THE INFORMATION PLAN
FOR CELERITY ENTERPRISES, INC.
Case Analysis
There are several different factors in this case that could be analyzed. I have chosen to examine; the pros/cons of the organizational structure, the alignment of IS planning to the business planning process, the top-down/bottom up planning process and the SkillFull application.
Based on my experience and my education I have learned that the “one size fits all” technology organization that is perfect for all businesses does not exist. Technology organizations must be correctly modeled to fit into the organization they are part of. At Celerity, they have two organizations, IS Support and IS Automation. Support is responsible for communications (administrative and technical), research utilities, and sales/customer service technologies. IS Automation is responsible for any technology that is on the factory floor or supports the factory processes.
The idea of having two separate technology organizations comes close to matching what the textbook refers to as a “Federal or Hybrid IT Organization”[1], although not quite. In a hybrid IS organization common functions are managed centrally and functions specific to a particular business unit are managed at the business unit level. But, as evidenced in the organization chart (see appendix 1), Celerity did not have a formal connection between the IS Support and IS Automation. The lack of this connection could lead to more complex communication issues, scheduling issues, infighting, and duplication of efforts. In this case these issues didn’t seem to surface, probably because both IS Support and IS Automation were brought into the process early and supported the project. I would have a formal connection between the Support and the Automation groups. Mainly, because if IS Automation’s tasks rely heavily on IS Support’s ability to deliver a stable infrastructure. If Automation works a project that requires updated communication...