Canadian Shield Case
Using the Accenture document on governance presented with the Alcan case, place Canadian Shield in the appropriate quadrant.
According to the Accenture document, I would place Canadian Shield within the efficient, predictable operator category. The slow rate of change and need to compete on operational efficiencies characterized by most companies in this quadrant is detailed by the following quote from the case authors. “Sustainability for Canadian insurance companies greatly depended on investments in projects that increased customer service and improved operational efficiency.” This comment is aligned with the predictable operator company practices and is evidence that in order to gain a competitive advantage in the Canadian insurance industry it is vital that operational efficiencies are realized through better IT solutions at Canadian Shield and its parent company, Assurance Centrale Inc. (AC).
In the key decision going forward, is this Seamus' call? If not, whose decision is it? Who should make the decision? Under what decision area(s) in the Weill & Ross governance model does this decision fall?
As the leader of Information Systems at Canadian Shield, one of many subsidiaries of Assurance Centrale, Seamus Reynolds was tasked with piloting a new information system that could potentially replace the IS’s at all of Assurance Centrale’s regional offices. Five years after starting this project he was feeling the weight of the responsibility for a project that could eventually transform the entire enterprise.
The executives at Canadian Shield and AC should have put together a team of knowledgeable IT professionals, business unit heads, and executives to make sure that the new IS would be selected, budgeted, and implemented properly. Instead they allowed one IT leader in a Calgary-based subsidiary to essentially determine the course of the entire enterprise’s information systems. This type of decision making identifies with the IT Monarchy type of
According to the Accenture document, I would place Canadian Shield within the efficient, predictable operator category. The slow rate of change and need to compete on operational efficiencies characterized by most companies in this quadrant is detailed by the following quote from the case authors. “Sustainability for Canadian insurance companies greatly depended on investments in projects that increased customer service and improved operational efficiency.” This comment is aligned with the predictable operator company practices and is evidence that in order to gain a competitive advantage in the Canadian insurance industry it is vital that operational efficiencies are realized through better IT solutions at Canadian Shield and its parent company, Assurance Centrale Inc. (AC).
In the key decision going forward, is this Seamus' call? If not, whose decision is it? Who should make the decision? Under what decision area(s) in the Weill & Ross governance model does this decision fall?
As the leader of Information Systems at Canadian Shield, one of many subsidiaries of Assurance Centrale, Seamus Reynolds was tasked with piloting a new information system that could potentially replace the IS’s at all of Assurance Centrale’s regional offices. Five years after starting this project he was feeling the weight of the responsibility for a project that could eventually transform the entire enterprise.
The executives at Canadian Shield and AC should have put together a team of knowledgeable IT professionals, business unit heads, and executives to make sure that the new IS would be selected, budgeted, and implemented properly. Instead they allowed one IT leader in a Calgary-based subsidiary to essentially determine the course of the entire enterprise’s information systems. This type of decision making identifies with the IT Monarchy type of