R

epeated economic crises and steadily increasing

competition, brought about in particular by the
globalization of markets, are forcing an unprece-
dented rationalization of resources. Improved productivity
has thus become a concern of all organizations, both
public and private. At the same time, technology is devel-
oping with blinding speed and is becoming the principal
instrument for meeting this concern.
1
This explains why
many municipalities are investing large amounts of money
in implementing information systems. However, the advan-
tages offered by technologies, especially in terms of
enhancing productivity, depend upon how these technolo-
gies are integrated into an organization.
Many municipal officials realize that their systems
departments do not have the necessary resources to meet
the demands made on them. More and more time is
required to complete projects and the work piles up.
Moreover, these officials often find that technological, orga-
nizational and human resource development processes are
not proceeding at the same pace within their organization,
which makes them hesitant about adding new systems.
2
Is
the penetration of technologies really helping to improve
the performance of municipalities? To answer this question,
the extent to which information systems are incorporated
into the culture and operations of municipal governments
must be examined.
The concrete action system model developed by
Gagnon and Landry and refined by Dragon outlines a strat-
egy for investigating technological changes that affect
unionized work places.
3
As the authors note, This road
map, here called the concrete action system, tries to iden-
tify and characterize the principal actors involved in the
activity of implementing systems, and then to establish the
relationships among these actors.
4
The concept of a concrete action system is based on
the fact that an organization is a social system whose
dynamics are grounded in the behaviour of groups of actors
who develop particular strategies in a set of relationships
Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 28, No. 1 (19-31)
The impact of technology on
organizational performance
Yves-C. Gagnon and
Jocelyne Dragon
19
Jocelyne Dragon is the assistant director of administration and
facilities with the recreation and community development depart-
ment of the City of Saint-Laurent and is also a member of the man-
agement committee for the Citys information highway project. She
has a Masters degree in Public Administration.
Yves-C. Gagnon is a full professor at the cole nationale dadminis-
tration publique. He has a PhD in Management from the cole des
hautes tudes commerciales in Montreal , an MBA in
Organizational Information Systems from Laval University and an
MSc in Industrial Relations from the University of Montreal.
Dr. Gagnon teaches and conducts research in technology manage-
ment, human resource management and labour relations. He also
has some twenty years experience as a manager with organiza-
tions in the public and parapublic sectors.
Improvement in productivity is due
not only to technology, but also to
how its integrated into the organi-
zation.
that are subject to the constraints of the environment.
5
Organizations contain individuals and groups who differ in
their training and functions and have objectives that do not
always coincide. Obviously, relationships differ according to
context and are not spelled out in a formal structure such as
an organization chart.
In such a context, systems development provides the
opportunity and the place for potential conflicts between
interests, aspirations and values that involve something other
than just technology.
6
Figure 1 illustrates the concrete action
system, showing the principal actors and how they relate to
each other when organizational information systems are
adopted (i.e., the acquisition, successful implementation and
use of a technology by an organization).
7
The users/decision makers are senior managers who
partially or completely control resources and influence
the development of information systems.
The users/managers are those who, on behalf of the
users/decision makers, supervise the implementation
and operation of systems in collaboration with the
designers. It is at their level that the collective agreement
Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 28, No. 1
T H E I MP A C T O F T E C H N O L O G Y O N O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P E R F O R M A N C E
20
FIGURE 1
Concrete action system
Users/Decision makers
Users/Managers/
Designers
Users/Managers
Designers
Other
systems
System
Clients
Users/
Operators
Local union
Union
representative
Collective
agreement
Other
collective
agreements
Central
labour
organization
Other
sites
Other
sites
is negotiated and interpreted, particularly with respect to
the clauses concerning technological change.
The users/managers/designers run the systems depart-
ment and are often the architects of the organizations
information technology policies, which are ratified by
the users/decision makers. The users/managers/
designers are responsible for the design and technical
management of information systems.
The designers are the experts who design systems in
collaboration with the users/managers and clients.
They are, if not the only ones responsible for making
systems operational, at least in charge of the work.
The users/operators produce inputs or receive raw
outputs from the systems, which are thought out in
terms of the clients. They are indispensable for the
day-to-day operation of the systems, but do not have
any direct power to change them.
The local union is located at the interface between the
users/operators and the users/managers. The aim of
the local union is to defend the immediate interests of
its members, the users/operators.
The central labour organization is responsible for the
overall long-term strategy, which provides a frame-
work for and supports the actions of the local union.
The clients (users/decision makers, users/managers,
etc.) are those whom the systems help directly in the
performance of their duties.
The process
To study a contemporary pragmatic phenomenon, it is
essential to be familiar with the experience of the actors and
the context in which that experience takes place. We have
selected the case of an anonymous City administration.
8
We first analyzed many internal documents of this
municipal government. These documents describe the City,
the history of its administrative development and its strate-
gic plan, technology strategy, systems department and the
information systems it has adopted. Then, using a semi-
structured scheme, we carried out exhaustive interviews
with a random sample of 20 permanent employees who
had at least five years of experience with the municipality
and had taken part in implementing information systems.
Each category of actor was represented in the sample (two
users/decision makers, three users/managers, three
users/managers/designers, two designers, two clients, six
users/operators and two officials of the local union). The
respondents worked at seven different hierarchical levels in
seven different municipal departments (administration,
finance, human resources, systems, municipal court, engi-
neering and fire prevention). Apart from the designers,
none of the respondents had taken courses in information
technology as part of his or her basic training; however,
some had taken professional development courses within
the organization or, in certain cases, outside it.
The City and its technological
development
The city whose government we selected had approxi-
mately 70,000 inhabitants and was typical, with residential,
industrial and commercial functions. Its administrative struc-
ture comprised an executive level and twelve departments,
which were grouped into three different modules: quality of
the environment (industrial and business development,
technical planning, engineering and environment); quality
of life (recreation and community development, communi-
cations, public works and fire prevention); and administra-
tion (finance, systems, human resources and purchasing).
For 1995, the Citys total budget was $150 million, of which
24.7 percent was used to pay salaries and 0.19 percent
($305,600) to acquire information technologies. The budget
of the systems department was $1.5 million.
The systems department was the administrative unit
responsible for systematizing and computerizing activities
for all the municipal departments. In concrete terms, this
department developed budgets and investment strategies
concerning information technologies for all of the Citys
administrative units. It also administered the organizations
data and was responsible for the development of informa-
tion systems. Finally, it ensured that users had the required
information technology tools, that they knew how to use
them properly and that the systems met their needs. All
activities of the systems department had to meet the follow-
ing objectives: improvement of the quality and efficiency of
Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 28, No. 1 21
T H E I MP A C T O F T E C H N O L O G Y O N O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P E R F O R M A N C E
the services provided internally and externally; increased
productivity; reduction of operating costs; and enhancement
of the quality of information.
The Citys technological development started with the
introduction of information systems between 1965 and
1972, and involved automating a large number of manual
activities that were already well established (payroll, tax
collection, etc.). The information systems were useful for
finance and the central computer was then used as an
advanced form of accounting machine.
From 1972 to 1984, a number of other departments
wanted to take advantage of computer resources and com-
petition ensued as requests for new technology accumu-
lated. Since the design of information systems was expen-
sive and rationalization was therefore necessary, in 1983
management established a master plan for information sys-
tems. This plan recognized that managers were wholly
responsible for running information systems. In particular,
the plan noted: Managers are the people who, through
their day-to-day activities, are capable of managing these
information systems; in other words, they see to it that
existing systems are maintained in an acceptable opera-
tional condition and control the development of new infor-
mation systems. The plan also emphasized that this
responsibility must be exercised through close cooperation
between the user departments and the systems department.
The master plan set the objective of diversifying the
potential users of information technology, a new direction,
since finance was then the principal user. It also empha-
sized the importance of continuing to invest money to
maintain the proper operation of existing information sys-
tems and to ensure the development of new systems.
Finally, the plan also advocated the creation of an informa-
tion systems development plan. This three-year plan was to
be revised annually when the budget was being prepared.
Each department head was to present and defend his or
her needs in relation to the resources allocated to informa-
tion systems. The systems department would then analyze
all requests and in collaboration with senior management,
adjust the plan accordingly.
When the master plan came into force, 43 new infor-
mation systems were added to the central computer and
225 new office automation applications were implemented.
The introduction of the systems was gradual, although their
level of penetration differed within the Citys 12 administra-
tive units. The technological plan thus extended to the
organization as a whole.
Over the previous 11 years, information systems repre-
sented an average annual expenditure of 1.3 percent of the
Citys total budget, of which 0.29 percent was for hardware
and software, and 1.01 percent was the budget of the sys-
tems department. During this period, supervisory staff of
this department was reduced by 66.6 percent, while the
unionized workforce remained the same. What amounted
to a change in position titles became necessary due to the
introduction of microcomputer technology and an increase
in the amount and diversity of technological equipment.
In 1984, the technological architecture changed from a
central computer with ten terminals to a hybrid system of
266 work stations. This technological development and
access to microcomputers brought a whole new dimension
to information technology. A transition was made from cen-
tralized to decentralized management of information systems
and the user became increasingly important. Microcomputer
technology suddenly became a major strategic issue.
A steadily increasing number of employees were
using computer technology to perform their work.
Throughout the organization, the percentage of informa-
tion technology users increased from 1.9 percent in 1984
to 51.25 percent in 1994. This rapid change had an impact
in a number of areas: information systems, the organiza-
tion of work, jobs, tasks, recruitment and training needs.
In short, over a decade, the organization experienced
complete technological change; consequently, it had to
learn to manage the change and its repercussions in all
units of the organization.
The perceptions of the actors
It is important to present the most important percep-
tions of each group involved in the concrete action system.
These data enabled us to analyze the extent to which tech-
nology has contributed to the Citys performance. Each
group indicated how it perceived its role, the roles of the
other groups, and the dynamics between them. Their
assessment of the advantages associated with the use of
organizational information systems follow.
Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 28, No. 1
T H E I MP A C T O F T E C H N O L O G Y O N O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P E R F O R M A N C E
22
Users/decision makers
The executive director and the three assistant execu-
tive directors of the City were the users/decision makers.
They had the power to influence the development of the
information systems and, with regard to budget prepara-
tion, their role was to determine computerization needs.
They were also responsible for allocating funds to carry out
the three-year systems development plan. Their view was
that the executive director cannot be a leader in the field,
since to take advantage of information systems, the users in
each department must themselves be convinced; conse-
quently, the idea must emerge from the workplace. They
believed that, at most, they could encourage department
heads to ask questions. They also believed that the union
did not have a role to play in the adoption of technology,
and that the collective agreement protected the employees.
According to the executive director and the assistant
executive directors, the implementation of information sys-
tems has some advantages. Automation of operations allows
for faster data access and information processing. Information
sharing, which reduces duplication of data input, increases
communications between departments. On the other hand,
the users/decision makers deplored the fact that the informa-
tion systems had not produced the anticipated advantages in
terms of reducing staff. They admitted that this was probably
an illusion from the outset and they increasingly realized that
this objective could not be attained. They also wondered
how each of the departments was using the staff time that
information systems enabled it to save.
The decision makers emphasized the lack of auton-
omy of the departments, a factor that impeded the integra-
tion of the systems. Some departments counted too much
on long-term support from the systems department. While
users expected the information systems to do everything,
they did not fully exploit these systems. Each department
was responsible for integrating its information systems with
the help of a resource person. The systems department had
the expertise and the information, but was not able to
change the organization of work or to ensure that the
information systems were integrated within the depart-
ments. According to the decision makers, autonomy could
be achieved only through greater commitment on the part
of the users/managers, who had to identify and assess
needs so that work could be reorganized, then speeded up
with the help of technology. The managers had to manage
the implementation by investing the necessary effort and
stimulating the desire of the users/operators to participate.
Finally, users/managers had to see to the development of a
close collaboration and a cooperative relationship with the
systems department.
As far as the users/operators were concerned, the
decision makers emphasized that some had an aptitude for
technology, while others did not. Consequently, the
employees who were the most gifted in the area of infor-
mation technology played an essential role with their col-
leagues where training in the workplace was concerned.
Users/managers
This category comprised the municipalitys department
heads. Their experience over the last few years had led
them to recognize that their main role was to identify and
analyze the needs associated with the acquisition and
development of the information systems. As far as planning
the addition of the new systems was concerned, they dealt
with the preliminary needs assessment. Some of them
emphasized the difficulties they had in assuming responsi-
bility for managing and developing the systems because of
their lack of technical knowledge.
The managers noted that information systems had
undergone extensive development over the last few years.
They also noted that the organization had not really
changed at most, it had adjusted. For them, the systems
department was the administrative unit that had ultimate
control over planning, needs assessment, design and
implementation of information systems, and ongoing train-
ing of users/operators. They made the users/managers/
designers and designers responsible for the performance of
the information systems and for the performance of the
users who employed these systems.
The advantages most appreciated by the users/man-
agers were the availability of information that they could
not obtain previously; the opportunity to meet deadlines
more effectively, which considerably reduced the stress
associated with preparing certain files; more rapid access to
information; improved presentation of files; and more
abundant and accurate data for analyzing files. However,
Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 28, No. 1 23
T H E I MP A C T O F T E C H N O L O G Y O N O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P E R F O R M A N C E
users/managers agreed that the benefits provided by the
information systems were soon forgotten. The intangible
nature of most of the benefits obtained to date is responsi-
ble for the tendency to say nothing about the contribution
of information systems within the organization.
The users/managers believed that the users/decision
makers were not focused on the management of the infor-
mation systems. The users/decision makers were primarily
concerned with the financial aspect and sought to increase
productivity, and thus wanted to reduce staff. The
users/managers wanted the decision makers to give the
departments a clear mandate to increase the efficiency of
their information systems. According to them, the depart-
ments were experiencing a virtually continuous process of
implementation. This rapid development consumed large
amounts of energy and was a source of problems.
Implementation is too rapid, and individuals are expected
to produce at the same rate as before.
The systems department and the other departments of
this municipal government did not have sufficient human
resources to devote the required time to implementing and
integrating the systems. It was becoming increasingly diffi-
cult to improve an information system once it was
installed. In the systems department, it was always a case
of crisis management. This department allows itself to be
carried along by events and cannot offer all the technical
support required.
For the users/managers, the basic training taken by
the users/operators was not a problem; it was the practical
assimilation and transfer of knowledge in the workplace
that were difficult. They noted that there was currently a
roadblock because a number of users/operators felt power-
less and were afraid of failure. The employees are experi-
encing more pressures to adapt, and this is a source of
stress, in particular for the older employees who are being
outstripped by their younger colleagues.
According to the users/managers, professional devel-
opment was left to the individual. The learning process
was difficult and the opportunities for taking more than
basic training varied from one department to another.
Some departments with more abundant human resources
can afford a specialized resource, a leader. For the others,
this solution is impossible.
Finally, the managers noted that training had an impact
on the development and use of technology. Effective inte-
gration required increasingly specialized human resources.
Unfortunately, such resources were not only rare, but also
poorly distributed within the organization.
Users/managers/designers
The category of users/managers/designers comprised
the managerial staff of the systems department. They were
the true architects of the information technology policies
and were in charge of implementing the technical design
and management process of the information systems. They
believed they had delivered the goods and emphasized
that most of the mandates set out in the master plan of
1983 had been carried out, although deadlines had to be
moved back in some cases. Consequently, it was time to
develop a new master plan.
As far as the management of the equipment was con-
cerned, the users/managers/designers noted that despite the
rapid development of technology, their management style
and choice of equipment ensured good technical perfor-
mance. They were proud of the quality and reliability of the
Citys financial information systems. In their opinion, The
gains achieved through technology are reinvested elsewhere,
and this makes it difficult to assess the benefits.
Furthermore, the scarcity of human resources made it impos-
sible to evaluate the information systems systematically. The
users/managers/designers had to limit themselves to the
informal feedback of users, and often relied upon requests
for adjustment to assess the utilization of the systems.
According to the users/managers/designers, the City had
not structured its organizational planning. The heads of the
various departments did their own planning separately orga-
nizational planning was no more than the sum of these differ-
ent plans. The advocated management style was reactive,
influenced by the priorities of City Council. Consequently, the
information systems development plan was not officially asso-
ciated with the objectives of the organization.
Although all users were aware that the users/decision
makers expected the introduction of technology to increase
productivity and allow rationalization of human resources,
everyone wanted the specific objectives of each department
Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 28, No. 1
T H E I MP A C T O F T E C H N O L O G Y O N O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P E R F O R M A N C E
24
to be more clearly and precisely defined. To make progress
in the technological area, the decision makers had to mani-
fest a clear and decisive will, setting precise objectives and
stating well-defined strategies. It was not enough for them
merely to support the systems department. Concrete action
was necessary. Official support is needed so that all staff
members will feel that the executive level and the managers
support the cause.
The users/managers/designers thought that there was
confusion among the respective mandates of the various stake-
holders, resulting in a lack of consistency and collaboration
with regard to management of the information systems. The
users/managers do not assume responsibility for their informa-
tion systems. They delegate responsibility for managing, main-
taining and developing the information systems to the systems
department, thus creating frustration on both sides. It was
essential that the users/managers realize that their lack of
involvement influenced the attitude of their employees.
Regarding the technological aspect of the work, the
users/managers/designers declared: We would like to go
much further, but technological development depends on
the development of the users. Consequently, we cannot go
any faster because if we did, our efforts would be a flop
and we would be obliged to back off. They mentioned
that some employees adapted very well, while others gave
up. Some had weaknesses in the professional area because
of their lack of formal education. Most of the older staff
are losers in this area. Technology is disturbing to them,
and they often feel undervalued in relation to younger
employees. Some have difficulty understanding technology,
feel that it is beyond them and just mark time.
Designers
This category comprised the analysts and programmers
who developed the information systems with the users/man-
agers, users/operators and clients. The designers stressed that
at the beginning of a project, the users/operators often exhib-
ited resistance to change because they did not necessarily see
the benefits to be derived from the introduction of new sys-
tems. Users become more ready to accept technology when
they realize that it will help them in the long run. After a cer-
tain time, most of us say that we no longer want to do with-
out technology, and want to become involved.
According to the designers, the users/decision makers
were not very knowledgeable about systems. It was thus
difficult for them to follow technological development. The
managers are not aware of the quantity of work that is
required to implement a new system, and their expectations
are not clearly perceived. Moreover, the designers thought
that the decision makers should become more involved,
should listen to others and should manage their priorities.
At the present time, we are just going around putting out
fires one after the other, responding to the hierarchical level
of the person who makes the request or to the person who
makes the most noise. The designers also admitted that
they were more sensitive to the requests concerning the
systems that they had personally developed. They felt that
some users/managers took an interest and were seeing to it
that information systems were developed. Others, however,
had difficulty following what was happening. The decision
makers and managers should have had a different outlook
on the use of information systems. Technology is only a
tool. It cannot replace managers, and is not an instant solu-
tion to problems of management and information. The
organization should, as a first step, have helped users to
manage their information systems and to evaluate their per-
formance. It was only later that the organization should
have considered adding new technological tools.
According to the designers, little effort was made to
question the way things were done. The central adminis-
tration should become involved and should initiate discus-
sions with the various stakeholders in order to change
working methods and if necessary, to review some job
descriptions, instead of trying to evade the question and
pretend that nothing has changed. The designers were
also aware that both the employer and the union groups
were afraid of being cheated in such a process.
The designers said that they had worked with the
operators throughout the process of developing systems
internally to help train them on the job. The designers also
emphasized that employees in the systems department did
their best to train other employees, but that their efforts
often left something to be desired. The lack of ongoing
training was a problem, since the field of information tech-
nology was developing at a very fast pace. Among pro-
grammers and users, it often happened that only one
person really knew an information system well.
Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 28, No. 1 25
T H E I MP A C T O F T E C H N O L O G Y O N O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P E R F O R M A N C E
Consequently, when staff changes occured, information
systems were no longer used in accordance with their
capabilities. New employees are introduced to the basic
functions, but the benefits for which the systems have
been developed are often lost.
The designers thought that in cases where information
systems were acquired from outside, the systems depart-
ment simply functioned as an installer of machines. The
follow-up provided by this department was weak or non-
existent, and it provided only minimal training. The opera-
tors were left to fend for themselves.
Users/operators
The users/operators were unionized employees who
were directly affected by the implementation of the sys-
tems. They worked to capture data or to produce outputs.
The introduction of information systems offered them a
number of benefits. They appreciated above all the reduc-
tion of repetitive and monotonous tasks, the improvement
in quality and accuracy of data, and the speed with which
the new information systems performed operations that
were previously very complicated. This is a very worth-
while working tool that I would no longer want to do
without, although I dont make full use of it.
The users/operators unanimously stated that the imple-
mentation of the information systems was not planned and
that very little effort was made to consult them when the
analysis was done. In certain cases, however, they could
have improved the systems and facilitated their implementa-
tion. The users/operators received basic training on the job.
They were asked to work with and operate an information
system without being given any explanation of the possibil-
ities that the system offered. The individual is placed in
front of the equipment, and must then learn how to use it.
The progress that this individual makes will depend upon
his or her personal interest and free time. Consequently,
people who are not self-motivated just mark time and try to
unload their work onto others.
The users/operators deplored the lack of technical
knowledge among managers. Since the managers were not
able to evaluate the possibilities offered by the information
systems, they did not encourage the maximum use of these
tools. A person cannot be a leader and sell a system if he
or she does not know it. Furthermore, the managers
directed the work to the most capable employees. As a
result, there was an unequal distribution of the volume of
work. According to the users/operators, the managers also
tended to concentrate training on certain employees.
Finally, the users/operators thought that senior manage-
ment was not aware of the additional volume of work that
implementation of a new system entailed.
It is interesting to note that all the other actors in the
concrete action system thought that the role of the
users/operators was to maximize the use of the new techno-
logical tools at their disposal. They had to be on the lookout
for defects and point them out to the systems department.
The decision makers and managers added that the
users/operators had to show initiative and open-mindedness
when dealing with the new situation and had to offer them
their cooperation, especially when the systems were being
implemented. Their collaboration was particularly useful in
regard to training and mutual help in the workplace.
The union
The bargaining unit most affected by the technological
changes produced by the information systems was the
municipal employees union. Representatives of this union
admitted that in the beginning, the union and the employees
were not aware of the impact of technological changes, or
how soon the organization would experience them. They
deplored the fact that the clause on technological change in
the collective agreement had not been applied in the spirit
of the original document, and that the union was not
regarded as an important stakeholder in managing techno-
logical change. We are kept out of the process and limited
to playing the role of watchdog of the collective agreement.
What remains for us to do is to negotiate the machinations
of the employer party in order to avoid disputes.
The union thought that in most cases, the people
affected by the technological changes were not involved in
the process. They confronted a fait accompli. They had
received only minimal preparation, so implementation for
them was difficult. Afterwards, there was virtually no
follow-up or evaluation. Nonetheless, the employees were
happy to work with computer tools and did not want to go
Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 28, No. 1
T H E I MP A C T O F T E C H N O L O G Y O N O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P E R F O R M A N C E
26
back to the old system. They wanted to improve the infor-
mation systems, but when they pointed out the deficien-
cies, no one had time to deal with them.
According to these respondents, the users/decision
makers should have informed employees about the plan-
ning for technological changes. The decision makers were
not advised of the day-to-day problems experienced by
staff. With too many intermediaries, the complaints of the
rank and file did not reach the upper levels of the hierar-
chy.
The representatives of the union stated that although
training was minimal, the desire to learn and to succeed
was present. Management should be fair and offer training
to all human resources. They would thus reduce the trend
towards funnelling training to the most skilful employees.
In addition, they should guide employees in choosing
courses so that the training received will harmonize with
the Citys plan. To managers, it is obvious that some
employees are more motivated to get involved than others,
and that it depends on what each person expects to gain.
Clients
The clients were primarily the professionals and middle
managers for whom a system had been developed or
acquired. They had often been identified as possible leaders
for managing the information systems within their respective
departments. They acknowledged that the systems had devel-
oped considerably over the past few years. According to
them, the major benefit of the information systems was the
time saved by the quality, precision and quantity of informa-
tion made available. Moreover, some applications facilitated
the performance of complicated operations.
Clients mentioned that after a system was implemented,
the systems department did not do a follow-up in each
department and did not go into the workplace to help staff
make better use of the possibilities offered by the informa-
tion systems. Furthermore, the time required for modifying
existing systems was enormous. One has to learn to live
with the defects or find ways of getting around them.
According to the clients, the decision makers should
have seen to it that the departments became clearly
involved. Managers should have taken more interest in the
management of the information systems and should have
participated in the process. The clients mentioned that in
their respective departments, they were often unofficially
given the role of information systems manager. They thus
felt trapped between their own duties and the management
of the systems. This is something added to our regular job,
which considerably prolongs the implementation.
Finally, clients said that training should also have been
open to users/managers, who would thus have been more
aware of the complexity of information systems and the
possibilities they offer. Users/managers should have freed
up more employees to take courses so that they could put
their knowledge to use in the workplace. The most skillful
employees were overworked and were constantly obliged
to help in training others.
Data analysis
We have analyzed the points of convergence in the per-
ceptions of the technological changes expressed by the various
groups of actors. These points of convergence represent the
diagnosis of the integration status of the information systems
and the impact of these systems on the Citys performance.
Acceptance of technology
Acceptance of technology was widespread and had come
about gradually. The respondents indicated that they had gone
through several stages of acceptance, from the first contact
with the machine, when they were hesitant, fearful and rather
suspicious, to gradual acceptance that continued to a point
where it became unthinkable for them to go backward.
Technology became an integral part of the working environ-
ment. This acceptance of new technologies by the different
groups of actors represented a definite advantage for the City.
Positive effects of the master plan
The 1983 information systems master plan provided an
impetus for the adoption of these systems. It allowed the
organization to diagnose the actual status of the informa-
tion systems, to orient development and thus to rationalize
the investment.
Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 28, No. 1 27
T H E I MP A C T O F T E C H N O L O G Y O N O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P E R F O R M A N C E
Confusion over the responsibility for
managing the systems
Table 1 shows how the groups of actors who formed
the municipalitys managerial levels perceived their roles
and responsibilities. According to the managers and
users/managers/designers, the decision makers should have
played a much more active role through concrete actions,
precise objectives, well-defined strategies and a clear will to
implement them. For their part, the decision makers did not
identify themselves as capable of providing leadership in
this area. They shared with the users/managers/designers
the opinion that it was up to the managers in each depart-
ment to ensure the integration of the information systems.
The managers believed that it was difficult for them to
assume responsibility for managing the systems because
they did not have the necessary technical knowledge.
Consequently, they believed this was the responsibility of
the systems department.
Such confusion was a source of many divergent
impressions and perceptions and had a great influence on
the behaviour of the users. The result was a widespread
attitude of wait and see. Nobody took charge of the infor-
mation systems. Despite some complaints, all groups of
actors seemed to be satisfied with the status quo and were
waiting for leadership to be manifested by others.
Users/operators important but
uninvolved actors
In principle, the users/operators were regarded by all
actors in the concrete action system as important to the adop-
tion of the new systems. They all talked about the influence
Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 28, No. 1
T H E I MP A C T O F T E C H N O L O G Y O N O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P E R F O R M A N C E
28
TABLE 1
Perceptions of roles and responsibilities
Decision makers
Managers
Users/managers/
designers
Users/managers/designers
The systems department has
expertise and information, but
is not able to change the orga-
nization of work or to ensure
the integration of information
systems into the departments.
The systems department is the
lead department for everything
connected with management of
the systems. The users/man-
agers/designers and the design-
ers are responsible for the per-
formance of information
systems.
The systems department is
responsible for systematizing
and computerizing activities for
all municipal departments.
Managers
Each department is responsible
for ensuring integration of its
own information systems. This
independence requires greater
involvement by department
heads.
Managers should identify and
assess needs and make their
staff available for training.
Some emphasize that because
they lack knowledge, it is diffi-
cult for them to assume respon-
sibility for managing systems.
The managers do not take
charge of their information sys-
tems. They delegate to the sys-
tems department the responsi-
bility for managing, maintaining
and developing systems in their
own departments.
Decision makers
The decision makers cannot be
leaders in the field. At most,
they think that they can get the
heads of the departments to
ask questions.
The decision makers are not
focused on the management of
information technologies. They
are primarily interested in the
financial aspect. They should
give the departments a clear
mandate to increase the effi-
ciency of information systems.
The decision makers need a
clear will reflected in concrete
actions and require official sup-
port so that all employees feel
that management espouses the
cause.
Perceptions of roles and responsibilities
Managerial
actors
of the users/operators, which was felt when the time came to
integrate information systems into the departments. In prac-
tice, however, the users/operators were not given much room
in the process of designing and implementing the information
systems. Moreover, the responsibilities attributed to them
remained informal and unknown to the major stakeholders.
Regarding the management of the information systems, the
users/operators and their union also shared the widespread
wait-and-see attitude that characterized the concrete action
system. At most, the union defended what had been gained
through the collective agreement; its actions, which often
reflected a defensive position, favoured the status quo.
An incomplete implementation phase
focused solely on technology
The users/operators thought that the decision makers,
managers and users/managers/designers were working
from a short-term perspective and provided little room for
the implementation phase. The users/operators mentioned
that they were presented with faits accomplis, that they
were entitled to only minimal preparation, and that the sys-
tems department neither provided follow-up nor assessed
the implementation. The users/managers/designers and the
designers said that they were constantly being asked to do
things and that one project did not wait until another one
was finished, leaving little time to deal with implementa-
tion. Finally, the managers stressed that the pace of imple-
mentation was too rapid and that the various departments
and the systems department itself did not have the
resources required to devote enough time to implementing
and integrating systems.
Significant deficiencies in training
The training given to employees was limited to the
basic functions of the system. Individuals who seemed to
have potential were identified and indirectly given the task
of training their colleagues. The transfer of knowledge in
the workplace did not figure in any action plan. The orga-
nization wanted a synergy to develop naturally among the
users/operators so that they would make optimal use of
the tools at their disposal. Everyone acknowledged that the
professional development of individuals did not keep up
with the pace of the technological development. This con-
cerned not only the users/operators, but also the
users/decision makers and the users/managers.
Lack of reorganization of work on the
basis of the new technologies
Little effort was made to rethink the way things were
being done. All the stakeholders emphasized that no action
was taken in terms of the organization of work. Employees
continued as if the new technologies had no effect on the
work environment.
No structured evaluation of the
information systems
The municipal government did not properly evaluate the
information systems. Users/decision makers based their
appraisal on feedback from department heads, including
the head of the systems department. For their part, the
users/managers/designers simply relied on the informal feed-
back they received from users, and often used requests for
adjustment as a basis for appraising the utilization of the
information systems. Finally, the operators said that their
comments did not reach the users/decision makers. No eval-
uation was made of the medium- and long-term effects on
productivity, organization of work, job satisfaction, etc. It was
thus not surprising that the actors had difficulty in appreciat-
ing the benefits produced by the technological changes.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that information technologies have
made a significant penetration into this municipal govern-
ment. This penetration occurred in a series of typical phases:
automation of accounting functions; propagation into other
administrative units; and development toward microcomputer
technology and a multitude of local applications. It should be
emphasized that the master plan had a positive impact. The
use of technology was clearly aimed at improving the Citys
performance and was intended to lead to a reduction of per-
sonnel. All the actors in the concrete action system accepted
the new technologies very well and no longer thought of
functioning without the existing information systems.
Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 28, No. 1 29
T H E I MP A C T O F T E C H N O L O G Y O N O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P E R F O R M A N C E
How has the adoption of these technologies influ-
enced the Citys performance? This is difficult to determine
because the City has not established processes for system-
atically evaluating the information systems that it put in
place. In questioning each group of actors about the bene-
fits realized from the information systems, we found that
these benefits could be summed up as more rapid access
to a larger quantity of information of better quality.
Another advantage was the elimination of repetitive tasks.
For their part, the decision makers stated that the planned
staff reductions had not been realized. They admitted that
such an objective was utopian.
How can it be that technology seems to have con-
tributed so little to improving the Citys performance? The
actors all thought that the information systems put in place
had not really been integrated
into the culture and functioning
of the City. The major conse-
quence of the situation was
that, as all respondents agreed,
the systems were underutilized
and very little advantage was
taken of the benefits they offer. (On this subject, Gagnon
stated: The use of technology is a necessary, but not suffi-
cient, condition for ensuring business development.
9
)
Two major factors may explain this lack of integration
of systems. The first is the confusion regarding manage-
ment of the process for adopting systems. At the present
time, the systems department assumes responsibility for the
process by default, while being aware that it is not best
suited for this role. The second factor is that the implemen-
tation phase is incomplete, or even forgotten, especially in
regard to the effect that the systems have on the organiza-
tion and on human resources. (On this subject, Voyer
emphasizes: However high the quality of the hardware or
the software, if the employee does not use it, or if the
organizational context does not encourage it, or if the
work is not adjusted to take advantage of the possibilities,
the result will be failure.
10
)
The work has not been reorganized in terms of the
use of new technologies, yet this is the area in which
important productivity gains can be realized. Little place
has been given to the users/operators, who unquestionably
are often best able to exploit the new technologies. The
users/operators indeed say that they can offer advice to
improve how the systems are used. They also emphasize
that their many comments on the deficient functioning of
information systems were not taken into account. Training
has also been very deficient. No strategy for the profes-
sional development of municipal staff was adopted, and
the designers have not made any effort to provide the
basic elements of training that the employees need in order
to operate the systems proficiently.
What can be done to reorient the Citys technological
strategy? Employees must stop thinking that computerization
projects can in themselves transform the organization.
Improvement of productivity is due not only to technology,
but also to the way by which it is integrated into the realities
of each department. The City must examine the possibilities
for integrating the information sys-
tems into the operations of its various
departments; only then will it be able
to realize computerization. It will
have to evaluate each computeriza-
tion project formally to determine the
extent to which it has contributed to
improving the quality of services offered to citizens and to
reducing the cost of producing those services.
The systems department can ensure the integration of
the technology on its own. Within the concrete action
system, the dynamics must be such that those involved will
employ a collaborative process. The municipal government
must seek to attain a new equilibrium where each group of
actors has its place in the design, operation and develop-
ment of the information systems. To arrive at this new bal-
ance, the decision makers must demonstrate leadership, in
particular by clearly establishing the expectations, roles
and responsibilities of each actor.
The users/managers must commit to taking charge of
the organizations information systems.
11
It is up to them to
specify the objectives and orientations of the systems man-
agement process. Thereafter, they will have to maintain con-
trol over needs assessment, design, implementation, opera-
tion and evaluation of the information systems. However, to
arrive at that stage, they must become aware that they are in
the best position to carry out the integration of the systems.
They must develop their technical knowledge. They do not
have to become specialists; some knowledge of organiza-
tional information systems and their potential will suffice.
Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 28, No. 1
T H E I MP A C T O F T E C H N O L O G Y O N O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P E R F O R M A N C E
30
Employees must stop thinking
that computerization projects
can in themselves transform the
organization.
Since the managers are taking over the information
systems, their relationship with the systems department
must be redefined. Some years ago, the information tech-
nology specialist was the expert and decision maker.
Today, with microcomputer technology, a client/supplier
relationship must be created between the systems depart-
ment and the other departments. Through service con-
tracts, such an alliance makes it possible to manage infor-
mation systems on the basis of partnership rather than
through a transfer of responsibilities, as is now the case. It
is absolutely necessary, however, that any service contract
involve a system assessment phase. This assessment will
allow the parties to define jointly the formal process and
the precise indicators that will enable them to determine
the extent to which the objectives have been reached.
These indicators include how much the system is used, its
integration into the department, and its contribution to
improving the Citys performance.
As far as the implementation of the systems is con-
cerned, the most promising approach will be achieved in col-
laboration with the actors affected by the change.
12
This
approach will make it possible to propose implementation
strategies that take into account a range of factors: sharing of
responsibilities (various aspects of the organization will have
to be rethought); technological or budgetary constraints; and
power relationships among individuals. In this respect, the
City must initiate discussions and negotiations with the union
of municipal employees. The two parties must agree on the
adjustments that should be made to take into account the
impact of information technologies on the organization of
work, job descriptions and training. In this way, the City will
avoid finding itself with some employees who are skilled in
information technology and others who are not.
A final, very important element in any strategic infor-
mation systems management plan is communication. One
of the means that the City can use to get its staff to share
its vision and goals is to adopt mechanisms that facilitate
the dissemination and exchange of information. It is
essential that all members of the organization have a clear
and precise idea of the plans for managing technologies
and that they participate in the implementation process. In
this way, the process will become legitimate in their eyes.
Although we have reason to believe that these conclu-
sions apply, with a fair degree of accuracy, to other municipal
organizations, we unfortunately cannot generalize them. This
is a limitation of our study, which dealt with only a single
case. Extensive research on a larger number of cases will make
it possible to apply our conclusions to a broader field.
Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 28, No. 1 31
T H E I MP A C T O F T E C H N O L O G Y O N O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P E R F O R M A N C E
Endnotes
1. Peter Clark and Ken Starkey. Organization Transitions and
Innovation-Design (New York: Pinter Publishers, 1988), p. 211; Mel Horwitch.
Technology in the Modern Corporation: A Strategic Perspective (Pergamon Press,
1986), p. 232; Michael E. Porter. Choix stratgiques et concurrence : techniques
danalyse des secteurs et de la concurrence dans lindustrie (Strategic choices
and competition: techniques for analyzing industry sectors and competition)
(Paris: Economica, 1982).
2. Robert Gravel. La croissance informatique en milieu municipal (The
growth of information technology in the municipal government environment),
a lecture given at the conference of the Association des informaticiens munici-
paux du Qubec (Association of Municipal Information Technology Specialists
of Quebec), Charlevoix, 1995.
3. Yves-Chantal Gagnon and Maurice Landry. Les changements tech-
nologiques une stratgie dtude exploratoire (Technological changes-a strat-
egy for exploratory study), Relations industrielles (Industrial relations), 44(2),
1989, pp. 214-247; Yves-Chantal Gagnon. Les acteurs et le systme daction
concret du changements technologiques (Actors and the concrete action
system in technological change), in Changement technologique et gestion des
ressources humaines : Fondements et pratiques (Technological change in man-
agement of human resources: foundations and practices), Ral Jacob and
Jean Ducharme, editors, 1995, pp. 125-147; Jocelyne Dragon. Gestion intgre
des systmes dinformation (Integrated management of information systems),
An action report in completion of the requirements for a Masters degree in
Public Administration, ENAP, 1995, p. 127.
4. Gagnon and Landry, p. 426.
5. Michel Crozier and Erhard Friedberg. Lacteur et le systme (The actor
and the system) (Paris, ditions du Seuil, 1981), p. 437.
6. Gagnon and Landry, p. 434.
7. Y. Gupta and T.S. Raghunathan. Organizational Adoption of MIS
Planning as an Innovation, The International Journal of Management Science,
16(5), 1988, pp. 383-392.
8. Izak Benbasat, David K. Goldstein and Melissa Mead. The Case
Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, 11(3),
1983, pp. 369-386; T.V. Bonoma. A Case Study in Case Research: Marketing
Implementation, Working Paper No. 9-585-142 (Boston: Harvard University
Graduate School of Business Administration, 1983); Kathleen M. Eisenhardt.
Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 1989, pp. 532-550; F.J. Roethlisberger. The Elusive Phenomena
(Boston: Harvard Business School, Division of Research, 1977); R.K. Yin.
The Case Study as a Serious Research Strategy, Knowledge, 3(l), 1981,
pp. 97-104.
9. Yves-Chantal Gagnon. La technologie et le dveloppement des
entreprises (Technology and the business development), a lecture given as part
of the Jacques Cartier talks (Lyons: France, December 1993), p. 3.
10. Pierre Voyer. Le Manuel du technomanager. La gestion de linforma-
tion et ses technologies (The technological managers handbook-management of
information and its technologies) (Montreal: Agence dArc, 1990), p. 45.
11. Yves-Chantal Gagnon and Jean Nollet. Pour accrotre les chances de
succs dans limplantation de systmes dinformation (Increasing the chances
of success in implementing information systems), Revue Gestion (Management
Review), November 1990, pp. 16-25.
12. Ibid.