Communications of the ACM
Communications of the ACM
Coping with Rapid Changes in IT
In recent years, information technology has been changing at a breathtaking pace. Although this rapid IT change has created opportunities, studies have shown it is challenging those responsible for it around the world [35, 8, 10]. Faced with a constant onslaught of new and emerging IT, managers must make difficult choices and then implement, deliver, and support these choices throughout their organizations [11]. IT projects are notorious for budget overruns and delays, and rapid IT change can exacerbate these problems.
Rapid IT change can affect budgetary issues in a multitude of ways. For example, it can produce the need for new skills and thus unforeseen training demands. It can also increase staffing requirements, cause the unanticipated need to integrate old and new IT, and create dilemmas about which particular IT to acquire and when to acquire it. Furthermore, vendors' premature releases of new products can cause IT to work improperly. Internal IT staff might resist new IT and vendors might fail to supply expected support. When vendors exaggerate capabilities or buyers simply misunderstand them, new IT may engender the unexpected need for even more new IT [2]. IT organizations that adopt new IT more extensively than others probably face greater problems and must work more diligently to cope with them.
What can IT organizations do to avoid unexpected work, delays, and other problems due to rapidly changing IT while still capitalizing on its benefits? This article discusses a study to understand how IT organizations cope with rapid IT change and how they might better do so. A field survey used the coping mechanisms listed in Table 1, and the sidebar provides details of how the study was conducted. In general, the findings suggest that IT organizations do not cope very effectively with rapid IT change. The findings also suggest guidance on how these organizations might cope better. The study arrived at these conclusions by using the survey to answer the following, important IT management questions:
- What coping mechanisms do IT organizations use to deal with the problems of rapid IT change?
- What coping mechanisms do IT professionals believe help IT organizations deal with the problems of rapid IT change?
- What coping mechanisms actually help IT organizations deal with the problems of rapid IT change? (The answer to this could be instrumental in helping organizations choose more effective coping mechanisms.)
- Do IT professionals use the coping mechanisms that they believe help their organizations deal more successfully with the problems of rapid IT change? (If they do not, then knowing this might inspire IT organizations to reassess why they attempt to cope as they currently do.)
- Do IT professionals use the coping mechanisms that actually help their organizations deal more successfully with the problems of rapid IT change? (If they do not, then knowing this might inspire IT organizations to revise the way they currently attempt to cope.)
What do IT organizations do? Table 1 answers question 1, "What coping mechanisms do IT organizations use to deal with the problems of rapid IT change?" It shows the usage mean of the 34 coping mechanisms ranked in descending order by that usage. (See the "Usage" column with "Mean" and "Rank" below it in the table.) The use of boldface typography in Table 1 identifies the high ranking, low ranking, statistically significant, and other coping mechanisms discussed.
The most used coping mechanism to address problems due to rapid IT change was "Read to keep informed of available new IT." The difference between its usage (5.45) and the usage of "Inform IS professionals of the benefits of new IT" (4.55), the second most used coping mechanism, was 0.90 and the largest difference between any pair of coping mechanisms. In fact, the use of a t-test to compare the means indicated that the difference was not due to chance. It was statistically significant at the 0.001 level. Moreover, greater than 40% of the respondents gave it their highest rating. In other words, the analysis shows that "Read to keep informed of available new IT" is the most prominently used coping mechanism.
The two least used coping mechanisms were "Ignore problems" (2.54) and "Document the differences between new and previous IT" (2.63). The coping mechanism, "Ignore problems," suggests IT organizations endure problems rather than actively try to reduce them. It probably does not offer constructive results. Being the least used coping mechanism is thus a favorable sign. On the other hand, "Document the differences between new and previous IT" suggests constructive action. Hence, it is surprising the means of the two are so close (0.09). One might expect "Ignore problems" to have been significantly less used than all other coping mechanismsperhaps IT organizations ignore problems more than they should.
What do IT professionals believe helps? Table 1 also displays the answer to question 2, "What coping mechanisms do IT professionals believe help IT organizations deal with the problems of rapid IT change?" (See the "Perceived Success" column with "Mean" and "Rank" below it in the table.) The action with the highest perceived success was "Read to keep informed of available new IT." The two perceived least successful were "Ignore problems" (3.08) and "Document the differences between new and previous IT" (3.60). Although the difference between these two is not statistically significant, it is the largest in the table. As discussed previously, such a large difference was not present in coping mechanism usage. Further implications of these perceptions of success appear in the answer to the fourth question.
What actually helps? Question 3 asked, "What coping mechanisms actually help IT organizations deal with the problems of rapid IT change?" To answer this, Table 1 shows the regression of the usage of each coping mechanism on the organization's overall success at coping with rapid IT change. (See the "Regression Significance of Usage on Overall Success" column.) The regression model was significant at the 0.001 level with an R2 of 0.35. The column includes the results of the regression and the ranks of the coping mechanisms by t-value.
Several coping mechanisms were positive predictors of overall success. The strongest were "Consider only new IT compatible with existing IT" (p < 0.01), "Motivate retention of staff who are knowledgeable in new IT" (p < 0.10), and "Customize education on new IT" (p < 0.10). Ironically, the most used and perceived as successful coping mechanism, "Read to keep informed of available new IT," did not predict overall success.
Several coping mechanisms were negative predictors of overall success. The strongest were "Pressure vendors of new IT to provide support" (p < 0.05), "Engage a consultant to help plan for new IT" (p < 0.10), and "Ignore problems" (p < 0.10). The negative predictive power of "Ignore problems" is encouraging and not surprising, but the negative predictive power of the other two is perhaps quite startling.
Do IT professionals do what they believe helps? The fourth question was "Do IT professionals use the coping mechanisms that they believe help their organizations deal more successfully with the problems of rapid IT change?" It required correlating the answers of the first two questions. A Pearson r correlation coefficient for the "Usage Mean" and "Perceived Success Mean" columns in Table 1 was 0.69 and significant at the 0.001 level. This provides strong evidence that IT professionals follow the coping mechanisms they believe successfully reduce problems due to changing IT.
To investigate this further, Table 1 shows the differences between the usage and perceived success ranks. (See the "Differences in Ranks" column and "Usage and Perceived Success" below it in the table.) Low differences indicate corresponding ranks. For example, "Reading to keep informed of available new IT" (with a difference of zero in the table) ranked highest both in usage and perceived success. "Ignore problems" and "Document the differences between new and previous IT" (also with a difference of zero) ranked lowest and second lowest respectively in both measures.
A large negative difference could indicate a high usage coping mechanism not perceived to be successful. For example, "Learn new IT informally without classes" has the largest difference by ranking third in usage and 27th in perceived success. In fact, the likelihood of a difference of -24 or less is about 4.8%. It appears that IT professionals use this coping mechanism extensively even though they perceive it does not alleviate the problems of rapid IT change.
Do IT professionals do what actually helps? The final question was "Do IT professionals use the coping mechanisms that actually help their organizations deal more successfully with the problems of rapid IT change?" It required comparing the coping mechanism usage ranks to the ranks of their power of predicting overall success (that is, the ranks of significance of the regression). Table 1 shows the differences of the ranks of the two measures. (See the "Differences in Ranks" column and "Usage and Regression of Usage on Overall Success" below it.) A Spearman rho rank-order correlation coefficient for these two measures was only 0.08. It is not statistically significant and thus does not show a relationship between usage and the power to predict overall success.
The lack of a high correlation implies that IT organizations do not use the coping mechanisms that alleviate the problems. This is a powerful finding.
Large positive differences in the table single out low usage coping mechanisms that predict success. For example, "Obtain support from another company already using the new IT" had a usage rank of 31 and was fifth in its ability to predict success. The likelihood of a difference of 26 or greater is about 3.1%. This example further supports the notion that IT professionals do not use the coping mechanisms that foster the successful reduction of the problems of new IT.
On the other hand, large negative differences in the table identify high usage coping mechanisms that do not predict success. For example, "Learn new IT informally without classes" and "Pressure vendors of new IT to provide support" had the largest difference by ranking third and sixth in usage and 31st and 34th in their power to predict success. In fact, the likelihood of a difference of -28 or less is about 1.8%. These examples suggest that IT professionals use coping mechanisms that do not foster successfully reducing the problems of new IT.
Implications for Coping
Information technology is changing rapidly and causing unexpected work and delays for IT development, implementation, and support efforts. The study described here sought to understand what IT organizations can do to avoid or reduce those problems. In doing so, it provides two major contributions.
IT organizations do not cope effectively. First, this study suggests that organizations do not cope effectively with rapid IT change. It found that organizations take the actions they believe will help them succeed in coping with rapid change even though the actions do not work well. The very strong correlation (0.69) of usage and perceived success combined with the very weak correlation (0.08) of usage and power to predict overall success provide forceful evidence of this.
Two examples where IT organizations followed less effective coping mechanisms illustrated this situation. (See those with the large negative differences in the "Differences in Ranks" column and "Usage and Regression of Usage on Overall Success" below it in the table.) They were:
- "Pressure vendors of new IT to provide support." This study suggests that pressuring vendors to provide support is ineffective despite being very popular. In fact, it negatively predicted overall success. Vendors apparently have a great deal of control in their relationship with organizations that have purchased their products. They need not and do not respond to pressure as desired.
- "Learn new IT informally without classes." Teaching oneself new IT may be quite popular and may give the IT professional a convincing sense of learning. However, it appears ineffective.
Why do IT organizations apparently embrace such ineffective coping mechanisms while shunning those that are often more effective (for example, those with the large negative differences in the "Differences in Ranks" column and "Usage and Regression of Usage on Overall Success" below it such as "Motivate retention of staff who are knowledgeable in new IT," "Customize education on new IT," "Engage a consultant to provide ongoing support for new IT," and "Obtain support from another company already using the new IT")? Perhaps IT organizations simply do not know what works and what does not.
However, we suggest that cost considerations motivate this possibly self-defeating behavior. Coping mechanisms high in usage such as "Read to keep informed of available new IT," "Inform IS professionals of the benefits of new IT," and "Learn new IT informally" (those with high usage at the top of Table 1) are probably less expensive than "Maintain your own training staff" or "Document the differences between new and previous IT" (those with low usage toward the bottom of Table 1).
The implication of this first major contribution is that IT organizations should reassess their own means of coping and their success at doing so. Are they coping effectively? Or are they merely using coping mechanisms they believe are successful, but instead are not?
Guidance for improved coping. In addition to warning IT organizations that they might not be coping effectively with the radical changes in IT, this research provides a second major contribution. That is, our research and analysis provides some guidance for improved coping. Not only does the guidance follow from the analysis but it also makes intuitive sense. Thus three of the 34 coping mechanisms (see "Rank" under "Regression Significance of Usage on Overall Success" in the table) predicted successful coping with rapid IT change:
- "Consider only new IT compatible with existing IT." The effectiveness of this coping mechanism suggests organizations should migrate to new IT slowly. Apparently, the problems integrating new IT with current or other new IT are a major impediment to the implementation of the new IT.
- "Motivate retention of staff who are knowledgeable in new IT." The effectiveness of this coping mechanism implies the value of staff competence and knowledge. Other organizations can recruit these professionals and this substantially impedes the implementation of the new IT. The implication is that organizations need to provide the incentives to keep their experts. Such incentives probably motivate these expert staff members to contribute even more so.
- "Customize education on new IT." The effectiveness of this coping mechanism suggests training should be available and focused on how the new IT fits the needs of the organization. General or informal education about new IT is not as useful.
Although only three of the 34 predicted success at a statistically significant level, we suggest that each of the 34 may be effective under certain circumstances. Different combinations of coping mechanisms may be more effective under differing conditions. Even "Ignore problems"which on the surface appears least likely of valuemight be useful when the cost of correcting a problem outweighs the cost of the consequences of the problem.
So in addition to adopting "Consider only new IT compatible with existing IT," "Motivate retention of staff who are knowledgeable in new IT," and "Customize education on new IT," what should an IT organization do to cope better with rapid IT change? Each IT organization should develop its own strategy for dealing with such change. We propose that the following guidelines, which are summarized in Table 2, should be given consideration by IT organizations:
- Identify specific, recent major development, implementation, and support efforts where new IT caused unexpected work, delays, and budget overruns. Assess the severity of the problems encountered. Doing so will provide an understanding of the organization's current situation and help anticipate future problems.
- Review all of the coping mechanisms to assess what the IT organization might have done differently to avoid the problems. This review will provide an understanding of the potential of coping mechanisms. (The "Rank" under the "Regression Significance of Usage on Overall Success" is probably the most useful column for this effort.)
- Attempt to anticipate future uses of new IT that might cause unexpected work, delays, and other problems. Doing so will provide a basis for defining a strategy for coping.
- Select and implement those coping mechanisms that will help planned projects deal better with rapid IT change. This list of coping mechanisms will be the foundation for the strategy for reducing the problems caused by new IT. (Again, the "Rank" under "Regression Significance of Usage on Overall Success" is probably the most useful column for this effort.)
Persistence of Rapid IT Change
Many observers marvel at today's rapid IT change. Such change is likely to persist and different types of IT may require different coping strategies. So what should be done about the potential deleterious effects of IT change? This article suggests constructive actions for coping with those effects while capitalizing on the benefits.
Perhaps in the earlier days of IT, an organization could plan its new projects with substantial reliance on its knowledge of the IT in past projects. In that period, an organization probably hired staff with known skills to implement applications using tried and trusted IT. Today's IT organizations, however, need to reevaluate such strategies by considering the uncertainty about tomorrow's IT.
References
1. Allen, T.J. and Morton, M.S. Information Technologies and the Corporation of the 1990's. Oxford University Press, New York, 1994.
2. Benamati, S., Lederer, A.J., and Singh, M. Changing information technology and information technology management. Information and Management 31 (1997), 275288.
3. Boar, B.H. Logic and information technology strategy: Separating good sense from nonsense. Journal of Systems Management 45, 5 (May 1994), 1621.
4. Carey, D. Rating the top MIS issues in Canada. Canadian Datasystems. (June 1992), 2325.
5. CIOs still feel besieged. ComputerWorld. (Aug. 14, 1995), 72.
6. Geisler, E. Managing information technologies in small business: Some practical lessons and guidelines. Journal of General Management 18, 1 (Autumn 1992), 7481.
7. Hatcher, L. A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 1994.
8. Lederer, A.L. and Mendelow, A.L. The impact of the environment on the management of information systems. Information Systems Research 1, 2 (June 1990), 205222.
9. Mello, A. Coping with accelerating technological change. Macworld, (July 1996), 2728.
10. Paul, S. European IS managers get down to business. Datamation 40, 4 (Mar. 1, 1994), 7884.
11. Rockart, J.F., Earl, M.J., and Ross, J.W. Eight imperatives for the new IT organization. Sloan Management Review 38, 1 (Fall 1996), 4355.
©2001 ACM 0002-0782/01/0800 $5.00
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
The Digital Library is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2001 ACM, Inc.
No entries found