Five Models Of Information Policy Seen In Organisations

One of our sales management training tutors tells delegates of a sales manager he knew who was horrified at the state of his new companies information policy. Shortly after starting his new job the sales manager asked to see the various reports his department used. The next day his in-tray was overflowing with 23 reports - none of which he could understand. On investigation he found that the reports were not understood by the report writers either! Information has become one of the most important resources organisations have. Indeed, the well-known phrase 'information is power' is very relevant to today's successful organisations. After all, it is only possible to have efficient management if, amongst others, you have an effective information policy.

There are a number of ways in which information policy is approached in organisations, each with their associated advantages and disadvantages. These can be explained by five models. Take a look at the descriptions of these models and decide which model best describes your information policy.

Model 1 is known as technocratic utopianism. In many companies information policy continues to have a strong technological orientation. It is placed in the control of a few specialists who view themselves as the information guardians. Their aim is to generate an information infrastructure which gives each employee the correct information for them on their PC screen.

There is the risk that big databases are being constructed which contain large quantities of data. Behind this is the mistaken belief that the correct technology will resolve every problem.

The result of having a technocratic utopianism information policy is that any employee not playing a direct part in the creation of this information infrastructure rarely uses this system. It is usually very complicated and far to overloaded to be workable.

A sure sign of this type of information policy is the regular promise that after the installation of the new hardware/software/new network/new database and more management training, managers and employees will be able to get the precise information that they need.

Model 2 is known as the anarchy approach. One of the main causes of information anarchy is the spread of personal computers: departments or individual employees have their own databases and their own information processing techniques and everybody uses and processes their data a little differently.

This model has obvious disadvantages. No one has access to the information of others, because there is no unitary system. There is no central point which accumulates all the information.

Model 3 is known as the feudal system. In this model it is usually middle managers who are responsible for acquiring, storing, interpreting and distributing information. Middle managers decide how to interpret the information and which reports are distributed to senior management. In principle, there is no chance of company management making decisions based on unfiltered and objective information. Often key data about the economic climate or financial situation of the company is not disseminated.

Feudal systems flourish particularly in strongly de-centralised companies. Vital information is not passed to senior management if individual business areas use their own strategies.

Model 4 is known as monarchy. Operating a monarchy system is the most practical solution for eliminating feudal systems. The manager, or someone appointed by the manager, dictates the rules of information policy. The power is centralised and business areas and departments have no influence over the matter.

A prudent and enlightened 'monarch' will try to rationalise and standardise information policy, in order to work in a particularly economic way. The monarch determines which information is to be accumulated, in which form it is processed and by whom, where it should be saved and what it should be used for. Many larger organisations have organised their information policy in a monarchy style system.

Model 5 is known as the federal system. A distinguishing feature of the federal system is the use of negotiation which is used to resolve competing or apparently unreconcilable interests. Companies which operate a federal system for their information policy have a corporate culture which encourages co-operation and a willingness to learn.

At IBM, a federal information system was introduced by Larry Ford, former head of the Corporate Information Services department. He initially formulated an information policy for the whole company, which he then negotiated with the individual departments. He did this by asking questions such as:

Would you make available your information on product quality to the service people and the sales department? Which information would you prefer to keep to yourselves?"

It proved difficult during the negotiations to make 'information holders' into 'information givers'. This was undoubtedly due to them thinking that being the 'holders of information (power)' they were more secure in their position within the company. They felt out of control as soon as their information was available widely. A large amount of management training was required to overcome this barrier.

Comments? Questions? Email Here

© HowtoAdvice.com

How to Advice .com