Informatisation, automation and digitalisation: what changes in management

The decision in two paragraphs

For “Informatisation, automation and digitalisation: what changes in management”, define the outcome as a change in management practice. The central object is capabilities and processes; it needs an agreed source, decision owner and observable state after the action “define the unit of comparison”.

The first evidence is not a solution presentation but a reproducible example of “competing initiatives without shared criteria”. It allows the team to set the process boundary, inspect baseline data and select the fact that will confirm completion.

Informatisation, automation and digitalisation: three levels of change

Informatisation makes information available in digital form. Automation transfers a repeatable sequence of operations to a system. Digitalisation changes the management model itself: data informs the decision, action is recorded in the operating environment and feedback changes the next cycle.

The source list separates the roles. Maxim Kantarovich wrote the RBC Companies article on decisions before implementation; Alexander Chernov wrote the Systems.Education article on digitalisation trends. Together they provide management and technology perspectives without conflating authorship.

• Informatisation: availability and structure of information.
• Automation: an executable sequence of operations and rules.
• Digitalisation: decision, action and feedback in one management loop.

The decision point to resolve

The article addresses “Informatisation, automation and digitalisation: what changes in management”. The adjacent management issue is what changes in management. The two may share data or participants while differing in decision horizon, role authority and architecture boundary, so they are documented as separate entries in the decision map.

A signal–risk–action chain defines the subject-specific focus. Here the signal is “measures without decision owners”, the material risk is “disconnecting business goals from data”, and the testable action is “compare inputs and outputs”. This chain turns a broad term into a concrete decision.

• Decision 1: object — goals and management decisions; signal — recurring gaps between strategy and projects; action — define the unit of comparison.
• Decision 2: object — capabilities and processes; signal — competing initiatives without shared criteria; action — separate operational, tactical and strategic horizons.
• Decision 3: object — data and measures; signal — inconsistent system maps; action — compare inputs and outputs.

What belongs in scope

Describe the boundary through object records rather than system names. For goals and management decisions, record meaning, identifier, source, quality owner and update event; for capabilities and processes, also document the relationship rule.

Test the link between goals and management decisions and capabilities and processes using an end-to-end example. The team performs “compare inputs and outputs”, traces transformations and identifies where a discrepancy arises, who corrects it and which dependent outputs are recalculated.

• Subject area 1: Goals and management decisions. Verification basis: system of record, owner authority and the signal “measures without decision owners”.
• Record 2. Object: Capabilities and processes. Required details: identifier, lineage, quality rule and update event. Signal: Investment without a target state.
• Control record 3. Object: Data and measures. Observable signal: Recurring gaps between strategy and projects. Accountability: semantic owner and quality owner.

Basis for comparison

The method is a sequence of decisions rather than a universal checklist. For capabilities and processes, each output is used at the next step: the model supports the scenario, the scenario defines data and requirements, and requirements become test and acceptance criteria.

For goals and management decisions, the sequence may change with scale and constraints, but assumptions are always documented. When source data is incomplete or a decision involves an external party, the dependency receives an owner, review date and condition for proceeding. The first action is “define the unit of comparison”.

• 1. Action: define the unit of comparison; verifiable result: systems and integrations.
• Decision 2: separate operational, tactical and strategic horizons. The basis for the next step is initiatives, dependencies and resources.
• Step 3. Compare inputs and outputs. Output: goals and management decisions.
• Test overlap areas is the action at stage 4. The output documents capabilities and processes.

Record lineage

Describe data exchange as a contract between owners. For capabilities and processes, specify the triggering event, system of record, mandatory fields, pre-transfer control and the recipient's response to an error.

Choose the transport mechanism after frequency and resilience requirements are known. Check “competing initiatives without shared criteria” on both sides of the interface to distinguish a source error from transformation, delivery or loading failure.

• Object 5: Initiatives, dependencies and resources. Record fields: source, semantic owner, quality owner and refresh rule. Control signal: Inconsistent system maps.
• Boundary 4. Object: Systems and integrations. Define the source, frequency, permitted transformations and response to “competing initiatives without shared criteria”.
• Control record 3. Object: Data and measures. Observable signal: Recurring gaps between strategy and projects. Accountability: semantic owner and quality owner.

Process and data owners

Build the authority matrix around decisions concerning data and measures. Assign the right to change a rule, duty to prepare data, authority to approve an exception and accountability for confirming the outcome separately.

Define the escalation path for “define the unit of comparison” concerning data and measures in advance. The business owner is accountable for decision meaning, the data owner for evidence fitness, the architect for dependency integrity and the project manager for the agreed work sequence.

• Business owner: authority is linked to systems and integrations, and participation is tied to “record the selection rule”.
• In the decision matrix, architect connects initiatives, dependencies and resources with the action “define the unit of comparison”.
• Data owner: decision area — goals and management decisions; control action — separate operational, tactical and strategic horizons.
• Project manager is accountable for capabilities and processes and confirms the action “compare inputs and outputs”.

Baseline and actual outcome

The acceptance criterion for data and measures includes a baseline sample, calculation rule, expected change and source of the actual outcome. The interpretation owner confirms that comparison conditions have not changed.

The end-to-end test starts with “measures without decision owners”, passes through an authorised decision and “compare inputs and outputs”, and ends with an execution record. Interface defects and process nonconformities are logged separately.

• 1. Acceptance object: goals and management decisions; compare the baseline sample, expected change and confirmed actuals. Test signal: Recurring gaps between strategy and projects.
• Evidence item 2 describes capabilities and processes, comparable test conditions and the person accountable for interpretation. Signal: Competing initiatives without shared criteria.
• Test 3 concerns data and measures. The method, interpretation owner and outcome source are documented. Signal: Inconsistent system maps.
• Control record 4: Systems and integrations; data version, calculation rule, expected change and actual outcome. Signal: Measures without decision owners.

Assumptions, stop signals and rollback

The risk map starts with two conditions: “disconnecting business goals from data” and “being unable to verify completion of the transition”. Each receives an observable event, decision owner, control and outcome that requires a stop or rollback.

Every assumption has an owner, supporting evidence and a review event. The risk “being unable to verify completion of the transition” needs particular control here because its status affects the scope, delivery sequence and acceptance criterion.

• Controlled constraint: replacing architecture with a product list. The owner performs “test overlap areas” and provides goals and management decisions.
• For the risk “planning projects without dependencies”, assign the action “record the selection rule” and evidence “capabilities and processes” in advance.
• Risk review starts with the condition “disconnecting business goals from data”. The decision uses the action “define the unit of comparison” and data about data and measures.
• Risk record 4. Condition: Having no owner for the target model. Control action: Separate operational, tactical and strategic horizons. Evidence source: Systems and integrations.

Starting situation and evidence

Diagnosis examines a concrete episode involving goals and management decisions. Its record states the time, participants, data used, decision made and consequence; recurrence is checked against a second sample.

Review the signal “measures without decision owners” with the process owner. If its cause lies outside the selected boundary, record the dependency separately and do not expand scope without a new decision on timing, resources and acceptance.

• Diagnostic signal 1: Recurring gaps between strategy and projects. Its record contains an example and impact on systems and integrations.
• Management signal 2: Competing initiatives without shared criteria. Use condition: a link to an actual example and to initiatives, dependencies and resources.
• Diagnosis records “inconsistent system maps”, its recurrence and its impact on goals and management decisions.

Initial working cycle

The first working session on goals and management decisions uses real material: a transaction example, report or plan, systems diagram, role list and the variance “competing initiatives without shared criteria”. Participants select one scenario, identify data gaps and perform the action “define the unit of comparison”.

The output is a decision pack: problem statement, object map, baseline sample, owners, dependencies, verification criteria and open questions. The risk “disconnecting business goals from data” helps determine the next format: a pilot, architecture discovery, competitive selection or process correction without a new system.

• 1. Action: define the unit of comparison; verifiable result: systems and integrations.
• Decision 2: separate operational, tactical and strategic horizons. The basis for the next step is initiatives, dependencies and resources.
• Control record 4: Systems and integrations; data version, calculation rule, expected change and actual outcome. Signal: Measures without decision owners.
• Criterion 5 uses initiatives, dependencies and resources; the result is compared with the baseline using one method. Signal: Investment without a target state.