Back to the IntraNet main page

By Mark Gibbs
IntraNet, 2/23/98

"Lack of homogeneity in speed of information movement creates diversity of patterns in organization. It is quite predictable, then, that any new means of moving information will alter any power structure whatever. So long as the new means is everywhere available at the same time, there is a possibility that the structure may be changed without breakdown. Where there are great discrepancies in speeds of movement, as between air and travel or between telephone and typewriter, serious conflicts occur within organizations."

- Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man

No matter how your intranet started, employees have undoubtedly raised a number of questions regarding ownership. Who is responsible for the intranet? Who owns it? Who has access rights, and at what level?

The usual answer to the intranet ownership issue is that control lies with the IT group first and then with those departments that have the best relationship with that group. It comes down to territorial issues and political agendas. For example, if the chief information officer doesn't like the chief financial officer, chances are that the intranet will provide lesser service to the accounting department than it does to, say, human resources.

However, if HR started its own intranet, than an IT department with political clout would probably charge in wearing virtual jackboots and claim ownership. The implied danger of some other group usurping IT's area of dominance and expertise is intolerable.

When the political balance is not in IT's favor, there could be a major corporate problem. If IT can't exercise the control it feels appropriate, it may be uncooperative with those needing technical help with the intranet, thus engendering bad feelings among departmental peers.

But the consequence of an intranet is at least significant and always enduring. The intranet phenomenon exemplifies McLuhan's theory: This information tool provides a new means of moving information far faster than previous solutions.

New thinking about the meaning of content, new ideas about the relevance of information and new imperatives of ownership come in the wake of an intranet going public. McLuhan could have been writing his diversity of patterns theory about intranets.

The previous computing evolutions, from mainframes to minis to PCs and then to LANs, differ significantly from the intranet phenomenon. When the former computing platforms emerged, they weren't "everywhere available at the same time," as McLuhan would say. Rather, they appeared first in strategic business operations and eventually became more commonplace.

The reincarnation of data-processing departments as MIS operations and then as IT groups changed corporate power structures. True to McLuhan's words, serious conflicts arose - in this case, when data-processing managers morphed into far more powerful CIOs and caused a redistribution of power in boardrooms.

But for all the upheaval, this evolution has served corporations well. It introduced a focus on organizing and optimizing business processes that is essentially the foundation of modern business.

Now intranets have become so powerful that not making them a general service within the corporation could create, as McLuhan predicted, serious conflicts in the organizational matrix.

It's critical not to create dangerous political schisms with other groups and, as a crucial side effect, not to erode IT's value and importance. It's imperative, then, to ensure that intranets are ubiquitous and democratic, and that means making sure everyone can access the intranet and provide content for it.

The bottom line: To maintain IT's strategic corporate role in the era of intranets, IT managers have to orient themselves to the supply of generic service rather than to the provision of spot high-tech applications. The "new" IT must ensure that intranet service is easily available, that intranet content is relevant and that intranet users can publish what they think is important and find what they need.

IT's new context will be crucial to corporate power structures. Lest you think otherwise, just consider that the newest corporate role - chief knowledge officer - arises out of intranets. But this role isn't necessarily or usually an IT function. It's possible that it could be filled by one of any number of disciplines that might do little or nothing to maintain IT's authority. In such an environment, influence matters.

And one of the truisms in corporate life is that once you've had high political authority and you lose it, you run the risk of never regaining it.

For IT, the key to maintaining the corporate status quo is enlightenment and the willingness and ability to act on that insight. Realize that rolling out an intranet for the whole corporation and allowing users to manage their own data resources permits them freedom while granting greater authority to IT.

The era when IT could call the shots with impunity is coming to an end. If you intend for IT to remain in authority, you will need to reposition what you do and how you do it. As Kenneth Blanchard, coauthor of The One Minute Manager put it: "The key to successful leadership today is influence, not authority.''

Mail your political agendas to imcolumn@gibbs.com or get on the soapbox at (800) 622-1108, Ext. 7504.