . . . . . 117
2.4.4 ManagementSupportinthisResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
2.5 Synopsis—ConclusionsforthisResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125