John Reynolds, South African. Worked in Software Development for many years. Invited to World Vision in the US as a consultant to oversee IT in World Vision.
Caused a major stir years ago by implementing a system for World Vision at a cost of $10,000 having been given a budget of $100,000.
World Vision are working in 90 countries, have offices in 65, and IT systems in 48. His initial brief was to automate the organisation. They have a mix of VAX, AS/400, HP9000, PCs, Laptops. The real need is to be able to communicate between the many offices.
The virtual organisation causes much controversy, in a similar way to the paperless office.
World Vision can no longer afford to bring together all of its 3,500+ staff. They are needing to use technology to bring everyone togetherusing technology. This is really a people issue - technology is the easy part.
Organisation follows strategy. World Vision has been a fairly hierarchical organisation in the past, but they are getting much flatter.
Structure normally leads to bureaucracy. It is a functional organisation. Every time anything moves between functions there were two controls. One making sure it left, the other arrived. This has been addressed by looking at workflow, and trying to take it away from structure. How could they add value to what they were doing?
Evolution of independence to interdependence. They are working towards a federal model. For example, if we took all the resources from the ICCM and shared them across the organisations we would have a great deal of expertise availble. Do these resources need to be all in one place, or can they be spread around, i.e. a virtual workplace?
Process vs. Function. Many of the World Vision processes cross international boundaries. The organisation was originally split into two parts by function, ministry and fund raising. The distinction between these is becoming blurred as process becomes more important.
Mass customisation as a driver. Everyone wants their own specific thing. World Vision has 1.1m donors, and they are beginning to ask for different pieces of information about what they are sponsoring. This is being achieved through mix of Notes, Internet and Intranet. Particular offices are being identified as centres of competence in particular technologies and serving the organisation.
The global spider web.
Empowerment (or the ceding of power). Offices are autonomous. The offices are being asked what they would like help with. Typical requests from offices are to set down strategic direction for the whole organisation, maintain global communication, infrastructure etc.
Creating a learning environment. There are many discussions being set up using Notes etc. One issue is what information leaders are prepared to share. Knowledge is power, and often they are unwilling to give it up.
Managing what we can't see. There is a big issue here. Can you trust someone you don't see for six months at a time?
Breaking down traditional barriers. Teams are becoming self directed. Many senior Christian leaders are very uncomfortable with this as they no longer have control.
Organisational and Information architects. There is three way management. Chief Executive Officer (captain), Chief Financial Officer (1st officer), and Chief Information Officer (navigator).
Architects vs. builders. Determining standards to be used.
Information rather than technology. We need to collaborate on what information is held. It does not matter what the actual technology used is.
Business Process driven.
Global Frameworks for local implementation.
The Road map, freeway, dashboard. This terminology is being used to keep senior management comfortable with the new technology. As an analogy, World Vision are currently sometimes using Concorde to go 15 miles, or a bicycle to get to Europe! They are trying to keep everyone on the same road. It does not matter about your speed as long as you are all going together in the same direction.
Commitment, ownership and understanding. The information base is having to move from concrete facts such as dollars to more subjective information such as impact on lives. Notes is very useful here.
Twin citizenship. How can people be citizens of both the local and international groupings?
Building on Strengths. Offices are being asked to identify where strength lies in the organisation, e.g. who has the best Web page. Those with strength are being asked to build on that and service other offices. World Vision is trying to build on the common aspects between offices, not highlight their differences.
Co-ordination and "herding". There is a need to keep everyone moving in the same general direction. You do not need to monitor their every step, as long as they continue with the “herd”.
Common vision, vocabulary, and technology. This is a real issue. World Vision had 9 separate terms for a donor. It took two days to agree on the definition. The information architecture recommends technology to use, and always includes an two possibilities, e.g. Oracle or Informix, MS-Office or Perfect Office. One side effect of this is that product specific extensions tend not to be used.
Policies and standards. There are agreed formats for information exchange, although individuals can agree to use different format exchange between them. World Vision has gone from product standards to communication/interchange standards.
"We have lost control". Please can we have some of the bureaucracy back!
"We have to be the same". Everyone feels they are being forced into being the same across the organisation.
"You don't understand our reality". We need special reports for our government.
"We are unique". They fail to focus on the similarities, but highlight the differences.
"Who should I shout at?". People want to place blame.
"If I can't see them I can't trust them". There is often more trust in secular organisations between managers and their staff than in Christian organisations.
Local priorities are the reality.
Control is still an overriding value. When asked why someone needs particular information it comes down to control.
Information is power.
We are a consensus and representative culture. This can create difficulties because you need everyone to agree. What are the voting rights of a large office relative to a small one? Committees have become networks across the organisation.
Does management trust the IT groups? Make sure that you have visibility with management.