Creating the Collaborative Organisation: The Promise of Relationship
Management
Jane Coughlan, Mark Lycett and Robert D. Macredie
Department of Information Systems and Computing, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, UK
Email: [email protected] [Coughlan]; [email protected] [Lycett];
[email protected] [Macredie]
Abstract
Collaboration within an organisation can be said to be
subject to the effective management of relationships.
This study focuses on one such relationship, that between
the business and IT sides of an organisation, which need
to communicate and coordinate their activities for the
successful development of working systems. The
management of this key organisational relationship has
been given increased attention with the set-up of
‘Relationship Management’ programmes, envisioned to
mediate and improve organisational relations, strategy
and performance, by bridging activities between the
business and IT. To investigate the potential efficacy of
such an initiative, this study looks at Relationship
Management within a major UK bank, with the aid of a
communication framework. Interviews with 29
individuals from the mid-high management level of the
retail business and IT departments revealed mixed
perceptions of the efficacy of such a programme. The
merits of such an initiative in creating a one-team culture
within this organisation are debated against the backdrop
of the underlying problems that this particular
organisation faces.
1. Introduction
The concept of Relationship Management (RM) has
risen to prominence in recent times as a strategy for
creating, improving and managing relationships to acquire
and maintain a strong customer base for continued
competitive advantage [1]. The particular relationship
placed under research scrutiny has typically been focused
on external collaborations: business to the customer, or
business-to-business encompassing dealings of the
business (both international and domestic) with various
suppliers or partners [e.g., 2]. This study focuses on an
organisation within the retail banking industry (referred to
as FinCo hereafter for confidentiality purposes), where
the concept of RM has proved particularly attractive, with
their focus on delivering the best financial products to
their customers [3]. Increased pressures to be innovative
and financially successful however have rendered
effective internal, external and cross-functional
communication essential especially with co-ordinating
activities with existing services and infrastructure,
particularly in IT, which is largely responsible for
generating business solutions [4]. However, it is
proposed here that the business side of a single
organisation can (and should) also be viewed as the
‘customer’ — clients of the organisation’s own IT
division and it’s within this context of the business-IT
(BIT) relationship that RM is discussed.
The BIT relationship is so crucial to the functioning of
the business as a whole that its quality in terms of the
degree of effective collaboration can provide a good
performance indicator of the success of an organisation,
in terms of customer satisfaction and external negotiations
[e.g., 5]. IT undoubtedly now forms an integral part of
any given organisation on which business decisions and
strategies are enabled, often at hugely elevated investment
costs which often fail to provide tangible benefits to the
business in practice [6]. It is this shortfall that requires
renewed research efforts and which this study attempts to
address through an evaluation of some of the reasons for
why this occurs, in the context of the BIT relationship.
A large body of work has shown that the BIT
relationship has continually failed to act synergistically,
commonly depicted in the literature through the concept
of ‘alignment’ [e.g., 7]. However, the alignment
paradigm has dissatisfied some by inferring that
organisational business affairs can be merely
‘straightened up’ as one side of the business catches up
with the other [see 8]. In contrast, Smaczny [9] has taken
the middle ground in offering the concept of ‘fusion’,
where BIT strategies are developed and implemented
simultaneously as part of a more collaborative enterprise
in sharing perspectives. Alternative studies have
completely dispensed with the notion of alignment
altogether and taken a more sceptical view in looking to
the real-life separation of BIT activities. This body of
work points to a more fractured view of the BIT
relationship as a clear divide that needs to be bridged,
reflected most strongly in recent times with a whole series
of ‘gap’ type articles in the literature [e.g., 10].
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 1
In this study, FinCo has followed this tendency to
separate BIT activities, implicitly creating a ‘barrier,
which has now emerged as an area of organisational
concern, given its perceived negative effects on
organisational dialogue and collaboration [11]. A
common contributory factor to the problems that BIT
face, is poor communication. It has been found to blight
interactions between IT specialists and financial product
managers [e.g., 12] as well as in general adversely
affecting the integration of business and IT strategy [13],
where communication is seen as a critical component of
collaboration [14, 15]. Therefore, this paper will argue
that in order for people to co-operate to achieve a goal
(i.e., collaborate) they must be able to engage effectively
in a process of creating a shared understanding of
messages between senders and receivers (i.e.
communicate). In this vein, RM has emerged as a method
to facilitate collaboration.
Indeed, the practice of management can be seen as the
craft of creating a strategic vision to enhance
organisational effectiveness [16]. Increasingly then this
vision has been seen to encompass a more relational view
of organisations in terms of a network of interdependent
relationships in which communication is crucial for the
flow of messages between people and the organisation at
large [17]. RM then permits the creation and maintenance
of business and personal relationships with other diverse
members of the organisation in an effort to ‘flatten’ the
communication process into a more communication
friendly horizontal structure. Such a structure to
communication enforces the notion of integration and
thus collaboration, as it contends that however specialised
particular departments may be within an organisation, co-
ordination with other departments in different areas of
expertise is necessary in order to make the organisation
more seamless and avoid the pitfalls of a BIT divide.
The post of a relationship manager then bestows a
distinctive status upon the individual, which has been
given scant attention in the literature [but see 18]. The
central thesis of this paper therefore is that the notion of
communication provides a useful lens through which to
view the BIT relationship and survey its collaboration
potential, especially since communication features heavily
in the creation, development and destruction of
relationships [19]. The components of communication
which will be addressed here (see Section 2) can be better
understood in collaborative terms as ‘activity links’ [20],
which views relationships as a chain of communication,
where breaks in the relationship, through conflict for
example, will disrupt collaboration detrimentally.
Therefore in order to address the various
communication issues that a study of the BIT relationship
presents, the paper is divided into a further five sections.
Section 2 presents a four-dimensional framework
employed as a tool for analysis. Section 3 outlines the
research method, case background to FinCo, data
collection and analysis. Section 4 displays the results of
the thematic content analysis. Section 5 discusses the
implications of the study and Section 6 concludes the
findings, with the insights gained from the study of
managing relationships.
2. PICTURE: A framework for the effective
communication of requirements
A four-dimensional framework (PICTURE) was
applied in this study, which was developed from a
synthesis of the relevant literature in order to present a
structured approach to categorising complex
communication issues — a viable approach for
highlighting the multi-faceted nature to collaboration
[e.g., 21]. PICTURE was originally devised for the
micro-level analysis of small group and interpersonal
contexts of communication within requirements
elicitation for the design of systems and how it could be
improved [22]. The study reported here however, looks at
the communication of requirements, in terms of the
messages that are exchanged, on a much broader level of
analysis, in the wider context of the organisation,
particularly the BIT relationship. It is posited that the
framework is equally applicable on a higher level of
abstraction as the communication studied in both contexts
revolves around the creation and shared understanding of
requirements (or messages) between stakeholders who are
broadly defined as being business or technically based.
The framework is referred to by the acronym
PICTURE which makes reference to both the four
dimensions of the framework (numbered 1-4) and its area
of applicability (requirements elicitation) and can be
described thus: (1) Participation and selection; (2)
Interaction; (3) Communication activities; (4)
Techniques; Used for Requirements Elicitation. Figure 1
provides a graphical representation of PICTURE along its
numbered dimensions, sub-categories (explained in
Sections 2.1-2.4) and associated themes revealed by the
analysis (see Section 4), although some sub-categories
remained unpopulated by themes as little or no reference
was made to them from the analysis. PICTURE’s
structure has been constructed with reference to a classic
model of communication by Shannon and Weaver [23].
The description of each dimension in Figure 1 highlights
the core communication components (capitalised) that the
Shannon-Weaver model emphasises and which underlie
most models of communication.
However, the work reported on here, transforms this
early (and linear) model considerably. PICTURE
promotes a more dynamic and encompassing view of
communication as a process that occurs within a group of
stakeholders, which in this instance are directors and
managers from two sides of an organisation (business and
IT) and subject to several defining influences. For
example, a message may be competently delivered by a
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 2
knowledgeable stakeholder (see dimension 1), but the
culture of an organisation (see dimension 2) in which the
stakeholder resides can further shape the delivery of a
message. The negotiation activities undertaken by the
receiver of the message (see dimension 3), may be more
or less successful in breaking down the message in
creating a mutual understanding, which again can depend
upon the written/verbal medium (see dimension 4) used to
convey the message. Also, previously unconsidered by
the Shannon-Weaver Model was the concept of
‘feedback’, which is seen as an important mechanism in
collaborative terms for checking understanding and
maintaining the flow of communication. Each of the
dimensions and their purposes are briefly explained in
Sections 2.1-2.4.
2.1 Choosing collaborators: Participation and
Selection dimension
A business stakeholder is a type of person or group of
persons who represents the source of information (or
message), which they will strive to share and negotiate
knowledge with other parties. However, a stakeholder
can also be seen as the destination of messages as well as
the original source, which holds true if the concept of
feedback is considered. Choosing appropriate BIT
representatives is vital for having a team that can
collaborate successfully [24]. Identifying suitable
candidates highlights the importance of having a
transparent organisational structure. Interfaces within and
between divisional departments need to be clear so that
networking can occur for the appropriate exchange of
stakeholder views.
Macaulay [25] however, usefully identifies a
hypothetical group of stakeholders that can be categorised
into at least three different types, presented here with a
short description:
1. Task knowledge and skill – domain knowledge.
2. Status – high-low ranking managers with decision-
making powers.
3. Responsibility – technical implementers and financial
accountants.
One example of a type of stakeholder represented in
this work is the ‘relationship manager’. The relationship
Figure 1. The PICTURE framework
1.
Participation
and
Selection
3.
Communication
Activi ties
Description: The choice of
stakeholders and how these
represent both an INFORMATION
SOURCE and a DESTINATION
for messages.
Sub-category - themes:
Task knowledge and skill – BIT
experience
Status
Responsibility
2.
Interaction
4.
Techniques
Description: The way in which
messages are ENCODED before
they are sent.
Sub-category - themes:
Culture and politics –
Organisational structure, Location
of IT division, BIT camps.
Management style – Clarity and
understanding
Description: The CHANNEL
through which the message is
conveyed.
Sub-category - themes:
Spoken – Meetings
Text -based
Description: Communication
activities – refers to the way that
messages are DECODED when
they are received.
Sub-category - themes:
Knowledge acquisition – Gaps in
understanding
Knowledge negotiation –
Informat ion exchange, Customer
contact
Knowledge integration
Communication
within the BIT
relationship
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 3
manager’s remit is to provide both an understanding of
the technology side and the business interests that they are
meant to serve; a co-ordination task that in practice is
highly demanding from a communication standpoint in
juggling these concerns. This exemplifies the acute
difficulties of sharing information with a wide variety of
people, through interactions that are additionally subject
to a number of mediating influences, discussed next.
2.2 Attending to organisational influences:
Interaction dimension
Before they are sent, stakeholders formulate messages
by way of a transmitter (or an encoder), which in this
instance is seen as the interaction between a number of
mediating factors that influence the delivery of messages.
Organisational life in general is replete with a wide range
of features that are manifest in any given organisation
[26]. These features can be seen as elements (or sub-
structures) of the overall structure of an organisation as
typified by organisational charts, illustrating functional
relationships, which give little indication of the way that
these structures link and co-ordinate with each other and
across boundaries in reality.
The most interesting types of organisational structures
are more perceptual than physical and provide the broad
backdrop to the interactions between stakeholders on at
least two major levels, which comprise the sub-categories
for this dimension:
1. Culture and politics – Ting-Toomey [27] defined
organisational culture as the “complex frame of
reference that consists of patterns of traditions,
beliefs, values, norms, symbols and meanings that are
shared to varying degrees by interacting members of
a community” (p.10). From this definition comes the
notion that communication cannot be seen as a
separate entity from culture as each is produced from
the other as part of a highly dynamic relationship
[28]. The importance and pervasive nature of
organisational culture is reflected in studies that have
shown the cultural model has affected the messages
that are communicated [29], although the culture of
an organisation is rarely so uniform and is typically
composed of sub-cultures as exposed by the BIT
divide [see 30].
2. Management style – The adoption of a certain style to
management holds implications for communication
as ‘mediating posts’, where it can affect the quality of
interaction and thus the extent of the collaboration
[31]. The style that a business/IT/relationship
manager adopts to communicate (e.g., director or
relater) determines the way that information is
exchanged, although the links between (culturally-
influenced) management style and communication,
are complex [see 32]. Suffice to say that the type of
management style is a major component of the
communication process, in creating an atmosphere, in
which communication is encouraged among
stakeholders the exact nature of which is explained by
the next dimension.
2.3 Building working relationships:
Communication activities dimension
Encoded messages require decoding by the receiver.
In this instance it is the communication activities and the
particular behaviours that stakeholders engage in that
serve to break down the messages in order to create a
mutual understanding. The communication activities that
are undertaken by the management echelons of an
organisation have a bearing on the degree, structure and
quality of communication between organisational
members. Indeed, communication is a key activity of
managers so much so that communication is considered as
actually being the work of managers [33], although it is
apparent that the particular nature of the communication
activities should be structured in a way that promotes
effective communication.
A useful way of categorising these activities is
through the behaviours that are exhibited. Walz [34] have
identified three different behaviours of a communication
activity revolving around:
1. Knowledge acquisition – establishing links between
various stakeholders’ realms of knowledge and
experience and of the technological options.
2. Knowledge negotiation – sharing multiple
stakeholder perspectives and reaching a collective
understanding.
3. Knowledge integration – acceptance of the
strategy/system where successful collaboration
implies that stakeholders will be satisfied that it will
work within the limitations imposed.
In the banking industry, the success of these activities is
paramount in order to rapidly launch new products to
meet market demands [35]. Although, this success can be
more easily facilitated with the selection of suitable
techniques, discussed next.
2.4 Utilising a range of communication media:
Techniques dimension
A variety of techniques or media can be employed to
channel communication, which can be both verbal and
non-verbal. These techniques can be categorized into
different forms to convey an array of organisational
messages to meet certain communication goals that the
sender intends [36]. Selecting the most appropriate media
for conveying messages is of the utmost importance in
terms of the functions that can be achieved by the content
and form of the messages that are sent out. For example,
certain techniques (according to media richness theory)
have been shown to be more ‘rich’ than others in readily
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 4
lending themselves to obtaining timely feedback,
reducing uncertainty, resolving differences in opinion and
achieving understanding to name but a few possible
communication outcomes [see 37].
It is beyond the scope to enter into a discussion of the
richness of particular techniques at this stage but suffice
to say, the various techniques can be categorised in two
broad ways (spoken or text-based) with particular
techniques stated in order of richness [see 38]:
1. Spoken – Meetings (informal/formal/conferences);
Telephone; Video (phone/conferencing).
2. Text-based – Email; Memos, letters and faxes;
Company newspaper, bulletin board, policy manuals,
posters, and intranet.
Therefore, media richness theory would suggest that any
media involving face-to-face discussion (e.g., meetings)
will be richer than written communications (e.g., e-mail),
which decrease the opportunities for interaction, although
this view has its critics, given that the full range of
benefits of computer-mediated communications, such as
e-mail, may be more far-reaching than previously
assumed by media richness theory [see 39]. Nevertheless,
there is an imperative to educate managers as to the
suitability of certain techniques to achieve the desired
outcomes, in this case increased collaboration, which
PICTURE attempts to highlight.
3. Research method
A common approach to unpacking the complexity of
the issues involved in communication and collaboration is
to undertake an interpretative case study such as this one,
which fits with other studies focused on the meaning of
relationships in business [e.g., 40]. Such an approach
affords an in-depth look at a dynamic process such as
communication in terms of the shared meanings and
experiences of the people involved [41], and becomes
instrumental in making explicit the links between
antecedents and outcomes of contextual conditions upon
communication [42]. These are interpreted from the
perspectives of the individuals themselves, given that
multiple realities exist in this organisation (broadly
business and IT), which have been shaped by their
communication experiences.
3.1. FinCo: A case study
The organisation in the study, FinCo, a major high
street bank, was deemed a suitable case as it was at the
early stages of implementing a RM programme, which
comprised the company’s response to improving
relations, communication and collaboration between BIT.
Furthermore, these efforts were being conducted across a
perceived divide, which was held to be significant in
inhibiting the communication of messages between the
retail business and their counterparts in IT. Furthermore,
this study made use of a free data set in the sense that the
interview questions posed were not directly related to the
framework as in previous work [see 22]. This study was
designed to be both sensitive to FinCo’s environment and
conduct more of a test of PICTURE, which despite being
applied to a single case holds considerable value to other
companies in the assessment of the levels and quality of
communication in the organisation in accordance with
each of its four dimensions.
In considering the divide, the focus of the study was
directed at two key areas of the organisation — retail
business and IT. Retail banking was specifically chosen
as some research suggests that it is here that
organisational divisions appear more pronounced [e.g.,
43] and because it is the biggest ‘customer’ of the IT part
of the organisation. The two opposing areas of business
(retail) and IT can be described as follows:
1. Retail banking – covers services such as current
accounts, credit cards, share dealing etc. The retail
business division is comprised of different and often
competitive units (e.g., customer service, retail sales)
and is relatively distributed, although with an obvious
hierarchy of a tiered directorate down to management
levels (similar to the IT division);
2. IT – caters for solutions delivery, infrastructure and
architectures and support, for example, but is
relatively (and recently) centralised. The IT division
in organised into ‘silos’, where departments are
divided into separate lanes and where adjacent lanes
do not necessarily have as much contact and
communication as might be expected.
3.2. Data collection
In total, 29 semi-structured interviews each lasting an
hour were conducted with directors, heads of departments
and managers from both retail banking and IT. The
collection of data from at least three different
management levels permits the elicitation of multiple
viewpoints from individuals within the same departmental
division to be contrasted across divisions so as to identify
common themes that represent key concerns for BIT.
Eight interview questions were prepared, designed to
probe for experiences, thoughts and opinions relating to
three broad areas: (i) General background/BIT interaction
scenarios; (ii) Intent for enhancing the BIT relationship;
and (iii) RM as a viable solution for improving the BIT
relationship (see Appendix 1 for the interview schedule
used). Data collected from questions relating to areas 1)
and 2) are presented in Section 4, and data collected from
questions relating to area 3) presented in Section 4.1.
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 5
Table 1. Dimensional themes relating to BIT perceptions of a divide
REPRESENTATIVE QUOTE
DIMENSIONAL
CATEGORY
THEME RETAIL BUSINESS IT
DIMENSION 1: PARTICIPATION AND SELECTION
Tas
k
kno
wle
dg
e
and
sk
ill
BIT
exp
erie
nce
“The main problem as I see it is finding the right people for the job, but you know IT just don’t have the
resources” (Director, Retail Finance)
“I think strongly, the right people should take lead roles according to specialisms” (Manager, Group
Project Management)
DIMENSION 2: INTERACTION
Org
anis
atio
nal
stru
ctu
re
“The difference is that IT are very product related and
expertise is concentrated in a small group” (Head of
Customer Service)
“It is quite silo orientated around here, but it is Retail
that supports the layers of responsibility, and well it
can be a barrier” (Director, Group Technology Architectures and Support)
Lo
cati
on
of
IT d
ivis
ion
“IT people don’t move around, they just sit in X, and
wait to be told what needs to be done” (Manager, Group Development)
“I do feel like we are far away from the business and
so co-location is definitely something to be encouraged” (Manager, Data Centre Operations)
Cult
ure
and
po
liti
cs
BIT
cam
ps
“You see the people over in [IT] are of the mindset that
avoids a one-team attitude, by saying such things as the business wants this, as if they are not part of the
business” (Manager Information Management
Programme)
“I think X lacks something of a one team culture
really and part of it is because the business see us as some sort of add-on” (Manager, Retail Channel and
Operations Development)
Man
agem
ent
Sty
le
Cla
rity
and
und
erst
andin
g “To be honest, and this might sound a bit strange, I
really don’t know who to talk to over in [IT], I mean
some of the functions that these departments are meant to perform are quite lost on me” (Director, Retail
banking)
“I can give you an example of when it is really
important to have to talk to someone over in business,
when a system breaks down, say in the branches, and I for one have had difficulty in the past in knowing
and locating my opposite number in the business”
(Director, Retail Customer Risk and Decisioning)
DIMENSION 3: COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES
Kn
ow
led
ge
acquis
itio
n
Gap
s in
und
erst
andin
g “I’d be the first to admit that I do not understand some
of the technicalities of our systems although I have signed off documents from IT and therefore given a
blanket acceptance of stuff I actually know little about,
with I have to say no help from the IT guys” (Head of Relationship Management Lending)
“To be perfectly honest, I think that as a division we
may perhaps lack the necessary knowledge of business requirements and objectives, but having said
that the business have to take some responsibility in
understanding how their requirements will pan out in terms of time and cost” (Systems Manager)
Info
rmat
ion
exch
ang
e
“Communication with other parts of the organisation, namely IT appears to be blocked at times for want of a
better term, you know, for example, business people
are rarely asked to talk at IT conferences so obviously we lose out on that important mixing element”
(Director, Retail Programme)
“Most of the time many of our messages don’t get through to business or they get through and are
confused and then you find yourself in the situation
where systems problems are fixed without discussion of the issues with the business” (Director, Solutions
Delivery)
Kn
ow
led
ge
neg
oti
atio
n
Cu
stom
er
con
tact
“You know I get the distinct impression sometimes in some of my dealings with the IT people that they don’t
see that they are in fact working towards delivering to a
customer” (Managing director, Retail Finance)
“I do hear of complaints now and again mainly from the business, that we are out of touch with the man on
the street as it were, you know the end users of some
of our systems, but the reality is as a department we receive very little feedback on the customer
experience” (Director, Group Technology Services)
DIMENSION 4: TECHNIQUES
Sp
ok
en
Mee
ting
s
“Meetings tend to be totally ad hoc here, I mean it makes me wonder if some of these people are meant to
be involved in these forums as they appear to have
been selected from a quick flick of the internal telephone directory” (Director, Retail banking)
“We do have regular meetings which is an excellent way of exchanging ideas, but on the whole there is a
severe lack of mixing and talking with people
generally” (Manager Supply Management)
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 6
3.3. Data analysis
The transcribed interview data was analysed for its
thematic content, which involved identification of a
number of themes. These were subsequently assigned to
the four dimensional categories of PICTURE, to provide a
narrative on the BIT relationship, a tried and tested
approach in a number of studies seeking to substantiate a
structure to an investigative framework [44]. The themes
were generated following a systematic and manual coding
procedure in four clear steps [see 45]:
1. Unit of analysis – the complete concept of a
respondent’s utterance, typically ranging from a few
words to an entire paragraph to which codes were
attached.
2. Code attachment – act as labels on the units of
analysis and represent the theme prevalent in that
section of text.
3. Theme categorisation – the identified themes are then
assigned to the predefined dimensional categories of
PICTURE.
In total, nine broad themes were identified from the
analysis. In the interests of brevity, the presentation of
the vast amount of data has been condensed to the display
in Table 1. A representative quote to illustrate the context
of each theme is provided from both the retail business
and IT, in order to give an indication of the conflicting
nature of the stance taken from these two sides of the
organisation. Without the luxury of entering into an in-
depth analysis of these themes, discussion will be directed
in the next section on the key notes of interest highlighted
by Table 1.
4. Perceptions of a BIT divide
The themes surrounding dimension 2: interaction,
especially within the category of culture and politics,
were more numerous than in other categories. This
demonstrates that this aspect of organisational life
appeared to cause the most concern for FinCo employees
and where the BIT divide was most clearly in evidence.
Also of note were themes associated with the category
of knowledge negotiation (dimension 3: communication
activities), where two key themes emerged (information
exchange and customer contact). Here, it was revealed
that opportunities within the organisation to communicate
had practically degenerated with dangerous repercussions
being felt in another crucial relationship — the customer
outside of the organisation. However, while conflict
prevailed in BIT, there was also a fair degree of
agreement between the two sides in the sense that their
perceptions on certain issues would occasionally be
matched (e.g., on theme: BIT experience and ‘finding the
right people for the job’) although they lacked the means
to resolve these issues.
Overall however, the dimensional categories and
associated themes cannot be viewed in isolation. In
practical terms, the PICTURE framework has usefully
highlighted that the dimensional categories and themes
impact upon each other in ways that require urgent and
further attention, but ultimately contribute to an
organisational communication problem and thus an
inhibitor for effective collaboration. This in turn has
considerable implications for anyone undertaking the role
of RM, who given the analysis provided above, may have
a serious problem co-ordinating large scale BIT activities
for example, in such a communication minefield. Until
the time of the study, FinCo itself had not formally
conducted an assessment of their communication needs.
Nevertheless, they were acutely aware that a problem
existed between BIT, though without qualifying its
nature, and hence the instigation of the RM programme to
combat the BIT communication divide. However,
respondents when questioned on the efficacy of such an
initiative revealed many misgivings of its potential
success, of which the findings are summarised in the next
section.
4.2 Perceptions of the efficacy of relationship
management
The data presented here is in its preliminary stages, as the
interview questions pertaining to the efficacy of an RM
programme sought merely to gauge briefly the level of
understanding of the term ‘relationship management’ and
whether it would improve BIT relations. At the time of
the study, the organisation was undergoing restructuring
to accommodate the role of designated relationship
managers, so thoughts and opinions were therefore
canvassed at a very early stage of this upheaval. The
questions were posed with a view to assessing how well
the notion of RM had been relayed to the workforce in the
context of the unique problems FinCo faced and
subsequently how these opinions would change (if at all)
in follow-up studies.
The issues that were uncovered in relation to the RM
programme were assigned to the relevant themes
identified from the first part of the study (see Table 1), in
order to expand them further in terms of relating this
knowledge to perceptions of RM. In light of the fact that
the RM programme was in its infancy, many of the
interviewees expressed views both for and against RM as
they attempted to make sense of the value RM could
impart for them both as an individual and member of their
department and their division. This process generated 30
individual issues presented in Table 2, further categorised
into whether they were positively or negatively expressed
in order to give a finer impression of the some of the
confused debate over the efficacy of RM.
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 7
Table 2. Dimensional themes relating to the efficacy of RM
BUSINESS-IT PERCEPTIONS
THEME Positive Negative
BIT experience
Get right people together Forward-looking
Mobilising resources
Dilution of expertise Resourcing relationship
Organisational
structure One point of contact
Creation of vertical RM organisations Another unnecessary boss
BIT camps
Interface between BIT
Act as conduit Repairing relations
Change agent
Bridging not closing gap
Artificial division Passivity and reactivity
Breaking existing good links
Selling and dictating
Clarity and
understanding
Provide holistic view Enable understanding
Needs constant information and updating
Gaps in
understanding
Repository of knowledge
Detailed understanding of requirements Internal tensions over remit of role
Information
exchange
Communicate requirements clearly
Raise awareness
Manage communication links Building trust in relations
Act as a barrier to lower levels
Could add cost but no value
Remaining unbiased
Table 2 reveals perceptions of RM that are almost
equally positive, as they are negative, indicating a great
deal of trepidation from FinCo employees as to the actual
benefits that RM will hold in practice. To provide some
context to these misgivings it was felt, for example, in
some quarters of the organisation that RM wasn’t such a
new thing after all in that “several people [have] already
been a relationship manager for some time now despite
not being officially titled!” (Director, IT and
Infrastructure). How the officially appointed relationship
managers would fit into the existing organisational
structure is yet to be seen, but it would appear that the
management of relationships is of major concern within
this organisation in terms of increasing collaboration
through effective communication means.
However, it does not necessarily have to be the formal
programme along the route that FinCo is embarking upon,
especially when the understanding of the present
relationships as PICTURE has uncovered is not clear.
Rather, each of the dimensions of PICTURE pinpoints the
particular problem areas that this organisation needs to
attend to, that are affecting the BIT relationship
negatively and which a formal RM programme could
complicate yet further.
5. Implications of the study
The potential of the PICTURE framework as an
organisational tool for diagnosing communication
problems within the BIT relationship is still in its infancy
and future work is needed to focus on the nature of the
communication problems in modern organisations and
how they can be resolved in order to pave the way for
collaborative activities. Following from this, the main
findings of the paper can be summarised in four main
ways:
1. Demystifying communication – deconstructing the
nature of communication by breaking it down into its
constituent parts (dimensions, sub-categories, themes)
reveals how the communication process works in the
day-to-day life of a real organisation and the impact
that this has on the way stakeholders collaborate.
2. Exposing relationships - a focus on relationships as
intricate collaboration links serves to explode a
number of myths about the existence and
maintenance of relationships in organisations. A
business stakeholder is related to an IT stakeholder as
an opposite number in an organisation, but in FinCo
this tended to be in a purely associative rather than
cohesive sense. Relationships were exposed to be in
fact quite weak, in terms of the number of
communication problems that were experienced, as
documented by the thematic analysis.
3. Assessing RM as a collaborative tool - the instigation
of a RM programme is questionable given the nature
of the problems FinCo faced. The success of such
popular RM programmes in general could be
negligible, without first attempting some type of audit
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 8
of communication and collaboration processes within
an organisation to spotlight problem areas and
provide solutions before restructuring management.
4. Structuring an approach to the study of
communication – the complex nature of relationships
and their attendant issues such as communication are
difficult to investigate, but a framework such as
PICTURE can pinpoint the relevant issues and
present them in a digestible form for a diverse range
of people (e.g., business and IT) to understand
clearly.
The use and implementation of a framework such as
PICTURE can set the agenda for change. Specifically, in
order for the shift towards the collaborative organisation
to begin, a firm needs to attend to the way that their
relationships are managed, and a useful starting-point may
be found in at least four key areas as prescribed by
PICTURE.
6. Conclusions
This study has offered some fresh insights into the
management of relationships within organisations.
However, maintaining the delicate balance of
collaboration within large organisations is a huge
challenge, which a programme such as RM can promise
and deliver on, but not necessarily as an overlaid or
inserted organisational layer as FinCo has attempted.
Investing in relationships is critical to building
collaboration within the organisation. However, it needs
to permeate organisation-wide so that the life and value of
these connections can be substantiated whilst
simultaneously becoming more fluid in dissolving the
many barriers (primarily communication), which can halt
or hinder collaborative activities. PICTURE therefore,
endeavours to provide a snapshot of the state of
communication within an organisation by unveiling the
workings of a relationship, and thus providing a sound
platform for the creation of more fruitful collaborative
activities.
References
[1] K. Eriksson and J. Mattsson, "Managers' perception of
relationship management in heterogeneous markets," Industrial
Marketing Management, vol. 31, pp. 535-543, 2002.
[2] D. A. Griffith, "The role of communication competencies
in international business relationship development," Journal of
World Business, vol. 37, pp. 256-265, 2002.
[3] S. Dibb and M. Meadows, "The application of a
relationship marketing perspective in retail banking," The
Services Industries Journal, vol. 21, pp. 169-194, 2001.
[4] J. Kuljis, R. D. Macredie, and R. J. Paul, "Information
gathering problems in multinational banking," Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, vol. 7, pp. 233-245, 1998.
[5] J. Peppard and J. Ward, "'Mind the gap': Diagnosing the
relationship between the IT organisation and the rest of the
business," Journal of Strategic Information Systems, vol. 8, pp.
29-60, 1999.
[6] C. M. Hinton and G. R. Kaye, "The hidden investments in
information technology: The role of organisational context and
system dependency," International Journal of Information
Management, vol. 16, pp. 413-427, 1996.
[7] J. C. Henderson and N. Venkatraman, "Strategic alignment:
Leveraging information technology for transforming
organizations," IBM Systems Journal, vol. 32, pp. 4-16, 1993.
[8] C. Sauer and P. W. Yetton, Steps to the Future: Fresh
Thinking on the Management of IT-based Organisational
Transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
[9] T. Smaczny, "Is an alignment between business and
information technology the appropriate paradigm to manage IT
in today's organisations?," Management Decision, vol. 39, pp.
797-802, 2001.
[10] J. Peppard, "Bridging the gap between the IS organisation
and the rest of the business: Plotting a route," Information
Systems Journal, vol. 11, pp. 249-270, 2001.
[11] A. Holmes, Failsafe IS Project Delivery. Aldershot:
Gower, 2001.
[12] P. Vermeulen and B. Dankbaar, "The organisation of
product innovation in the financial sector," The Services
Industries Journal, vol. 22, pp. 77-98, 2002.
[13] B. H. Reich and I. Benbasat, "Factors that influence the
social dimension of alignment between business and information
technology objectives," MIS Quarterly, vol. 24, pp. 81-113,
2000.
[14] J. E. Austin, The Collaboration Challenge: How Nonprofits
and Businesses Succeed through Strategic Alliances. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
[15] R. C.-W. Kwok, M. Lee, and E. Turban, "On inter-
organizational EC collaboration: The impact of inter-cultural
communication apprehension," presented at Proceedings of the
34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
2001.
[16] D. Tourish and O. Hargie, "Communication and
organisational success," in Handbook of Communication Audits
for Organisations, D. Tourish, Ed. London: Routledge, 2000,
pp. 3-21.
[17] G. M. Goldhaber, Organizational Communication, 6th ed.
Dubuque, IA: Brown, 1993.
[18] C. S. Iacono, M. Subramani, and J. C. Henderson,
"Entrepreneur or intermediary: The nature of the relationship
manager's job," presented at Proceedings of the 16th
International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS'95),
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995.
[19] S. Duck, Relating to Others, 2nd ed. Buckingham;
Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1999.
[20] A. Dubois and H. Håkansson, "Relationships as activity
links," in The Formation of Organizational Networks, M. Ebers,
Ed. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
[21] S. Horrocks, N. Rahmati, and T. Robbins-Jones, "The
development and use of a framework for categorising acts of
collaborative work," presented at Proceedings of the 33rd
Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
1999.
[22] J. Coughlan, M. Lycett, and R. D. Macredie,
"Communication issues in requirements elicitation: A content
analysis of stakeholder experiences," Information and Software
Technology, vol. 45, pp. 525-537, 2003.
[23] C. Shannon and W. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of
Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1949.
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 9
[24] G. Klein, J. J. Jiang, and D. B. Tesch, "Wanted: Project
teams with a blend of IS professional orientations,"
Communications of the ACM, vol. 45, pp. 81-87, 2002.
[25] L. Macaulay, "Requirements capture as a cooperative
activity," presented at Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International
Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE'93), San Diego,
CA, USA, 1993.
[26] A. M. Pettigrew, "Conclusion: Organizational climate and
culture: Two constructs in search of a role," in Organizational
Climate and Culture, B. Schneider, Ed. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1990, pp. 413-441.
[27] S. Ting-Toomey, Communicating Across Cultures. New
York: The Guilford Press, 1999.
[28] T. Schirato and S. Yell, Communication and Culture: An
Introduction. London: Sage, 2000.
[29] A. M. Wilson, "Understanding organisational culture and
the implications for corporate marketing," European Journal of
Marketing, vol. 35, pp. 353-367, 2001.
[30] D. M. Rousseau, "Assessing organizational culture: The
case for multiple methods," in Organizational Climate and
Culture, B. Schneider, Ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
1990, pp. 153-192.
[31] D. H. Sonnenwald, "Communication roles that support
collaboration during the design process," Design Studies, vol.
17, pp. 277-301, 1996.
[32] J. R. Darling and A. K. Fischer, "Developing the
management leadership team in a multinational enterprise,"
European Business Review, vol. 98, pp. 100-108., 1998.
[33] H. Mintzberg, Mintzberg on Management: Inside our
Strange World of Organizations. New York: The Free Press,
1989.
[34] D. B. Walz, J. J. Elam, and B. Curtis, "Inside a software
design team: Knowledge acquisition, sharing, and integration,"
Communications of the ACM, vol. 36, pp. 63-77, 1993.
[35] D. Wilson, "Diagonal communication links within
organizations," The Journal of Business Communication, vol.
29, pp. 129-143, 1992.
[36] D. Te'eni, A. Sagie, D. G. Schwartz, N. Zaidman, and Y.
Amichai-Hamburger, "The process of organizational
communication: A model and field study," IEEE Transactions
on Professional Communication, vol. 44, pp. 6-20, 2001.
[37] R. L. Daft and R. H. Lengel, "Information richness: A new
approach to managerial behaviour and organization design," in
Research in Organizational Behaviour, vol. 6, B. M. Staw, Ed.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1984, pp. 191-233.
[38] R. L. Daft and G. P. Huber, "How organizations learn: A
communication framework," in Research in Sociology of
Organizations, vol. 5, N. Tomasso, Ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press, 1986, pp. 1-36.
[39] O. K. Ngwenyama and A. S. Lee, "Communication
richness in electronic mail: Critical social theory and the
contextuality of meaning," MIS Quarterly, vol. 21, pp. 145-167,
1997.
[40] T. Fuller and J. Lewis, " 'Relationships mean everything'; A
typology of small-business relationship strategies in a reflexive
context," British Journal of Management, vol. 13, pp. 317-336,
2002.
[41] G. Walsham, "The emergence of interpretivism in IS
research," Information Systems Research, vol. 4, pp. 376-394,
1996.
[42] M. Janson, A. Brown, and T. Taillieu, "Colruyt: An
organization committed to communication," Information
Systems Journal, vol. 7, pp. 175-199, 1997.
[43] G. Koloszyc, "Retailers, suppliers push joint sales
forecasting," Stores, 1998.
[44] E. Longmate, P. Lynch, and C. Barber, "Informing the
design of an online financial advice system," presented at
Proceedings of the HCI'00 Conference on People and
Computers XIV, Sunderland, UK, 2000.
[45] I. Dey, Qualitative Data Analysis: A User-Friendly Guide
for Social Scientists. London: Routledge, 1998.
Appendix 1. Interview schedule
Section A: General Background/ BIT interaction scenarios
1. Can you describe your department’s primary role(s) and
responsibilities within the organisation?
2. Which other functional units/departments does your
department interact with to fulfil these roles and
responsibilities?
PROMPT: How important is the relationship with IT and in
what ways?
3. Please describe typical scenarios of interaction with
business/IT units, highlighting any particularly good or bad
examples?
PROMPT: Purpose, effectiveness, formalities, frequency,
communication channels?
Section B: Intent for enhancing business-IT relationship
4. Given your knowledge of business/IT strategy/direction,
how do you see your relation with business/IT units
changing/transforming in the future?
PROMPT: Optimism or pessimism and why?
5. If you were granted three wishes to improve the
relationship between business and IT units, what changes
would you like to see within your relationships?
PROMPT: Expectations, intent to collaborate and requests?
6. What could you do to facilitate these changes and what
could others to do to facilitate these changes?
Section C: Relationship management solution option
7. What do you understand by the term ‘relationship
management’ and its role?
8. In what ways do you think ‘relationship management’
can/cannot improve the relationship between the business
and IT?
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 10