Michael J. Eari 4

8/7/2019 Michael J. Eari 4

1/25

lr)formation Systems Plannin

Experiences inStrategic InformationSystems Planning*By: Michael J. EariLondon Business SchooiSussex PiaceRegents ParkLondon NW1 4SA, England

bstractStrategic information systems planning (StSP) re -mains a top concern of many organizations. Ac-cordingly, researchers have investigated StSPractice and proposed both formal methods andrinciples of good practice. StSP cannot beunderstood by considering format methods alone.The processes of planning and the implementa-tion of plans are equally important. However, therehave been very few field inves tigations of theseThis study examines SISP experi-r)ce in 27 companies and. unusually, relies onnterviews not only w ith IS managers but atso witheneral m anagers and tine managers. By adopt-ing this broader perspective, the investigationreveals companies were using five different StSPapproaches: Business-Led, Method-Driven. Ad-ministrative. Technological, and Qrganizational.Each approach has different characteristics and,therefore, a different likelihood of success. Theresults show that the Qrganizational Approach ap-ears to be rrjost effective. The taxonom y of thefive approach es potentially provides a diagnostictoot fo r analyzing and evaluating an organization'sexperience with SISP.Keyw ords: Strategic plan ning , IS strategic plan-ning, IS managementACM Categories: H.1.0. H.4, K.6.0, K.6.1

IntroductionFor many IS executives, strategic informationsystems plann ing (SISP) continues to be a criticaissue.^ It is also reportedly the top IS concern ochief executives {Moynihan, 1990). At the samt ime, it is almost axiomatic that informationsystems m anagement be based on SISP (Synoand Gruber, 1982). Furthermore, as investmenin information technology has been promoted tboth support business strategy or create strategioptions (Earl, 1988; Henderson and Venkatraman1989), an "industry" of SISP has grown as ITmanufacturers and management consultanthave developed methodologies and techniquesThus, SISP appears to be a rich and importanactivity for researchers. So far, researchers haveprovided surveys of practice and problemsmodels and frameworks for theory-bui Id ing, anpropositions and methods to put into action.^The literature recommends that SISP target thfollowing areas: Alignin g investment in iS with business goal Exploiting IT for com petitive advantage Directing efficient and effective managem enof IS resources Deve lop ing tech no log y po l ic ies andarchitecturesIt has been suggested (Earl, 1989) that the firstwo areas are concerned with information systemsstrategy, the third with information managemenstrategy, and the fourth with information technology strategy. In survey-based research to dateit is usually the first two areas that dominate. Indeed, SISP has been defined in this light (Ledereand S ethi, 1988) as "th e p rocess of dec iding theobjectives for organizational computing and identifying po tential compu ter ap plications w hich theorganization shou ld imp lem en t" (p. 445). Thisdefinition was used in our investigation of SISPactivity in 27 United K ingdom-based comp aniesCalls have been made recently for bette


2/25

Information Systems Planning

reality of generally accepted IS managementpractices such as SISP. Thus, in this investiga-tion we used field studies to capture the ex-periences of large companies that had attemptedsome degree of formal IS planning.^We were also interested as to whether any par-ticular SISP techniques were m ore effective thanothers. This question proved difficult to answer,as discussed below, and is perhaps even irrele-vant. Techniques were found to be only one ele-ment of SISP. with process and implementationbeing equally important. Therefore, a moredescriptive construct embodying these threeelementsthe SISP approachwas examined.Five different approaches were identified; the ex-perience of the organizations studied suggeststhat one approach may be more effective than theothers.

MethodologyIn 1988-89, a two-stage survey was conductedto discover the intents, outcomes, and experi-ences of SISP efforts. First, case studies cap-tured the history of six companies previouslystudied by the author. These retrospective casehistories were based on accounts of the IS di-rector and/or IS strategic planner and on inter-nal documentation of these companies. Thecases suggested or confirmed questions to askin the second stage. Undoubtedly, these casesinfluenced the perspective of the researcher.In the second stage , 21 different U.K. companieswere investigated through fieid studies. All werelarge companies that were am ong the leaders inthe ba nking, insurance, transport, retailing, elec-tronics, IT, automobile, aerospace, oil, chemical,services, and food and drink industries. Annua lrevenues averaged 4.5 biilion. They were allhead quartered in the U.K. or had significant na-tional or regional IS functions w ithin multi-nationalcompanies headquartered elsewhere. Their ex-perience with formal SISP activities ranged fromone to 20 years.** The scope of StSP could beeither at the business unit level, the corporate

we re interview ed. The IS director or IS strateplanner was interviewed first, foiiowed by CEO or a general manager, and finally a senline or user manager. Management prescriptioften state that SISP requires a combinationcoaiition of iine managers contributing appltion ideas or making system requests, genmanagers setting direction and priorities, andprofessionals suggesting what can be achietechnically. Additionally, interviewing these thstakeholders provides some triangulation, bas a check on the views of the IS function as a useful, but not perfect, cross-sectioncorporate memory.Because the IS director selected the inviewees, there could have been some sambias. However, parameters were laid downhow to select interviewees, and the respondid not indicate any prior coiiusion in alignopinions. Respondents were supposed to be IS executives most involved with SISP (whmay or may not be the CIO), the CEO or genemanager most invoived in strategic de cisionsIS , and a "typical" user line manager who hcontributed to SISP activities.Interviews were cond ucted using que stionnato ensure completeness and replicability, bumix of unstructured, semi-structured, and strtured interrogation was employed.^ Typicallysimple question was posed in an open man(often requiring enlargement to overcome ferences in organizational language), and responses were recorded. The same questwas then asked in a closed manne r, requesquantitative responses using scores, rankand Likert-type scales. Particular attention wpaid to anecdotes, tangents, and "a sid es ." In way, it was hoped to collect data sets for bqualitative and quantitative analysis. Interviefocused on intents, outcomes, and experienof SISP.It was also a ttempted to record experiences wparticular SiSP methodologies and relate thuse to success, benefits and prob lems. Howethis aim proved to be Inappropriate (beca


3/25

Intormation Systems Plannin

Interests, Methods, andOutcomesData were collected on the stimuli, aims, b enefits,success factors, problems, procedures, andmethods of SISP. These data have beenstatist ically examined, but only a minimum ofresults is presented here as a necessary con textto the principal f indings of the study.'Respondents w ere asked to state their firms ' cur-rent objectives for SISP. The dom inant objectivewas alignment of IS with business needs, with69.8 percent of respondents ranking it as mostimportant and 9 3.7 percent ranking it in their topfive objectives (see Tabie 1). Interview comm entsreinforced the importance of this objective. Thesearch for competitive advantage appticationswas ranked second, reflecting the increasedstrategic awareness of IT in the late 1980s. Ga in-ing top management comm itment w as third. Theonly difference amon g the stakeholders wa s thatIS directors placed top m anagement comm itmentabove the comp etitive advantage goal, perhapsreflecting a desire for functional sponsorship anda clear mandate.Table 1 suggests that companies have more thanone objective for SISP; narrative responsesusually identified two or three objectives spon-taneously. Not surprisingly, the respondents'views on benefits were similar and also indicateda multidimensional picture (see Table 2). Allrespondents w ere able to select con fidently froma structured list. Alignm ent of IS again stood out.with 49 percent ranking it first and 78 percent

ranking it in the top five benefits. Top management support, better priority setting, com petitivadvantage applications, top management involvement, and user-management involvemenwere the other prime benefits reported.Respon dents also evaluated their firm's succeswith SISP. Success measures have beediscussed elsewhere (Raghunathan and King1988). Most have relied upon satisfaction score(Galliers. 1987), absence of problems (Ledereand S ethi. 1988), or audit checklists (King, 1988)Respondents were given no criterion of succesbut were given scale anchors to help them recora score from 1 (low) to 5 (high) as shown iAppendix B,Ten percent of all respondents claimed their SISPhad been "highly successful." 59 percenreported It had been "s ucc ess ful but there waroom for improvement." and 69 percent rateSISP as worthw hile or better. Thirty-one percenwere dissatisfied with their firm's SISP. Therwere differences between stakeho lders; wherea76 percent of IS directors gave a score abo ve 3only 67 percent of general m anagers and 57 percent of user managers were as content. Becausthe mean score by company was 3.73. and thmodal company score was 4, the typical experience can be described as worthwhile but inneed ot some improvement.A complementary que stion revealed a somewhadifferent picture, interviewees were asked in whaways SISP had been unsuccessful. Sixty-five different types of disappointment were rec orded. Isuch a long list none were dominant. Never

Table 1. Objectives of StSP

RankOrder123

ObjectiveAligning IS with Business NeedsSeek Competitive Advantage from ITGain Top Management Commitment

RespondentsSelecting(n = 63)594536

PrimaryFrequency44

86

Sum ofRanks276161115

MeanRank4.382.551.83


4/25


Table 2. SISP Benefits

RankOrder1

234

5

6

BenefitAligning IS withBusiness NeedsTop Management SupportBetter Priority SettingCompetit ive AdvantageApplicationsTop ManagementInvolvementUser/Line ManagementInvolvement

RespondentsSelecting(n = 63)49

273521

19

21

PrimaryFrequency31

734

3

2

Sum ofRanks

208

947567

60

56

MeanRank3.30

1.491.191.06

0.95

0.92

theless. Table 3 summarizes the f ive most com-monly ment ioned features contr ibut ing todissatisfac tion. We will hen ceforth refer to theseas "concerns."It is apparent that concerns extend beyondtechnique or methodology, the focus of severalresearchers, and the horizon of most suppliers.Accordingly we examined the 65 different con-cerns looking for a pattern. This inductive andsubjective clustering produced an interestingclassif ication. The cited concerns could begrouped almost equally into three distinct

Tabie 3. Unsuccessful Features of SISP

Rank Order123

Unsuccessful FeaturesResource ConstraintsNot Fully ImplementedLack of Top Management

categories (assuming equal weighting to eaconcern): method, process, and implementatias shown in Table 4. The full list of concernsreproduced in Appendix C.Method concerns centered on the SISP tenique, procedure, or methodology employFirms commonly had used proprietary me thosuch as M ethod 1, BSP, or information engineing, or applied generally available techniqusuch as critical success factors or value chanalysis. Others had invented their own methooften customizing well-known techniques. Amothe stated concerns were lack of strategic thiing, excessive internal focu s, too m uch or too liattention to architecture, excessive time aresource requirements, and ineffective resouallocat ion mechanisms. General managespecially emphasized these concerns, perhabecause they have high exp ectations b ut findstrategy making difficult.Implementation was a common concern. Evwhere SISP was judged to have been success


5/25

tnformation Systems Plannin

Table 4. SISP Concerns by Stakeholder

MethodProcessImplementation

TotalCitations

453942

126

%363133

100

ISDirectors(n = 21)Citations %

14 369 23

16 4139 100

GeneralManagers(n = 21)Citations %

18 4411 2712 29

41 100

UserManagers(n = 21)Citations %

13 2819 4114 31

46 100of earlier work (Lederer and Sethi, 1988).Evidence from the interviews suggests thattypically resources were not made available,management was hesitant, technological con-straints arose, or organizational resistanceemerged. Where plans were implemented, otherconcerns arose, including technical quality, thetime and cost involved, or the lack of benefitsrealized. Imptementation concerns were raisedmost by IS directors, perhaps because they arecharged with delivery or because they hopedSISP would provide hitherto elusive strategicdirection of their function. Of course, it can beclaimed that a strategy that is not implementedor poorly implemented is no strategy at allatendency not unknown in business strategy mak-ing (Mintzberg, 1987). Indeed, implementationhas been proposed as a measure of success inSISP (Lederer and Sethi. 1988).Process concerns included lack of line manage-ment participation, poor IS-user relationships, in-adequate user awareness and education, andlow management ownership of the philosophynd practice of SISP. Line managers were par-icularly vocal about the m anagement and enact-ment of StSP methods and procedures andwhether they fit the organizational context.

nalysis of the rep orted concerns therefore sug-

ranked factors of "top management involvement," and "top management support" can bseen as process factors, while "bu siness strategavailable" and "study the business before technology' ' have more to do with me thod. * 'Goodmanagement" partly relates to impiementationPast research has identified similar concern(Lederer and Mendelow, 1987), and the morprescriptive literature has suggested some othese success factors (Synott and G ruber, 1982However, the experience of organ izations in thistudy indicates that no single factor is likely tlead to universal success in SISP. Insteadsuccessful SISP is more probable when organizations realize that method, process, and implementation are all necessary issue sets to bmanaged.In particuiar, consultants, managers, and researchers would seem weil advised to toobeyond m ethod alone in practicing StSP. Furthermore, researchers cannot assume that SISP requires selection and use of just one method oone special plann ing exercise. Typically, it seemthat firms use several methods over time. Anaverage of 2.3 methods (both proprietary an d inhouse) had been employed by the 21 companiestudied. Nine of them had tried three or moreRetrospectively isolating and identifying the effect of a method therefore becomes difficult foresearchers. It may also be misleading because


6/25

tntormation Systems Planning

tifying which IT applications to develop in the longrun)." In reply they usually recounted a richhistory of initiatives, events, crises, techniques,organizational changes, successes, and failuresall interwoven in a context of how tS resourceshad been managed.Prompted both by the list of concerns and nar-rative histories of planning-related events, thefocus of this study therefore shifted. The objectof analysis be came the SISP approach. This weviewed as the interaction of method , process, and

implem entation, as well as the variety of activiand behavior upon which the respondents hreflected. The accounts of interviewees, the "ututored" responses to the semi-structured q utions, the documents supplied, and the "a sidfollowed up by the interviewer all produced scriptive data on each company's approaOnce the salient features of SISP were com paacross the 21 companies, five distinct proaches were identif ied. These were then uretrospectively to classify the expe riences of six case study firms.

Method Process

ImplementationFigure 1. Necessary Conditions for Successful SISP

Table 5. Success Factors in SISP

RankOrder1

23

SuccessFactorTop ManagementInvolvementTop Management SupportBusiness Strategy Available

RespondentsSelecting

423426

PrimaryFrequency

15179

Sum ofRanks

16014099

MeanRank

2.552.221.57


7/25

tnfortnation Systems Planr}in

SISP ApproachesAn approach is not a technique per se. Nor is itnecessarily an explicit study or formal, codifiedroutine so often implied in past accounts andstudies of SISP. As in most forms of businessplanning, it cannot often be captured by oneevent, a single procedure, or a particular tech-nique. An approach may comprise a mix of pro-cedures, techniques, user-IS interactions, specialanalyses, and random discoveries. There arelikely to be some formal activities and some in-formal behavior. Sometimes IS planning is aspecial endeavor and sometimes it is part ofbusiness planning at large. However, when mem-bers of the organization describe how decisionson IS strategy are initiated and made , a coherentpicture is gradually painted where the underpin-ning philosophy, emp hasis, and influences standout. These are the principal distinguishing fea-

tures of an approach. The elements of an approach can be seen as the nature and place omethod, the attention to and style of process, anthe focus on and probab ility of impleme ntationThe five approaches are labelled as BusinessLed, Method-Driven, Administrative, Technological, and Organizational. They are delineated aideal types in Table 6. Several distinctors are apparent in each approa ch. Each represents a paticular philosophy (either explicit or implicitdisplays its own dynamics, and has differenstrengths and w eaknesses. Whereas some factors for success are suggested by each approach, not ali approaches seem to be equalleffective.Business-led approachThe Busiriess-LedApproach was adopted by focompanies and two of the case study f irms. Th

Table 6. SISP Approaches

EmphasisBasis

EndsMethodsNatureInfluencerRelation toBusinessStrategyPrioritySetting

Business-Le dBusinessBusinessplansPlanOursBusinessIS plannerFix points

The board

Method-DrivenTechniqueBestmethodStrategyBestTop-downConsultantsDerive

Methodrecommends

AdministrativeResourcesProcedure

PortfolioNoneBottom-upCommitteesCriteria

Centralcommittee

TechnologicalModelRigor

ArchitectureEngineeringBlueprintsMethodObjectives

Compromise

OrganizationalLearningPartnership

ThemesAny wayInteractiveTeamsLook atbusiness

Emerge


8/25


underpinning "assuttiption" of this approach isthat current business direction or plans are theonly basis upon which IS plans can be built andthat, therefore, business planning should driveSISP. The emphasis is on the business leadingIS and not the other way arou nd. Business p lansor strategies are analyzed to identify where in-formation systems are most required. Often thislinkage is an annua l endeavor and is the respon-sibility of the IS director or IS strategic planner(or team). The IS strategic plan is later p resentedto the board for questioning, approvai, andpriority-setting.General m anagers see this approach as simple,"business-like." and a matter of common sense.IS executives o ften see this form of SISP as theirmost critical task and we lcome the long ove rduemandate from senior management. However,they soon discover that business strategies areneither ciear nor detailed enough to specify ISneeds. Thus, interpretation and further analysisbecome necessary. Documents have to bestudied, managers interviewed, meetings con-vened, working papers written, and tentative pro-posals on the IS implications of business plansput forward. "Home-spun" procedures are de-veioped on a trial and error basis to discover andpropose the IT implications of business plans. Itmay be especially difficult to prom ote the notionthat IT itself may offer some new strategic op-tions. The IS planners often feel that they haveto "take the l ead " to make any progress or in-deed to engage the business in the exercise.They also discover that some top executives maybe more forceful in their views and expe ctationsthan others.Users and line m anagers are likely to be involvedvery little. The emphasis on top-level input andbusiness plans reduces the potential contributionof users and the visibility of locai requirements.Users, perceiving SISP as remote, complain ofinadequate involvement. Because the IS strategybecomes the product of the IS function, usersupport is not guaranteed. Top management,having substantially delegated SISP to thespecialists, may be unsure of the recommenda-tions and be hesitant to commit resources, thus

quire iT support can be identif ied, and ifbusiness strategy is cieariy and fuily presentthe iS strategy can be weii-ailgned. indeed, in oof the prior case study companies that adopthis approach, a clear business pian for surviied to iT appiications that were admired by maindustry watchers. However, despite this achieme nt, the iS function is stili perceived by aii thsets of stakeholders as poorly integrated into business as a whole.Method-driven approachThe Method-Driven Approach was present in companies and two of the case study firmAdherents of this approach appear to assuthat SISP is enhanced by, or depends on, uof a formai techn ique or m ethod . The IS direcmay beiieve that management wiii not think abiS needs and opportunities without the use oformal m ethod or the intervention of consuitanIndeed, recognition or anticipation of some of tfrustrations typical of the Business-Led Approamay prompt the desire for m ethod. H owever, amethod wili not do. There is typicaiiy a searfor tbe "b est m eth od ," or at ieast one better ththe iast method adopted.Once again, business strategies may be fouto be deficient for the purpose of SiSP. The troduction of a formai method rarely providesremedy, however, because it is uniikeiy to bestrong enough business strategy technique. Aithe method's practitioners are uniikeiy to skilied or credible at such work. Furthermore,formal methods are usuaiiy sponsored by thedepartment, they may faii to win the supportinvoivement of fhe business at large. Thu s, a sond or third m ethod may be attempted while IS depa rtment tries to elicit or verify the bu sinestrategy and to encourage a wider set stakeholders to participate. Often, a vendorconsultant plays a significant role. As the chlenges unfold, stakeholders determine the " b emethod, often as a result of the qualities of tconsultants as much as the techniques theselves. The consultants often become drivers of the SISP exercise and therefore hasubstantial infiuence on the recommendatio


9/25

Information Systems Plannin

hus become somewhat resistant and not easiiypersuad ed of the priorities or options sugge stedby the appiication of the method. iS strategicplans may then iose their credibiiity and neverbe fully init iated. The exercises and recomm en-ations may be forgotten. Often they are labeliedhe "x yz " strategy, where "x y z " is the name ofhe consuit ing f irm empioyed; in other words,hese strategies are rareiy "owned" by thebusiness.Formai methods do not always fall completely.lthough a succession of methods achieved lit-le in the companies studied, managers judgedhat each method had been good in some unan-icipated way for the business or the IS depart-ment.^ For exampie. in one firm it siiowed theneed for business strategies, and in another itinformed IS management about business im-peratives. In the former f i rm, IS directors wereheard to say the experience had been "g oo d forthe company, showing up the gaps in strategichinking!" Nevertheless, formai strategy studiescould leave behind embryonic strategic thrusts,ideas waiting for the right time, or new thinkingthat could be exploited or built upon iater inunforeseen ways.

he Adtninistrative Approach was found in fiveompanies. The emphasis here is on resourcepianning. The wider management pianning andontroi procedures were expected to achieve theims of SiSP through formal procedures forliocating iS resources. Typically. IS deveiop-ment proposals were submitted by business unitsr departments to committees who examinedproject viability, common system possibilities,nd resource con sequences, in some cases, re-ource pianners did the staff work as proposaisscended the annuai hierarchicai approvai pro-edure. The Administrative Approach was thearaiiei of. or cou id be attached to . the firm's nor-mal f inanciai pianning or capitai budgetingroutine. The outcome of the approach was a one-year or muiti-year deveiopment portfolio ofapproved projects. Typicaiiy no appiication is

strategic, as being "b ottom -up " rather than "topdown . " ideas for radicai change were not identified, strategic thinking was absent, inertia and"busine ss as usu ai" dom inated, and enterpriseievei applications remained in the backgroundMore emotionai were the claims about con flictsdramas, and game playingali perhaps inevitable in an essentiaily resource allocation procedure. The emphasis on resource pianninsometimes led to a resource-constrained outcome. For exampie. spending iimits were ofteappiied. and boards and CEO s were accused oapplying cuts to the iS budget, assuming thain doing so no damage was being done to thebusiness as a whoie.Some benefits of this approach were iden tif iedEverybody knew about the procedu re; it was visble, and aii users and units had the opportunitto submit proposais. indeed, an SISP procedurand timetable for SiSP were comm oniy pubiisheas part of the company poiicy and proceduremanual. Users, who were encouraged to makapplication deveiopment requests, did producsome ideas for buiiding competitive advantageAlso, it seemed that radicai. transformationai Iapptications could arise in these companiedespite the apparently bottom-up, cautious procedu re. The most radical appiications emergewhen the OEO or f inance d irector broke the administrative ruies and informaily proposed ansanctioned an IS investment.By emphasizing viability, project approval, anresource pian ning. the adm inistrative approacproduced ap piication deveiopm ent po rtfoiios thawere eventual iy implem ented . Not oniy finan ciacriteria guided these choices. New strategiguideiines. such as customer service or qualitimprovement, were atso infiuentiai. Finaiiy, thAdministrative Approach often f it ted the planning and controi style of the company. iS wamanaged in congruence with other activit ieswhich permitted complementary resources to bailocated in paraiiei. indeed, uniess the iS function compiied with procedures, no resourcewere forthcoming.


10/25


business is a necessaty outcome of SISP and.therefore, that analytical modelling methods areappropriate. This approach is different from theMethod-Driven Approach in two principal char-acteristics. First, the end product is a businessmodel (or series of models). Second, a formalmethod is applied based on mapping the activ-ities, process es, and data flows of the business.The emphasis is on deriving architectures orblueprints for IT and IS, and often informationengineering terminology is used. Architecturesfor data, com puting, commun ications, and appli-cations might be produced, and computer-aidedsoftware engineering (CASE) might be among thetools emp loyed. A proprietary technology-orient-ed m ethod might be used or adapted in-house.Both IS directors and ge neral managers tend toemphasize the objectives of rigorous analysis an dof building a robust infrastructure.This approa ch is dema nding in terms of both ef-fort and resource requirem ents. These also tendto be high-profile activities. Stakeholders com-mented on the length of time involved in theanalysis and/or the implementation. User man-agers reacted negatively to the complexity of theanalysis and the outputs and reported a tenden-cy for technical dependencies to displace busi-ness priorities. In one case, management wasunsure of the validity and meaning of theblueprints generated and could not determinewhat proposals mattered most. A second studyof the same type, but using a different tech-nological me thod, was com missioned. This pro-duced a different but equally unconvincing setof blueprints.These cha racteristics co uld lead to declining topmanagement support or even user rebellion. Inone f i rm, the users called for an enterprisemodelling exercise to be aborted. In one of thecase study firms, development of the blueprintapplications was axed by top managem ent threeand a half years after initiation. In another, twogenerations of IS management departed after or-ganiza tional conflict concerning the va lidity of thetechnological model proposed.

outcomes were valuable in building better infrastructures.

Organizational approachThe Organizational Approach was used in scompa nies and one of the case study f irms. Tunderpinning assumption here is quite differeIt is that SISP is not a special or neat and tiendeavor but is based on IS decisions beimade through continuous Integration betwethe IS function a nd the organ ization. The wayapplications are identified and selected described in much more multi-dimensional asubtle language. The approach is not withomethod, but methods are employed as requirand to fit a particular purpose. For example, vaanalysis may f^e used, workshops a rranged , buness investigation projects set up, and vendvisits organized. The emphasis, however, is process, especially management understandiand involvement. For some of these compan iea major SISP method had been applied in tpast, but in retrospect it was seen to have beas much a process enabler as an analytical vestigation. Executive teamwork and an undstanding of how IT might contribute to tbusiness were often left behind by the methrather than specific recommendations for IS vestment. Organizational learning was importaand evident in at least three ways.First, IS development concentrated on only oor two themes growing in scope over seveyears as the organization began to appreciate tpotential benefits. Examples of such themes cluded a food company concentrating on pviding high service levels to customers, insurance company concentrating on low-coadministration, and a chem ical company concetrating on product development performancSecond, special studies were important. Oftmultidisciplinary senior executive project teaor full-time task forces were assigned to taca business problem from which a major IS itiative would later emerge. The presence of IS executive in the multidisciplinary team was


11/25


eliverables. Conversely, occasional project costnd time overruns were acceptable if they al-lowed evolving ideas to be incorporated. In someays, IS strategies w ere discovered through im-plementation. These three learning characteris-ics can be seen collectively as a preference forincremental strategy making.The approach is therefore organizationalbecause:1 . Co llective learning across the organ ization isevident.2 . Organizational devices or instruments (teams,task forces, workshops, etc.) are used to

tackle business problem s or pursue initiatives.3. The IS function works in close partnershipwith the rest of the organization, especiallythrough having IS managers on managementteams or placing IS executives on task forces.4. Devolution of some IS capability is common,not only to divisions, but also to functions,factories, and departments.5. In some companies SISP is neither special norabnormal. It is part of the normal businessplanning of the organization.6. IS strategies often emerge from ongoingorganizational ac tivities, such as trial and errorchanges to business practices, continuousand increm ental enhancem ent of existing ap-plications, and occasional system initiativesand experiments within the business.In one of the compan ies, planning was "c oun ter-cultural." Nevertheless, in the character de-scribed above, planning stil l happened. In an-other company there were no IS plans, justbusiness plans. In another. IS was enjoying ayear or more of low profile until the companydiscovered the next theme. In most of thesefirms, IS decisions were being made all the timeand at any t ime.Respondents reported some disadvantages ofthis approach. Some IS directors worried abouthow the next theme would be generated. Atso,

director believed the incrementalism of the Oganizational Approach led to creation of inferioinfrastructures.The five approaches appear to be different iscope, character, and outcom e. Table 7 differentiates them using the three characteristics thaseem to help other organizations posit ion themselves. Also, slogans are offered to capture thessence of each approach. Strengths and weaknesses of each approach are contained iTable 8.It is also possible to indicate the apparent diferences of each approach in terms of the threfactors suggested in Figure 1 as necessary fosuccess: m ethod, process, and ImplementationTable 9 attempts a summary.In the Business-Led Approach, method scorelow because no formal technique is used; process is rated low because the exercise is commonly IS dominated; but implementation imedium because the boards tend fo at least approve some projects. In the Method-Driven Approach, method is high by definition, but procesis largely ignored and implementation barely orarely initiated. In the Administrative Approachonly a procedure exists as me thod. However, itdependen ce on user inputs suggests a m ediumrating on p rocess. Because of its resource allocation em phasis, approved projects are generallimplemented. The Technological Approach igenerally method-intensive and insensitive tprocess. It can, however, lead to some specifiimplementation of an infrastructure. The Organizational App roach uses any method or devicethat fit the need; it explicitly invests in procesand emphasizes implementation.

Preliminary EvaluationsThe five approaches were identif ied by compaing the events, experiences, and lessons described by the interviewees. As the investigatioproved to be exploratory, the classification oapproaches is descriptive a nd was derived by inductive interpretation of organizational exper


12/25

tntormation Systems Planning

Table 7. Five Approaches Summar ized

UnderpinningAssumption

Emphasis ofApproach

MajorInfluence ofOutcomes

Slogan

Business-LedBusiness plansand needsshould driveIS plans

Businessleads IS andnot vice-versa

IS planners

BusinessDrives IS

Method-DrivenIS strategieswil l beenhanced byuse of aforma! SISPmethod

Selection ofthe bestmethod

Practitionerso f t h emethod

StrategyNeedsfVIethocI

AdministrativeS!SP Shouldfo!low andconform withthe firm'smanagementp!anning andcontrolproceduresidentificationand allocationof !Sresources tomeet agreedneeds

Resourcep!anning andsteeringcommitteesFo!!ow fheRu!es

TechnoiogicaiSISP is anexercise inbusiness andinformationmode!!ing

Production ofmode!s andb!ueprints

f^ode!!ingmethodemp!oyed

!S NeedsBlueprints

OrganizationalS!SP is acontinuousdecision-makingactivity sharedby th e businessand !S

Organizationa!learning aboutbusinessprob!ems andopportunities anthe ITcontributionPermanent andad hoc teams okey managers.inc!uding !SThemes withTeams

Related theoriesDiff icult ies encountered in the Business-Led Ap-proach have been noted by others. The availabi!i-ty of forma! business strategies for SISP cannotbe assumed (Bowm an, e ta l . . 1983; Lederer andMend elow, 1986). Nor can we assume that busi-ness strategies are communicated to the orga-nization at large, are clear and stable, or arevaluable in identifying !S needs (Earl, 1989;Lederer an d Men de!ow. 1989). Inde ed, the qu alityof fhe process of business planning itself mayoften be suspect (Lederer and Sethi. 1988). Inother words, while the Business-Led Approachmay be especial ly appealing to generai man-agers, the chaHenges are !ike!y to be significant.

ing (Bowman, et al., 1983). Other researchhave argued that sometimes the businestrategy must be explicated f irst (King, 19Lederer and M end elow . 1987). This was a beof the !S directors in the fvtethod-Driven copanies, but one general manager complainthat this was "business strategy making d isgu ise . "The Admin is t ra t ive Approach re f lec ts tprescr ipt ions and pract ices of bureaucramod els of p!anning and co ntrol. We m ust turnthe general management ! i terature for insiginto this approach. Quinn (1977) has pointed othe strategy-making !imitations of bottom-up plning procedu res. He argues that big chang e raiy or iginates in this way and that, furthermo


13/25


Table 6. Strengths and Weaknesses of SISP Approaches

Business-LedStrengths Simple

BusinessfirstRaises ISstatus

Weaknesses Ad hocmethod

LacksmanagementcommitmentDepends onquality ofbusinessstrategy

Method-Driven

Provides amethodologyPlugs strategygapsRaises strategyprofile

Userinvolvement

Too inf!uencedby method

!mp!ementationun!ike!y

Administrative

Systemviabi!itySystemsynergiesEncouragesuser input

Non-strategic

Bureaucratic

Resource-constrained

Technological

Rigor

Focus oninfrastructureFavorsintegrated tools

LacksmanagementsupportOn!y partia!imptementation

Complexity

Organizational

BecomesnormalEmphasis onimplementationPromotes!S-userpartnership

Generation ofnew themes

Softmethodology

Architecturebecomesdifficult

Table 9. SISP Approaches vs. Three Conditions for Success

MethodProcessImplementation

Business-LedLowLowMedium

Method-DrivenHighLowLow

AdministrativeLowMediumHigh

TechnoiogicaiHighLowMedium

OrganizationaiMediumHighHigh

The Technological Approach may be the extremecase of how the IT industry an d its professionalsthinking to plan-The deficiencies of these methods have

dependent on the sequen ce required for architecture building {Hackathorn and Karimi. 1988; Inmon. 1986). The vo!uminous data gene rated bythis class of method has also been reported


14/25


!y use the rationai-ana!yticai approaches toutedin the piann ing literature when they make signifi-cant changes in strategy (Quinn. 1978). Rather,strategies often evolve from fragme nted, incre-mental, and largely intuitive processes. Ouinnbelieved this was the quite natura!, proper wayto cope with the unkno wabie proceeding f!ex-ibly and experimentally from broad concepts tospecif ic commitments.Mintzberg's (1983) view of strategy making issimilar. It emph asizes sm all project-based m ulti-ski!!ed teams, cross-functionat liaison devices,and se!ective decentralization. Indeed. Mintz-berg's view succinctly sum marizes the Organiza-tional Approach. He argues that often strategyis forme d, rather than formulated, as actions con-verge into patterns and as analysis and im-plementation merge into a fluid process oflearning. Furthermore. Mintzberg sees strategymaking in reality as a mixture of the formal andinformal and the analytical and emergent. Topman agers, he argues , should create a context inwhich strategic thinking and discovery mingle,and then they shouid intervene where necessaryto shape and support new ways forward.!n !S research, Henderson (1989) may have im-plicitly argued for the Organizationa! Approachwhen he called for an iterative, ong oing IS plan-ning process to build and sustain pa rtnership. Hesuggested p artnership mechanisms suc h as taskforces, cross-functional teams, mu!ti-tiered and

cross-functiona! networks, and collaborative plning without planners. Henderson and Sifo(1988) identify the importance of learning in SISand de Geus (1988) sees a!! p!anning as leaing and teamwork as central to organizatio!earning. Goodhue, et a!. (1988) and Moynih(1990) argue that SISP needs to deliver goenoug h app!ications rather than optimal modeThese propositions cou!d be seen as recogtion of the need to !earn by doing and to deer bene fits. There is therefore a literaturesupport the Organizational Approach.

Data assessmentThe field data itself can be used to assess suggested taxonomy of approaches, Questiothat arise are: do the approaches actually exand is it possible to clearly differentiate betwethem? Analysis of variance tests on reported scess scores indicated that differences betweapproaches are significant, but differences tween stakeholder sets are not.^ This is onedicat ion that approach is a distinct ameaningfu! way of ana!yzing S!SP in actionA second obvious question is whether any proaches are more effective than others. !perhap s prem ature to ask this question of a tonomy sugge sted by the data. Caution wouid vise further va!idation of the framework fifollowed by carefuiiy designed measurem

Table 10. Means Success Scores by Approach

Totaf MeansiS DirectorsGeneraiManagersLineManagers

Business-Led3.253.503.00

3.25

Method-Driven3J&4.504.00

3.00

Administrative3.603.603.40

3.80

Technoiogicai4.004.254.00

3.75

Organizationa3.944.004.17

3.66


15/25

Intormation Systems Plannin

However, this study provides an opportuni-rly, if tenta tive, evaluation of this so rt.For example, as shown in Table 10, success

cores are shown , as well as scoresmean score (3.73) across ali com -

in terms of techniqu e (Technological) earned the

Business-Led Approach, which lacks formalmethodologies, earned the lowest scores. Thereof course, legitimate doubts about themeaning or reliability of these success scoresbecause respondents were so keen to discuss

assuming each carries equal weight. Table11 breaks out these data by method, process,has the least concerns attributed

total. The Business-Led Approach wasperceived to be unsuccess ful on pro-

tation, perhaps be-

is not well-regarded on method. Thesey divergent from the qua litative

Another measure is the potential of each approach for generating competitive advantage applications. Respondents were asked to identifand describe such applications and trace theihistories. No attemp t was made by the resea rcher to check the competitive advantage claimeor to assess whether the applications deservethe label. Although only 14 percent of all suchapplications w ere reported to have been generated by a formal StSP study, it is interesting tocompare achievement rates of the firms in eachapproach (Table 12). Method-Driven and Technological Approaches do not appear promisingLittle is ever initiated in the Method-Driven Approach , while com petitiveness is rarely the focuof the Techno logical Approa ch. The Adm inistrative Approach appears to be more conduciveperhaps because user ideas receive a hea ringForty-two percent of competitive advantage applications discovered in all the firms originatefrom user requests. In the Business-Led Approach, some obviously necessary applicationare actioned. In the Organizational Approachmost of the themes pursued were perceived thave produced a competitive advantage.

These three qualitative measures can be combined to produce a multi-dimensional scoreOther scholars have sugges ted that a number operformance measures are required to m easurthe effectiveness of SISP (Raghunathan andKing, 1988). Table 13 ranks each approach according to the three measures discussed abov(where 1 = top and 5 = bottom). In summingthe ranks, the Organizational Approach appears

Table 1 1 . SISP Concerns Per Firm

MethodProcess

Business-Led2.750.75

Method-Driven2.503.00

Administrative2.801.60

Technological1.752.50

Organizational1.332.16


16/25

Intormation Systems Planning

Table 12. Competitive Advantage Propensity

ApproachBusiness-LedMet hod-DrivenAdministrativeTechnologicalOrganizational

Competitive Advantage Appiication Frequency4.0 applications per firm1.5 applications per firm3.6 applications per firm2.5 applications per firm4.8 applications per firm

Tabie 13. Muitidimensionai Ranking of SiSP Approaches

SuccessScoreRankingLeastConcernsRankingCompetitiveAdvantagePotentiaiRanl(ingSum ofRanksOveraiiRanking

Business-Led5

2

2

92

Method-Driven3

3

5

114

Administrative4

4

3

114

Technoiogicai1

5

4

103

Organizationa2

1

1

41

to be substantially superior. F urthermore, all theother approaches score relatively tow on thisbasis.Thus, both qualitative and quantitative evidence

Implications for ResearchMany prior studies of SISP have been basedthe views of IS managers alone. A novel aspof this study was that the attitudes and exp


17/25

Intormation Systems Plar^nin

t, their conclusions often dif-all three stakeholders were pre-ely discussion ensued and , eventual-, unprom pted, the group's views m oved toward

ed and the a pproach attributed to the firm.approach is not only a

otma l methods are used and1991). A systematic linkage to the organiza-business planning procedures is also com -

1988). The findings of this study sugg est

ying attention to im plemen tation. In-in the field of business strategy, it washe process of strategy making that led

izational Approach to SISP suggested

therefore , should be investigated furtherveness more rigorously, and to discover how

add itiona l studies are requ ired to furtherfind-Some of the parameters sugg ested here to

ther different a pproaches fit, or work

impiications for PracticeFor practitioners, this study provides two generalessons. First, SISP requires a holistic or interdependent view. Methods may be necessarybut they could fail if the process factors receiveno attention . It is also im portant to explicitly andposit ively incorporate im plementation plans anddecisions in the strategic planning cycle.Second , successful SISP seems to require usersand line managers working in partnership withthe ts function. This may not only generate relevant application ideas, but it will tend to createownership of both process and outcomes.The taxonomy of SISP approaches emergingfrom this study might be interpreted for practicein at least four different w ays. First, it can be usedas a diagnostic tool to posit ion a f irm's currenSISP efforts. The strengths and weaknessesidentified in the research then could suggeshow the current approach could be improved. Wehave found that frameworks used in this wayare likely to be more helpful if users and general managers as well as IS professionals jointogether in the diagnosis.Second, the taxonomy can be used to design asituation-specific (customized) approach on a"mix-and-match" basis. It may be possible todesign a potentially more effective hybrid. Theauthor is aware of one compan y experimen tingat building a combination of the Organizationaand Technological Ap proaches. One of the studycompa nies that had adopted the O rganizationaApproach to derive its IS strategy also soughsom e of the espoused benefits of the Tech nological Approach by continuously formulating ashadow blueprint for IT architecture. This may beone way of reconciling the apparent contradictions of the Organizational and TechnologicaApproaches.Third, based on our current understanding it appears that the Organizational Approa ch is moreeffective than others. Therefore, firms mighseriously consider a dopting it. This could involvesetting up mechanisms and responsibility struc


18/25


themes, and accept ing "good enough" solu-t ions and building on them . Above all, f irmsmight encourage any mechanisms that promoteorganizational learning about the scope of IT.Another interpretation is that the OrganizationalApproach describes how most IS strategies ac-tually are developed, despite the more formal andrational endeavors of IS managers or manage-ment at large. The reality may be a continuousinteraction of formal methods and informal be-havior and of intended and unintended strategies.If so, SISP in practice should be eclectic, selec-ting and trying methods and process initiativesto fit the nee ds of the time. One conse quen ce ofthis view might be recognition and acceptancethat planning need not always generate plansand that plans may arise without a formalplanning process.Finally, it can be reve aling for an organiza tion torecall the period when IS appeared to be con-tributing most effectively to the business and todescribe the SISP approach in use {whether bydesign or not) at the time . This may then indicatewh ich approach is most likely to succeed for thatorganization. Often when a particularly suc-cessful IS project is recalled, its history is seento resemble the Organizational Approach.

ConclusionsThis study evolved into a broad, behavioral ex-ploration of experiences in iarge organizations.The brea dth of perspective led to the propositionthat SISP is more than method or techniquealone. In ad dit ion, process issues and the ques-tion of implementation appear to be important.These interdependent elem ents comb ine to forman approach. Five different SISP approacheswere identif ied, and one, the OrganizationalApproach, appears superior.For practitioners, the taxonomy of SISP ap-proaches provides a diagnostic tool to use inevaluating the effectiveness of their SISP effortsand in learning from their own experiences.

of the by now "tradit ional" SISP practices have been advocated and developed in recyears.The "approach" construct presented in thisticle, the taxonomy of SISP approaches derivand the indication that the least formal and leanalytical approach seems to be most effecall offer new directions for SISP research theory development.

Endnotes'See, for example, surveys by Oickson, el al. (1984), Haand Herbert (1986), Brancheau and Wetfierbe (1987),

NIederman, et al. (1991).'Proposit ions and methods include Zani's (1970) oafly

down proposal. King's (1976) more sophisticated linkagthe organization's IS strategy set lo the business strategyand focused techniques such as critical success fa(Bullen and Rockart, 19B1) and value chain analysis (Pand Millar, 1985). These are supplemented by proliterature such as Andersen's (1983) Method 1 or IBM's (Business System Planning, The models and frameworkdeveloping a theory of SISP include Boynton and Z(1987). Henderson and Sifonis (1988), and HendersonVenk atraman (1989). Em pirical works include a survey oftice by Galliers (1987), analysis of methods by S ullivan (1investigation of problems by Lederer and Sethi (1988). asment of success by Lederer and Uandelow (1987)Raghunathan and King (1988), and evaluation ot partitechniques such as strategic dala plann ing (Goo dhue, 1992).

^ Prior work has tended to use mail questionnaires targeIS executives. H owever, researchers have called for brstudies and for surveys ot the experiences and perspeof top managers, corporate planners, and usars (LedereMendelow, 1989; Lederer and Se thi, 1988; RaghunathaKing, 1988).

'Characterist ics of the sample companies are summarizAppendix A.

^Extracts from lhe interview questionnaires are showAppendix B.

"This exploration through field studies was in the sp'grounded theory" (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

' Fuller des criptive statistics can be seen in an early resreport (Earl, 1990).


19/25


ReferencesMethod/1: InformationSystems Methodology: An Introduction. The

Company, Chicago, IL, 1983.Managing the Resource AllocationProcess: A Study of Corporate Planning andInvestment, Division of Research, GraduateSchool of Business Administration, HarvardUniversity. Boston, MA, 1970.B., Davis. G., and W etherbe, J. "T hreeStage Model ot MIS Planning," Informationand Management (6:1), August 1983,pp. 11-25.

Technology Planning in the 199O's: Directionsfor Practice and Research," MIS Quarterly(11;1), March 1987, pp. 59-71.C. and W etherbe, J.C. "K ey IssuesIn Information Systems Management," MtSQuarterty {A^:A), March 1987, pp. 23-45.C.V., and Rockart, J.F. "A Primer onCrit ical Success Factors," CISR WorkingPaper No. 69, Center for Information Sys-tems Research, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, Cambridge. MA, June 1981.J.N . Mat


20/25

Inlormation Systems Planning

Management 00:5), May 1986, pp. 245-254.Lederer, A.L and Mendelow, A.L. "InformationResource Planning: Overcoming Difficulties inIdentifying Top Management's Objectives,"MIS Quarterty (11:3), September 1987. pp.389-399.Lederer, A.L. and Mendelow, A.L. "Co-ordinationof Information Systems Plans With BusinessPlans," Journat of Management InformationSystems (6:2), Fall 1989, pp. 5-19.Laderer, A.L. and Sethi, V. "Th e Implementationof Strategic Information Systems PlanningMethodo log ies , " MIS Ouarterly (12:3),September 1988, pp. 445-461.Lederer, A.L. and S ethi, V. "C rit ical Dimensionsof Strategic Information Systems Planning,"Decision Sciences (22:1), Winter 1991, pp.104-119.Mintzberg, H. Structure in Fives: Designing Ef-fective Organizations, Prent ice Ha l l ,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1983.Mintzberg, H, "Craft ing Strategy," HarvardBusiness Review {66.4), July-August 1987, pp.66-75.Moynihan, T. "W hat Chief Executives and SeniorManagers Want From Their IT Departments,"MIS Ouarterly {^4:^), March 1990, pp. 15-26.Niederma n. F., B rancheau, J.C., and W etherbe,J,C. "Information Systems ManagementIssues for the 1990s," MIS Ouarterly (15:4),December 1991, pp. 475-500.Porter, M.E. and Millar, V.E. "How InformationGives You Comp etit ive Ad vantag e," HarvardBusiness Review {66A), July-August 1985, pp.149-160.Qu inn, J.B. "S trategic G oals: Plans and Politics,"Sloan Management Review {^9:^\), Fall 1977,pp. 21-37.

Quinn, J.B, "Strategic Change: Logical cremental ism," Sloan Management Rev(20:1), Fall 1978, pp. 7-21.Raghuna than, T.S. and King, W.R. "T he Impof Information Systems Planning on Organizat ion," OMEGA (16:2), 1988, 85-93.Sullivan, C.H., Jr. "Sy stem s Planning in theformation Age," Sloan Management Rev(26:2), Winter 1985, pp. 3-11.Synott. W.R. and Gruber, W.H. InformaResource Management: Opportunit ies Strategies for the 198O's, J. Wiley and SNew York, NY, 1982.Zani , W.M. "Bluepr int for MIS," HarvBusiness Review (48:6), November-Decem

1970, pp. 95-100.

About the AuthorMichael J . Earl is Ande rsen Consulting Profesof Information Management at London BusinSchool. Previously, he was founder and direof the Oxford Institute of Information Manament at Tem pieton Co llege, Oxford. Past appoments include lecturer at Manchester BusinSchool and group systems manager at GTelecommunications. He consults for sevmu ltinational com panies and is active in natioand international debates on business infortion technology. His current research is onstrategic planning, the contribution of IT to globusiness strategies, and the role of the CIO . fessor Earl has published widely on informasystems, accounting, and control. He is author or editor of six books, and his latest bManagement Strategies for tnformaTechnotogy, has become a best seller.


21/25

Intormation Systems Plar}nin

Appendix AField Study CompaniesTable A1. Descriptive Statistics for Fieid Study Companies

1.2,3.4 .5.6.7.8.9.10 .

11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.

CompanyBankingBankingRetailingRetailingInsuranceInsuranceTravelElectronicsAerospaceAerospaceITITTelecommunicationsAutomobileFoodOilChemicalsFoodAccountancy/ConsultancyBrewingFood/Consumer

AnnualRevenue (B)

1.7 '1.9*4.20.562.81"0 . 9 t0.751.354.12.13.90.60.90.54 .5

55.02.181.40.551.72.5

Annuai ISExpenditure (M)45027580830

158251205477181440

1.00052012327

Years of SiSPExperience4'24411

1543172021116916108591

'Operat ing costs ,^'premium income.


22/25


Appendix BInterview QuestionnaireStructured (Closed) QuestionsI. Wh at prom pted you to dev elop an IS/IT strategy? (R3. W hat were the objectives in deve loping an IS/IT strategy? (R4a. Wh at are the outputs of your IS/IT strategy deve lopm ent? (M4b. Wh at are the content head ings of your IS strategic plan or strategy? (M5. What methods have you used in developing your IS strategy; wh en; why? (M7. Wha t have been the bene fits of strategic information systems plann ing? (R8. How succe ssful has SISP been? (L9. W hat have you foun d to be key succes s factors in SISP? (R10 . How is your SISP connected to other business planning processes? (MI 1 . How do you review your IS strategies? (M12 . What are the major problems you have encountered in SISP? (RAll these questions were asked using multiple-choice lists (MC), Likert-Type Scale (LS), or rank-ordlists (RO).

Example Rank-Order Questions3. Wh at we re the objectives in deve loping an IS/IT strategy?Tick Ra

Align IS development with business needsRevamp the IS/IT functionSeek competit ive advantage from ITEstablish technology path and policies .Forecast IS requirementsGain top management commitmentOther (specify)

Example Multiple-Choice Questions5. What methods have you used in developing your IS strategy; wh en, why?

When Method WhCritical success factorsStages of growthBusiness systems planning Enterprise modellingInformation engineeringMethod 1


23/25

Inlormation Systems Plannin

Example Likert-Type Scale Question8a. How successful has SISP been on the following scale?

1 2 3 4

Failure Some BenefftsBut Didn'tNeed SISPto AchieveThem

Been Betterthan notDoing ItSuccessfulbut CanImprove

HighlySuccessful

Semi-Structured (Qpen) Questions2a . Please summarize the approach you have adopted in developing your IS strategy (or in identifying and deciding which IT applications to develop in the long run).

b. What are the key elements of your IS strategy?a. Have you developed any applications that have given competitive advantage in recent years? Iso, what?b. How was each of these applications identif ied and deveioped?b. In what ways has SISP been unsuccessful?

13. Can you describe any key turning points in your SISP experience, such as changes in aims, approach, method, benefits, success factors or problems?

Appendix CConcerns or Unsuccessful Features of SISP

Method Concerns1. It did not lead to management identifying applications supportable at a cost2. No regeneration or reviewFailed to discover our com petitors ' moves or und erstand their imp rovem entsNot enough planning; too much emphasis on development and projectsIt was not conn ected to business planningIt was too internally focuse dSensibly allocating resources to needs was a problemBusiness needs were ignored or not identifiedNot flexible or reactive enou gh10 . Not coordinated11 . Not enough consideration of architecture


24/25


19 . It could have been done quicker; it took too long20. It developed a bureaucracy of its own21. We have not solved identification of corporate-wide needs22. The architecture was questionable; people were not convinced by it23- We still don't know how to incorporate and meet short-term needs24. We did not complete the company-entity model25. We found it difficult justifying the benefits26. I t was too much about automating today's operations27. It was too ad hoc; insufficient method28. Many of the recommendations did not meet user aspirations

Process Concerns1. Some businesses were less good at, and less committed to, planning than others2. The exercise was abrogated to the IS department3. Inadequate understanding across all managemen t4. Line management involvement was unsatisfactory5. Lack of senior man agem ent involvemen t6. No top managem ent buy-in7. The strategy was not sold or com mu nicated enough8. We still have poor user-IS relationships9. Too many IS people have not wo rked outside of IS10 . Poor IT understanding of customer and business needs11. Line management buy-in was low12. Little cross-divisional learning13 . IS management quality was below par14 . Senior executives were not made aware of the scale of change required15 . Users lacked understanding of IT and its methods16 . It was too user-driven in one period17 . We are stil l learning how to do planning studies18. Planning almost never works; there are too many "dramas"19 . The culture has not changed enough20. We oversold the plan21 . Too much conflict between organizational units

Implementation Concerns1. We have not broken the resource constraints2. We have not implemented as much as we should3. It was not carried throug h into resource plann ing4. The necessary technology ptanning was not done5. We have not achieve d the system bene fits6. We made technical mistakes7. Som e of the needs are still unsa tisfied8. App ropriate hardwa re or software was not available9. Cost and time budge t returns


25/25