Differing roles of Information Technology (IT) between Total Quality Management (TQM) and Information System (IS) based

organisations: Using accountability as an explanation Kate Ho MSc Technology Management Tuesday, 25 November 2003 Coursework for Concepts and Interpretations of Information Systems

Introduction Accountability is one of the core concepts within organisations. It links control systems, decisionmaking and organisation structure together. How accountability is assigned determines whether employees feel empowered or de-humanized. To explore the debate between Total Quality Management (TQM) and Information Systems (IS), we chose to explore accountability within both of these processes. We will argue that Information Technologies have a completely different role between TQM and IS systems. This is a result of the different types of accountability structures that exists within TQM and IS. Our argument will be formed as followed. We will demonstrate why IS has individual accountability which lends itself to a more aggressive, controlling and measuring role from IT. TQM, on the other hand, has group accountability and lack individual accountability, this is why IT only plays a supportive, information sharing role within organizations. We will conclude with how these two processes co-exist within each other through one taking a more supportive role to complement the other. We begin by establishing definitions of TQM, IS, IT and accountability. Definition of TQM There are many definitions of TQM, however, they all have the same main attributes. For example Matta et al. (2001) define it as nine dimensions: leadership; strategic planning process; output quality assurance; supplier quality assurance; important innovations; information and analysis; human resource utilization; customer satisfaction; quality results.

This, for our purposes provides a comprehensive enough definition of TQM. Definitions of IS and IT It is rather critical to decouple the idea of IS and IT. The two terms are used interchangeably in literature. However, in this essay, we will consider them as two separate entities. An integrated framework portrays information systems as being composed of management, organisation and technology elements. Laudon and Laudon (1994)

Information Technology consists of many instruments apart from computers (such as pens, paper and erasing fluid), machines (such as typewriters, adding machines, telephones, computers) and systems for gathering, storing, processing and communicating information. Gabriel et al. (2000) We define IS as a business process, a way to control and manage people, technologies and organisations through the use of information to give a competitive edge (Gates and Hemingway, 2000). It is critical to recognise that IS is not simply information management, nor is it just a set of computer and tools to gather or manipulate data, but it affects deeper underlying management concepts such as control, power, performance measurement, decision making, accountability etc. We define IT as the tools in which information can be gathered, stored, processed, transmitted in. These can include, as Gabriel et al states, a variety of artefacts and instruments. It is important to emphasise that these artefacts are replicable tools, such as a replaced computer in a network. Definitions of Accountability and Responsibility Accountability and responsibility are another set of words used interchangeably in literature. We need define the differences since we are using the two different terms to demonstrate the difference types of accountability within TQM and IS. For the scope of this essay, we have to take a rather simplistic look at the two. We recognise there are many aspects to both and we point to Bovens (1998), Hoskins (1996) or Brunsson (1989) as a few examples of the literature available. Instead, we draw heavily on the definitions provided by Lindkvist and Llewellyn (2003), because the author undertook a class on accountability taught by Llewellyn and is most familiar with those definitions. Therefore, we define accountability as the behaviour of each individual in an organisation. Any individual can be called into account for the results of certain behaviour desirable or not. This behaviour can take the form of meeting performance targets or undertaking a certain task. Note that with accountability, one can either be accountable or not, there is no half-way. As Bovens states: you cannot call someone a little bit into account (Bovens (1998:31)). Responsibility is more of a morality based the individual feels obliged to consider reflectively what is a reasonable action in the situation at hand (Lindkvist and Llewellyn (2003: 253)). With responsibility, it is possible to be more or less responsible for an outcome. Simple example. A worker is accountable for meeting his performance targets but he is only slightly responsible for suggesting how to improve the system to allow others to achieve their targets. Accountability within IS Accountability within IS are very reciprocal. We need information to prove someone is accountable (Heeks (1998)) and accountability within IS is very visible. In this section, we argue that IS has an individual accountability structure - symptoms of this are increased autonomy and the usage of information as a control mechanism. Carlson (1999) states: Workers are encouraged to take on more responsibility in self managing their tasks Through the 1990s there has been a growing trend of autonomy (Robson (1997) and Carlson (1999)). With autonomy comes individual decision-making. In addition, it is well documented that with IS, social interactions decrease. With computerisation, the way people interact are significantly different. For example, Gabriel et al. (2000) argue that with computerisation, (or in their terms, mechanization) the opportunity for social interactions has decreased. Previously, workers could gather around the filing cabinet to chat, however, now they have to remain at their computers until break-time. This increasing isolation of people causes a sense of individuality.

Heeks (1998) argues that information is needed to make someone accountable and accountability can only be assigned if information was available. He also argues that They [IS] provide for the monitoring of decision performance, and are intended to assist in the control of that performance. We infer that whereas previously managers/workers could escape accountability by claiming they did not have enough information on the outcome, with IS, this is not the case anymore. IS provide managers/workers with information of the existing situation and then some estimate of the outcome of certain decisions e.g. simulations and what if scenarios. This causes the worker to be directly trapped into the decision made and hence, the accountability of that decision (we will see later how the openness introduced through IT makes this accountability even more visible). Pearlsons (2001) view of IS goes further. Not only are workers aware that they are held accountable through the feedback system, management automatically track their performance and compare their peers using these measures. Traditionally, workers perceive that any information directly controlling them is non-value-added work. Therefore, it is a lower priority task completed with less accuracy. Instead, with IS, the organisational design challenge is to embed monitoring tasks within everyday work. Which provides some insight into a Big Brother, Orwellian future in the workplace. With the information collected automatically, it makes accountability very clear since performance measures cannot be biased within a machine/system. Perhaps this would suggest the decreased managerial levels post-IS since the middle management that were needed previously to control and manage at the operator level has now been replaced by more automated control systems. Ironically, Pearlson attempts to present his argument as positive rather than negative. It is quite clear from the three views listed above that IS creates a sense of individual accountability. That control systems make workers accountable individually. For example, it is not possible to be group accountable in a call centre environment. Ironically, managers/workers reverse this process to deny blame (Gabriel (2000)). By claiming there was too much information (i.e. information overload) they can claim that there was not enough time to analyse the situation correctly and hence, make the wrong decision. Since accountability can only be proved if the decision maker had a choice in the resulting outcome (Bovens (1998))., it is possible they can blame the system In terms of accountability for results rather than values, we have to examine the reward and recognition systems in place. Pearlson (2001) states an information system facilitates keeping track of contributions of team members and can allocate rewards according to complex formulas. He argues that not only are workers directly accountable, but are rewarded according to the significance of their decisions. To conclude we wish to highlight some of the dangers of this type of accountability; danger of solitary work, reduced sense of community, profit-driven incentives, suppression of personal morality. Role of IT within IS Traditionally, IT was used to help decision making providing the correct information in a timely manner. IT takes on a more aggressive role in IS. It is not simply about providing information, but it is more about measuring and controlling performance of the workers, which can be carried out on an individual level and making people accountable for that performance. Many authors have discussed the role of accountability in IT for example, Lucy Suchman and Harold Garfinkel. Contrast this with TQM literature, where no such type exists and we begin to see that in IS, IT to support accountability in needed. Not only do IT support accountability, IT itself creates a new dimension to it. IT, through computerisation has increased visibility throughout the workplace. With groupware, it is possible to have the entire workforces schedule online to allow for easier schedule of meetings. However,

this allows workers working life very visible and possibly open to criticism whether this is desirable is debatable, both on a peer-to-peer and management level (Suchman (1993)). Along with this increased visibility, accountability structures have been increasingly visible to measure and control employees. The ethics of such practise is also questionable. How much privacy do workers have nowadays? This controlling role is perhaps best demonstrated by the rise of Decision Support Systems (DSS). Indeed, it can be argued that IT provides a way of controlling and monitoring workers without time-consuming managerial manual control structures, resulting in more monitoring than ever and possibly a more complete solution to Taylorism. In summary, IT in IS would be used to create a more autonomous yet controlling environment. The computerisation of the workplace allows it to easier monitor performance measure and visibly easier to be traced back to unacceptable behaviour. Despite this, the role of IT in supporting accountability in IS organisations still exploratory. As Eriksen (2002) concludes: IT seems too early in this explorative process for any serious conclusions. [] Acknowledging and exploring in depth some the many interpretations of accountability currently in use might also help the understanding managing issues of multi-perspectives in design. Accountability within TQM The subject of accountability is rarely addressed in TQM. In literature, we see a shift of terminology - from accountability to responsibility (i.e. we ought to rather than we have to). Literature no longer refers to individual accountability, but build[ing] collective responsibility (Dale and Boaden (1994)). This shift is, arguably, is the step to creating workforce empowerment. It allows them to turn away from the dead hand of control and centralised command (Llewellyn, 2001). Previously, workers were accountable for how much they produced, however, in TQM, its about the quality. This shift towards communal spirit allows them to experiment without fear and hopefully, report faults and suggest improvements. While this shift is not particularly harmful indeed, it is refreshing to turn against the de-skilling of workers in computerisation we wish to discuss two criticisms of this. One, this requires a significant paradigm shift which people often find it difficult transfer from one to another (Reshef (2003)). Two, the lack of personal accountability causes ambiguity and even lack of incentive for workers to help innovate. Paradigm shift. Paradigms are the ways in which people create meaning within organisations (Reshef, 2003). To remove one structure and replace it with a complete opposite is to completely relearn these meanings along with them rules, norms and social interaction. This is not a new phenomenon and occurs while moving to a new workplace. It is appreciated the difficulty that one faces during the initial settling-in period. However, the situation is compounded through the entire workforce having to re-adjust during this state of flux. Workers attempt to fit ambiguities into the previous paradigm in an attempt to preserve their existing cognitive structures (Reshef (2003)). Lack of individual accountability. Chang and Sinclair (2003) conducted a survey on workforces perception of TQM. Their findings include a concern about the lack of personal rewards: There were perceived deficiencies in personal performance measurement and, by implication, in the linkage to Reward and Recognition. The lack of personal reward is symptomatic of the lack of an individual accountability structure. With collective responsibility brings the lack of a direct link between personal contribution and reward and recognition. Why would this be problematic? To answer this, we have to discuss the work of Waldman. Waldman (1994) discusses and proposes a framework on for work performance in TQM. In his work, he criticises Deming (whom he argues contributes the most to work performance within the

field especially in relation to his statistical process controls and his probability theories) for his view that most fluxations in work performance are systems based. Deming suggests there are two different types of fluxations, sporadic and common. Sporadic fluxations are very individual i.e. workers that put in 100% effort or no effort. These are relatively rare. Instead, Deming argues that most of the fluxations are of the common type where they are mainly systems based: No amount of care or skill in workmanship can overcome fundamental faults in the system. Deming (1986) quoted in Waldman (1994) To put this into context, we use a simple formula. Positive performance and ability to show that you had a part in producing that performance (i.e. accountability) would equate to personal reward (performance + accountability = reward). With Deming, he implies that work performance is unified in the system (sporadic fluxations cancelled out each other) added with team-based responsibility (and in this case, accountability) this will equate to team based reward systems. This view is acceptable if work performance is unified and fluxations are systems based. However, as Waldman suggests, this is not the case. This unbalances the equation whereby fluxating individual work performance will yield team-based rewards (i.e. equal rewards within the team) hence, Chang and Sinclairs observation of a lack of personal reward system. This gap of accountability mean workers can take advantage for positive performances they did not help to gain. We recognise that reward systems can be individualised so that tweaks can be made to reward according to performance, however, we argue that this might mean certain workers are not seen as team players and hence, would allocate the same rewards throughout. This could lead to a relaxed decision making atmosphere as Armitage (1992) remarks Although quality improvement groups are formed, and suggestions made by those groups to improve productivity, individuals in these groups are often unaware of the impact their actions have on the profitability of the organisations. Interestingly, there is uncertainty about where the main responsibility and movement from change will come from within the organisation. Crosby argues that top management have the most crucial role to play, whilst the rest of the workforce is limited to problem reporting. Juran argues that responsibility rests more with middle managers and consultants (presumably during the initial implementation of the programme). Top managers too play a crucial role, but most of the improvements are made at the middle level. Deming argues that responsibility should fall at the operator level. He argues that piecework is mans lowest degradation, to reverse that trend, workers should have sustainable, rewarding jobs and improvements will come from the shopfloor. Feigenbaum argues that quality is a company-wide process and presumably, everyone is equally responsible for continuous improvements (Dale and Bunney (1999)). Even within the four most notable TQM experts are contrasting views of where best to create team responsibility. Not only is there a paradigm shift, but confusion on what to. Role of IT in TQM In TQMIS literature (good review papers being Dewhurst et al. (1999) or Aug et al.(2001)) most describe IT as an enabler of TQM (Dewhurst (1999)). Examining more closely, most TQMIS literature concentrate on mapping the data and information flows that occur within the organisation. Matta et al. (1998) for instance, outlines a TQMIS model which requires analysis on: Inter-organizational information requirements in TQM Intra-organizational information requirements in TQM Planning process Production process Selling Data stores

They discuss each one in turn. However, they, similarly to all the other TQMIS literature, concentrate on information sharing. No literature exists on how IT impacts accountability structures in TQM. We propose that this is because accountability is unimportant in TQMIS, much like TQM itself. The most important factor in TQMIS is that the correct data is gathered at the correct points.

Consequences for IT Mangers are that IT is about supplementing current information gathering. The system should be about making the data available to everyone in a timely manner. This would take the form of groupware, shared applications (such as LotusNotes) and shared artefacts (such as shared computers). Relationship between TQM and IS Rather paradoxically, despite having complete different types of accountability, the two need each other to function. TQM requires information (and information systems) to form as feedback for its functions and IS need quality within its functions to ensure the correct information is present and hence, the correct decision can be made. The key is that one process is more dominant whilst the other plays a supporting role. In TQM based organisations, the IS provides the correct information and play no part in assigning accountability, control or decision-making. Such systems are termed TQMIS (Total Quality Management Information Systems). In IS, the notion of quality is used as a important attitribute to IS, but not of paramount importance. E.g. rough value-added information is better than accurate non value-added information). Thus, both processes co-exist and complement each other within the company. We now turn to the question of the consequences of this in relation to IT. Conclusions IT plays a crucial role in both TQM and IS the former to provide raw data/information on a group level and the latter in controlling and measuring at an individual level. These contrastingly different roles can be explained through the accountability structures each management process has TQM with group-based accountability for values and IS with individual-based accountability for results. The lack of literature on the subject (i.e. accountability within TQM and IS) made difficult the possibility of building a complete analytical comparison. Instead, we drew heavily on accountability based literature and TQM and IS failure literature to highlight some of the points in the essay. In addition, due to the scope of the essay, only a few central ideas were presented in depth rather than an attempt to cover all the perspectives involved. Thus, whilst IS and TQM are both management processes that seem similar at first, on closer examination we see that they have completely different ways of IT interaction at the fundamental level.

Bibliography Ang, C.-L., Davies, M., and Finlay, P. N. An empirical study of the use of information technology to support total quality management. Total Quality Management 12, 2 (2001), 145157. Armitage, H. Activity-based management information: Tqms missing link. CMA Magazine, Mar 1992. Bovens, M. The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in complex organisations. Cambridge Press, 1998. Braithwaite, T. Information Service Excellence through TQM. ASC Quality Press, 1994. Carlson, P. Information technology and organizational change. In Proceedings of the 17th annual international conference on Computer documentation (1999), ACM Press, pp. 2635. Dale, B., Ed. Managing Quality. Prentice Hall, 1994. Dale, B., and Bunney, H. Total Quality Management: Blueprint. Blackwell Business, 1999. Dale, B., and Cooper, C. Total Quality and Human Resources: An executive guide. Blackwell Business, 1992. Dewhurst, F., Lorente, A., and Dale, B. Total quality management and information technologies: an exploration of the issues. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 16, 4 (1999), 392405. Dooley, K., Johnson, T., and Bush, D. Tqm, chaos and complexity. Human Systems Management 14, 4 (1995), 116. Eriksen, S. Designing for accountability. NordiCHI (2002). Gabriel, Y., Fineman, S., and Sims, D. Organizing and Organizations. Sage, 2000. Gates, B., and Hemingway, C. Business @ the speed of thought. Penguin, 2000. Heeks, R. Information systems for public sector management. Working Paper Series, July 1998. Hoskins, K. Accountability: Power, ethos and technologies of managing. International Thomson Business Press, 1996, ch. The awful idea of accountability, pp. 265282. Laudon, K., and Laudon, J. Managing Information Systems: Organization and Technology, 3rd edition ed. Macmillian College, 1994. Lindkvist, L., and Llewellyn, S. Accountability, responsibility and organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management 19 (2003), 251273. Matta, K., Chen, H.-G., and Tama, J. The information requirements of total quality management. Total Quality Management 9, 6 (1998), 445461.

Pearlson, K. E. Managing and Using Information Systems: A strategic approach. John Wiley Sons, 2001. Reshef, Y. Beyond the gospel: A critique of TQM http://courses.bus.ualberta.ca/orga432-reshef/critique.htm. Robson, W. Strategic Management and Information Systems, 2nd edition ed. Prentice Hall, 1997. Suchman, L. Studies of work, interaction and technology. Routledge, 1993, ch. Technologies of accountability, pp. 113126.