Seven ways to get your "Pet" IT project accepted

IS managers are being put under increasing pressure to justify the value of corporate IT/IS expenditure. Their constant quest for the ‘holy grail’ continues, as existing methods and approaches of justifying IT/IS expenditure are still failing to deliver. The decision making process is not as objective and transparent as it is claimed or intended to be. This paper discusses seven commonly used tactics used by business managers to influence IT appraisals. The paper takes a ‘devil’s advocate’ position and adopts some irony when looking at the area of power and politics in IT evaluation. Rather than promoting the use of these techniques, this article aims to raise awareness that IT evaluation is not as rational as most IT evaluation researchers/practitioners would want it to be or indeed claim it to be. It is argued that rationalisation or counter tactics may counteract influence techniques in an attempt to get behind the cloak and dagger side of organisational power and politics, but politics and power in decision-making cannot and should not be filtered out. Due to dissimilarities of objectives, limitations of time and information, influence techniques will always be used. However, rather than being counterproductive, these techniques are essential in the process of decision making of IT projects. They help organisations reach better decisions, which receive more commitment than decisions that were forced to comply with strictly rational approaches. Awareness of the influence and manipulation techniques used in practice will help to deal with power and politics in IT evaluation and thereby come to better IT investment decisions.

[1]  Frank Land,et al.  How to Assess Your It Investment: A Study of Methods and Practice , 1993 .

[2]  B. Raven,et al.  Conceptualizing and Measuring a Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence1 , 1998 .

[3]  J. R. French,et al.  The bases of social power. , 1959 .

[4]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  Analysing information systems evaluation: another look at an old problem , 1998 .

[5]  H. Laroche,et al.  Karl E. Weick (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Californie , 1996 .

[6]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The new science of management decision , 1960 .

[7]  M. Foucault,et al.  Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977 , 1980 .

[8]  S. Lukes Power: A Radical View , 1974 .

[9]  D. Avison,et al.  Evaluation of information systems , 1992 .

[10]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organization Theory and Design , 1983 .

[11]  Egon Berghout,et al.  Methodologies for information systems investment evaluation at the proposal stage: a comparative review , 1997, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[12]  Lucas D. Introna Management, Information and Power , 1997 .

[13]  Cecilia M. Falbe,et al.  Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations , 1991 .

[14]  Stewart Clegg,et al.  Frameworks of power , 1989 .

[15]  Theo J. W. Renkema,et al.  The IT Value Quest: How to Capture the Business Value of IT-Based Infrastructure , 2000 .

[16]  Miley W. Merkhofer,et al.  Decision Science and Social Risk Management: A Comparative Evaluation of Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Other Formal Decision-Aiding Approaches , 1986 .

[17]  E. Harrison The managerial decision-making process , 1975 .

[18]  Egon Berghout,et al.  Problems and Issues Relating to IT Investment Evaluation: Experiences from Scottish and Benelux Studies , 2000 .

[19]  Egon Berghout Evaluation of Information System Proposals - Design of a decision support method , 1997 .

[20]  Niels Bjørn-Andersen,et al.  International Conference on Information Systems ( ICIS ) 1986 POWER OVER USERS : ITS EXERCISE BY SYSTEM PROFESSIONALS , 2017 .

[21]  Peter G. W. Keen,et al.  Information systems and organizational change , 1990, CACM.

[22]  Geoff Wilkinson Theories of power , 1999 .

[23]  David Kipnis Technology and power , 1989 .

[24]  Peter Checkland,et al.  Soft Systems Methodology in Action , 1990 .

[25]  M Looijen,et al.  Managing the life cycle of Information and Communication Technology investments for added value. , 1997 .

[26]  D. Knights,et al.  Managers Divided: Organisation Politics and Information Technology Management , 1995 .

[27]  M. Parker,et al.  Information Economics: Linking Business Performance to Information Technology , 1988 .