This paper examines Alcan's technology infrastructure management strategy, comparing the decentralized system in place before 2006 with the centralized approach proposed by Vice President of Corporate IT Robert Ouellette. The analysis evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of each model, including factors such as cost efficiency, data security, organizational control, and business alignment. The paper concludes with recommendations for a hybrid approach that balances centralized governance with selective local autonomy to optimize both performance and responsiveness to market demands.
Alcan is a Canadian-based company whose primary business is metal production and processing. The organization deals with a wide variety of materials, including "bauxite, smelter-grade alumina, sheet ingot, extrusion billet, wire ingot, forging stock, beverage can sheet, automobile iron, aluminum recycling services, fabricated products such as wire and cable, and flexible and specialty packaging" (Dube, Bernier, & Roy, 2009). The company employs roughly 68,000 people and is considered a multi-billion dollar organization. While headquartered in Canada, Alcan conducts business worldwide.
In recent years, the company has undergone significant changes in its technology infrastructure programs. This analysis examines both the company's previous decentralized IT structure and the new centralized approach introduced in 2006. A comparison of the two models, along with an evaluation of their respective advantages and disadvantages, provides insight into the strategic choices facing large multinational organizations. Additional recommendations are offered to help the company optimize its technology governance while maintaining operational responsiveness.
Before 2006, Alcan's technology infrastructure was highly decentralized. The organization experienced a lengthy period without a Director of Corporate IT, during which every business group operated with complete independence. Each division maintained its own strategic IT plan and independent infrastructure needs, creating a fragmented organizational IT landscape.
This situation changed when Robert Ouellette joined Alcan in January 2006 as Vice President of Corporate IT. His arrival marked a turning point for the company's technology strategy. Before exploring Ouellette's new vision, however, it is important to understand both the strengths and weaknesses of the decentralized model that preceded him.
The decentralized structure at Alcan provided several significant benefits to the organization. First, it afforded autonomy to individual business groups, allowing each division to respond quickly to its own strategic and operational needs. The IT systems themselves reflected the organizational structure, making technology closely aligned with the business units that depended on it.
The physical distribution of data offered performance and reliability advantages. Data could be placed close to the departments that used it most frequently, improving access speeds and system responsiveness. When failures occurred at one site, they did not cascade across the entire organization—each location maintained independent systems and backups, making data more reliable overall. Additionally, the decentralized approach kept data and processing costs low by eliminating unnecessary long-distance transmission.
Rule-setting and data governance could be enforced locally, and data could be replicated across multiple sites for additional safety. The system demonstrated flexibility in adapting to unique local requirements and market conditions.
The cons of the present system at Alcan were substantial. First, the decentralized structure was costly to maintain across the entire organization. IT management was not tightly aligned with overall business strategy, making it difficult to coordinate investments or prioritize enterprise-wide initiatives.
The system suffered from significant technological diversity and complexity. Replication of systems across multiple sites made the environment even more complex to manage. Procurement and maintenance costs were higher because the company could not negotiate volume discounts or leverage economies of scale. Data stored in different locations became difficult to control, and the network itself became more vulnerable to security breaches. Data validity and integrity became challenging to maintain across distributed systems, and there was no standardized Alcan information system architecture (Meaden & Whelan, 2012).
"High costs, complexity, misalignment with strategy, security challenges"
The new centralized model offered significant structural and operational benefits. The system would clearly define the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder, with the Chief Information Officer directly responsible for his management team. This created a clearer chain of command and stronger, more direct control at the top of the organization (Dube, Bernier, & Roy, 2009).
Greater cohesion between business objectives and technological strategy became possible under centralized governance. The new infrastructure would promote expertise sharing, connections among projects, optimal use of specialists, and reuse of resources across the enterprise. Standardization of practices and norms enabled economies of scale, allowing a single computer or cluster of computers to serve the needs of hundreds of users. A small team of skilled programmers could handle user support across the entire organization rather than replicating programming staff in each division.
Central management gained control over outsourcing strategy, which had previously consumed a large portion of the IT budget. Computer interfaces could be controlled centrally, making it relatively easy to enforce security standards and organizational policies across the enterprise. The company could negotiate volume discounts with suppliers and consolidate licenses, further reducing per-unit costs.
Disadvantages of the Centralized Approach
Despite its benefits, the centralized model introduced new vulnerabilities. Significant computing resources would be dedicated to controlling job streams and managing the central system. The organization would become entirely reliant on central computers, creating a single point of failure. If the telecommunications line to the central server failed, large-scale disruption across the entire organization was possible (Meaden & Meaden, 2012).
Software complexity and costs in the new system would increase substantially. Processing overheads might rise due to the burden of managing centralized operations. Paradoxically, even though centralization promised greater control over data, data integrity could actually be compromised if the central system experienced problems or if the scope of centralized management exceeded the team's capacity.
"Balanced approach preserving local control while centralizing governance"
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.