Centralise or decentralise? The eternal dance ...
Jinfo Blog

By Sarah Dillingham

Abstract

Anybody who has been working in the information industry for some time will be familiar with a pattern of investment for internal support functions. It’s a swing between a centralised support team and having individuals sitting within a particular business area ("practice"). What are the pros and cons of these two models?

Item

Anybody who has been working in the information industry for some time will be familiar with a pattern of investment for internal support functions. It’s a swing between a centralised support team and support dispersed amongst the business.

Organisations are in a state of continual change and evolution according to market conditions and their strategic growth objectives. The money available to invest in internal cost centres varies accordingly. The impact of this on all internal support functions can be significant, which is why it’s critical to budget effectively and demonstrate business benefit at all times.

Inevitably there are times when budgets are cut and at these times restructuring and/or offshoring are options. If budgets are cut to the bone, and underinvestment continues for some time, then one of two things may happen:

1. The business does without information support and ceases to value it.
2. The business starts to hurt without information support and decides to "sort this out once and for all".

Thus begins the dance around centralising and decentralising services. Both models have their pros and cons. First, I'll look at the extremes and, in my next article, I'll look at a hybrid model.

Centralised service vs. embedded in the practice

A centralised information service assumes that all information staff report into a central support function. If located in the same country, they are likely to sit together, which helps team bonding.

The business is the customer so the level of support might be outlined in a service level agreement (SLA). While there may be individuals within the information team who have a particular specialism (e.g. European law or corporate finance) they will not be formally aligned with a particular area of the business. Requests may come in via a group email and be assigned according to availability rather than preference.

This model works well when the tasks required are discrete and do not require strong individual relationships or a nuanced understanding of the business. Research and analysis and IT support units can be very efficient and effective when structured like this, as work is spread evenly across the team according to capacity and capability. Many offshore teams operate in this fashion.

The downside is that it is harder to develop deep understanding of what each business area (“practice”) needs and see their bigger picture.

The moment when an information professional puts two and two together and makes five is where intangible business value lies. For example, Nick is responding to an RFP about conflict minerals and seeks research support. The information manager is aware that Ian has been looking for background materials for an analytical paper on the same subject, and connects Nick and Ian, resulting in a winning pitch and a stronger paper.

This is good for the business (wins more work and delivers better client service), and good for the information professional (high job satisfaction by delivering higher up the value chain).

So why not leave practices to hire information staff and embed them as they see fit at the local level?

Dedicated, tailored support is highly valued by client-facing staff and the information pro feels like part of the team. Their contribution is obvious and they know that practice inside out.

But information staff reporting in to a local practice may not be incentivised to balance local needs with strategic organisational goals for KM/information management. In the worst case scenario, this can lead to multiple siloed information repositories and duplication of effort – all the things that KM seeks to avoid.

The info pro may also lack a clear path of career progression as roles can vary greatly across difference practices but retain the same job title. Lack of contact with others in a similar role can lead to isolation and confusion.

It is clear that working at the extreme ends of these models is unsatisfactory and the reality usually lies somewhere in between. In my next post I’ll look at the more usual hybrid model, and variations around offshoring and champions.

View Part 2 >>

« Blog