The IT Organization Challenge

at
Categories
Tags

 

Case Change Exercise

Build a Case for Change using the Scenario below.
A case for change is a compelling business case for change that communicates the organizational and personal motivations for change and the urgency for change.
• What are we changing and what is not changing?
• Why are we changing it?
• What’s in it for me?
• What are the consequences of not changing?
Submission should be 1 page long.

Scenario:
Change in an IT Project Scenario
You are a manager in the IT department and the CIO has assigned you to manage the transition to change out IT infrastructure and software. The organization is currently ¬using MS Office, now moving everything to Google Suite. The organization hasn’t practiced good application portfolio management so there are multiple versions of MS Office being used and some of the departments have bought their own MS enterprise licenses. When Windows 7 was sunsetted a few years ago, the changes were not communicated well, and several departments lost key documents. There is no central repository for information, many documents are not backed up and some are on personal PC.
Current State
The operating system we have now is no longer supported. Licenses for software will no longer support, no upgrades, no tech support, have to invest in a new system. This will mean a major change in infrastructure and support for Office products.
The risk
The move to Google Suite has not been well researched, the CIO went to a conference and talked to other CIO’s who made the change to Google. There are a lot of unknowns, including feasibility, security, conversion, and not much IT governance.

 

The IT Organization Challenge
• This is a company that is based in Bellevue that started 5 years ago, created by 4 people doing similar work for a larger organization. They had a small office for a couple of years, then expanded and opened an office in Fremont last year. There are three people who moved to Portland and are trying to open an office there.

• When the company expanded, they didn’t add any layers of management, so team leaders are supervising a team of 30 people or more. The workspaces are open workspaces and the company uses the term “adaptative leadership” but this means that people must work things out for themselves. Some haven’t seen their supervisor in months.

• The CIO wanted to make sure this had enough time, so she chose October as the cutover month. There hasn’t been any project management planning to see how long this would actually take to implement.

• Most of the company uses Microsoft products. They use Outlook for email, SharePoint for document storage, and Skype for instant messaging and video meetings. Some workgroups have figured out how to use Microsoft Teams and have installed their own version using personal email accounts to set it up. There have been numerous complaints about SharePoint because each site looks different and there is no consistency from site to site.

• When the CIO brought you the idea, she said she wanted to try out a pilot this time. This was always brought up, but there was either no time or it got started but not finished.

Sample Solution

Robert Filmer and Thomas Hobbes were two of the greatest advocates for outright government of their age. While both were supportive of absolutism as well as complete control given to the particular sovereign, the premise of their thinking varies essentially. Robert Filmer asserted that outright government comes from the man centric rule, endorsed by God himself. Filmer accepts Adam was the principal patriarch, and was allowed power over his youngsters, with each progressive family following this kind of level system(FIlmer 6-7). In like manner, Filmer perceives that families and towns will ultimately develop, making it challenging to follow or choose heredity of the first patriarch, and in these circumstances, patriarchs might meet up and settle on a sovereign. Filmer says that this choice isn’t exactly a choice individuals, but instead one of the “general” patriarch, God himself(Filmer 11). Filmer involves this male centric level framework as his avocation for outright government, as this is what God endorsed while affording Adam and succeeding patriarchs control over their particular families. Rulers ought to be given outright power since it is the desire of God in being conceded authority as a patriarch, and residents are basically relatives of this patriarch, so it is their inherent obligation to comply. Moreover, the Sovereign is limited by divine regulation and law of past decision patriarchs, and the individuals who defy will be legitimately rebuffed cruelly by God(Filmer 11).

While Filmer contends for Absolutism based on God, Thomas Hobbes, one more absolutist advocate, contends this thought as an option to the “condition of nature” in what man lived in before coordinated government. This condition of nature was one of flimsiness, and brimming with rebellion, as men are normally self-interested(Hobbes 112). Hobbes accepts that legislatures were framed regardless to carry soundness to this condition of nature. The sovereign and individuals have a kind of agreement guaranteeing security and insurance, and this security may just be accomplished through all out dutifulness to the sovereign(Hobbes Chap. 30). In submitting to the sovereign, individuals are in principle complying with themselves. The sovereign is the sole official, and it is individuals’ authoritative obligation to obey(Hobbes 176). Hobbes perceives that a sovereign might settle on choices negative to some; notwithstanding, individuals should keep these choices, as their results are without a doubt more great than man getting back to a fighting state as he accepts man lived in preceding laid out government(Hobbes 138,144).

On one more finish of the political range, John Locke and his Second Composition of Government straightforwardly disprove the favorable to absolutist contentions made by Robert Filmer and Thomas Hobbes. Toward the finish of the primary part of this work, Locke lays out political power as an organization bearing far more noteworthy obligations than both of his ancestors accepted. Political power was neither the desire of god, nor was it brown-nose

This question has been answered.

Get Answer