Dual Alignment Framework

The interplay between the two potentially conflicting systems, can be decomposed by defining the alignment framework (see figure 4.3). In the figure 4.2, example we represent interaction of two systems i.e. current business system and the new technological system. If the current business system can change then this can achieve this on the left-hand side of the model, however if not change is permitted within the business these paths cannot be used. If the new system changes then we can achieve this on the right-hand side of model. If the person is unwilling to change then the right had paths cannot be used. If, however, there is mutual change, i.e. both systems are possibly changing in parts to find a mutual alignment, then changes on both sides of the framework are required (at the same time) in order to find mutual alignment (see figure 4.3).

The four possible ‘routes of alignment’ are represented below. The states within each route are stated and the left / right divide is represented by a forward slash. Routes include: Existing alignment (IT-FT-TT-A / TF-TT-A – route 1); Technology misalignment (IT-FT-TT /

TI-TF-TT – route 1); Formal misalignment (IT-FT-FF / TI-TF-FF – route 2); Informal misalignment (IT-IF-II / TI-FI-II route 3) – see figure 4.3. Flow moves towards the central alignment ladder, and reaches full alignment if informal, formal, and technical alignment can be reached.

Figure 4.3: Dual Alignment Framework for Identifying Possible Conflicts

Existing Alignment (TI-TF-TT-A and IT-FT-TT-A, route 1)

TI-TF-TT-A and IT-FT-TT-A reflects respectively the left and right aspect routes to perfect alignment. To reach mutual alignment, technology solutions should align, and not conflict with, informal norms (people’s behaviour, meaning that the technology should not limit informal interactivity, since technology is dependent on the informal level. If no conflict exists between technology and informal norms, then the technology should be checked to see if it conflicts with formal rules and processes. For example, the technology should not limit formal structures or break organisational rules, since technology should support the activity within, nor impose upon, formal structures. If technology tools align (i.e. no conflict exist between technologies or solutions within state TT), then it can be said that alignment has been achieved (see figure 4.3).

Most organisations prefer to adopt new technologies that minimise the impact to existing technical systems, business processes, and users’ behaviour (Duffield & Whitty, 2016). For example, if an Oracle database system requires upgrading, i.e. in order to continue support

service by a software provider, it is most likely that a new/upgraded version of the original Oracle database system will be implemented within the current business system to minimise upset / retraining, etc. Hopefully by minimising change business processes are able to operate without disruption, and other software systems that integrate will continue to function effectively without a need for technical realignment.

Technology Misalignment (TI-TF-TT and IT-FT-TT, route 1)

Technology misalignment occurs when informal and formal structures conflict, and technology solutions conflict with informal and formal structures. Technology solutions have the capacity to conflict with current business systems. For example, the current business systems may not be compatible with the new processes that take place with the new technology solutions. To reach mutual alignment, the technology solutions in opposing aspects should not conflict with informal activities and formal processes. Moreover, the current organisational system should not limit informal and formal activities in the technology. In the model (see figure 4.3), TI-TF-TT and IT-FT-TI-TF-TT reflects respectively the alignment required in left and right aspects of the routes to a point where only technology misalignment occurs (i.e. TT).

Since the technology used within opposing system should support, and not conflict with the informal and formal structures, it is important to align technology norms. If, however, the technical solutions used by opposing aspects do not align, then a process of technical alignment is required. If no changes to formal and/or informal structures is required, technology developers, such as IT developers, can achieve technology alignment without the need for business process reengineering and/or changes to the management mechanisms.

A technology misalignment, as the example, might relate to the data format use to communicate between the current software system and the new technology solution. Technical conflicts would occur if the new system did not offer options to customise this data format. In this circumstance, the modification of the current system is needed, in order to communicate with the new technology solution. No change is required with informal and formal activities / processes, only modification in data format would be required. Once alignment is achieved within the TT state, we can claim to have successfully achieved systems alignment (A).

Formal Misalignment (TI-TF-FF /IT-FT-FF, route 2)

Formal misalignment occurs, when informal structures do not conflict, for example when the two systems (e.g. the current and new systems) are based on the same belief and social structures, and use the same informal behaviours, however formal structures and/or technical solutions have the possibility to be in conflict. To reach mutual alignment, the technical norms in one aspect, should not conflict with the informal norms in the other, i.e. the technology should not limit informal interactivity, since technology is very much dependent on the informal level.

The technical solutions in the opposing aspects however, may conflict with the formal process.

For example, the new technology solution may require changes in a process to function successfully, which means the current system cannot serve the current business users. To address this misalignment, formal rules need to be changed / aligned (in state FF) to ensure the technology of one aspect does not break the rules of the other. If formal and technology alignment cannot be achieved (i.e. passing up through states FF and TT), then alignment may not be possible.

For example, the current business system operates on 5-working days. The new technology solution comes with a 7-day operational model, which brings about a conflict between the formal process used in the software and the current business system. To solve this problem, the organisation may decide to customise the new technology or change the business model. If the software is to be change, the technical elements i.e. programming code of the new technology, may require costly customisation to support the agreed formal 5 day working week.

Informal Misalignment (TI-FI-II /IT-IF-II, route 3)

To reach mutual alignment, the informal norms in both aspects should not conflict. Informal misalignment occurs when technical and formal norms of one aspect conflicts with the informal norms of the other aspect. If informal misalignment were to occur, then alignment of informal norms is required in state II (see figure 4.3). Once alignment has been achieved within the II state; the formal and technical alignment, within states FF and TT must be checked before total alignment (i.e. A) can be achieved.

Bank A, for example, might decide to enhance security of all processes. As part of this it decides to adopt multi-factor authentication mechanism, which requires the physical presence of the customer, yet this may conflict with current informal processes. Informal processes within Bank A, would have to be changed to support the use of additional security technologies.

Formal processes would have to be changed to manage use of additional authentication factors, and technical systems would also need to be changed, to allow for security devices and additional authentication services. If changes to technical and/or formal norms is not possible, then inclusion of the new technology will not be possible.

4.2.3 Summary Concerning Dual Aspect Model and Dual Alignment Framework