Revised Stages Of Organizational Growth Essay

The revised stages of organizational growth in relation to information technology proposed by Sutherland and Galliers (1991) are mentioned below:

Stage one Adhocracy: It is at this stage that all companies growth began. This stage describes the uncontrolled, specific use of IT that are usually common with start-up companies. The only strategy at this stage is to get hardware and software. Acquisition of IT staff and enhancement of IT skills throughout the organization are generally disregarded here by management but instead outsourced it to external suppliers by the CEO to supply standard packages and develop specific applications with little consideration on how the IT can affect the organization nor the appropriate infrastructure to manage

But as indicated there is a need for a revised version of the growth model presented by Galliers & Sutherland (1991). This is because Nolan in his model did not prove enough reality, or described in depth the stages through which organizations go through when utilizing IT which is contrary to the revised model because Galliers and Sutherland (1991) explained in detailed the stages of organizational growth in IT and highlighted some implications involved in each stage and how it can be implemented in an economy cycle as presented

Another model presented by Earl (1989), pointed out the changing facts for information systems planning which emphasized on what is considered as the primary purpose of the planning process. This model needed to be revised as the stage of planning according to Sutherland and Galliers (1991) is essential in the growth stages and this stages needed strategic thinking not strategic planning. Also, Bhabuta (1988), model attempted to plan the growth towards the strategic planning of information systems. This model was more diverse than other models such as that of, Nolan and Earl with it sole objective trying to put together elements of strategy formulation, information systems and the techniques in which the information systems aspect is been managed. Referring to Mintzberg,’’strategic planning is not equivalent to strategic thinking, the first is analysis and the latter is synthesis respectively’’ (Mintzberg, 1994, p. 107). Relating this statement with the Bhabuta model, one can see that, Bhabuta model did not make a clear distinction between planning and strategic thinking which also makes the model not easy to understand by companies. Nevertheless, this model needed to be revised because, it is contradictory by trying to interpret it in the sense that the levels used are not