Information Technology: Managerial and Organizational

¶ … Information Technology:

Managerial and Organizational Issues

Information technology is growing rapidly, and it is also changing and evolving at a rapid rate. There used to be complex issues that were dealt with technologically, but there was little done to manage and organize individuals. Now, some of that is changing. One of the areas where that is changing is in the field of medicine, because much of what is dealt with today shows concern that technology might actually be going just a little bit too far when it comes to patient information.

Patient privacy is becoming a very important issue. It is so important that legislation has been passed to make sure that doctors and other health care providers retain the confidentiality of their patients' records. The legislation, called HIPAA, is very hard to implement, however, because of the use of technology to transfer patient information. Any time computers are involved extra safeguards need to be put into place in order to make sure that hackers cannot get into the system and access patient files.

The concern for patient privacy comes mostly from the patients themselves. They don't want someone sitting next to them to be able to have access to confidential and sometimes very personal information, but yet they want their information to be immediately available if they visit an emergency room or hospital for any reason (Haramboure, 1999).

While it is becoming easier to have immediate access to patient records, the ease also brings increased chances for someone else to see those same records. Many patients are concerned about this, which has caused the government to get involved in making legislation that would protect patient privacy and still keep the access to medical records available for emergency rooms and hospitals.

Patient privacy is also an important concern from the point-of-view of doctors and other healthcare professionals. Nowadays people sue each other for almost everything, and a breach of confidentiality is certainly no exception. If a doctor or hospital is careless with who finds out information about a specific patient they could be in for a very long, troublesome, and expensive lawsuit, not to mention the bad publicity that they would likely receive from allowing such an obvious breach of trust. So patients aren't the only ones concerned with privacy. Everyone involved in healthcare is interested in making the patient record system the best and most confidential it can be. That's where HIPAA comes in.

The purpose behind the HIPAA legislation is to create a balance between privacy and access. it's a difficult thing to do, and not everyone wants to comply with the new regulations that are required of them. HIPAA not only requires rules on confidentiality and access, but also requires that all healthcare organizations use some standardized forms and numbers including a standard employer identifier, a national provider identification number, and a set of electronic data interchange (EDI) standards (Haramboure, 1999).

Operational and administrative changes will be required, as well as training for new and current employees. Everyone will have to understand what the new rules are and everyone will have to follow them closely, since there will be severe penalties and heavy fines for any healthcare organization that is found to be breaking the rules. Having the healthcare organization pay a serious fine would not bode well for the future job security of the employee that was found to be breaking the rules. The new HIPAA guidelines are going to have to be a team effort between the healthcare organizations, their employees, the patients, and the government if they are to be successful (Haramboure, 1999).

One of the goals of HIPAA, other than the privacy and access issue, is to simplify the procedures used by healthcare organizations and reduce the paperwork that they are often required to fill out on each patient. If the paperwork and exchange of data between various healthcare organizations were simplified, the federal government believes that healthcare costs might be lowered significantly (Haramboure, 1999).

This is obviously a very important concern for many patients who already feel that they pay way too much for the small amount of health care that they receive. Some who need a doctor don't always go and see one, simply because they cannot afford the cost of an office visit and any medications or tests that the doctor may feel are necessary. People can die needlessly because of the cost of healthcare, and that is one of the things that the new HIPAA legislation is working to stop.

The problem with implementing HIPAA is that not all healthcare organizations will be ready in time to meet the requirements set forth in the new rules. Many are aware of the rules, but since they hadn't been enacted at the time this article was written, many hospitals and other healthcare providers were just waiting to see what the final rules would actually be and how difficult it would be to attempt to comply with them. Because of this, a great many healthcare organizations would not have been ready or compliant when the February 2000 deadline showed up (Haramboure, 1999).

HIPAA is coming, whether the healthcare organizations are ready or not, but it will not be without implementation problems. Other than some healthcare providers not being ready, there is a concern that the technology to run HIPAA effectively and efficiently might not be ready either. Companies will have to supply the hardware and create the software needed for HIPAA to work properly, so high-level people in the federal government as well as healthcare organizations will have to decide what technology companies are the most cost-effective, efficient, and trustworthy (Haramboure, 1999). This will not be easy, since there are many companies available and they are all vying for the chance to provide the technology for HIPAA. It seems that the 'wait and see' attitude adopted by many healthcare providers may have merit after all.

HIPAA is not the only issue that involves a rethinking of the managerial and organizational issues that surround technology, however. There are other areas of study that also require some reconsideration as information systems move away from just looking at technology and work their way toward organizational and managerial issues.

Information systems and computing have become more widespread in many organizations throughout the last 15 years and the amount of this has deepened and infiltrated almost every level of organizations (Adams & Sasse, 1999). Some of this has to do with the fact that personal computers have become more powerful and increasingly less expensive (Adams & Sasse, 1999). This has created the ability to have computing power and management information systems tested and placed into the hands of many more individuals throughout various organizations, and this includes the government (Adams & Sasse, 1999). How computers are used and the nature of what they are needed for has also changed recently because computers have come into many more homes (Adams & Sasse, 1999).

Much of this comes from extending computers from the workplace into home life (Adams & Sasse, 1999). Some of it also comes from laptop computers and how they have become so important for individuals that travel and need to take their work with them so that they will be able to check e-mail and exchange messages no matter where they are (Adams & Sasse, 1999). Because of all the changes in the nature of computing their use has continued to speed up and spread out to more and more individuals (Adams & Sasse, 1999). Many of these are linked to various organizations or they have specific networks that they are linked into which allows them to do more things (Adams & Sasse, 1999).

The Internet has also become extremely important because people all over the world can work with each other through a computer and this avoids many of the long distance phone calls, business trips, and other issues that would normally have to be dealt with when dealing with a client or customer overseas (Adams & Sasse, 1999). Much of the use of computers within the public sector and the government is growing very strongly (Adams & Sasse, 1999).

Still another suggestion regarding this issue is that the diffusion of new technology and innovations throughout the organization is often driven by the end users (Gupta, Holladay, & Mahoney, 2000). This largely comes about because there are many different problems within an organization that they are trying to solve and even though there are individuals within the organization that have a great deal of technical knowledge it is usually the individuals who have less technical knowledge and are trying to solve difficult problems that push for more technology (Gupta, Holladay, & Mahoney, 2000).

This is a somewhat surprising finding because other studies dealing with the private sector indicate that management information systems managers often see the value of information technology as being a great deal higher than the other executives list (Gupta, Holladay, & Mahoney, 2000). It appears that that is why this is accurate in the private sector while the public sector may look at things very differently and it may be an inaccurate assessment when it comes to government (Gupta, Holladay, & Mahoney, 2000). Another study found that there are many different strategies that are utilized when information technology is developed within the federal government and many of these tend to come not from the top managers but from the management instead (Gupta, Holladay, & Mahoney, 2000).

Much of this has to do with the fact that the top managers in the federal government are often political appointees and therefore know somewhat less about the inner workings of the organization when it comes to specific technological systems (Gupta, Holladay, & Mahoney, 2000). The middle managers are the ones who generally look for strategies to develop other types of information technology and are often comparable to the end users within other studies (Gupta, Holladay, & Mahoney, 2000). Unlike the managers who deal specifically with management information systems, or the other executive managers within the company, these middle managers actually understand many of the challenges and the problems that are being faced by the particular organization and this appears to be why they have so much interest in solving these types of issues (Gupta, Holladay, & Mahoney, 2000).

Much of this is also developed over many years of various interactions with other individuals both within the organization and on the outside of the organization that may help of understand not only that there is new technology available but that there is a real need for a problem that can easily be solved with it (Gupta, Holladay, & Mahoney, 2000). The various long-term relationships that many of these middle managers have developed with other individuals outside of the organization plays a strong role because these individuals are able to discuss with them to some extent the problems and challenges that they were facing and what type of new technology may have worked to correct the problem (Gupta, Holladay, & Mahoney, 2000).

The combination that these middle managers have of knowing about the needs of their particular organization and being able to talk with individuals outside the organization about the needs and problems they face and the technology that they utilized to solve them works to put these middle managers a very good position to be able to find the technology that is needed to work into the organization (Gupta, Holladay, & Mahoney, 2000). They have a very unique position in the organization and a very unique understanding of technology and what it can do (Gupta, Holladay, & Mahoney, 2000). This comes from both internal and external forces and because of this it works to show not only what the individuals in their particular organization need about how the problems that they have can be solved through the use of better management information systems and other technological means (Gupta, Holladay, & Mahoney, 2000).

The strong connection that middle managers have with other individuals outside the organization is very important because it shows a strong awareness of various different types of new technologies and helps to show how these middle managers might actually become aware not only of the technological advances that are discussed but also how well they have actually worked to solve problems or whether some other type of technological advance would be a better choice (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). Another thing that this indicates, however, is that creating a supply of new technology and pushing it towards individuals in an effort to show them why they need it is somewhat inadequate to drive the diffusion of technology into many organizations (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999).

Many of the new technologies that are created and implemented today are often promoted by the suppliers and are only through channels that actually reach fellow technologists such as managers that specifically deal with management information systems (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). These individuals learn about the new technology but quite often they do not know about the problems and challenges that are faced by middle management and other end users (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). Not only are they not aware of the challenges and problems that are being faced and should be handled but they do not know how to present the various capabilities of these new technological products to the individuals that will be using them (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999).

They look instead at the technical features of the products and often describe them in technologically advanced terms or they talk about generic functions instead of specifics (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). By doing this, they tend to confuse many of the individuals that they are seeking to help and therefore either the new technology does not get implemented correctly or does not get utilized because individuals are uncomfortable with it (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). If an organization is fortunate enough to have a management information systems manager that actually understands the challenges and problems that many of the end users are facing then this manager should be able to translate the technicalities and generalities of the specific piece of new technology so that the end users can recognize how it will help them solve the problems that they have (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999).

When this is done the end users can work with the management information systems manager to indicate whether this technology is actually significant to them in whether it will do the job that it is designed to do for what they need (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). Unfortunately, research findings strongly suggest that this type of management information systems manager is few and far between and therefore many organizations in the public sector do not get the technology that they need or are not aware of how to use it if they do receive it (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999).

Other studies tend to look at the diffusion of technology from a slightly different perspective and there are three different factors that most people commonly think of when discussing how computer use in organizations is affected (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). These include the training that is provided, the user friendliness of the software, and the background that various users have with computers (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). One study examined over 3000 public sector employees within 46 different cities in the United States and found that training, while a very important and significant asset, appears to be very underutilized (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999).

Sometimes software has various limitations and issues that make it somewhat difficult to use properly (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). Good training will help the end user to overcome any of these problems because they will know how to work around them (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). Training employees to use the technology properly also helps to overcome many other limited experiences and nervousness that a great deal of employees have when it comes to using computers (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). The study found that someone looking at the computer literacy of many of these users and the training that they have received indicated that both of these issues are far more important than the length of time that a particular employee has been using computers (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999).

The training of computer users when new software is purchased and installed should be encouraged and emphasized and these various employees should be further encouraged to utilize the new software at every opportunity so that they become more comfortable with it (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). This is especially true when the software is somewhat difficult to use at least in some aspects and therefore acts as a rather strong barrier to a complete adoption of a particular type of software for a specific task (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999).

When looking at this from a converse perspective, however, adding software that is extremely user-friendly can also help to compensate for any type of lack of experience or training that an individual might have when using computers (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). It appears that the findings of various other studies indicate that there are both internal and external factors that affect the technology that is brought into organizations and how rapidly the diffusion of that technology takes place (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999).

However, that same study also agreed with other studies that had indicated that many internal factors played a very strong role in how information technology was received within state governments (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). It also indicated that the application of this information technology within various organizations could be significantly shaped and adjusted by the initiatives that managers took to help those under their controlled to better understand the technology and feel more comfortable with it (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). Another important issue to look at when it comes to management information systems in government is a debate that has been ongoing for quite some time about the productivity that is gained from investing in information technology and whether it is actually worth the price (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999).

In the 1980s there were several studies done and all of them argued that any type of increased productivity within the economy overall was very slight and that there was no strong evidence of it (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). It was also argued that the service sector in particular was not showing any type of evidence of a higher productivity despite the fact that literally billions of dollars had been poured into it for information technology and management information systems issues (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). Recently, however, other studies have challenged this issue and indicated that the lack of evidence has little to do with the truthfulness of whether information technology has helped increase productivity (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999).

Studies that were done in the 1990s actually showed that there were very strong correlations between the investment that was made in information technology and the gains in productivity that were made at both the corporate level and the national level (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). Still, however, the debate that has been ongoing over what type of value information technology investment actually has not abated, but it has mostly become the concern of academics (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999). When the focus of this particular issue shifts to a specific individual organization, it becomes much more interesting and urgent to managers as well as the academic community (Broadbent, Weill, & St. Clair, 1999).

One of the most extensive areas of research that deals with management information systems and other types of computing within public organizations looks at how these management information systems should actually be managed in order to achieve the future goals of the organization (Tonnessen, 2000). There have been several studies done at various different levels of the government and these have looked at the issue involved in order to use more technology to achieve better productivity and other effects that will help not only the particular public service or governmental entity in question but others as well (Tonnessen, 2000).

Other researchers have looked very critically at the use of management information technology within public agencies (Tonnessen, 2000). They argue that this should not be utilized because many of these organizations cannot effectively apply the technology that they have to make better choices or more expedited requests for other individuals (Tonnessen, 2000). One of the arguments these individuals advance, and that is most common, is that the research into management information system utilization, practice, and training has centered too strongly on the technology itself rather than on looking at the application of this information technology and how it can help improve the functioning of the organization (Tonnessen, 2000).

This particular argument echoes many of the recent studies that have been done in which it has been claimed that the application of the information technology in and of itself does not actually result in any type of gain in productivity (Tonnessen, 2000). Instead, the argument is made that information technology makes it possible to reengineer or rethink many of the processes that organizations utilize that actually do result in gains in productivity (Tonnessen, 2000). If those arguments are accurate then the focusing by many of these organizations on the specific technology alone will not in any way help to achieve the results that are desired for the investment that has been made in information technology (Tonnessen, 2000).

One study puts a great deal of the blame for this on the training programs and the curriculum at graduate schools, stating that these spend a great deal too much time concentrating on the management of technology and not enough time looking at the management of information resources (Tonnessen, 2000). Management of information resources is a field that argues very strongly that organizations place much of their focus on the management of information resources rather than on the technology that allows them to do so (Tonnessen, 2000).

Within both state and federal governmental agencies this is a very popular theory and at least one report from the government accounting office and one academic article have put up challenges to not only its conceptual soundness but its effectiveness as well (Tonnessen, 2000). One study argues that within public organizations managers are becoming increasingly concerned with the management of information technology in order to improve the functions of organizations but that individuals who are taught in management schools are taught to focus too strongly on technical skills instead (Tonnessen, 2000).

The point is that the staff of any particular program are actually the innovators when looking at new technologies and how they are adopted as they are driven by the needs of the organization to use whatever information they have much more effectively (Tonnessen, 2000). This argument has also been reinforced by other studies (Tonnessen, 2000). However, it is also argued that public management curriculums and business management curriculums are in a very poor state of being at the moment in terms of the management of the impact of the application of information technology within organizations.

This troubling state continues to exist despite an adoption of curriculum guidelines for public management and computers (Tonnessen, 2000). Apparently, very few schools chose to adopt the new guidelines that were created and it seems that the creating agency, the national association of schools of public affairs and administration, chose not to enforce any of them (Tonnessen, 2000). Another study also states that the usual and typical approach to the management of technology has been to make an effort to choose what type of technology should be utilized and then treat the end user's ability to assimilate this type of technology as actually an afterthought.

That study argued that getting employees actively involved is very crucial in the work process and in the information technologies being advanced and employed within the organization (Tonnessen, 2000). In order to actually achieve the potential that information technology has both technical factors and human factors must be worked into the equation when the processes for working with that are designed (Tonnessen, 2000). Another study also argues that the great failure of information technology to help transform any organizations is actually due to managers and the failures that they have seen in integrating the information needs and also the cognitive expectations with the various management activities in different organizations (Tonnessen, 2000).

That helps to reflect an earlier study that was done which blamed management information systems for generating only raw data without actually generating useful information which could then be incorporated into many organizations and the decision making processes that they have (Tonnessen, 2000). The common theme throughout much of the literature study is that the value of information technology to various organizations in the public sector depends not on how much information technology is available but on how the management information system function is actually integrated into many of the other management processes that deal with decision-making, evaluation, program implementation, and planning (Tonnessen, 2000).

Another ongoing debate for the last 15 years or so deals with centralization and decentralization of many of the computing activities undertaken by public agencies (Tonnessen, 2000). Some advocates believe in decentralization and say that it actually helps to bring the management information systems issue under direct control of many of the end users (Tonnessen, 2000). By doing this these individuals gain a great deal of mastery of the various types of technology with the use and they can shape and adjust it in order to meet the needs of their departments (Tonnessen, 2000).

Some believe that management information systems managers are weakened by doing things in this way as many of these managers are actually assumed to be very interested in the technical matters that they have to deal with but not at all interested in the needs that the end users of the technology actually have (Tonnessen, 2000). This particular argument fits in very well with the other points that have been made regarding end users and how well they drive the adoption and adaptation of technology within an organization (Tonnessen, 2000). It also serves as a reminder of information systems and how they should be tailored to the operational objectives that a particular organization has (Tonnessen, 2000).

By introducing personal computers and also by introducing client/server computing based on many of the standard software packages available today, the argument has greatly been strengthened for decentralized computing and management information systems (Gill, 2001). Mainframe computers, because of their size and their high cost, will make an argument for the centralization of computing functions as opposed to the decentralization (Gill, 2001). Having personal computers and a great deal of technology to go with them, however, makes it much more feasible to take the computing function and break it down into many smaller units which can be utilized by various departments (Gill, 2001; Dedrick, 1997).

It is believed by other researchers that centralizing the management information systems function will increase economies of scale and help enhance the abilities that various agencies have in using data (Martinsons & Chong, 1999). It will also help to deal with those that work with management information systems and give them a stronger ability to help guide much of the computing that is already been done toward goals that will meet the needs of the entire organization (Martinsons & Chong, 1999).

The case is often made for centralizing this issue and has been largely based on notions of efficiency (Martinsons & Chong, 1999). These are related to the function of management information systems itself rather than an enhancement of the access and control that many of the end users have over the technology (Martinsons & Chong, 1999). Studies that have been done regarding public organizations indicate that there is a trend toward the decentralization of many of the computing functions of various organizations and that these have been going on since approximately the mid-1970s (Martinsons & Chong, 1999).

In other words, the tendency is toward having managerial control that is very centralized when the facilities and services that are under that control are centralized (Struth, 2000). When the facilities and services that are under that control are very decentralized than it is more likely for managerial control to also be decentralized (Struth, 2000). There are obviously instances where this is not the case and there are also some where the decentralization and decentralization are not necessarily related to where the services and facilities are (Struth, 2000).

The role that decision-making, management, and planning on a centralized level play in technology is continuing to increase (Leddy, & Fuller, 1996). This is particularly true in nations that are still developing much of their technological framework and comes from a lack of resources, instability on a financial level, and overpopulation (Leddy, & Fuller, 1996). Having information that is not sufficient or not accurate is also hurting the decision-making abilities and the planning abilities of many of these individuals (Leddy, & Fuller, 1996). It has been suggested that there are two very prominent factors that are limiting the success when it comes to organizational and managerial change within technology (Leddy, & Fuller, 1996). Some of this comes from not having enough adequate data but the rest comes from a shortage of individuals that are trained to make these decisions on this level (Leddy, & Fuller, 1996).

Many individuals that deal with technology and information systems deal only with the technological ideas of it and not with other issues such as how an organization should be run or managed (Leddy, & Fuller, 1996). Some researchers have indicated that data that deals with geographical distribution of various issues such as population and economic resources is becoming one of the most important issues where managerial and organizational research and planning for technology is studied (Leddy, & Fuller, 1996). Unfortunately, collecting and managing much of this data can create problems that often seem insurmountable for many organizations (Leddy, & Fuller, 1996).

Researchers have indicated that there are four specific reasons for this issue (Elkan, 1995).

There is a great deal of difficulty in collecting information regarding the resources of the nation and its geographic distribution. In addition to the difficulty that comes with collecting this information many of the facts and figures are hard to verify and often they change quite rapidly (Elkan, 1995).

Many of the information systems that are created today are not able to handle spatial data and therefore individuals that wish to organize or manage technology and information systems in organizations may not have much experience with the type of data that is collected or the software that is often utilized to analyze and manage it (Elkan, 1995).

Political issues are often associated with collecting any type of information that may involve governmental systems and when spatial data is included the problem is compounded (Elkan, 1995).

Utilizing technology for geographic information systems also poses personnel problems that must be overcome if organizations are to be managed and dealt with effectively (Elkan, 1995).

Many researchers have mentioned the various obstacles to geographic information systems in papers and research that has been conducted, and geographic information systems have been summarized in the context of being an administrative tool for various governments (Karnik, 1993). Looking at this work and the obstacles that are in the way of management and organization where information systems are concerned is very important so that greater detail may be seen and so that solutions may be looked for that will help these individuals manage information systems more effectively (Karnik, 1993; Dugger, 1997; Clarke, 1995).

This will help them not only with geographic information but with any type of information system that is being utilized (Karnik, 1993). Those that work with various support systems, those that develop systems, and those that make policies through governments and other agencies will be able to understand more fully how information technology should be implemented and what types of managerial and organizational changes are becoming the focus of it today (Karnik, 1993). One of the most significant areas for information systems where management is concerned is the politics of various organizations (Karnik, 1993).

Many of these political issues in organizations have a very strong impact on implementing information systems in organizations in the public sector within the United States (Karnik, 1993). This is largely to be expected and is not particularly unique to the United States or any other developed country (Karnik, 1993). When looking at what type of impact organizational politics has on implementing information technology, researchers have observed that creating information systems change the power relationships between members of the organization (Karnik, 1993). This promotes these individuals to take any type of political action that they feel is necessary in order to maintain the power that they have or secure greater power (Karnik, 1993; Klein, 1995).

There are three ways that information systems and information technology change the power relationships within an organization (Karnik, 1993). First, possessing information helps various individuals to be more successful within an organization and therefore these individuals become more powerful (Karnik, 1993). Second, having information systems is seen to be a very important resource for all members in an organization, therefore having any type of control over that resource provides these controlling individuals with a great deal of power over members in the organization that may not understand how information systems work (Karnik, 1993). Third, individuals that have power over an information system are often perceived as being more advanced or sophisticated in a technical sense than others (Karnik, 1993). These three things are not exceptionally relevant where a strictly technological standpoint is seen, but they are very relevant when it comes to the managerial and organizational structure of various businesses and industries (Karnik, 1993).

Case studies that have been done on public sector organizations within the United States have tested propositions regarding organizational politics and what type of role it plays on implementing information systems (King, 1995). Many of these have been derived from various theories that deal with the implementation of information technology and from organizational theory as well (King, 1995; Grope, 1992; Harman, 1990; Darrow & Saxenien, 1986). Case studies have found support for all of the propositions that have been suggested indicating that implementing information systems is very likely to be impacted by various factors that are similar to the factors that affect any other type of information technology implementation within a company or industry (King, 1995).

When looked at this way it can be seen that one of the most significant managerial and organizational issues that industries face when dealing with information systems is that there is often conflict over these systems and other resources where information technology is concerned (Bohnet, 1995). In order to help avoid this conflict, individuals throughout organizations must be willing to work with one another and collaborate not only on developing information systems but on implementing them and determining who will be in charge of what specific items (Bohnet, 1995). When this has been done there will be less conflict for these individuals to face (Bohnet, 1995; Corbley, 1997).

There is often a lot of competition between various agencies in an industry and there is also internal competition in specific organizations (Bohnet, 1995). This competitiveness, as well as who owns what specific data, has been seen to be one of the major problems when it comes to managerial and organizational issues within an organization (Bohnet, 1995). Particularly this is problematic when there have been a great deal of resources expended to collect data and develop programs that will analyze and manage this data (Bohnet, 1995). There are not only institutional and interpersonal constraints that cause difficulties but also issues in dealing with the fact that many organizations do not yet have protocols established that are significant enough to allow for a polite and reasonable exchange of information and resources (Bohnet, 1995). Communications networks in organizations are also often somewhat limited and adopting technological innovations or information systems in companies that have poor communication can be extremely problematic for many individuals (Bohnet, 1995).

That is not to say that this cannot be done, but only that it will be somewhat more difficult than had been previously assumed (Drummond, 1995). Information systems still have to deal with many different technological issues and these are very important (Drummond, 1995; Brudney & Brown, 1992; Innes & Simpson, 1993). However, much of the research that has been done into information systems at this point is moving away somewhat from dealing only with technological issues and instead has moved more toward the organizational and managerial issues that have been discussed here (Drummond, 1995). Most of the information that has appeared as qualitative research appears to be valid and reliable since it has come from specific organizations and studies that have been accepted and peer reviewed (Drummond, 1995).

There are many different merits in the area of information systems for dealing with organizational and managerial issues and there are many applications as well for this type of research. Now that the research has been discussed it is time to speak of these issues. Since information systems have traditionally been studied only in a technological sense much of the way that individuals interact with one another and deal with the information system has remained largely untouched. In recent years, however, this has changed somewhat to focus more on the personnel side of information systems. One of the largest issues that has been focused on in this regard is communication, as how individuals communicate with one another in an organization and between organizations is often one of the most significant issues in dealing with how well a business will succeed in the community (Gillis, Perkins, Roemer, & Snodgrass, 1992; Haack, Craven, & Jampoler, 1996; Bocco & Sanzhez, 1995).

Those that work with one another in an organization must be able to speak with each other on a level that is understandable to both parties and where information technology and information systems are concerned this is sometimes difficult (Gerland, 1996). One reason for this is that some people simply have much more knowledge of information systems and how technology actually works than others do. These individuals may speak over the heads of those who do not have as much technological knowledge and therefore those without this knowledge will become confused or feel as though they are being treated inappropriately. Even though this may not be the intention of the more technologically advanced individual, how someone perceives what they are told is often as significant, if not more significant, then what is originally said in the first place.