The argument about Information Technology’s benefit to the enterprise seems silly: of course having computers, both in isolation and on a network, has added huge value to industry and business; indeed, they are as pivotal a game changer as the steam engine, the printing press, or (dare I say it?) the wheel. And yet, the discussion is legitimate if you frame it correctly: yes, computers are good in general, but is any specific, given additional IT tool of benefit?
In many cases this depends on who the organization assigns it to. You’ve probably noticed this when visiting a doctor at a clinic: I’ve seen many an MD cursing under their breath while struggling to enter my examination data and conclusions into a new computerized system. Instead of scribbling a few illegible lines on paper and chucking it into a manila file, to be processed later by an assistant, they had to use an unfamiliar and possibly ill-designed piece of technology, and it took them much longer. And because of this they had less time to apply their real value added, their precious ability to cure the sick.
A more formal view on this is described by IORG member Dr. Lesa Becker, whose PhD dissertation examined the use of computers in a health care setting: she found that usually a new IT system introduced into the workplace resulted in increased overload and reduced manager productivity. Why? Because as new software products were implemented, the role definition of managers would change – clerical tasks that had been performed by low-level clerks and administrative assistants would be shifted to managers, taking time away from higher-level tasks like managing processes, mentoring subordinates, etc. I’ve seen this happen over the years in Hi-Tech as well: many mid-level managers today handle – with the help of software – numerous bureaucratic tasks, like compiling expense reports and setting up meetings, that 20 years ago would have been in the hands of the then-ubiquitous secretaries and clerks.
I think this is a real problem, which follows the usual pattern with new technology: it gets deployed with little attention to the wider implications. Thus, if a tool enables the manager or engineer to do the admin’s work, the temptation to remove the admin and become “lean” and “efficient” is great. But the fact is, an admin is paid much less than a highly skilled engineer or manager (or surgeon); and the latter only has so many hours in a day, which may be better used for doing higher level tasks. This is not to say that we can’t streamline some of the work by having it done by the manager; the question is which part, and to what extent. As is often the case, it’s pretty much about identifying the correct balance.
I propose that if we want to reap the full benefit of IT tools, we should take a holistic view of their impact. Only after we understand the alternatives should we decide who should use them, and how. If we keep the right tools in the right hands, and maintain the right expectations, we can derive real productivity increases without sacrificing our knowledge workers’ effectiveness in their main role.
What do you think? Is it any different where you work?
Thanks for the thoughtful post, Nathan. You’ve hit on something very important here.
Your comment reminds me of something that Toyota has long preached: that if you apply technology to a broken process, all you end up with is a faster broken process. That’s not to say that all administrative scut work is worthless or the result of a broken process, but much of it surely is.
Your question reminds me that we should not only fix the process before investing in IT, but that we have to think about if and where the work will shift.
are you saying that we should go back to the time when the secretary would park her butt on the edge of the desk and whip out a steno pad to take dictation?
the time to transmit data from the manager to the lower level worker, along with the clarification requests and checking, is greater than the time it takes for the manager to do the task. you have to add the cost of this time, along with the cost for the inevitable mistakes, checking, and rework, to the cost of the lower level worker.
Thanks for highlighting the shift in work for leaders as they spend more time managing information and technology at the expense of leading people.
New research I have conducted suggests this information management burden is continuing to expand in large organizations. Leaders indicate there are up to 40 applications they must learn in order to do their jobs.
Since most organizations are not adding clerical workers to ease the burden, I have begun to focus on providing job aids, quick reference cards and mini-tutorials to help busy professionals get up to speed quickly on learning these new applications.
@chaniarts, I wasn’t advocating throwing the baby with the bathwater, or going back to the fifties. As I wrote, it’s about identifying the correct BALANCE.
That said, in many cases the clerical help did save serious amounts of time even after you add the overhead. For example, I once had to use a system for expense report submission that would take me maybe half an hour to enter the endless details of a week long business trip; stuffing the receipts in an envelope and handing it to an admin would have taken 30 seconds. What’s more, it would have taken a skilled admin ten minutes to my thirty, due to being better versed in the use of the system by virtue of having had much more practice…