KPMG Peat Marwick Case Versus the Chemical Bank Case

The outlook for implementation of advanced information technology systems at both KPMG Peat Marwick and Chemical Bank are similar in a lot of ways that most companies considering a major shift in the role of technological integration react. While in both cases the management and some employees felt both fears of the unknown and hesitance towards such large-scale investment. Particularly in the case of KPMG Peat Marwick, the company was told that the results of adopting the Shadow Partner could not be precisely predicted and its value would be shown in practice, rather than theory. Both of these cases lacked a comprehensive understanding of how the technology would affect the overall knowledge base—the primary concern for KPMG Peat Marwick—and day-to-day managerial and business operations in the case of Chemical Bank.

As a leader in the accounting industry, KPMG Peat Marwick was considered a pioneer. For this company, adopting something like the Shadow Partner was a huge deal, not just within their own company culture, but also as a precedent for how the other “Big 8” or “Big 6” companies would measure up against this information system. The Premise for the Shadow Partner was an ideal image of information systems technology. According to the article on KMPG Peat Marwick, one of the managing partners, Floyd Keunis had the following to say about the possibility of adopting the new software-defined network:

We need to use the information we have as a company to provide clients with more value-added service. Clients will hire us not out of tradition or loyalty but because we deliver services of value to them in the environment of the 1990s. We should use our information to become business advisors to our clients (3).

Collected facts become information, which is turned into knowledge that could be used and shared among partners. While this seemed like the most obvious benefit, implementing such a system in a huge company like KPMG Peat Marwick would require a full investment of all its employees to be really fruitful to the company. This also included differences among several office locations that may or may not adopt the information system. Finally, the sheer size of the investment, even in one area of the company seemed risky even after projected outcome reports. There was no guarantee that this huge financial investment would actually produce what it would ideally be purchased for.

In the case of Chemical Bank, the use of the new information technology would be more on the day-to-day business level as far as managerial infrastructure than KPMG. While both companies could benefit from new technology, if appropriately selected and implemented, for Chemical Bank the hesitation seemed to be based more on changes to the fundamental way that records were kept for the bank. While the new system promised fluidity of information ranging from client records to human resources management, those who were used to the older ways of doing business feared such a large-scale change. In both of these cases, fear of the new and unknown were barriers to both the adoption and successful implementation of new information systems. Company cultures that traditionally relied more on human interaction and micromanagement would have a hard time adopting such change without the right attitude and the proper training as to the benefits of the product. The amount of the investment itself was something difficult to digest for both industry-leading companies in their respective industries who were also concerned about remaining respected for their decisions that deviated from tradition. At the end of the analysis, they both were left asking, “it is worth it?”

Works Cited

“Chemical Bank: Technology Support for Cooperative Work.” Harvard Business School.15 Sept. 1995.

“KPMG Peat Marwick: The Shadow Partner.” Harvard Business School. Oct 5, 1995.