1997 - Building Change-Readiness Capabilities in The Is Organization. Insights From The Bell Atl

Building Change-Readiness Capabilities in the IS Organization: Insights from the Bell Atlantic
Experience
Author(s): Charles E. Clark, Nancy C. Cavanaugh, Carol V. Brown and V. Sambamurthy
Source: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Dec., 1997), pp. 425-455
Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/249722 .
Accessed: 26/01/2015 12:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to MIS Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BellAtlantic
cycle times by utilizinga highlyskilled internal

Building Change- IS workforce.This paper examines two impor-
Readiness tant questions: Whatare the design elements
of a change-ready IS organization?How can
Capabilities in the IS transformationsto such designs be effectively
managed? Insights to these questions are
Organization: generated througha case study of the concep-
tualizationand implementationof an innovative
Insights From the organization design withina large IS unit at
Bell Atlantic, a Regional Bell Operating
Bell Atlantic
Company.First, a rich descriptionis provided
of the components (strategy, structure,
Experience1 processes, people skills, rewardsystems) of a
centers of excellence (CoE) design that has
yielded measurable gains in IS performance.
By: Charles E. Clark Then, an analysis of the two-yearimplementa-
Bell Atlantic Corporation
tion of this CoE design is providedin terms of
13101 Columbia Pike, 203H
anticipatedand unanticipatedchange actions,
Silver Springs, MD20904 as well as a summary of "lessons learned."
U.S.A. The conclusion describes the design as a
model worthy of consideration by other IS
Nancy C. Cavanaugh managers for developing change-readiness IT
Bell Atlantic Corporation capabilities. Comparisons with other models
7E6, 1320 North Courthouse Road for the IS organizationare then drawn.
Arlington, VA 22201
U.S.A.
Keywords: Structureof the IS function,issues
in organizingIS, IS staffing
Carol V. Brown
School of Business
Indiana University ISRLCategories: EB, EG02, EG03
Indianapolis, IN46202-5151
U.S.A.
cbrown @indyvax.iupui.edu
Introduction
V. Sambamurthy
Turbulentbusiness and IT environments are
College of Business
Florida State University posing new imperativesfor systems develop-
ment activities:(1) to rapidlydeliver ITapplica-
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1042 tions that facilitateagile responses to changing
U.S.A. markets and competitive rivalries and (2) to
smurthy@cob.fsu.edu cultivatedesired ITskills and effectivelylever-
age them across an ongoing stream of sys-
tems projects.As the velocityof these impera-
Abstract tives rises and IS organizations reposition
themselves as strategic business partners,
Change-readiness is the abilityof an informa- their abilityto build and sustain change-readi-
tion systems (IS) organizationto deliverstrate- ness ITcapabilitieswill become crucial(Nolan
gic IT applications within short development and Croson 1995; Rockartet al. 1996; Ross et
al. 1996). Change-readiness IT capabilities
'RobertZmudwas the acceptingsenioreditorforthis paper. includea firm'sabilityto:
MISQuarterly/December
1997 425

SIMPaper Competition
1. Enhance competitive agility by delivering research methodology is described in the

IT-based products, services, and business Appendix.
applicationswithinshort developmentcycle
times. Many of these IT-based applications
are of the first-movertype that could sur-
prise the competition and potentiallyalter The Bell Atlantic IS
industry practices (Goldman et al. 1995;
Hofman and Rockart 1992; Meyer 1993; Organization
Ross et al. 1996).
The business transformation
2. Build a highly skilled, empowered, and imperative
energized IS workforce with an entrepre-
neurial orientationtoward leveraging tech- Traditionally,the telecommunicationsindustry
nological knowledge into business applica- has operated as an oligopoly,withthe markets
tions (Bowen et al. 1991; Keen 1991; and activitiesof the RBOCsgoverned by regu-
Lawler1996; Ross et al. 1996). lations. However, during the last few years,
this industryhas been in the throes of dramatic
alterations to its competitive forces and a
Organizationdesigns are one of the key levers hypercompetitiveenvironment has emerged.
for building and sustaining such capabilities Landmarkfederal legislation deregulatingthe
(Lawler 1996; Mata et al. 1995; Nadler et al. industry passed in February 1996, allowing
1992). This paper examines two important competition between the RBOCs, long-dis-
questions: tance carriers,and cable companies. This leg-
* What are the design elements of a change- islationis expected to fuel an industryconsoli-
dationand shakeout in which only a handfulof
ready IS organization?
majornationaland internationalprovidersare
expected to survive. Bell Atlantic faces the
* Howcan transformationsto such an IS orga- prospect of a worldwhere "marketwindows of
nizationaldesign be effectivelymanaged? opportunity" open and close very rapidly.
Withinthis context, sustained success would
Insights are drawn from an analysis of a suc- require mastering the "sense-and-respond"
cessful effortto develop a change-readiness IT business paradigm:anticipatecustomer needs
capability within a corporate informationsys- throughintimaterelationshipsand satisfy cus-
tems unit at Bell Atlantic(1996 revenues: $13 tomers throughproductsand services generat-
ed from a platform of capabilities (D'Aveni
B)-a Regional Bell Operating Company
(RBOC)witha historyof competingin the local 1994; Haeckel and Nolan 1993). In the words
voice and data market segments of the of CEO RaymondW. Smith,
telecommunicationsindustry. The winnersin this era of open marketswill
be those who are organized around the
The next section describes the forces com- of the marketand readyto take
requirements
pelling change-readiness IT capabilities and advantageof emergingopportunities[excerpt
the vision of an IS organizationto buildthese fromthe 1995BellAtlanticAnnualReport].
capabilities.The components of this innovative
design are described using a priorpublished Since this emerging environmentis a disconti-
framework(Galbraith1995; Lawler1996). The nuityfromthe past, Bell Atlanticfaces a trans-
key elements of the transformation process formationalimperative:move froma protected,
are then described, and the key initiativesare regulated, and oligopolistic market environ-
summarizedalong a timeline as well as in the ment to a hypercompetitive market environ-
form of "lessons learned." The paper closes ment, characterized by a focus upon speed,
witha comparisonof the centers of excellence surprise, customer intimacy, and operational
model and other IS organizationdesigns. The excellence (D'Aveni 1994; Treacy and
426 MISQuarterly/December1997

BellAtlantic
Wiersema 1995). By the end of 1993, in antici- systems development responsibilitiesfor their
pation of this paradigmshift, CEO Smith had business clients. Four transformationalgoals
launched several significantinitiatives,includ- were identified:
ing a majorculturalchange and a new role for
ITand the IS organization. 1. Move from a legacy, mainframeapplication
developmentenvironment,characterizedby
long development cycle times and exces-
sive maintenanceactivities,to a more busi-
IS transformation
thrust ness responsive environment, character-
ized by short development cycle times, a
Historically,the IS organizationat Bell Atlantic philosophy of continuous product innova-
was designed to providesupportfor products, tion, and delighteduser clients.
services, and operationsof the companywithin
its regulatedmarkets.An internalsurvey of Bell
Atlantic'ssenior management revealed that the 2. Infusestrategicthinkingwithinthe IS organi-
IS organizationwas viewed as playinga "neu- zation to conceptualize and execute novel
tral"role. When RalphSzygenda took over the business applicationsthat sustain the firm's
reins of the IS organizationas CIOin 1993,2he competitiveagilityand customersatisfaction.
found an IS workforce whose expertise was
concentrated in large mainframeapplications. 3. Buildan ITtalent base that providesa solid
The prevailingcapabilitieswere appropriatefor internal pool of skilled IS professionals,
stable, regulated,and protectedbusiness envi- trainedin currentskills (client/server,object-
ronments: long (two-plus years) development oriented,networking),customer relationship
cycle times, a narrowtechnologicaltalentbase, management, and project management.
and a low strategicfocus in ITapplications. Further, create a process for the rapid
absorption of new skills and retirementof
The hiringof a new CIO with responsibilities obsolete skills.
for IT and business reengineering signaled a
fundamentalchange in the role of the IS orga-
nization:from a reactive, cost-controlenabler 4. Buildan IS workforcewhose values change
to a proactive, strategic differentiatorof the from an entitlementmentality("thecompa-
business. Faced with the corporate transfor- ny is responsible for my career progres-
mational business pressures and the new, sion")to an entrepreneurialmentality("Iam
emergent role of IT, the buildingof a change- responsible for enhancing my skill and
career opportunities").
ready IS organization became an important
priorityon Szygenda's agenda:
To help achieve the IS transformationalobjec-
As a companywe need to be agile,dynamic;
we haveto be ableto movequickenough.... tives, Szygenda also deliberatelyencouraged
his management to "experiment" with innova-
First,I hadto havethe best team possible.I
neededpeoplewho hadbeen therebefore- tive organizationaldesigns.
winnerselsewhere. Second, we needed to
create the environmentfor a rapid-moving The most significantof these initiativeswas a
radical redesign of the Large Business and
company,withacquisitions, and
divestitures,
alliancesovernight. InformationSystems (LB& IS) unitwithincorpo-
rate IS, implemented in July 1994, under its
At the end of 1993, the IS organization was visionary,Charles E. Clark,vice presidentand
restructured(see Figure 1): five direct reports IS-LB&ISCIO.This unit of about 250 employ-
served as group informationofficers for the ees is responsiblefor new applicationsdevelop-
restructuredlines of business (LOBs)and had ment and maintenancefor three LOBs located
withinthree majorgeographicclusters. Priorto
Clark'sarrivalat Bell Atlanticin January 1994,
2Szygendaresignedthis positionto become CIOat General
Motorsin June 1996. IS-LB&IShad done a fairlygood job of staying
1997 427

Co
CO
(0
Cs
CD
-i
---L
Ralph Szygenda
CIO
Vice President, IS& CIO Vice President, IS & CIO Vice President, IS
Billing Systerms 1 Enterprises, International Business Process Reengineerirng
r-
Vice President, IS & CIO Vice President, IS & CIO Vice President
I Cornsumer & Small Business
F large Busintss & Information Services Information Prcxessing
-I
Vice President, IS & (C0I Vice1Pnsident, IS Vi<KPresidentl
Corporate Systems NNtetwork Information T(ec nology
I
Figure 1. Bell Atlantic Corporate IS Organization (Early 1994)

BellAtlantic
ahead of the demand curve and reducingunit design in mid-1994,the IS-LB&ISunit has wit-
costs. However, its resources were primarily nessed significantimprovementson a variety
devoted to the supportof legacy systems that of measures: customer satisfaction, projects
wouldsoon outlivetheirusefulness. In addition, completed on-time, and the resident IT talent
the IS managers were responsiblefor a variety base (see Table 1). Commentsby senior client
of activities,includingapplicationsdevelopment managers on formal IS project team evalua-
and maintenance, defining new projects and tions provideadditionalqualitativesupport:
enhancements, managing customer relation-
The productsprovidedare high in quality,
ships and personnel resources, and developing and responsiveness.Andall at a
the careers of IS personnel. Generally,these innovation,
tag"withinbestcost.
"price
managers' first prioritywould be applications
developmentand maintenance,leavingthem lit- [The IS team is] alwaysthinkingaboutthe
tle time to focus on strategicthinkingand cus- impacton customers: andexternal.
internal
tomer relationshipsmanagement, let alone the
development of new skills for IS human IS met everydeadlineto date on the project
resources. The existing type of managerial andhas exceededexpectations on the quality
focus worked well in a structuredand stable andthoroughnessof thedeliverables.
legacy environment, where the applications I have founda significantimprovement over
were at least five to 10 years old, and the work 1994-I amverypleasedwiththe team'ssup-
force was rewardedfor subject matterexpertise
portof [the application]this year-job well
and consistent, repetitive performance. done!!
However,such an organizationwas not appro-
priatefor the emerging role of IS as a strategic One client manager provided this assess-
differentiator of the business. According to ment of the CoE design impact on IT talent
Clark,"toparaphrasea Chinese proverb,it was leadership:
realized that if we didn'tchange our direction,
we mightend up 'wherewe were headed.'" OurISteamis moretechnically than
qualified
theirequivalentsat [anoutsidesoftwarecon-
tractor].Theirtechnicalexpertisehas called
the [outsidesoftwarecontractor]to account-
ability.Because our IS team is competent,the
The Change-Ready IS risksof aggressive timelinesare minimized.
Organization Design at The CoE initiative was also publicly credited
IS-LB&IS with the rapid delivery of an innovative applica-
tion. The members of this project team
The vision for a change-ready organizationat received the highest corporate honor: a Bell
IS-LB&ISwas a skills-based "centersof excel- Atlantic Spirit of Excellence Citation award. In
lence" (CoE) approach, with a deliberate the words of the project manager:
design molded after a quest of more than two
years by Clarkas an IS manager in a different In the traditionalmanagement structure an
firm.The CoE organizationdesign at IS-LB&IS employee must impress, throughjob perfor-
created distinct roles and processes for con- mance or otherwise,his immediatesupervisor
in orderto progressto jobs of more responsi-
ceptualizing strategic IT applications, rapidly
bilityand visibility.The problemwiththis struc-
deliveringITapplications,and buildingthe req- ture is that more often than not a person's
uisite ITskillbase.
supervisor becomes a barrierto and not a
facilitatorof career development.Rarelywilla
In April1994, Clarkenlisted one of his current
supervisor,after the initialhiring,examine a
directors,Nancy Cavanaugh, who had experi- person'sresumeand ask the basic questionof
ence and interest in organizationand person- careerdevelopment:Based uponthis individu-
nel development to serve in a key role as a al's skills,education,and performance,what is
CoE directorresponsible for implementingthe the best position for this individual? . . . From
model. Since the implementationof the CoE the manager'spointof view, they are respon-
1997 429

Table 1. Measurable Impacts of the CoE Design
End of Year 1994 End of Year 1995

(six months after the CoE (18 months after the CoE
Impact Metric implementation) implementation)
Customer Satisfaction
(overall rating) 3.50* 4.12*
Customer Satisfaction
(percentage of projects with a
score of 4 or higher) 39% 65%
Project Delivery (percentage
of projects completed on time) 90% 100%
Leadership IT Talent Base
(number of contractors used) 30 15
*Measuredon a five-pointscale (ratingsof "4"and above are equivalentto exceeding user requirements.
sible for deliveryto the clientand the develop- offeringthe highest value products and ser-
ment of people that workfor them is not a pri- vices of any competitorin the business [from
orityand, manytimes, ignoredcompletely. the April1993 Investor'sReference Guide].
This was my particular problem as well. I
Therefore, IS-LB&IS initiated a change-readi-
joined Bell Atlanticin 1985 and even though I
was a good performerand got good raises ness functional strategy with three thrusts:
and bonuses, I languishedin a series of dead-
end positions.Myresume was never lookedat 1. Rapid development of "bite-sized" applica-
and the question was never asked. Then in tions to dramatically reduce cycle times for
1994 as Nancy Cavanaughand others in the applications delivery and facilitate speeding
Clarkorganizationwere establishingthe CoE, of products to markets. According to
I started to get some attention.The question
was asked and the obvious answer was that I Szygenda, "We have to build systems in six
had been under-utilized.... months; that's driven by the business."
The CoE concept worksbecause it uncouples

the tasks of management of the people and 2. Greater strategic focus in IT applications in
managementof the project. order to sharpen the market linkage and
customer intimacy through IT.
The next section describes the CoE design at
IS-LB&IS, using the star-model developed by
Galbraith (1995; Lawler 1996). Table 2 intro- 3. IT talent leadership through building, learn-
duces the five elements of the star-model and ing, and renewal of valued IS skills. The IS-
summarizes our mapping of the CoE design LB&IS unit aims to build an internal pool of
into this model. highly skilled staff whose expertise can be
rapidly and economically leveraged across
Strategy: change-ready IT different projects.
capabilities
As can be seen in Figure 2, the strategy com-
According to the CEO, Ray Smith: ponent is graphically portrayed at the apex of
the star-model. The other four elements are
Bell Atlanticintends to compete by sharpen-
ing our marketfocus, reducingour cost struc- designed to achieve these objectives from a
tures, speeding up our response time, and holistic perspective (Lawler 1996).

Table 2. Mapping the CoE Design at Bell Atlantic to the Star-Model Elemen
Model Elements Star-Model Description CoE Design

1. Strategy Organizational capabilities for strategic positioning Change-ready IT capabilit
* Rapid development of "
* Strategic focus in IT ap
* IT talent leadership
2. Structure Groupings of people: roles, relationships, Groups
task assignments * Management team
* Skill centers
* Delivery engagement t
Integrator Roles
* Center of excellence m
* Account manager
* Delivery manager
3. Processes Processes to control, inform, and direct Statement of work
individualand collective behaviors Resource planning
CoE life cycle managemen
4. People Skills Technical competencies that are building blocks of Centers of Excellence (n =
organizational capabilities mainframe software eng
cn engineering, mainframe
Cl)
support, account mana
CoE management, testi
r43 data access, ICASE, do
CD 5. Reward Systems Incentives that attract and develop the right individuals and Multi-inputperformance a
motivate their performance ? Direct report (CoE man
ft3
CD
* Client evaluations of pr
"1
._
o
N

Structure:
groupsand integrator from other CoEs based on the project's skill
roles requirements.The ideal team is appropriately
skilled and tightly focused on delivering the
Structure is the manner in which people are applicationon-time,withincost, and according
to client expectations. The team is disbanded
grouped together, their roles and reporting at the conclusion of a new development pro-
relationships, and their task assignments.
Structures should be designed to be flexible ject. Most members are assigned to a different
and learning-enabling,as well as effective in project,or a trainingand development stint; a
small subset is assigned to an applicationsup-
promoting efficiency and cost-effectiveness
(Bahrami 1992; Nadler et al. 1992; Tushman portteam to ensure knowledgetransfer.
and O'Reilly1996). As shown in Figure3, the CoE design also uti-
The CoE design includes two types of structur- lizes three types of integratormanager roles:
al overlays (see Figure3): team-based group- skill center managers (CoE managers), man-
ings and integrator roles (Galbraith 1995; agers responsible for business client relation-
Mohrmanet al. 1995). The three key team- ships (account managers), and managers of
based structures are examined in more detail the deliveryengagement teams (deliveryman-
here. agers). These managers reportto one of the
five directors on the IS-LB&ISmanagement
The IS-LB&ISmanagement team, consisting team. Each one of these integratorroles is dis-
of CIOClarkand his five directors,is the steer- cussed below; a summaryof their role respon-
ing committee responsible for achieving the sibilitiesis providedin Table 3.
functionalstrategy of the IS-LB&ISunitand its
ongoing conduct. It is also the planningteam CoE managers (CMs) manage one or more
for the IS transformationand the decision body skill centers and have three primaryresponsi-
for interface issues involving other corporate bilities: (1) assign CoE personnel to specific
IS units. application projects, (2) coach, groom, and
counsel CoE members to achieve high skill
The skill centers (CoEs) are semi-permanent levels throughtrainingand development, per-
teams of technical specialists, or people formance appraisal, and career management
trainedin a specific ITskill. Each skillcenter is advice, and (3) develop rules, tools, and
a "virtual homeroom" of IS personnel who processes for the CoE. The CM position is a
share a high level of proficiencyin the specific clear signal of commitmentto a separation of
skillset.The initial12 skillcenters were defined people development work from project man-
using three overarching guidelines: (1) avoid agement and delivery: CMs are exclusively
skillsets that are too fine-grained,(2) keep the responsible for development of the CoE
total number of members at or below 30, and humanresources.
(3) create skillsets needed for the future,even
if there are no IS personnel to populate them CMs also have the sole resourcingauthorityfor
currently.Groupingemployees by skills was a all IS-LB&IS personnelbelow the level of direc-
major philosophical change: based on their tor;based on skillsets requestedby the delivery
current skillsets, all IS personnel below the manager,they assign specific CoE membersto
rankof directorselected a skillcenter to be ini- the projects.In makingsourcingdecisions, the
tially assigned to and a CoE that they would CM weighs an individual'sneeds for training
like to belong to in the future. (For specific and developmentagainst a project'sneeds for
skillsets, see people skills below.) expertise. Since the projectteams are tempo-
raryassignments, the CM is also the "perma-
Delivery engagement teams are temporary nent report"for an employee and provides a
projectteams created for each new approved continuityto the counselingrole.
development(or support)project.These teams
are formedby drawinga deliverymanagerfrom CMs also share responsibilityfor maintaininga
the DeliveryManagementCoE and individuals state of IS workforcereadiness;they anticipate

Strategy:
Change-ready IT capabilities
Structure
i~~ I
i. ~ People Skills
^_^_^,^^^_ ~Rewar
I~3
N
-Fiure2. StarModel Components
CD Fiure
v. 2. Star Model Components

v
co
-PkCA)
I /^ ( IS-LB&IS >
/\ Management Team
3
/
CD /
elivery Engageme
\( Centers of Excellence Teams
X
0]Role
CM = CoE Manager
A,/,- A
.....X4/- -tiAAUUIIL .
r-lVl- ivil . Inger
DM = Delivery Manager
Figure 3. Groups and Roles Within the CoE Design

Table 3. The Account, Delivery, and CoE Managers: Roles and Responsibili
CoE Managers (CM) Account Managers (AM) Del

Builda skilledand energized IS workforce Infusestrategicthinkingin ITapplications Deliverrapid
throughclientpartnerships projectsof hi
tiveness
"Coach"responsiblefor managingpersonnel Principalbusiness interfacewithbusiness Projectmana
resources (assignments),personnelneeds, clients, responsiblefor customer relationship developmen
and individuals'career development managementand being primarycontact point customer req
Forecastshort-and long-termskillneeds, Conductstrategicand tacticalplanning, Design, build
withinputsfromthe accountand delivery business analysis, and high level require- customers to
managers,and manage individuals'recordof ments determination cost, and sch
training,competencies, and skills ment of work
Recruitand develop individualsto meet the Be the voice of the customerthroughout Oversee and
forecastedskillrequirements the IS organization several dime
productivityf
customersat
Performhiringand terminationprocesses for Convey new technologyopportunities
companypersonneland contractedresources to clients
Preparemulti-inputperformanceappraisals, PrepareIS strategicplan and statements of Request reso
conductperformancereviews,develop workfor projects;workwiththe delivery projectskilln
performanceimprovementplans and monitor managerto estimate cost and schedule as
C) results partof the statementof work ProvideCMs
0
I) feedback on
mance appra
Ensureuse of standardtool sets within Ensurethat customer requirementsare being Implementso
(t
cD the CoE met by IS and that issues and questions are
cI
being promptlyresolved Buildproject
Cs
._, team
(,
Oversee and communicatethe overallstatus
43
N of activitiesand services to the customers
Cb
01

changes in demand for current skillsets and resources assigned to the project, and (3)
plan for acquisitionof new skillsets. Trainingis deliver a quality project on-time (within six
the linchpinfor buildinga change-ready corps; months) and withinbudget. The DM's primary
beginning in 1995, the IS-LB&ISgoal for each focus is upon the delivery of "bite-size"appli-
technical specialist was a minimumof 10 days cations, while the AMs are accountable for
"skillenhancement time." This was a major customer relationships,and the CMs manage
change in human resource management: in the IS humanresources.
the past, the focus was on "justenough train-
ing"to do theircurrentjobs.
Account managers (AMs) manage the Processes
accounts of one or more business unitby part-
neringwiththeirbusiness clients in anticipating Contemporaryfirms utilizethree key process-
strategic opportunitiesfor IT applicationsand es for sustainingtheir strategic focus and per-
by serving as the client's primarypoint-of-con- formance (Ghoshal and Bartlett1995): (1) an
tact for the corporate IS organization. entrepreneurialprocess for sustaining creativi-
Accordingto the CFO of one LOB,"theAM is ty and entrepreneurshipamong front-lineman-
my window into IS. Now I have a clear face agers, (2) an integrationprocess for building
and clear interface into IS."Althoughthe AMs and integratingcompetencies across internal
have a formalreportingrelationshiponly to IS- organizationalboundaries, and (3) a renewal
LB&IS,their partnershipswith clients led them process for continualrevitalizationof ideas for
to "feel"a dotted-line reporting relationship drivingthe business forward.These processes
withbusiness management. They workwithout nurturelateral relationshipsamong organiza-
directstaff support. tional managers and collaborative problem-
solving behaviors vital to the building of an
The AM is responsible for initiatinga "state- organization's reservoir of knowledge and
ment of work"with the business client, and skills (Galbraith1993; Lawler1996; Leonard-
using this document to monitorand communi- Barton 1995). The IS-LB&ISchange-ready
cate the projectstatus to clients and IS direc- design includes three new formal processes,
tors on a regularbasis (see processes below). one of each type, as described below.
The AMis also responsible for getting signoffs
for each project phase, workingout any client Statement of work. AMs utilize an entrepre-
neurialprocess for conceptualizingvalue-creat-
relationshipproblems encountered duringthe
project,and capturingformalclientfeedback at ing applications for their LOBs. The process
the close of a project.Gettingtimelyclosure on involves collaboratingwith business clients in
the initialrequirementsphase of a projectis a order to identify innovative ways in which IT
criticalAMtask. could facilitate new products and services,
reengineeredwork processes, or reconfigured
The AMs also contribute biweekly "radar relationshipswithexternalcustomers and other
reports"to communicatethe currentand future stakeholders. As managers of customer rela-
needs of their clients to other AMs, CoE man- tionships,AMs are not only heavily involvedin
agers, and the IS-LB&ISmanagement team. the conceptualizationof innovativeIT applica-
These reportsare importantfor anticipatingthe tions, but also in defining business require-
human resource skillsets needed for future ments, scheduling prototypeevaluations, and
projects. planning roll-outs. The outcomes of this
process are documentedin a statementof work
Delivery managers (DMs) manage projects (SOW)which becomes a livingguide for work
for new applications or provide support for by the deliveryengagement teams. The SOW
existing applications. Their responsibilities is a criticalmechanismfor linkingthe activities
include: (1) identifyskills needed for delivery of the AMand DMroles, because the DMs are
engagement managementteams based on the responsible for delivering an application
statement of work, (2) manage the team of IS accordingto the SOWdeveloped by the AM.

BellAtlantic
Resource planning is an integrationprocess informationgathered from the resource plan-

for aligning customer relationship manage- ning process is used to anticipatethe need for
ment, delivery management, and skills specific skillsets, including retiring existing
enhancement activities of the AMs, DMs, and skillsetsand acquiringnew ones.
CMs respectively. For example, AMs and DMs
work interdependentlyto ensure client satis-
factionwiththe deliveryof an application;CMs
and DMs work together to ensure the avail- People skills:centers of excellence
ability and appropriateuse of skilled IS staff Technicalcompetencies or skills are the build-
on projects;and AMs and CMs worktogether
to cultivateskillsets consistent withthe emerging blocks of desired organizationalcapabili-
ties (Hamel and Prahalad 1994; Mohrmanet
ing stream of application requirements from al. 1995). The CoE design is a skills-based
business clients. According to one IS-LB&IS
director, "Communication is the common organizationalapproachemphasizing ITtalent
thread to make it work; to get resources; to leadership.Inthe words of Clark,
operate day-to-day." Ifwe trulybelieveknowledgecurrencyis key,
then it deserves 100%attentionin its own
The resource planning process involves
right.This is the fundamentalargumentfor
biweekly meetings of all of Clark's directors advancingskillcentersof excellence.Pooling
and all of the AMs and CMs;the DMs are rep- resourcesbyskillsenablesan organizationto
resented by their directors.The purpose of the focus on advancedtraining,conceptualize
meetings is to monitorprogress on currentpro- new approaches,and honefuturethinking in
jects, availabilityof IS staff with appropriate a business-driven manner.
skills, and the staffing needs of futureprojects
based upon three inputs:projectstatus reports In the springof 1994, the LB&ISmanagement
team identified12 IS competencies and vested
(fromeach DM), "radarreports"on client pro-
each one of them withina specific skill center.
jects in early planning stages (by each AM),
and "resource movement"analyses and pro- Most competencies were for technology and
jections of future skillset demands (by each methodology skillsets: mainframe software
CM).The resource planningprocess is a criti- engineering, mainframe operations support,
cal integrationmechanism for ensuringcoordi- data modeling,data access, client-serversoft-
nation of the different integrator roles in the ware engineering, client-server support,
CoE model. ICASE,testing and qualityassurance metrics,
documentationtraining.Three additionalcom-
CoE life cycle management. Each CoE has a petencies were also identifiedforthe three new
life cycle-moving from birth (creation), to integratorroles: account management,delivery
growthand expansion, and then to retirement management,and CoE management.Some of
(decline) and eventually phase out (disband- these were existing skillsets (e.g., mainframe
ment). The pace at which a center travels software engineering), whereas others were
through its life cycle depends upon demands competencies that needed to be developed
for the skillset. The goal is an IS workforce (e.g., client/serversoftwareengineering).
always in a "readystate."
CoE lifecycle managementis a kindof renewal
process: identificationof desired skills, creation
Rewardsystems: multi-input
and growth of a CoE through reskilling, and performanceappraisals
retirementof CoEs when the skillsets are no
longer requiredfor either currentor futurepro- Today, there is a greateremphasis on encour-
jects. The directorof the Centers of Excellence aging individualsto manage their own careers
at IS-LB&IS,Nancy Cavanaugh,is responsible in an environment that is less paternalistic,
for evaluating business demand for existing less entitlement-oriented,and more skill- and
skillcenters and currentlyunavailableskillsets; performance-oriented (Bowen et al. 1991;
1997 437

Lawler 1996). Reward systems that attract, teria. First, the change-readiness functional
develop, and motivate the rightindividualsfor strategy (rapid development of "bite-sized"
the new organizationalcapabilities are key to applications, strategic focus, and IT talent
the success of a new design (Gupta et al. leadership) is in alignment with the business
1992; Shuster and Zingheim1992). goals for competitiveagility, customer intima-
cy, and operational excellence. Second, the
The IS-LB&ISmanagement team felt strongly
structures, processes, people skills, and
that an appraisal process that placed high rewardsystem components were designed to
value on customer satisfaction,as well as suc- enable the change-readiness functionalstrate-
cessful projectteaming, was a criticalcompo-
gy. Third,these components are both internal-
nent of the new design. The performance
ly consistent and mutually reinforcing. For
appraisalsystem implementedonly six months example, skill centers build and nurturecom-
intothe new CoE design initiativedifferedfrom
petencies requiredfor the new integratorroles
the standard corporate IS process in several
(e.g., account management). The resource
ways. First, it included performance ratings planning process facilitates coordination
from multipleIS bosses: the skill center man- across the new team-based groups and inte-
ager (CM)and all projectmanagers (DMs)dur- grator roles. A new rewardsystem motivates
ing the prior 12-month period. Second, it leveraging of IT skillsets and teamwork to
included a process for capturing business meet changingclient needs.
client evaluationsfor each projecton whichthe
IS individual had worked. Third, the ratings Nevertheless,the CoE design describedabove
from these three sources were weighted, with was the result of a multi-yeartransformation
much higher values placed on client and DM process thatwas not totallypre-plannedand not
assessments than those of the CoE coach withoutsome unexpected pitfalls. In the next
(CM). section, an analysisof the key learningelements
of the transformationjourneyis presented.
Since the corporate human resources depart-
ment had been considering the merits of a
multi-inputappraisalprocess, the IS-LB&ISunit
was able to design and implement this new
system as a pilot for the organization.Clark's Managingthe
directorfor the CoE design (Cavanaugh)was TransformationJourney
given the responsibilityfor designingand imple-
mentingthe new system. Likeother corporate The CoE design involveda radicalreconfigura-
IS annual evaluations, the multi-input tion of structures,processes, people skills, and
appraisalsfor the IS-LB&ISunitwere intended reward systems. Successful implementation
to be used for annual raises, bonuses, and per- was dependent on the buy-inof both business
sonnel developmentplanning. and IS personnelto not only the change-readi-
ness goals, but also to the uncertaintiesasso-
ciated with an as-yet-unproven design.
Further,the transformationof the IS-LB&IS
Congruence among five organizationwas initiatedin anticipationof a
components new business environment where change-
readiness IT capabilities would be impera-
Three criteriaof "fit"have been suggested for tive-i.e., no crisis was currentlyat hand. As a
evaluating the effectiveness of organization result, an additionalchallenge was to create a
designs: (1) strategic fit, or whetherthe strate- sense of felt-need and urgency to mobilize
gy is appropriateto the competitive environ- commitmentof relevant stakeholders (Nadler
ment, (2) strategies, and (3) internalorganiza- and Tushman 1995).
tional fit, or whether the architecturalelements
are congruent (Nadler and Tushman 1992). Traditionalmodels of organizational change
The CoE design appears to meet all three cri- (e.g., Lewin 1951) suggest that the change

BellAtlantic
process should be plannedfor and deliberately Dean 1982). The key stakeholders for this
managed. Based on a vision of the need for design change were not only the IS-LB&IS
and natureof the change, managers should (1) managers and professional staff and IS-
sell the vision to key stakeholders, (2) imple- LB&IS'sbusiness clients, but also the rest of
ment the change, and then (3) institutionalize the corporateIS organization.
the new order(Beer et al. 1990; Goodmanand
Associates 1982; Nutt 1986; Srinivasan and The buy-in of the corporate IS organization
Davis 1987). Changingthe attitudesand values was achieved in two ways. First,organization
of organizational members affected by the design experimentation was encouraged by
change is a key partof this process. Szygenda; this provided IS-LB&ISwith the
autonomyto innovate. Second, Clark'sknowl-
However,recent researchers have argued that edge about CoE approaches and organization-
an alternativemodel that takes account of both al roles, gained while workingat anotherorga-
the anticipatedchanges and the unanticipated nization,were recognized as assets duringhis
reactions and adjustmentsis more reflectiveof own hiring process. Soon after his arrivalat
good practice (Mintzberg1987; Orlikowskiand Bell Atlantic, he presented the CoE design
Hofman1997). Anticipatedactions are deliber- concept to the corporate IS management
ate and preplanned.Unanticipatedactions are team. He argued that the IS-LB&ISunit was
innovationsthat arise as the organizationbet- large enough in personnel and range of
ter understands the complexity of a given responsibilitiesto be a "microcosm"of an IS
organizationalchange and its consequences. organization.Further,under the January 1994
restructuringof the corporate IS organization
The two-yeartransformationjourneyembarked to align with the overall firm (see Figure 1),
on by Clarkand his managementteam reflect- Clarkhad the authorityfor autonomouslyman-
ed this improvisationalapproachfromthe start. aging applicationsdeliveryfor fourLOBswithin
Clark's intent was to not over-plan the CoE IS-LB&IS.In March1994, he received corpo-
design implementation; only a few months rate IS approval for moving forwardwith his
were devoted to establishingthe new structure vision of the CoE model and implementingit
and "selling it." However, Clark had also withinIS-LB&IS.
learned through experiences at another orga-
nization that a "shallow end approach" to
entering the pool-i.e., an incremental
approach-was not an effective implementa- Use a "Jump-In"Approach
tion tactic: the CoE design was a radical
change, and the "fit"among the differentcom- With top management support behind him,
ponents of the design was one of its strengths. Clark took a "jump-in"approach: a new IS-
The challenges faced, and "lessons learned," LB&ISmanagement team was formed and a
categorized according to the three phases CoE director (Cavanaugh) was selected to
suggested by the traditionalchange models spearhead the implementation. Many of the
are discussed below. However, Table 4 also new account manager, CoE manager, and
depicts these milestones on a timelinethat dis- deliverymanager roles were filledwith internal
tinguishes between preplanned actions and candidates. In July 1994, the new structure
unanticipatedinnovations. was presented to the rest of the IS-LB&IS
staff, IS professionals were assigned to skill
centers, and the IS-LB&ISorganizationantici-
pated workingthroughthe remainingissues as
Phase 1: establish the need for they arose. The IS-LB&ISmanagement team
change and sell the vision acted as an oversightgroup,interveningwhen-
ever barriersimpeded the pace or success of
Radical and anticipatory organizational the transformation process. The "jump-in"
changes requirethe commitmentof key stake- approach helped create a sense of urgency
holders affected by the change (Goodmanand and an environmentof excitement and energy
1997 439

Table 4. The TransformationJourney
Time Preplanned Actions Unanticipated Innovations

1994
March CorporateIS decision to implementCoE
design for IS-LB&IS
April Formationof the IS-LB&ISmanagement
team (CIOand directors)
May-June CoE directorand managers selected
July New structureannouncedto IS-LB&ISstaff
August InitialCoE assignments made
CoE processes, practices,and metrics
published
December Firstannualmulti-inputperformance
appraisalprocess begins
1995
January Statementof workprocess formalized
Resource planningprocess implemented
Quarterlymeetings withAMsand DMs
initiated
Begin reduced relianceon contractors
March Firstannualmulti-inputperformance
appraisalends
July-August Mid-yearperformanceappraisalswith
revisedweights
Clientinputcollected at end of each
project
Customizedtransitionplanningfor IS staff
Deliveryresponsibilitiesadded for direc-
tors initiallyresponsibleonlyfor account
managementor skillcenter manage-
ment, due to challenges encounteredin
performanceappraisal
HRdepartmentprogramsto facilitate
progress on employee empowerment
September Brown-bagsessions withCoE directorto
increase communicationwithgeograph-
icallydispersed employees
December Second annual multi-inputperformance
appraisalprocess begins
1996
January Clientinputcollected electronically
Clientinputused onlyfor 1995 bonuses
Reaffirmationof commitmentto the CoE
design by IS-LB&ISmanagementteam

BellAtlantic
that was instrumental in mobilizing commit- Phase 2: implementingthe change

ment to the CoE design.
Create and Nurturea Team-Based

Collaborative Environment
Don't Waiver From the Vision
Planned change theories also suggest that
Traditionally,project managers and IS devel- teamwork is critical for successful organiza-
opment staff at Bell Atlanticworkedfor a busi- tional transformations(Beer et al. 1990; Nutt
ness unitfor long periods, so that theirsubject 1986). Implementingan organizationaldesign
matter expertise and working relationships change that has no precedent requiresa toler-
were highlyvalued. This was a "comfortfactor" ance for flexibilityand the relinquishingof a
for the clients, and some business managers "command-and-control" management style for
had come to expect "a lot of handholding." The a "cultivation"style (Orlikowskiand Hofman
IS-LB&ISbusiness clients were considerably 1997). Recent organization design writings
skeptical about the change. Since all IS staff emphasize the concept of teamed manage-
below the level of directorwere reassigned to ment, whereby a group of senior managers
specific CoEs, clients were anxious about los- collaborativelyimproviseorganizationaltrans-
ing "their"IS people. A common business formationprocesses (Lawler 1996; Mohrman
response was: "Whyare you takingmy person et al. 1995).
away?"
A teamed management concept was not the
The six-monthtime-box for applicationsdeliv- traditionalmanagementstyle withinthe corpo-
ery also turned out to be a major mindset rate IS organization at Bell Atlantic. Clark's
change for both IS-LB&ISclients and develop- belief in the value of teamed managementand
ers. Accordingto Clark, his demonstratedcommitmentto this concept
were keys to making it work. The IS-LB&IS
bothusersanddevelopersmayinitially regard management team (Clark and his directors)
the six-month
time-boxas beinginsensitiveto was responsiblefor drivingthe implementation
need,and even Draconian in practice.Butits of the CoE design. While individualdirectors
ultimatepayoffis enormous:in the PCworld, assumed responsibilityfor specific elements of
you buildsystems for obsolescence-not the implementation,monthly meetings of the
ongoingmaintenance.
management team helped ensure that atten-
tion was given to the interdependencies
Special efforts were needed to educate the IS
staff and clients about the role of six-month among the different elements of the CoE
deliverygoals in facilitatingresponsiveness to design.
the changing business climate and the need to
modularizethe requirementsfor largerprojects
to meet this time-box. Overall, despite some
Evolve Formal Coordination Mechanisms
initialchallenges, Clarkand his management
team persisted with their vision and continued The initial CoE design implemented relied
to sell the transformationas a way to bringin upon monthlymeetings of the IS-LB&ISman-
business value by positioningIS as an enabler agement team alone to ensure alignmentand
of change. Some "earlywins"with bite-sized integrationamong the AM, DM,and CM roles.
applications that delivered strategic value However, a few months into the implementa-
helped them overcome early concerns (see tion, misalignmentproblemsbegan to surface.
Table 5 for an illustration of some of these For example, IS staff were not being freed up
applications). A determination to not waiver fast enough for otherprojects;a lot of effort(e-
fromthis overall vision duringthe initialperiod mails, phone calls, etc.) was being spent track-
was a critical element of the transformation ing the status of particularIS staff members;
process. and the CMs were experiencing difficultiesin
1997 441

C4) Table 5. Examples of Applications Developed Through the CoE Organization (1
0 Application ObjectiveNalue Delivered Com

PowerBill Customersreceive theirbillingdata on a CD-ROMthat they First"bite-sized"applicationu
CD
can easily manipulatefor cost accountingand tracking PowerBuilderprojectfor IS-L
ICg
(O purposes. This new productimprovedcustomersatisfaction applicationinspiredcustome
~3
-,. and customercontrol. stimulatedmore developmen
for developmentprojectswit
Carrier Automationof the accountingprocess for billingand Second applicationdevelope
Settlements collectionsagreements withthe Inter-ExchangeCarriers. fromfirstapplication(Power
The applicationreducedcosts in monthlyprocessing of 2,000 to leverage technologytrans
statements.
XEA Involvedprocess reengineeringto reduce cycle time to update Softwaredevelopmenttool C
customer-initiatedLongDistance Carrierchanges and Beginningof a Composersk
exchange of customerdata withInter-ExchangeCarriers.
The applicationreducedcosts and improvedcustomer
satisfaction.
I-LINQ Supportfor customers orderingISDNservices. The BuiltwithPowerBuilder;deliv
applicationmet the CEO'sdirectivethat it be ready in less experience gained on earlier
thansix monthsin orderto be readyfor the 1995 Christmas team awardedBell AtlanticS
holidayseason. The applicationreducederrors,costs, and
cycle time, and increased cash flow
Electronic An integratedpurchase system to enable one of the largest Used EDIfortelephone serv
Service state governmentcustomers to electronicallyorderand BellAtlantic.
Ordering change telephone service. The applicationreduced costs and
cycle time for both the customerand BellAtlantic.
Sales Funnel New sales reportingand analysis tool for the LargeBusiness Used MicrosoftAccess for fir
organizationthat reducedcycle time and improvedaccess to internalcustomers given con
data.

BellAtlantic
anticipatingthe demand for currentand future morale problems in a CoE environment

skills. The monthly meetings of the IS-LB&IS emphasizing the reskillingof internalIS staff.
management team were not frequent enough Therefore, the IS-LB&ISmanagement team
to adequately address these misalignment began to revise theirusage of outside contrac-
problems. Further,resource planningwas only tors: consultants were hired to transfer best
one item on the monthly agenda of these practices involving new technologies under
meetings and did not receive the requiredlevel short-termcontracts, ratherthan to do long-
of attention. Overall, there was a realization term projectwork. Beginningin January 1995,
that monthly IS-LB&IS management team reliance on outside contractors began to be
meetings were not sufficient;the new design intentionallyreduced, and contractorengage-
requiredadditionalmechanisms. As a result,a ments were used to accelerate internaldiffu-
separate formal resource planning process sion of knowledge and growth of skillsets
was established. Initially,the directorsattend- associated withchange-readiness.
ed biweeklymeetings in orderto focus on cur-
rentand futureskillset needs and people train-
ing. Formal vehicles for input to the process
were developed (see the process description Manage Employee Anxieties
above). Subsequently, the AMs and CMs also
began to participate in the process. This About half of the IS-LB&ISworkforce was
change also freed up time at the monthlyIS- trained in mainframeapplicationskills. Under
LB&ISmanagement team meetings for other the new CoE design, some IS professionals
issues. who had been "heroes"underthe old environ-
ment faced the prospect of their skills becom-
Two other formal mechanisms evolved to ing obsolete in a client/server world. About
improvealignmentbetween the AMsand DMs. 20% of the legacy staff wanted to remainwork-
First, the statement of work process was for- ing on legacy systems untilthese jobs disap-
malized in order to improve communication peared. Interviewswith some technical spe-
and hand-offs between these manager roles. cialists yieldedcomments likethese:
Second, quarterlymeetings between all AMs
and DMs were initiated to sensitize both Whatyou knowsuddenlydoesn'tcount...
groups to alignmentissues. Both formalmech- Yourself-esteemis tiedto yourposition,and
anisms helped build interpersonal networks you'retoldyou'renotimportantanymore.
among specific managers, which in turnfacili- Forsome legacyfolks,it'snottoo positiveto
tated collaboration and communication
learnfromthe scratchagain. They can be
between the AMs and DMs on an ongoing
basis. upwardlymobile in an old area, but they
becomethe lowguyon the ladderto the new
area.
in the CoEenvi-
Noteveryoneis comfortable
Change Use of Outside Contractors ronment;some peoplearebeingpulledoutof
zone.
theircomfort
In the past, the Bell Atlantic IS organization
had regularlycontractedoutside resources for For others with legacy skills, the opposite
theirexpertise withnew technologies and used problem began to surface about six months
these resources to do project work-some- into the implementation:they were not being
times for extended time periods. But underthe freed up for new trainingor other assignments
new CoE design, this practice meant lost as quicklyas they wanted since their delivery
opportunitiesfor IS-LB&ISemployees to devel- managers were afraid that the old systems
op new skillsets and to possibly move from a would "fallapart"if individualswith specialized
CoE devoted to mainframesupportinto a new subject matterexpertise were moved to other
technology or methodology CoE. Continuing assignments. As a result,a numberof disgrun-
this old practice therefore contributed to tled employees were waitingtheirturnfor train-
1997 443

ing, while others who had alreadybeen trained expected a supervisorto create opportunities
in new technologies, such as PowerBuilder, for them. A variety of human resources pro-
were able to keep moving on to new assign- grams (newsletters,training,etc.) were devel-
ments. Since the new development projects oped in partnershipwith the human resources
were concentrated in one geographic area, departmentto help the CMs in moving more
some remote staff also felt they were being reluctant IS-LB&IS employees toward an
overlooked. entrepreneurialset of values.
In response to these problems,transitionplans Overall, the IS-LB&IS management team
for specific individualsbegan to be developed learned that not all employees embrace
as part of the transition planning for legacy change enthusiastically.Accordingto Clark:
applicationsbeginningin the fall of 1995: these Convertsmustconvertthemselves,andsome
plans were developed by the CMs responsible
for employees in the legacy skill CoEs, were may never move. Not everyoneis excited;
you won't get everyone to change with
reviewed with DMs of the legacy applications, you.... Also,peopleare at different
pointsin
and then communicatedto the affected individ- theirown life-cycles.Youneed to accommo-
uals. As IS staff began to be transitionedout of datethis,orsomegoodpeoplewillbailout.
their legacy roles without the initial fears of
their delivery managers being realized, the
concept of customized transitionplanningfor
individualstook hold, and these morale prob- Implementand Fine-Tune New Appraisal
lems subsided. Systems
Towardthe end of 1995, a less formalmecha- As described earlier,a new appraisalprocess
nism was also implemented to help control based on assessments by multiple IS man-
rumors and allay fears: brown-bag sessions agers as well as business clients was consid-
with the CoE director at the two sites geo- ered an importantcomponent of the new CoE
graphically removed from headquarters. The design. The concept of client evaluations of a
CoE director provided information "straight projectteam was new at Bell Atlantic,as were
fromthe horse's mouth,"heard individualcon- the heavy weightings on non-IS input. Initial
cerns, offered personal advice/counseling in weightings were 40% client(s), 40% DM(s),
one-on-one discussions, and relayed relevant and 20% CM. These were revised to 50%
concerns to the respective CMs forfollow-up. client(s), 40% DM(s), and 10% CM input in
mid-1995 in order to promote customer-orien-
Another continuing challenge has been the tationamong the IS staff.
"bench-time"anxieties of the technical staff:
some individualswaiting to be assigned to a However,problemsbegan to surface. In partic-
new projectfelt that they were vulnerabletar- ular,IS staff who received less-than-satisfacto-
gets for downsizing. While efforts were made ryteam ratingsfromclients expressed tremen-
to reduce bench-timethroughbetter coordina- dous anxiety relativeto their job security and
tion in the resource planning process, these promotionprospects withinnot just IS-LB&IS,
perceptions of vulnerability remain an unin- but also the IS organizationas a whole. Rather
tended impact of the CoE design in a hyper- than motivatingall team members to be more
competitiveindustrycontext. customer-oriented, the unintended result for
some IS staff was a perceptionof having little
Finally,the IS-LB&ISemployees were not uni- personal control over their own performance
formlyreceptive to the transformationfrom an ratings.Two aspects of the process were the
"entitlement"to an entrepreneurialmindset in primarycauses: (1) the business client ratings
which employees take more responsibilityfor were at the projectteam level, not the individ-
their career development. According to ual employee level, and (2) since the client rat-
Cavanaugh,"Some employees still expected a ings were collected at year-end, there were
sports agent rather than a coach"-they concerns about unfair client biases due to

BellAtlantic
recent events that might be unrelated to the appreciationof comparablecriteriafor evaluat-

projectteam being rated. ing account management and resource man-
agement activities is established, this action
Several changes were therefore made to the was viewed as a necessary accommodation.
new appraisal system. First, business client
evaluations were collected at the end of each
project,ratherthan via a semi-annualprocess;
electronic data collection methods for client Communicate Progress and Demonstrate
inputwere also eventuallyintroduced.Second, Value With Performance Measures
effective January 1996, the IS-LB&ISmanage-
ment team made a major adjustment to the Radicaltransformationstake time;they are not
use of the client evaluations: client ratings overnightchanges. Yet as the transformation
began to be used only for determiningannual unfolds, both internaland external stakehold-
bonuses. These changes were necessitated ers need "proofthat it's working"(Beer et al.
because of an alignment problem with the 1990). The IS-LB&IS management team
rewardssystem for the rest of the corporateIS learnedthe importanceof institutingmeasures
organization. That is, performance ratings at that capturedprogress towardthe CoE design
Bell Atlanticwere traditionallyused not only to objectives. As reported in Table 1, several
determine annual raises, but also to establish metrics were developed to demonstrate
the "organizationalworth"of an individual- progress toward achieving the corporate IS
includingthe identificationof prospects for pro- goals, including:(1) customer satisfaction rat-
motions as well as candidates for career coun- ings, (2) on-timeprojectdelivery,and (3) ITtal-
seling or layoffs. Given the increasinglyturbu- ent base (number of contractors). However,
lent business environmentand the organiza- some of these metrics were set up as part of
tion's move away from an "entitlement" work- the transformation process, so the data did not
force, a reward system that differedfrom the exist to providea fullbefore-and-aftercompari-
rest of the IS organization-even though it was son. As a result,the IS-LB&ISmanagers were
an official"pilot"-became too threateningfor
handicappedin theirabilityto demonstrateini-
many of the IS-LB&ISpersonnel and forced a tial successes underthe CoE design to exter-
retrenchmenton this issue. nal stakeholders. In particular,difficulties in
An additional problem also occurred at the measuring the value of the account manager
directorlevel. Likemost other IS organizations, role hampered efforts to educate business
Bell Atlantichad a well-establishedprocess for clients about allowing DMs and development
staff to focus on deliveryactivitieswithoutsig-
assessing and rewarding systems delivery
activities. However, equally visible and salient nificantdistractions. The clients' perceptions
and willingnessto accept the role of the AMs
performance indicators for the new coaching
as a pointof contact for all of their needs con-
(CM)and account manager (AM)roles did not
exist. As a result, directorsin these new posi- tinue to pose challenges to the transformation
tions with no delivery responsibilities did not effort. On the other hand, the elusiveness of
fare as well as those that did have systems measures to adequately capture the value of
delivery responsibilities in the corporate-level the account manager role has also been
appraisal process at the end of the first year. reportedby others (lacono et al. 1995).
This led to a second unexpected modification
to the original design: some amount of sys- The IS-LB&ISmanagementteam also learned
tems deliveryresponsibilitieswere assigned to the importanceof sharing internalstatistics at
all directorsto avoid penalizationin the year- theirown meetings. As one IS directornoted:
end corporate appraisal process for 1995. We started reporting[staff moves] at our
Since role differentiationis one of the funda- meetings,and beganto see probably40 to
mental elements of the CoE design, this modi- 50%morepersonnelmovementthanwe've
fication blurredthe differentiationof responsi- everseen before.Italso providesan answer
bilities. However, until an enterprise-level [to those] who say "thisisn'tworking."
1997 445

Phase 3: institutionalizethe entiation of their firm relative to its rivals in

intensely competitive, fast-paced environ-
change ments. At the same time, the effectiveness of
the IS organization will be measured by its
By late 1995, the overall consensus was that
the CoE implementation had enabled IS- ability to quickly acquire, renew, and deploy
LB&ISto achieve the corporatechange-ready superiorIS knowledgeand skills in theirongo-
IS goals. Ralph Szygenda provided this ing development activities (Hofman and
Rockart 1992; Merlyn and Parkinson 1994;
assessment: Parker 1996). What insights does the IS-
[Systems development]teams need to be LB&ISexperience withthe CoE design offerto
focused on gettingthe job done, withhigh the IS community?It is the conclusion of this
quality,and withinthe cost allowed.Andyou paper, based on the two-year organization
need someoneto analyzethe individuals and design experiment, that the CoE design
get them the righttrainingand careerpath. described here is indeed a model worthy of
Evolvingpeople is the hardest part .... considerationby organizationsseeking to build
CharlieClarkhas done that. ITprojectsare and maintainchange-readiness ITcapabilities.
now on time, on budget, with a capable Insupportof this conclusion,the CoE design is
empowered workforce.
evaluated below in comparison to other IS
By the time of the second annual performance organizationdesign models.
appraisalprocess in late 1995, the CoE design The CoE model is a project-based design
had been institutionalized-fromthe perspec-
tive of both the IS-LB&ISunitand its business (Lawler1996) with roots in practice in consult-
clients-and client support for the change- ing firms (e.g., McKinsey and Company, as
described by Kiely1997). First,the CoE model
ready capabilitiesof the IS staff was reflected
in the year-end ratings. However, in January separates projectdeliveryworkfromcustomer
1996, the vice president of IS-LB&ISthought relationship management on the one hand,
and skills or people developmenton the other.
that it was important to reassess the CoE
Second, the CoE design views skillsets of IS
design pilot, given some of the challenges
related to: (1) employee anxiety, (2) valuing personnel as assets to be managed, with par-
ticular attention to knowledge currency and
account management and coaching activities
renewal (Conner and Prahalad 1996). It cre-
on par with delivery activities, and (3) estab-
ates and maintainsskillcenters in response to
lishing the account manager as the point-of- customer demand and effectively leverages
contact for all applications project concerns.
new skillsets across a portfolio of projects
The result was a resounding endorsement of
the CoE design by the IS-LB&ISmanagement throughrapidteam formationand disassembly
and a progressive retasking of IS specialists.
team, and an agreement to continue with its Similarto the consultancy model, CoE man-
implementation.
agers serve as mentors who match project
Table 6 summarizes the key "lessons learned" assignment opportunitieswith the trainingand
over the two-yearimplementationperiod. developmentneeds of theirmentees.
Third,the CoE design highlightssome of the
key processes associated with project-based
organizations. Most of the prior IS literature
Implications for the IS has focused on processes to align the IS func-
Community tion withthe business, includingstrategic plan-
ning, service management, and chargeback
Change-readiness ITcapabilitiesare expected systems (Zmud 1988). However, when skill
to be an important issue on the agenda of centers, transientprojectteams, and account
ClOs today and in the future. IS organizations management are the fundamentalconcepts of
willbe called upon to deliver high impactbusi- IS organizationdesign, new processes based
ness applicationsthat facilitatestrategic differ- on a consultancymodel need to be developed.

Table 6. Managing the Transformation to Change-Ready IS Organization: Lessons
Lesson Rationale
Use a "jumpin"approach A jump-in-the-pool approachcreates a sense of urgency
the CoE design concept and can help sustain commitme
Don'twaiverfromthe vision The CoE visionrequiresa majormindsetchange on the p
Gainingtheirbuy-inrequireseducationand "earlywins"t
determinationto not waiverfromthe visionof the CoE de
business is crucial.
Createand nurturea team-managedcollaborative The CoE modelcreates new interdependenciesamong m
environment theirroles and responsibilities.Success becomes depend
environmentthatvalues teamingand diversityas oppose
managementstyle.
Expectnew formalcoordinationmechanismsto evolve withinthe CoE design creates signifi
Role differentiation
and alignmentof activities.New formalcoordinationmec
communicationand interpersonalrelationshipsamong in
Use contractorsto transferbest practicesfornew Contractingexternalpartnersfor projectworkdue to thei
technologies technologiesmay reducethe opportunitiesfor developin
create moraleproblems.Use contractorsto transferbest
undershort-termcontracts,not do the projectwork.
Fine-tunenew performanceappraisalsystems to A multi-inputperformanceappraisalsystem-with inputs
reducedysfunctionaleffects deliverymanagersand skillcenter managers-rewards t
design. However,dependingon the newness of a multi-
whichcomparisonsare made across IS units,accommod
to balance individualand organizationalneeds. Further,i
accountmanagementand coaching-without systems de
established,accommodationsmay be needed to ensure
not undervalued.
Manageemployee anxieties Individualsreactdifferentlyto radicalchange because of
stages. A successful transitionprocess accommodatesth
CD
Empowermentworkswell when employees are eager to
()
ca own skilldevelopmentand careers. Since not all employ
customizedtransitionplanningand special humanresou
a
o-
move the reluctantemployee towardthis goal.
(0
Communicateprogressand demonstratevalue with Stakeholdersneed proofthatthe organizationalchange i
N
performancemeasures be identified,progresstracked,and resultscommunicat
stakeholdersas earlyas possible.
4-,
ii

The analysis in this paper focused on three well as the enterprise-wide leveraging of
processes: one anticipated but not yet fully expertise and solutions.
developed (CoE life cycle management) and
two formal processes not fully anticipated The CoE design described here combines
some of the advantages of both the life-cycle
(statement of work,resource planning).As dis-
cussed earlier,the frameworkof entrepreneur- and the SBU team approaches (see Table 7).
ial, integration, and renewal processes Similar to the SBU team, the CoE design
addresses the need for IS staff to develop a
(Ghoshal and Bartlett 1995) appears to be
useful for identifying the differing thrusts of deep business understandingas well as strong
these new processes. Moreproblematicat Bell client relationships. However, in the CoE
Atlanticwas the attempt to redesign a corpo- design, this role is played by an account man-
rate-wide performance appraisal process that ager. An underlying assumption of the CoE
would nurturethe values of the CoE design design, then, is that client perceptionsof busi-
ness responsiveness do not requireintensive
(teamwork,client responsiveness, skill devel- client access to and relationshipswith tempo-
opment), yet not be perceived as misaligned
withthe corporateIS organizationas a whole. raryprojectdeliveryteam members. Since the
IS-LB&ISunit previously operated under an
How does this project-based design compare SBU team model, in which systems project
with earlier models of IS organizationdesign, team members were typically assigned to a
business unitfor long time periods,the change
specificallythe SBU-team and life-cycledesign
models? The life-cycle design sets up a struc- to a CoE design appeared to some client
turalorganizationbased on skills utilizedat dif- groups to be a step backwards.In reality,the
ferent stages of the development life cycle: design established a single-point-of-contactfor
the clientthat is totallyaccountablefor the cus-
systems analysis, technical design, program- tomer relationship and enabled the project
ming, and maintenance (Boar 1996; Zmud
managers and IS development staff to focus
1984). This approach also requires good pro- on qualityprojectdeliverables.
ject management skills and a standard
methodology to ensure integrationacross the Similarto the life-cycledesign, the CoE design
life cycle steps. The primaryadvantage here is also pools IS staff. However, the pools here
that deep IT skills can be leveraged across a were primarilyfocused not on life cycle steps,
portfolioof systems development projectswith but on new technologies to support rapidpro-
a relativelysmall pool of skilled IS personnel. totyping and new management methods. A
A majorweakness is that IS staff have limited life-cycle design approach may be more suit-
opportunities for developing deep business able for an IT skills-centricapproach under a
expertise. more stable environment. However, when IT
skills are at a high rate of obsolescence and
In contrast, the SBU team approachsets up a there is an organizationalemphasis on rapid-
structuralorganization in which IS personnel
prototypingtools, the CoE design should prove
are assigned to specific business units, func-
superiorin facilitatingITtalent leadershipwith-
tionalareas, or processes of the overallfirmin in the context of continual reskilling,in which
orderto develop a deep expertise in a particu-
today's new skillsets may become tomorrow's
lar business area and close workingpartner-
legacy skills. Similarto a consultancy model,
ships withtheirbusiness clients. Whilefacilitat- the specific CoEs implemented by IS-LB&IS
ing a greater business responsiveness, the also foster strong project management skills
drawback of the SBU team model is that it and standardmethodologieswithinand across
inhibitsa firm'sabilityto leverage IS skills and skillsets.
expertise across the enterprise.When IS skills
are expensive, in short supply, and character- Further,the CoE design model also avoids a
ized by a high rate of obsolescence, the busi- disadvantageof typicalimplementationsof the
ness-centric approachof the SBU team design two more traditionalIS organizationdesigns:
creates deficiencies in IT talent leadership as the bundlingof responsibilitiesfor projectman-

Table 7. Comparing the Life-Cycle, SBU, and CoE Models for the IS Organi
Comparison Factors Alternative Modes of the IS Organizati

Life-Cycle Design SBU Design
Structuraldesign * IS staff organizedby skills * IS staff organizedby business
(organizingprinciple) requiredat differentstages of area (division,function,process)
the developmentlifecycle:
analysis, design, and
programming
PrimaryAdvantages * Leverage ITexpertise across ? Business responsiveness due to
projects deep business knowledgeand
close customerrelationships
PrimaryDisadvantages * Limitedabilityto buildbusiness * Deficienciesin ITtalent

knowledgeof IS projectteam pooling
members * Limitedabilityto leverage
* Weak customer relationships ITexpertise across projects
q)
0 * Limitedattentionto people * Limitedattentionto people
I
% development development
(b
RecommendedContext * Stable business and stable IT * Dynamicbusiness environment,
cn
environments stable ITenvironment
o
(D * Establishedstandard * Moderateto large IS staff size
methodology
ts
(D
I
'1
u
tO
4b

agement and people management into a sin- resources as it waited for the deregulation
gle managerial role. This leads to inadequate landscape to unfold.
attentionto the internaldevelopment of ITtal-
ent, as short-termdelivery pressures typically Otherlimitationsto the potentialrelevance and
take precedence over long-termpeople devel- applicabilityof this CoE design are acknowl-
opment. Similarto a consultancy, the project- edged. First and foremost, the design
based CoE design sets up a separate struc- described here was only implemented within
ture for mentoringand places responsibilityfor an IS unit with applications development
resource assignments in the hands of the responsibilities; it was not rolled out to the
mentors. entire Bell Atlantic IS organization. On the
other hand, the metricsfor the success of this
This case study suggests that a CoE design transformationare all widelysought IS capabil-
based on a project-based model prevalent in ities: rapid delivery of value-added business
the consulting industryhas considerable utility applications, superior customer satisfaction,
for IS organizations in large firms outside the and the abilityto quicklyassimilate ITskillsets
consulting industry-especially in firms facing (Hofman and Rockart 1992; Merlyn and
majorindustrychanges with a long-tenuredIS Parkinson1994; Parker 1996). The key chal-
workforce relatively unskilled in newer tech- lenge to implementingthe CoE design within
nologies. However, in assessing the generaliz- only a single systems development unit was
abilityof this case study, additionalfactorsthat the institutionalizationof a new performance
may have contributedto its successful imple- appraisalprocess that would rewardbehaviors
mentation at Bell Atlantic need to be recog- associated with the change-readiness func-
nized. First,the CoE design was introducedby tional strategy, but not cause inequities for
a new corporate IS management team and membersof the IS-LB&ISunit.
was spearheaded by a newly arrivedIS execu-
tive who had prior experience with redesign Otherfactors that may limitthe applicabilityof
initiatives.Nevertheless, special effortsto gain the CoE design model includethe fact that the
client buy-inwere required,suggesting thatthe IS-LB&ISunitwas of a moderatesize (approxi-
account manager role inherentto a consultan- mately250 IS employees), and the rapidappli-
cy/client relationship may be a "hardersell" cation capabilityfor this organizationwas con-
when the consultancyand the client are partof ceived in terms of a six-month cycle time.
the same organizational"family."Second, the Project teams thus had a limited life, and IS
CoE "fit"with its organizationalcontext in sev- specialists with highly valued skills typically
eral importantways. The teamed management would be available for multiple assignments
approachfit Clark'scollaborativemanagement withina given year. For IS organizationsof a
style, as well as the Bell Atlanticvalues (e.g., different size, and with large mission-critical
teamwork) established by the CEO several projectsthat may include the reengineeringof
years earlier; the strategic focus of the new globalworkprocesses, this specific model may
account manager role fit the new corporateIT not be optimal.On the other hand, a six-month
role;the four LOBsclient units had just recent- modularrelease schedule mightyield some of
ly been formed, which set up a management the same benefits (Koch1996).
environmentconducive to mutual IS/business
adjustment;and the newly decentralizedstruc- This case study also providesvaluableinsights
ture for corporatehuman resources placed the into the process for managingthe transforma-
first-linefacilitatorsfor new CoE job description to a CoE design. In addition to the
tions and rewardsystems under the corporate "lessons learned" (Table 5), a key insight is
IS umbrella. The timing of the CoE design that radical organizational changes must be
implementationwas also a potentiallyimpor- managed collectivelyin a teamed environment
tant factor:the transformationwas couched as and not in a hierarchical,command-and-con-
a radical redesign in anticipation of still trol mode. Radical changes cannot be totally
uncharted, major industry changes. This pre-planned;after establishing the initialmis-
meant that the organization had some slack sion and mandate, management must place

BellAtlantic
appropriate individuals in key positions and Conclusion

empower them to collaborate and innovate in
managing the transformation process. The The Centers of Excellence design at Bell
analysis of the transformation process pro- Atlantic'sIS-LB&ISunit appears to be a suc-
vides support for the assertion by Orlikowski cessful model for developing change-ready IT
and Hofmanthat contemporaryorganizational capabilitiesfor systems development;it can be
transformationsmust be viewed from"improvi- a means for transformingan IS organization
sational"models. from an operationalbackwater,focused solely
on legacy systems, to a consultancy con-
cerned with enabling IT-basedstrategic differ-
Finally,the case analysis illustratesthat man-
entiationof the business. The IS-LB&ISexperi-
aging employee and client anxieties are trans- ence demonstratesthe feasibilityand impacts
formational challenges that should not be of separating project delivery work from both
underestimated. While some improvisational customer relationship management and IS
tactics devised to manage employee anxieties people development. It also demonstrates a
have been discussed, further research is design in which requisiteskillsets can be lever-
required on this topic. For example, the aged across a portfolioof applicationprojects
reduced use of contractors helped the IS- through rapid team formationand disassem-
LB&ISunitimprovemorale. However,for other bly, and assignments that stretch the capabili-
IS organization contexts, the variable (vs. ties of IS specialists. And finally, it demon-
strates the usage of "virtual"skill centers to
fixed) costs associated withcontractpersonnel
help build, maintain,and renew IS talent with
may be a more importanttradeoff. technical and soft skillsets to meet current
demands and anticipate future needs. The
Further,if the organizationis moving from an CoE design thereforeappears to yield the key
SBU team model to a CoE design, its busi-
advantages of bothof the other IS organization
ness clients may regardthe change as a "pen- design models discussed here: deep business
dulum swing" equivalent to a kind of "recen- knowledge and strong customer relationships
tralization": IS project team members who under the SBU team model and the abilityto
were designated to develop and supportappli- leverage IT expertise under the life-cycle
cations specific to a business unit are now model.
consolidated in skill centers and are assigned BellAtlantic'simplementation experiences have
to work for multiple client groups. Despite also yieldedsome valuableinsightsfor IS prac-
there being no changes to the centralized IT titionersand researchers. The two-yeartrans-
governance model at Bell Atlantic,the change formationjourneywas not withoutpitfalls;some
to a CoE design model led to greater client of the anticipatedand unanticipatedmanage-
concerns than had been anticipated.This sug- ment actions in the form of "lessons learned"
have been highlighted.We hope that this case
gests that even large IS units under a federal
governance model could face similar client studywillstimulateinterestin alternativeorgani-
zationdesigns to meet the needs of the IS func-
concerns if they attempt to consolidate tion in tomorrow's organizations, as well as
resources that were aligned with different enable other IS managers to more effectively
business departments, although concerns navigatetheirown IS transformation journeys.
about a recentralizationto a corporate func-
tion would at least be avoided under a federal
model. Exploringthe advantages and disad-
Acknowledgements
vantages of a CoE design under a federal
governance structure appears to be another An earlier version of this paper was awarded
fertile area for future organization design the second place in the 1996 SIMInternational
experimentationand research. Best Paper Competition. We would like to
1997 451

SIMPaperCompetition
thank the IS managers, IS professionals, and Goodman, P. S., and Associates (eds.).
business managers at Bell Atlanticwho provid- Changes in Organizations: New
ed the data for this study. We are also grateful Perspectives on Theory, Research, and
to the Advanced Practices Council of SIM for Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
theirfundingand insights;MadelineWeiss and 1982.
Bob Zmud for their feedback at different Goodman, P. S. and Dean, J. W., "Creating
stages of this collaborative project; and the Long-Term Organizational Change," in
MIS Quarterlyeditors and reviewers for their Changes in Organizations: New
stimulating suggestions during the review Perspectives on Theory, Research, and
process. Practice, P. S. Goodman and Associates
(eds.), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
1982, pp. 226-279.
Gupta, N., Ledford,G. E., Jenkins, G. D., and
References Doty, D. H. "SurveyBased Prescriptionsfor
Skill-BasedPay,"ACA Journal(1:1), 1992,
Bahrami, H. "The Emerging Flexible pp. 50-61.
Organization," California Management Haeckel, S. H., and Nolan, R. L. "Management
Review (34:4), 1992, pp. 33-52. by Wire,"HarvardBusiness Review (71:5),
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A., and Spector, B. September-October1993, pp. 122-132.
"Why Change Programs Don't Produce Hamel, G., and Prahalad,C. K. Competingfor
Change," HarvardBusiness Review (68:6), the Future: Breakthrough Strategies for
November-December1990, pp. 158-166. Seizing Control of Your Industry and
Boar, H. B. Strategic Thinkingfor Information Creatingthe Marketsof Tomorrow,Harvard
Technology: How to Build the IT Business School Press, Boston, 1994.
Organizationfor the InformationAge, John Hofman, D., and Rockart, J. F. "Systems
Wiley& Sons, New York,1996. Delivery: Evolving New Strategies," Sloan
Bowen, D. E., Ledford,G. E., and Nathan, B. ManagementReview (33:4), Summer 1992,
R. "Hiringfor the Organization, Not the pp. 21-31.
Job," Academy of Management Executive lacono, S. C., Subramani,M., and Henderson,
J. C. "Entrepreneuror Intermediary:The
(5:4), 1991, pp. 35-51. Natureof the RelationshipManager'sJob,"
Conner, K. R., and Prahalad, C. K. "A in Proceedings of the Sixteenth
Resource-Based Theory of the Firm:
International Conference on Information
Knowledge Versus Opportunism,"
Systems, J. I. DeGross, G. Ariav,C. Beath,
Organization Science (7:5), September- R. Hoyer, and C. Kemerer (eds.),
October1996, pp. 477-501.
Amsterdam,1995, pp. 289-300.
D'Aveni, R. Hypercompetition:Managing the Keen, P. G. W. Shaping the Future:Business
Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering, The Design Through InformationTechnology,
Free Press, New York,1994. HarvardBusiness School Press, Boston,
Galbraith,J. R. Designing Organizations:An 1991.
Executive Briefing on Strategy, Structure,
Kiely, T. "InformationTechnology: Making
and Process, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Collaboration Work, Editorial Briefing,"
Francisco, 1995. HarvardBusiness Review (75:1), January-
Ghoshal, S., and Bartlett,C. A. "Changingthe February1997, p. 10.
Role of Top Management: Beyond Koch, C. "Flippingthe Switch,"CIO,June 15,
Structureto Processes," HarvardBusiness 1996, pp. 43-66.
Review (3:1), 1995, pp. 86-96. Lawler, E. E. From the Ground Up: Six
Goldman, S. L., Nagel, R. N., and Preiss, K. Principles for Building the New Logic
Agile Competitors and Virtual Corporation,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
Organizations: Strategies for Enrichingthe 1996.
Customer, Von Nostrand Publishing, New Leonard-Barton,D. Wellspringsof Knowledge:
York,1995. Building and Sustaining the Sources of
1997
452 MISQuarterly/December

BellAtlantic
Innovation, Harvard Business School Management: The Case of Groupware

Press, Boston, 1995. Technologies,"Sloan Management Review
Lewin, K. Field Theory in Social Science, (38:2), Winter1997, pp. 11-22.
Harper,New York,1951. Parker, M. Strategic Transformation and
Mata, F. J., Fuerst, W. L., and Barney, J. B. Information Technology: Paradigms for
"InformationTechnology and Sustained Performing While Transforming,Prentice-
CompetitiveAdvantage:A Resource-Based Hall,EnglewoodCliffs,NJ, 1996.
Analysis,"MIS Quarterly(19:4), December Rockart, J. F., Earl, M. J., and Ross, J. W.
1995, pp. 487-505. "Eight Imperatives for the New IT
Merlyn, V., and Parkinson, J. Development Organization,"Sloan Management Review
Effectiveness: Strategies for IS (38:1), Fall 1996, pp. 43-56.
Organizational Transition,John Wiley and Ross, J. W., Beath, C. M., and Goodhue, D. L.
Sons, Inc., New York,1994. "Develop Long-Term Competitiveness
Meyer, C. Fast Cycle Time: How to Align Through IT Assets," Sloan Management
Purpose, Strategy,and Structurefor Speed, Review (38:1), 1996, pp. 31-42.
The Free Press, New York,1993. Shuster, J. R., and Zingheim,P. K. The New
Mintzberg, H. "Crafting Strategy," Harvard Pay, New LexingtonPress, San Francisco,
Business Review (65:4), July-August1987, 1992.
pp. 66-75. Srinivasan, A., and Davis, J. G. "A
Mohrman,S. A., Cohen, S. G., and Mohrman, Reassessment of ImplementationProcess
A. M. Designing Team-BasedOrganizations: Models,"Interfaces(17:3), May-June1987,
New Forms for Knowledge Work,Jossey- pp. 64-71.
Bass, San Francisco,1995. Treacy, M. E., and Wiersema, F. The
Nadler, D. A., and Tushman, M. L. "Designing Disciplineof MarketLeaders: Choose Your
Organizations That Have Good Fit: A Customer, Narrow Your Focus, Dominate
Framework for Understanding New YourMarket,Addison-Wesley Publishing,
Architectures," in Organizational Archi- Reading,MA,1995.
tecture: Designs for Changing Tushman, M. L., and O'Reilly III, C. A.
Organizations,D. A. Nadler, M.S. Gerstein, "AmbidextrousOrganizations: Managing
R.B. Shaw, and Associates (eds.), Jossey- Evolutionaryand RevolutionaryChange,"
Bass, San Francisco, 1992, pp. 39-56. California Management Review (38:4),
Nadler, D. A., and Tushman, M. L. "Types of 1996, pp. 8-30.
OrganizationalChange: From Incremental Zmud, R. W. "Design Alternatives for
Improvement to Discontinuous Trans- OrganizingInformationSystems Activities,"
formation," in Discontinuous Change: MISQuarterly(8:2),June 1984, pp. 79-94.
Leading OrganizationalTransformation,D. Zmud, R. W. "Building Relationships
A. Nadler, R. B. Shaw, and A. E. Walton Throughout the Corporate Entity," in
(eds.), Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Transforming the IS Organization: The
Francisco,1995, pp. 15-34. Mission, The Framework,The Transition,J.
Nadler,D. A., Gerstein,M. S., Shaw, R. B., and Elam, M. Ginzberg, P. Keen, and R. W.
Associates. Organizational Architecture: Zmud (eds.), ICITPress, Washington,DC,
Designs for Changing Organizations, 1988.
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,1992.
Nolan, R. L., and Croson, D. C. Creative
Destruction: A Six Stage Process for About the Authors
Transforming the Organization, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, 1995. Charles E. Clarkis vice president,Information
Nutt, P. C. "Tactics of Implementation," Systems at Bell Atlantic Corporation. As a
Academy of Management Journal (29:2), diversified and experienced informationsys-
1986, pp. 230-261. tems executive, Mr. Clark'smany roles have
Orlikowski, W. J., and Hofman, J. D. "An included chief informationofficer, divisional
Improvisational Model for Change vice president, managing director, industry
1997 453

SIMPaperCompetition
consultant, directorof research and develop- Carol V. Brown is an associate professor of

ment, technical advisor, manager, and project informationsystems at the IndianaUniversity
lead. Duringthe course of his career, he has School of Business, Bloomington and
extensively directed the design, devleopment, Indianapolis. She holds an AB from Vassar
and deployment on online operating and College, MMfrom Northwestern University,
process control services; pioneered organiza- and an MBA and Ph.D. from Indiana
tional learning; capitalized on Rapid University. Her research on IS organization
ApplicationDevelopmenttechniques; imparted and managementtopics has appeared in such
the disciplines necessary to achieve and oper- journals as MIS Quarterly, Information
ationallymanage cooperative processing on a Systems Research, Organization Science,
Journal of Management InformationSystems,
large scale; and, effectivelyadvanced informa-
tion systems' role as a corporate "change DataBase, and others. Currentresearch inter-
ests include organizationdesign and manage-
agent."
ment issues associated with knowledge man-
Nancy C. Cavanaugh is an informationtech- agement initiatives, the implementation of
nology consultant for American Management enterprise-wideintegratedpackages, and elec-
Systems, Inc., in their Telecommunications troniccommerce applications.
IndustryGroup. Formerlyan informationsys- V. Sambamurthy is associate professor of
tems directorat Bell Atlantic,she has over 23
MIS at The Florida State University. He
years of experience in planningand develop- received his Ph.D. from the University of
ing applicationsfor both domestic and interna- Minnesotain 1989. His currentresearch inter-
tional telecommunications services. Ms. ests are focused on the buildingof capabilities
Cavanaugh's experience includes information and organization designs for extraction of
technology strategic planning and budgeting, informationtechnology value. Most of his work
organizational development, training and has been conducted in Fortune500 firms and
recruiting,software and professional services has been funded by the FinancialExecutives
contracting, and applications development, Research Foundation and the Advanced
particularlyin the areas of billingand customer Practices Council (APC) of the Society for
care. Ms. Cavanaugh received her bachelorof InformationManagement International(SIM).
science degree from Penn State University Some of his previousworkhas been published
and an MBA from George Washington in journals such as Information Systems
University.She also holds certifiedcomputing Research, Decision Sciences, and the
professional (CCP) certification from the European Journal of IS. Currently,he is an
Institute for Certification of Computing associate editoron the board of MIS Quarterly
Professionals (ICCP)and is a memberof Beta and also on the editorialboard of the Journal
Gamma Sigma. of Market-FocusedManagement.
454 MISQuarterly/December
1997

BellAtlantic
Appendix
Methodology
This case study is based on first-handexperiences of two senior Bell Atlanticmanagers leading the IS
organizationaltransformation,a multi-phasedata collectionover a periodof 14 months by two acade-
mics, and collaborativeanalyses of this case study by all fout authors. Morespecifically,this research
collaborationbegan in April1995, when the first author, the vice president and CIO of Information
Systems for the Large Business & InformationServices unit (IS-LB&IS),participatedin a telephone
interviewwith one of the academic authors for a research study on IT coordinationmechanisms in
large, divisionalizedfirms. The second author,the directorof Centers of Excellence withinIS-LB&IS,
subsequently made arrangementsfor both academic authorsto conduct on-site interviewsat three dif-
ferent Bell Atlanticsites between October 1995 and June 1996. A total of 27 Bell Atlanticemployees
were interviewed,includingthe CIO for the corporateIS organization,five direct reportsto the corpo-
rate CIO, five directors reportingto the IS-LB&ISVP/CIO,other members of the IS-LB&ISunit, plus
three business managers in the client organizationssupportedby IS-LB&IS.Numerousarchivaldocu-
ments includingannual reports,strategydocuments of the IS organization,excerpts fromkey speeches
given by the CEO and the CIO, statements of work descriptions for systems projects, job position
descriptions,performanceappraisalforms, and client feedback on completed projectswere also avail-
able to the authorsover this multi-yearcollaboration.
1997 455


1997 - Building Change-Readiness Capabilities in The Is Organization. Insights From The Bell Atl

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1997 - Building Change-Readiness Capabilities in The Is Organization. Insights From The Bell Atl

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Building Change-Readiness Capabilities in the IS Organization: Insights from the Bell Atlantic

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

cycle times by utilizinga highlyskilled internal

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

1. Enhance competitive agility by delivering research methodology is described in the

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

Figure 1. Bell Atlantic Corporate IS Organization (Early 1994)

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

Table 1. Measurable Impacts of the CoE Design

End of Year 1994 End of Year 1995

The CoE concept worksbecause it uncouples

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

Model Elements Star-Model Description CoE Design

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

Figure 3. Groups and Roles Within the CoE Design

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

CoE Managers (CM) Account Managers (AM) Del

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

Resource planning is an integrationprocess informationgathered from the resource plan-

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

Table 4. The TransformationJourney

Time Preplanned Actions Unanticipated Innovations

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

that was instrumental in mobilizing commit- Phase 2: implementingthe change

Create and Nurturea Team-Based

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

0 Application ObjectiveNalue Delivered Com

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

anticipatingthe demand for currentand future morale problems in a CoE environment

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

recent events that might be unrelated to the appreciationof comparablecriteriafor evaluat-

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

Phase 3: institutionalizethe entiation of their firm relative to its rivals in

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

Comparison Factors Alternative Modes of the IS Organizati

PrimaryDisadvantages * Limitedabilityto buildbusiness * Deficienciesin ITtalent

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

appropriate individuals in key positions and Conclusion

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

Innovation, Harvard Business School Management: The Case of Groupware

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

consultant, directorof research and develop- Carol V. Brown is an associate professor of

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.227 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:34:15 PM

Вам также может понравиться