The Impact of Computers on the Work Organisation:Centralisation or Decentralisation?
| Date | 01 November 1984 |
| Pages | 13-15 |
| Published date | 01 November 1984 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb057382 |
| Author | Christopher J. Rowe |
| Subject Matter | Economics,Information & knowledge management,Management science & operations |
The Impact of
Computers on
the Work
Organisation:
Centralisation or
Decentralisation?
by Christopher J. Rowe
Humberside College of Higher Education
Ever since computers arrived on the industrial scene in the
1950s a debate has taken place as to their effect on the
structure of work organisations. During this time the nature
of the technology itself has changed dramatically, and a ma-
jor concern has been whether such changes have resulted
in greater centralisation or decentralisation with regard to
company management.
The first generation of large mainframe computers certain-
ly acted as a centralising force within companies. As ap-
plications needed to be co-ordinated, the expertise of staff
maximised,
and responsibility for the service located within
a particular division, the function had to be centralised.
Those large enough to afford, and justify, such a machine
usually created a separate group of specialist staff — a com-
puter services department — to take charge of all opera-
tions.
This involved systems analysts, programmers and
operators located under a computer manager who was in-
variably answerable to the financial director. In larger, multi-
site companies, this was usually located at head office so
that computer staff developed direct access to senior and
top management. The fact that the department was involved
in spending considerable sums on the company's behalf also
enhanced its prestige and power. Operations too had a
cen-
tralising effect, since batch processing (whereby data was
batched at site level and sent to head office) did not par-
ticularly disrupt the work patterns of clerical staff. In prac-
tice,
as Crozier writes:
"Computers were used as a new tool to solve the pro-
blems of the past rather than of the future. Little
con-
sideration was given to they key social and organisational
innovations that would foilow"[1].
The computer services department worked in relative isola-
tion at the apex of the organisation, providing largely finan-
cial information for senior and top management.
The arrival of cheaper minicomputers and the development
of on-line terminals to mainframes had a "decentralising"
effect in the sense that machines could now be purchased
at departmental/site level and operators could be directly
involved in the in-putting of data. A larger range of staff par-
ticipated in computer operations and a greater volume of
data was generated within the organisation.
Today, with the emergence of microcomputers this has ad-
vanced a stage further, in that machines containing the
equivalent power of the early mainframes can be placed (at
a modest price) on the desk of every manager, and not on-
ly can these be used for accounting applications, but also
stock control, sales orders, production planning etc. Many
suggest this acts as a "democratising" force within com-
panies, providing a much wider range of information at all
points of the company; permitting greater involvement in
decision-making; and producing swifter and more effective
decisions.
In one sense any form of computerised system has an
"unveiling",
and thereby democratising effect for, as Crozier
notes,
the logic of computer-based systems is to encourage
open and equal access to information, for managers are
forced to express decision processes explicitly so they can
be handled by software programs. But this may not result
in practice. Such developments cut across the traditional,
hierarchical, bureaucratic structure, and computers come
to disturb the very decision-making procedures they are sup-
posed to assist. They have to be incorporated into existing
institutions, and if managers feel they are being forced to
change (and feel their power base is threatened) they will
cling to established procedures. This may include top
management who become reluctant to release information
that has traditionally been their prerogative. Thus the com-
puter becomes superimposed on the existing framework
which reinforces the status quo and ossifies conservative
forms of decision-making. While managers might believe
computers will "magically" deal with complexity, in prac-
tice they add to it: computer technology can become the
agent of consolidation rather than change.
Microcomputers do not therefore necessarily result in either
greater centralisation or decentralisation: this depends on
the particular company and is a matter for managerial
choice. As Francis and Willman observe:
"At one extreme there will be the possibility of very close
monitoring of all individual operations and operating a
central system of co-ordination to control the entire net-
IMDS • NOVEMBER/DECEMBER • 1984 13
To continue reading
Request your trial