Sunday, December 26, 2010

Control at a Business and Technology Solutions Organization

Control at a Business and Technology Solutions Organization

Introduction
     During this case study the focus will be centered on - how the multistream control system utilized by Protegra (a Canadian organization) varies from many other organizations and have positively affected this organization’s performance.  A quick stop will be made at the main keys that drove Protegra to success.
Defining Control
     Control is making something happen the way it was planned. Planning and control are virtually inseparable functions (Nelson, 2009). Furthermore, control involves designing and implementing systems to ensure that actions of organizational members are consistent with organizational goals, standards, and values. Also control requires managers not only to keep an eye on two important points a) organizations input b) organization’s output, but also to understand how tasks within different departments are carried out. Managers utilize control to ensure that all the pieces of the puzzle work together to meet organizational goals.
    For both (mainstream and multistream approach,) the control process (on every organization, including Protegra) must go through four steps: 1) Establishing performance standards, 2) monitoring performance, 3) evaluating performance, 4) respond accordingly (Dyck 2010,p. 534).
Protegra and Control Process
     Conventional organization are portrayed as rationally ordered appropriately structured, and emotional-free life spaces, where the right decisions are made for the right reasons, by the right individuals, in a reasonable and predicable manner (Kersten 2001). This is not the case with Protegra – an award winning firm which varies in many from conventional organizations.
    

      While many of us work in dysfunctional, disturbed organization obsessed by rules, compulsion of control and by addiction to work, where conflict, contradictions, are a norm rather than exceptions (Kersten 2001), the employees of Protegra enjoy flexible work hours, free soda and a stress relive lab with exercise equipments, because at Protegra employees are not hired to just fill specific positions, they are encouraged to think like owners because they all have ownership in Protegra (Dyck 2010, p. 558).
Establishing performance standards
     As an employee – owned firm, Protegra utilizes a balanced Scorecard approach where all employees can participate in establishing performance standards. Organizational members set financial goals as well as aspire to provide excellent working conditions (Dyck 2010, p. 558).             In contrast mainstream oriented organizations, managers are the one who design the control system focusing on maximizing organization’s productivity, efficiency, and profitability. During this process, mainstream managers “utilize value chain” a crucial tool which assists them to identify and establish key performance standards (Dyck, 2010, p. 538).                                         Monitoring performance   
      In order for a performance to be monitored an appropriate information system needs to be developed .the organizational information system will assist managers to identify ,collect, organize and distribute information.(Dyck, p. 542) For instance in Protegra employees, on weekly bases  submit reports indicating the time they have invested in each project they are working on. A senior manager from the operation team monitors on monthly bases how each project is doing. Protegra is an organization that utilizes bottom –up feedback and supports


employee committee (a group of employees to whom others can anonymously raise concerns about various issues ( Dyck, p. 558). Both mainstream and mulisteram managers use Information
System, but the difference among them is that mainstream managers find meaningful and use               (by turning them on information), only those data that will assist on maximizing productivity.                On the contrary Protegra turns into information all the data that will help all stakeholders to improve a variety of forms of well-being. Another contrast relies on the fact that mainstream information systems are designed to assist managers to monitor performance while Protegra information systems are designed to assist all Protegra stakeholders to monitor performance (Dyck, 2010 p.553)
     Performance standards though will serve little purpose unless they are effectively monitored. Weekly and monthly reports must be produced and compared comparing them against standards established. Also it is important for organizational managers to establish plans and strategies that will possible be needed to correct potential problem (Zahler, 1992)
Evaluating performance
     Compared to multistream managers, mainstream managers put side by side the information collected through mainstream information system to the organization’s goals and standards already established. They mainly focus an Six Sigma quality standards, liquidity ratio, and evaluating the performance of individual workers (Dyck, 2010 p. 546). On the other hand Protegra members evaluate whether the project are on schedule through their monthly reports, they also evaluate  scorecards  for various goals  at monthly company meetings. Through the information sharing members of Protegra become familiar with what is happening in their organization and are able to ask any question they like. 
   
 Most managers (even senior ones) find evaluating performance process to be a burdensome and in some cases even a threatening task. So how should managers take ownership of performance assessment? First they need to find qualitative and quantitative measures to determine how the organization will fare against its competitors in the future and keep all members in their toes (Likerman, 2009).
Responding accordingly
     During this is continuing process various adjustments are made in daily, weekly, monthly, as information and reports become available for all to see and respond to. The annual general meeting (Protegra advantage Conference) provides another opportunity for establishing performance standards for the upcoming year (Dyck, 2010, p.558). When Protegra managers encounter inadequate performance they work together or seek help to understand the reason behind it and to find ways to solve it, they also believe that any problem would be best solved from the bottom up (Dyck, 2010, p.557). That is not the case with mainstream managers, who often will even fire low performance workers or redesign organizational system (as for instance Welch did at GE).
Keys to Protegra’s success
1-Gives ownership to it employees
2-Ephasisis Team work
3-Utalizes an effective information system
4-Encourages, ensures employees participation on every aspect and daily bases
5-Hires the right people and creates excellent working conditions for them (Protegra.com, 2 009)
6-Values its employees and its clients and treats them with integrity and respect

7-It is very consistent in its effective controlling process
8-Delivers measurable results on time and on budget (Protegra.com, 2 009)

Conclusion
     A fundamental issue with any organization is the need to control its members and activities in a manner that furthers its strategic objectives. It is vital; once an organization is formed a control system must be put in place to ensure that efficient decisions are made by managers, members in that organization (Hammermeister, 2005). At Protegra though, the control system differs from the ones used by much other organization. Protegra is a 100 per cent employee –owned and operates in a culture of respect, empowerment and collaboration (Protegra.com, 2009)                                  

References

Dyck, B. & Neubert, M.J. (2010). Management current practices and new directions.
        Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Hammemeister, J. (2005). Management control systems strategy and organization effectiveness:     
        A transaction cost  economics prespective. Nova Southeastern University. AAT 3178213
Kersten, A. (2001). Organizing for powerlessness: A critical perspective on Psychodynamics and  
        dysfunctionality. Journal of Organizational Change Management. Bradford. 14, 452-468
Likierman, A. (2009). The five traps of performance measurement. Harvard Business review.
        Boston. 87, 96.
Nelson, A. (2009). Chapter Power Point Presentations, week 8, p.3. Tools: Doc Sharing   
       Retrieved from Keiser University web site:    
(N.D). (2009). About Protegra. Protegra. Retrieved October 21, 2009 from
Simpson, F. W. (1978). What managers want to know about performance standarts.
        Management World. Washington. 7, 3.
Zaher, R. (1992). Clear performance rules easy outsourcing hassles (part 2). Network World.  
        Southborough. 9, 29-31.

No comments:

Post a Comment