On the Power of (even a little) Centralization in Distributed Processing

We propose and analyze a multi-server model that captures a performance trade-off between centralized and distributed processing. In our model, a fraction p of an available resource is deployed in a centralized manner (e.g., to serve a most loaded station) while the remaining fraction 1-p is allocated to local servers that can only serve requests addressed specifically to their respective stations. Using a fluid model approach, we demonstrate a surprising phase transition in steady-state delay, as p changes: in the limit of a large number of stations, and when any amount of centralization is available (p>0), the average queue length in steady state scales as log [subscript 1/1-p] 1/1-λ when the traffic intensity λ goes to 1. This is exponentially smaller than the usual M/M/1-queue delay scaling of 1/1-λ, obtained when all resources are fully allocated to local stations (p=0). This indicates a strong qualitative impact of even a small degree of centralization. We prove convergence to a fluid limit, and characterize both the transient and steady-state behavior of the finite system, in the limit as the number of stations N goes to infinity. We show that the queue-length process converges to a unique fluid trajectory (over any finite time interval, as N → ∞), and that this fluid trajectory converges to a unique invariant state v[superscript I], for which a simple closed-form expression is obtained. We also show that the steady-state distribution of the N-server system concentrates on v[superscript I] as N goes to infinity.Irwin Mark Jacobs and Joan Klein Jacobs Presidential FellowshipXerox Fellowship ProgramThomas and Stacey Siebel Foundation (Scholarship)National Science Foundation (U.S.) (Grant CCF-0728554

Centralized vs. decentralized computing : organizational considerations and management options

The long-standing debate over whether to centralize or decentralize computing is examined in terms of the fundamental organizational and economic factors at stake. The traditional debate is examined and found to focus predominantly on issues of efficiency vs. effectiveness, with solutions based on a rationalistic strategy of optimizing in this tradeoff. A more behavioralistic assessment suggests that the driving issues in the debate are the politics of organization and resources, centering on the issue of control. The economics of computing deployment decisions is presented as an important issue, but one that often serves as a field of argument that is based on more political concerns. The current situation facing managers of computing, given the advent of small and comparatively inexpensive computers, is examined in detail, and a set of management options for dealing with this persistent issue is presented

Human Resource Information Systems for Competitive Advantage: Interviews with Ten Leaders

[Excerpt] Increasingly, today\u27s organizations use computer technology to manage human resources (HR). Surveys confirm this trend (Richards-Carpenter, 1989; Grossman and Magnus, 1988; Human Resource Systems Professionals 1988; KPMGPeat Marwick, 1988). HR professionals and managers routinely have Personnel Computers (PCs) or computer terminals on their desks or in their departments. HR computer applications, once confined to payroll and benefit domains, now encompass incentive compensation, staffing, succession planning, and training. Five years ago, we had but a handful of PC-based software applications for HR management. Today, we find a burgeoning market of products spanning a broad spectrum of price, sophistication, and quality (Personnel Journal, 1990). Top universities now consider computer literacy a basic requirement for students of HR, and many consulting firms and universities offer classes designed to help seasoned HR professionals use computers in their work (Boudreau, 1990). Changes in computer technology offer expanding potential for HR management (Business Week, 1990; Laudon and Laudon, 1988)

The social foundations of the bureaucratic order

This article views the bureaucratic form of organization as both an agent and an expression of key modern social innovations that are most clearly manifested in the non-inclusive terms by which individuals are involved in organizations. Modern human involvement in organizations epitomizes and institutionally embeds the crucial yet often overlooked cultural orientation of modernity whereby humans undertake ac-tion along well-specified and delimited paths thanks to their capacity to isolate and suspend other personal or social considerations. The organizational involvement of humans qua role agents rather than qua persons helps unleash formal organizing from being tied to the indolence of the human body and the languish process of per-sonal or psychological reorientation. Thanks to the loosening of these ties, the bu-reaucratic organization is rendered capable to address the shifting contingencies un-derlying modern life by reshuffling and re-assembling the roles and role patterns by which it is made. The historically unique adaptive capacity of bureaucracy remains though hidden behind the ubiquitous presence of routines and standard operating procedures –requirements for the standardization of roles– that are mistakenly ex-changed for the essence of the bureaucratic form