38 offices: analyzing needs in individual offices

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
There is considerable interest within office automation for the creation of methodologies to describe the needs of offices and build tools to support those needs. Most of the analysis, design, and implementation methodologies, however, involve only a single type of support — the creation of tools to automate procedures found in the office. Although the procedures to be supported are generally less well structured than the procedures supported by classic data processing, the focus is still on procedures. These procedurally-oriented methodologies are likely to work extremely well in only one kind of office, which the author and Sprague have called the Type I department [10]. There is another general category of offices, Type II, that handles the firm's nonroutine information processing chores. Examples are the offices of top executives, the offices of line managers, legal departments, and engineering departments. In these offices, procedures exist, but immediately jumping from functional analysis and goals to the analysis of procedures is not likely to be helpful. First, the procedures in these offices are usually few, so their automation is not likely to bring extensive gains. Second, the strategies that Type II offices do need are likely to be professionally complex and nonprocedural. To strong a procedural focus in a methodology could blind analysts to the real needs of the office. Two studies were conducted in an attempt to test a broader analysis methodology that the author had earlier proposed to study Type II offices as well as Type I offices. While it was concluded that there were differences in Type I and Type II office support, it was found that people in both kinds of offices tended to pick mundane applications. A major goal for the future should be to find ways to help office principals articulate more visionary goals that can be made possible because of computer support. Type II offices present a major problem to designers of office methodologies. The traditional procedural analysis skills taught in systems analysis and office analysis methodologies are not likely to be central to the needs of the office. The strategies that must be designed and supported, rather, are likely to depend very heavily on the professional content of the work being done in that office. It is possible that the office analyst in the future will be less a driving force in the design of support systems than a catalyst to help users define their own needs — just as designers of decision support systems are increasily helping managers define their own data needs [13]. Critical success factors and external contribution analysis are likely to be only preludes to comprehensive methodologies to help office principals define their goals and strategies.

This publication has 2 references indexed in Scilit: