Practical Approaches to an Information Systems Architecture Implementation at Glaxowellcome

  • Andreas Rassau
  • Martin Sykes
  • Misha Hebel


For some years Glaxo Wellcome was one of the world’s leading research-based pharmaceutical and healthcare companies. Over the last year it merged with a company of similar profile, SmithKline Beecham, to form GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). This merger of two large, diverse and global holding companies evidently presents many challenges from an Information Systems Architecture perspective. This paper considers aspects of architectural work conducted within the GlaxoWellcome Research Department, that might be considered preparatory to the merger. The focus in this paper is on the difficulties that GlaxoWellcome experienced in moving towards an architected approach to systems development and in particular the specific challenges of managing the required organisational changes within the IS department.


Architecture Initiative Change Initiative Conceptual Architecture Architecture Implementation Information System Architecture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Armson, R. and Paton, R. (1994).Organisations, cases, issues, concepts, (2nd edition), Paul Chapman Publishing, London.Google Scholar
  2. Clarke, L. (1994).The Essence of Change, Prentice Hall International, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  3. Cook, MA. (1996).Building Enterprise Information Architectures, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  4. Downey, K. (2000). “Cap Gemini Review of the HAL Architecture Initiative”, (internal company document).Google Scholar
  5. GlaxoWellcome (2000). “Lead Discovery 2000: GlaxoWellcome Discovery Research Strategic Business Plan”, (internal company document).Google Scholar
  6. Goodhue, D.L., Quillard, J.A. and Rockart, J.F. (1988). “Managing The Data Resource: A Contingency Perspective”,MIS Quarterly, l2(3):373-392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. HAL (2000a). “Architecture Review Proposal Document”(internal company document).Google Scholar
  8. HAL (2000b“Architecture Review Executive Summary”(internal company document).Google Scholar
  9. HAL (2000c“Architecture Review Interview Responses”(internal company document).Google Scholar
  10. HAL Project (2000“Phase I Summary”(internal company document).Google Scholar
  11. Hebel, M. (1998a). “Human Values in MIS - Fit or MISFfít?”,Systemist, 20:140-152.Google Scholar
  12. Hebel, M. (1998b“Values Systems - A way to greater understanding”Systems Practice and Action Research, 11(4):381-402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hebel, M. (2000“Human Values and the Management of Technological Change”Cognition,Technology & Work, 2:106-115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. META Group (2001). “Presentation made to GlaxoWellcome Research IS on process model”META Group.Google Scholar
  15. PWC (2000). Price Waterhouse Coopers, “Pharma 2005: An Industrial Revolution in R&D”available from _pharma2005.html (15/12/00).Google Scholar
  16. Streubel, P. (1998“Why Do Employees Resist Change”Harvard Business Review on Change,Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA: 139-158.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Rassau
    • 1
  • Martin Sykes
    • 2
  • Misha Hebel
    • 3
  1. 1.Programme Management Group Global Manufacturing & Supply ITGlaxoSmithKlineUxbridgeEngland
  2. 2.Head IT Strategy Global Manufacturing & Supply ITGlaxoSmithKlineWareUK
  3. 3.Brignition LtdUxbridgeEngland

Personalised recommendations