Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Organization history
Softhouse was founded in the late 1980s by four information technology specialists, and quickly developed a consultancy and software capability that covered many areas of public administration in England. Historically, public sector organizations in the UK had developed their own administrative software in-house. But increasingly over the last decade it became obvious that these organizations had neither the resources nor the skills to cope with the rapidly expanding technology needed for their administrative upkeep. Softhouse therefore took advantage of an opportunity and innovated by way of high quality software solutions. In the first four years, although Softhouses skills, product and experience grew, the client base was slower in doing so. However, in 1993 Softhouse formed a strategic alliance with a larger, more established competitor. This partnership meant that the software and services could be expanded and developed for the increasingly compliant market. This alliance was designed to provide professional finance, personnel, resource and customer relationship management systems to public bodies. Softhouse worked as a development, consultancy and help desk provider, while its partner managed marketing and sales. In 1998, Softhouse opened a new local office to handle the increasing number of new clients. The Scottish office provided training courses and customer support, and was
the centre for web operations and development for the company. The year 1998 also saw the first public institution outside the UK join the list of customers. During the period of its joint venture, Softhouse grew substantially, with the number of public organizations served by its software growing from a handful to in excess of 50 by 1999. By February of 2000, the strategic alliance had come to an end. From that point on, Softhouse took on the functions that its partner had previously brought to the alliance, and also began to develop replacements for the areas of the suite of software that had been developed by its partner. These new aspects to the company, and also the continued growth of the client base, now mean that Softhouse is the market leader in the provision of records systems for public administration in the UK. It now employs over 50 people. The company turnover is over 2 million per year and increasing.
There is also a widespread feeling that development productivity has not grown at the rate that could have been expected. It is true that Softhouses development productivity has not grown in proportion to the number of programmers. It is not clear whether this is due to decreased efficiency or issues relating to growth and scale, or whether it is simply unrealistic to expect to maintain past expectations.
The base premises are built on two levels, and functions are grouped together in an open-plan office. However, there is some separation between upstairs and down-stairs groups, and communication between floors is not always good. There are also some problems of communication with the Scottish office, whose staff feel that they are sometimes out of sight, out of mind. Communication is mainly informal and ad hoc, and formal meetings are rare. Being a technology company, the predominant form of communication is e-mail. Staff often communicate with colleagues via e-mail, even if they sit next to one another. Face-toface communication is sometimes difficult as some staff are constantly out seeing new or prospective customers, and the situation resembles ships that pass in the night.
Management Capability
Of the four directors, three have a technical background in information technology, and one has a background in sales and marketing. The Managing Director managed a large IT function at his previous organization and is therefore used to acting in a managerial capacity. The Sales Director is most comfortable when out on the road selling to customers and is rarely seen in the office. He communicates with staff mainly by telephone and e-mail. The other two directors are very talented technically and most at home when solving technical problems. The Board seems sometimes to lack cohesion and teamwork. None of its members has been formally trained in directorial responsibilities, and their management development has largely been ignored. There is general agreement that the directors role should be to determine the organizations mission, vision, objectives and general strategy, and to represent the company externally with key stakeholders. However, many lower-level staff feel that, in practice, the directors become involved with too much day-to-day problem solving, prefer the technical challenges to their managerial responsibilities, and are often difficult to contact and liaise with on issues of management and policy. This leads to the whole organization managing one level down from what should really be happening. Beneath the directors are eight staff members who have been identified as managers, although they have no formal job titles or descriptions. These managers have not been selected primarily because of their managerial skills or potential, but rather because they are all excellent at the technical aspects of their jobs and are among the longestserving personnel. They feel that they have been expected to carry out the managerial role without sufficient consultation on their personal needs and aspirations. Not all are sure that they actually want to be managers. However, while one or two say that they need further time to reflect on what they really want from their lives and careers, most say that they accept the need to expand the managerial aspect of their roles, and require some additional skills to do so. However, they would not wish to leave behind the technical aspect of their roles, since this is what gives them the greatest motivation and personal satisfaction. The managers appreciate that these dilemmas mirror those of the directors themselves.
They have been used to working in an informal, organic way, and are reluctant to over bureaucratize the company. However, the eight managers agree that there needs to be a layer of management below the directors to coordinate and control operations. The managers appreciate that they need some management training and development, but feel that before the company can proceed with a training programme, the roles, duties and responsibilities, extent and limits of authority, and boundaries with those of the directors must be clarified. Although there is no clear consensus, some participants feel that a flexible, written job description and statement of key accountabilities would be useful. They also agree that their roles will be affected and to some extent defined by the way that the directors operate. The directors realize the need to put some degree of formality into the organization in terms of structure, roles, procedures and controls, but do not wish the company to become overly bureaucratic and to lose the very things that have made it successful so far. There is much discussion of the need for balance but little agreement on where the balance lies.
The product development teams see themselves as the most important function in the organization, which can lead to some internal tensions with other functions. There is little awareness of the concept of internal customers, which can result in the interface with external customers being adversely affected. Despite efforts by the directors to develop a team-based culture, teamworking awareness and skills are generally at a fairly low level.
Knowledge Management
One issue that seems to have become increasingly problematic in recent years is that of legacy software. Once it is written, software requires supporting, enhancing and the occasional fix applying to it. In the past, the individual who wrote the software has generally done any future work concerning that particular area of the software. As the organization has matured, roles and faces have changed. It can no longer be taken for granted that the person who wrote a program will be sitting nearby with the time to answer any queries. With the number of queries generated by clients and the number of developments in progress, the company must begin to share the knowledge that has 6
previously been held by just one employee. Softhouse must learn to make its collective knowledge and experience a shareable commodity within the organization. But despite its capability in designing systems for its clients, knowledge management is not well developed at Softhouse itself. There is an intranet system that enables information to be passed on and shared, but the culture is such that little actual sharing takes place, since knowledge is seen as a source of power, status and importance. The geographical dispersion on two sites, and the fact that many of the staff servicing existing and new client accounts are rarely in the office, compounds this problem. This not only leads to some inevitable reinventing the wheel, but also to a damaging lack of coordination and information, impacting on the speed and accuracy of dealing with client queries and requests.