1.3.1. The days of the pioneers

The first step relates to the 1960–1980s. It begins with the exploratory work of the pioneers. Punched card data processing is a set of mechanical techniques which enabled companies to start the industrial processing of information. This process was based on the use of punched cards or tape in purpose-built technical devices. The head of the punched card department (PCD), later known as head of the administrative and punched card department, has staked a place in the annals of history for having automated repetitive tasks, and specifically, for establishing accounting, payroll and invoicing in a role that generally, rather oddly, answered to the Chief Accountant. By the end of this first stage, the Systems Manager had the job title of Computer Manager. On the organizational chart, more often than not, they were placed under the Finance Director. From the point of view of instruments offered by the IS, the Computer Manager implemented applications that everyone readily accepted as complex and advanced.

Value creation was then obtained by optimizing IT resources for each business function taken in isolation (sales, manufacturing, purchasing, etc.), for each level of decision-making (strategic, tactical, operational). The creative and innovative vision of information systems was thus “internal” and limited, but well-suited to the functional structure model implemented by the vast majority of companies. This conceptual approach in silos led to the development of adapted IT tools and also to the implementation of IS that were virtually hermetically sealed (see Chapter 5, Anthony’s Pyramid). The era of the pioneers was marked by two phases, leading to the stakeholders in the IT function seeing the importance of their role recognized in hierarchical terms. The appearance of a computer manager liaising directly with the financial management team and the creation of the first team of computer operators to cover data input operations, previously overseen by the Chief Accountant, illustrates this.

1.3.2. The birth of the information systems manager, a change in status

The second stage happened in the 1980s and 1990s. This stage saw the advent of the “Systems Manager” or even the “Systems Administrator”. This role involved working with operational users towards achieving an information system with application functions that would contribute to making an improvement in working conditions. IS were in demand especially for their capacity to provide a basis for decision-making (advent of decision support systems – DSS, or intelligent decision support systems – IDSS). Value creation was achieved in this case by improved performance by the organization in its market(s). The “internal” vision of the IS of the 1960s to the 1980s extended to the notion of improving external performance. Massive use of an IT and telecommunications structure is proof of this and resulted in the emergence, followed by rapid and massive roll-out, of ICT in every organizational function within the business and all levels of the hierarchy. The attachment of the IT function to upper management shows the extent to which the role in itself had evolved: the information systems manager, promoted to operations director, sits on the Executive Committee on a fairly regular basis.

The 1990s and 2000s confirmed this shift, and recent years have seemingly intensified it. The emergence of the post of “Systems Manager”, “Information Systems Manager” or “Director of IS Governance”, and the involvement of the head of the IS function on the company’s Executive Committee or Board of Directors, represent significant stages in this change of status of computer managers. Systemic features reinforce this evolution, confirming the strategic position of the computer manager. Recent regulatory changes that are very restrictive in terms of IS management (Sarbanes–Oxley Act – SOX in the USA, the “loi de Sécurité financière” – LSF in France, Basel 2 for banks, etc.) and the proliferation of good governance benchmarks for IS (Control Objectives for Information and related Technology – COBIT, Information Technology Infrastructure Library – ITIL, IT Scorecard, ValIT, International Organization for Standardization – ISO 1799, etc.) present many constraints, and it is vital to be aware of and to keep abreast of all of them.

In conclusion, we can reflect upon the emergence of a director of computer resources who sits alongside the director of human resources and the director of financial resources. This title opens the way to professionalizing the concept of value creation attached to IS and the establishment of boards of directors that include the strategic management aspect of IS. The introduction of the Chief Digital Officer (CDO) – in other words, a decision-making stakeholder attached to the board with a cross-disciplinary version – is an indication of this change. Historic recruitments of computer managers or CDOs are the observation criteria of this new trend.

History also highlights a change in the relationship between information systems and value creation. First of all, technological change was responsible for redrawing organizational boundaries and encouraging stakeholders to reconsider value creation. Next, information systems’ impact shifted and began to drive new forms of value creation within the organization. More recently, the user relationship is now attracting particular attention for its inherent value potential.

1.3.3. Organizing functions around IS governance

According to the French school of thought, IS stakeholders can be categorized into two groups: project owners and project managers (see Part 2). The project owner brings together the functions that deal with the organization’s core business activity. The project manager brings together the functions that deal with computing. The major managerial problem with this distinction lies in establishing communication between stakeholders who do not speak the same language and do not have the same points of reference. Moreover, project owners and project managers have hierarchical structures, and it is necessary, indeed vital, to establish an appropriate correspondence between the two areas.

Communication between project owners and project managers has for a long time been characterized by different languages and defensive attitudes, a kind of mutual incomprehension institutionalized by preoccupations, culture and skills that are industry-focused for some and IT-focused for others. For as long as IT management consisted of developing tools to facilitate the automation of repetitive tasks and the production of reports, the quality of communication with business managers caused no real issues. Thus, the IT manager could have a relationship characterized by strong interdependence but in which liaison with end users was limited to supervisory functions, and the decision-makers could have no direct involvement in IS.

As the IS became responsible for increasingly complex functions and the services expected of it continued to evolve, it became necessary to clarify the relationship between project owner and project manager. On the project owner’s side, an effort to align structurization with client need began to manifest itself. This became firmly established with the creation of a new function: project owner support, the role of which consists partly in bridging the attitude gap and overcoming the language barrier. Project owner support is delivered by a stakeholder who helps the project owner define their needs and draw up a specification for the project manager. In parallel, on the project manager’s side, efforts to market IS services have taken shape and grown. This focus on the design of IS services – just as the marketing function designs products aimed at the end user – took the form of the creation of project manager assistant (PMA) positions, of user interfaces and of customer domains, whose role lies in taking the final steps towards reaching an understanding between IS service providers and the clients, the IS users.

These new functions and the new stakeholders made it possible to greatly enrich and improve the relationship between project owner and project manager, creating a complex and effective structure of operational interfaces between all business areas and project leaders in project management. In conclusion, the roll-out of these new resources led to an improvement in the relationship and a closing of the gap between IS director and IS service users, while increasing the number of stakeholders involved in the development of IS. Also, it led at the same time to a redistribution of roles and skills among all these stakeholders.

The introduction of new stakeholders led quite rapidly to a global redistribution of roles and skills in IS organization. A significant factor in building the bridge between project owner and project was the establishment of liaison with an IS administrator, extending functional organization to project ownership, with a specialist from the project management team, in charge of the client domain. This represents a major change. The client has in front of them a stakeholder specialized in understanding the client’s business function, not a language, a platform or ICT; and this shows on the systems manager’s side a profound shift in the skills required and the application of these skills. The organizational structure has been enriched by this, and the relationships between the systems manager and their environment have been professionalized by the cross-search for operational synergies. De facto, relationships between project owner and project manager have become multiple and personalized.

This kind of organization sets out to identify the business functions and to develop a specific interface for each of them. The systems manager appears in this context as the organizer and the coordinator of a customer focus broken down into major business functions. Redistribution of the roles mentioned above goes hand in hand with the redistribution of skills. These skills can be split into three main levels. At the highest level, the systems manager–project manager has the ability to see the bigger picture covering all of the project owner functions, and provides a global response to the need to align IS performance across the whole of the organization’s value chain. At the intermediate level, the systems manager develops an IT architecture and information system that are in line with business function requirements as modeled in their complexity within an occupational or business architecture. Finally, at the third level, the systems manager implements the proposed architecture for IS services, thus integrating the conceptual and physical aspects, in other words, a higher profile in the carrying out of a task, an activity or a process by an end user, a client of the IS service. In this description, we find responses given to demands arising from the model put forward by the Gartner Group in the 1990s. This model basically consists of suggesting an alignment of project owner and project manager at three levels: the global value chain, the company’s choice of business organization and operational implementation. Adapting IS management to context has made it possible to develop new functions and new skills inhouse. It has also made it possible to professionalize its services and develop a multi-pronged approach.

The evolutionary stages of the IT governance models (project owner/manager) can be defined as follows:

1. 1) the two worlds are separate with a computer manager carrying out instructions;
2. 2) the two worlds ask each other questions and give each other answers with a service-oriented systems manager;
3. 3) the two worlds mix and interweave, with a systems manager who is a business partner and a service provider.

In summary, information systems managers are charged with orchestrating, within the IS governance framework, relationships with key function stakeholders:

• – the board of directors, which delegates the strategic management of IT to the systems manager, ensures that the systems manager sets up the appropriate governance bodies and contributes to IS management in line with its strategic plan;
• – operational business directors, who are clients of the IS management (sales director, marketing director, financial director, etc.). The operational directors own their IS and use it for their own needs. They contribute to managing the information systems in their area of responsibility and also the global information systems;
• – end users, who can be reached by identifying key users. In this case, consultations take place face to face. Liaison with end users can be routed through project owner support. Project owner support can help users formalize their needs in terms of Service Level Requests (SLRs), as well as tailor the Service Level Agreement (SLA) and take responsibility for Service Level Management. Finally, it can produce the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and train users. They can be involved either in the management of one dedicated IS or the management of a number of information systems.

1.3.4. Extending IS from internal stakeholders to external stakeholders

From this point on, no business activity can dispense with the utilization of IS resources (workstations, software, architecture, infrastructure, platforms, etc.). For each function, specific processes must be defined and supported between their providers and their own clients. In view of this, and even before considering all the organizational levels supported by the information system, there is a complex situation to be managed. The systems manager must be able to reach agreements between the executive and the directors on the one hand, and between the directors of the various functions on the other. This dual level of complexity requires serious thought in terms of IS stakeholder governance.

The stakeholders in IS governance are numerous, and they have objectives that seldom converge. However, the central, structural nature of IS means that they have to work together and find coherent organizational models. The cooperation to be implemented is tricky because it has to reconcile many levels of action and interaction. An attentive observer looking at an organization’s information system will see that the systems manager has to consider first of all the needs of the business in the strict sense, in other words, the needs of the internal clients, i.e. its board and its directors. The directors are tasked with developing the diverse range of skills that make up today’s organizations. But the systems manager’s job does not end there. A number of other strata of the business environment have to be added in turn to the global management of the system. The same applies in terms of taking responsibility for dealing with the end client and the network of distributor clients, suppliers and subcontractors, who these days are usually structured into different tiers of suppliers, external partners (banks, insurers, logistic providers, service providers and suppliers, etc.), government departments, shareholders, internal auditors and statutory auditors.

From a systemic perspective, we can, through Le Moigne’s work, see an organization’s information system as a subsystem of that organization [LEM 90]. But since the organization itself is a subsystem of a larger system, IS has to be conceived in an expanded, open mode. This means that the boundaries of IS management must be extended to external stakeholders (suppliers, customers, partners) engaged in the same value chain. Moreover, we have to take into account the interactions at play between the various levels. For example, stock management does not stop at local level analysis. IS could provide information on the stock of tier 1 suppliers and, by pursuing the same pattern, of suppliers’ suppliers (tier 2), and for the most critical products, the process can move further down the supply channels.

In conclusion, we can see that the issue of IS stakeholders is multi-dimensional. It can be a factor in matters relating to outsourcing, a pooling of resources and shared governance. In every case, the notion of the stakeholder should not be considered only from the human aspect. As regards its analysis objective, information systems science is obliged to include a socio-materialistic analysis that takes into account the links interwoven into the materiality of technical objects with the stakeholders who manipulate and sustain them.