A Survey of the Use of Strategic Information

8/8/2019 A Survey of the Use of Strategic Information

1/34

A survey of the use of strategic information

systems planning approaches in UK

organizations

Donal J. Flynn and Eva Goleniewska

Department of Computation, University of Manchester Institute of Science

and Technology, Sackville Street, Manchester M60 lQD, UKThis work describes the results of a questionnaire-based survey intohow 18 UK organizations use strategic information systems planningapproaches for integrating IT into their business. The results are usefulboth for practitioners who may benefit from the experiences of planningin other organizations, and for researchers who seek to understandand improve planning approaches and the way in which they are used.Keywords: strategic information systems planning, information systems,

information technology

How do organizations currently plan for their information systems, and equally

importantly, ensure that the systems to be developed will be relevant to theirinformation needs and capable of being implemented successfully? This crucialquestion forms the basis of this article, which aims to briefly compare five

well-known strategic information systems planning (SISP) approaches and topresent the findings of a survey, carried out by the authors, on the use of such

approaches in a number of UK organization s. This will offer a clearer picture of

current practices in the SISP field in the UK.An alignment view of SISP is that it is an application strategy that aims toalign IS development with current business needs and goals and to seek

competitive advantage from them (Hartog and Herbert, 1986). The potential for

using information technology (IT) to affect the competitive capability of anorganization is already well-established (Hochstrasser and Griffiths, 1990). Analternative, impact view (Vitale et al., 1986) focuses on SISP as a business

analysis process which seeks to identify strategic opportunities for the firm by

applying IT to optimize business performance in new areas.The importance of such planning is recognized in several surveys of IT

executives(Niederman et al., 1991). The main reasons, which are common to both viewsmentioned above, are firstly, that information systems which are complex oraim for distinct competitive edge require long -range planning. Secondly,

decisions on future information systems have organization-wide impact,affecting turnover and staff motivation, and therefore, information systemsplanning should be carried out within the larger framework of corporate

planning. Thirdly, investment in information systems has increased significantly

because of the influx of products and support, based on new computer andtelecommunications technology. Such commitment requires careful and

systematic planning (Awad, 1988).


2/34

But how does SISP lead to increasingly more successful sy stems being

developed? A successful system may be defined as one that meets its targets ofquality and productivity (Flynn, 1992). The quality target refers to the systemmeeting its requirements whilst the productivity target refers to the system

being developed on time and within budget. SISP aims to address possible

problems associated with quality and productivity in two ways. First of all,planning focuses on information systems that fit in with organizational

objectives and activities.Secondly, planning involves the allocation of resources in advance and the

planning of an infrastructure which will take into account evolving technologyand the establishment of information needs, on which future application

development willbe based.There is a substantial body of literature on the topic of SISP (McLean and

Soden, 1977; Cash and Konsynski, 1985; Vitale et al., 1986; Ward et al., 1990),

as well as reports of empirical work which attempts to capture actualexperiences of SISP approaches and their effects. For example, Galliers (1987)surveyed 209 organizations in a study of SISP in the UK and Australia,

reporting on a range of factors such as distribution of planning horizon,planning approach used, planning objectives and linkage to corporate planning.

In addition, there are interviews with chief information officers by Lederer and

Mendelow (1987) concerning problems of convincing top management ofstrategic IT potential; interviews with IS and non-ISmanagers (Johnston and Carrico, 1988) concerning the ap plications of strategic

IT; and a comparison of two impact techniques for identifying competitive

advantage, Porters value chain and Wisemans strategic thrusts methodology(Bergeron et al., 1991). Lederer and Sethis 1988 study has surveyed 80 USorganizations for the problems they experience in implementing SISP. Galliers

(1987) and OConnor (1993) contain brief reviews of empirically -based work.This paper, based on a relatively small sample of only 18 respondents, eachfrom different organizations, aims to investigate important aspects of SISP in

UK organizations, and to highlight the problems and levels of satisfactionexperienced by the respondents with different aspects of SISP. The findings

contribute towards the body of knowledge concerning current SISP practice inthe UK, providing further evidence supporting (or in some cases disagreeing

with) conclusions of other empirical studies, and are important for outliningissues for further research. Obtaining information on current practice provides,for practitioners, an appreciation of the penetration of SISP in the UK and an

opportunity to see how other organizations approach SISP problems. Academicsand researchers benefit from this form of feedback as they are ab le to take into

account experience with existing SISP approaches to enable them to developmore effective approaches forthe future.The plan of the rest of the paper is to outline the main features of some


3/34

well-known SISP approaches and then, against this background, to present the

results of the survey into current UK strategic IS planning. We will then discussthese results and conclude with some important points and ideas for futureresearch.

Vol2 No 4 December 1993 293

Use of SISP approaches in UK organizationsBackground to SISP approach comparison

Overview

Due to the fact that there is no industry standard for SISP, many organizationsselect features from various SISP approaches, and then, possibly with outsideconsulting assistance, develop their own in-house approach. Whatever approach

or combination of approaches is chosen, it will then have to be adapted to suitthe environment, culture, experience and skills existing in the organization

(Ahituv and Neumann, 1990).The five SISP approaches we will examine are the Ward et al. (1990) approach,

Information Engineering (Finkelstein, 1989), the Dickson and Wetherbe (1985)approach, the Multidimensional approach (Earl, 1989) and Information Strategy

Planning (ISP) (Martin and Leben, 1989). These approaches will be analysed

using a framework consisting of the following factors: philosophy and aims,planning processes involved, resulting output, and how the specific issue ofexploiting IT for strategic advantage is tackled.

These approaches were selected as, taken together, they address all the activitiesand issues that arose from the survey responses and two of them (Ward et al.

And Information Engineering) were used by the organizations. In addition, theapproaches offer a contrast, in that Ward et al. aim to be very comprehensive,

while Dickson and Wetherbe cover many activities but in less detail.

Information Engineering emphasizes the building of an informationarchitecture, the Multidimensional approach adopts a contingency framework,

while ISP is targeted at the level of the whole organization. This range of

approaches allows an appreciation of the fact that approaches may varyconsiderably from organization to organization.

The intention in this section is not to exhaustively analyse the approaches wehave chosen, but to compare them by presenting their main points of emphasisin

enough detail to form a context within which the survey results may beinterpreted.

We shall first present a general outline of a comprehensive abstract SISPapproach,

and use this as a basis for the individual approach comparisons wherenecessary.Outline of abstract approach

A SISP approach consists of a number of key analytical, evaluative and creative


4/34

(Earl, 1989) activities which result in a final strategic plan. The main activities

covered by the approaches we compare are:1. consider organizational goals and strategies and the business and IT aims;2. assess the current set of information systems;

3. identify information needs of business processes;

4. evaluate the external competitive environment (business threats andopportunities and competitors use of IT);

5. assess the external technological environment (technological trends);6. agree system priorities concerning old and new systems and systems under

development;7. provide individual project planning so that each project has clearly identified

factors such as timetable, budget and personnel;8. involve users in the planning process;9. gain top management support and commitment.

294 Journal of Strategic Information Systems

D. J. FLYNN and E. GOLENIEWSKAIn addition, the following outputs are produced as components of the strategic

plan:1. organizational objectives and activities;

2. information architecture;3. application portfolio (the set of required applications);

4. portfolio priorities (prioritized applications);5. IS management strategy (structure and activities for the IT managementfunction to deliver the benefits promised in the plan);

6. IT strategy (technological infrastructure in terms of hardware, software,

telecommunications);7. individual project plans.

Approach comparison

Philosophy and aimsEarl (1989) classifies SISP approaches according to the emphasis they place on

oneof three factors: (1) awareness - the importance of IT to create strategic

advantage; (2) opportunity - the identification of threats and opportunities whichIT may address; (3) positioning - the assessment of the status of IT in theorganization.

A complementary view is that ofH

irschheim (1989), who views approaches asbeing: (1) IS or IT led; (2) strategic (top-down); or (3) non-strategic (bottom-

up).In addition, two major aims are associated with the current era of strategic

information systems planning (Vitale et al., 1989; Ward et al., 1990). Firstly,the

alignmentof IS/IT investment with business needs and secondly, competitive


5/34

advantage through IS/IT by exploiting opportunities and countering threats intheexternal business environment, using the strengths of the organization.

Central to the perspective of Ward et al. (1990) is the concept of information asa

key strategic resource, and a major consideration is that a detailed strategic planshould be closely integrated with the business pl an. The approach is clearlyalignment-based and the underlying aim is impact - and opportunity-oriented,

Thatis, the aim is to deliver increased value to the business by exploiting

opportunitiesand countering threats. Their approach also stands out as a s trategic approach,where the top-down analysis ensures that business needs lead IS/IT

development.The Dickson and Wetherbe (1985) approach provides a four -stage framework

foraddressing key problem areas of information systems, such as the alignment of

ISwith overall organizational objectives and the rational allocation of resources.The

approach is alignment-based, employing top-down analysis and includescomprehensive project planning stages.

The Information Engineering approach (Finkelstein, 1989) cons ists of acontinuous process of strategic planning, strategic implementation and strategicmanagement. At the strategic and tactical modelling stages, a set of strategic

statements leads to the construction of a data model, which is revised to adapt itto

the business plan and to test out various alternatives. Alignment of the strategicplan with the corporate plan is also a central feature of this approach, which isessentially top-down and IS led.

In the Multidimensional approach (Earl, 1989) the key areas of interest are theclarification of business needs in IS terms, current systems provision and use

andnew strategic opportunities offered by IT. The contingency nature of theMultidimensional approach is provided by the use of strategy modes, which

enableVol2 No 4 December 1993 295

Use of SISP approaches in UK organizationsthe planning approach to correspond to the firms sector, which may be

infrastructure (bottom-up), business (top-down) or opportunity-led (inside-out).This approach is alignment- and impact-based and permits flexibility in the

selection of the approach used, according to the organizational features.The central aim of the ISP approach (Martin and Leben, 1989) is to build an


6/34

information architecture (a detailed description of information needs) for the

entireorganization. This is in contrast to the Multidimensional approach, whereplanning

takes place at business unit level. The ISP approach is IT led, strategic (top -

down)and is based on establishing the organizations current IS /IT position.

ProcessTable 1 shows the level of detail of the process for each approach, based upontheset of activities identified in the previous section. The table shows that all

approaches take organizational goals into consideration, examine thecompetitive

environment and identify information needs. All approaches, with the exceptionof

Information Engineering, also provide an assessment of current systemsprovision

and use and the external technological environment, together with system

priorities.Most notably, the Information Engineering approach is the least detailed.Neither the internal nor the external technological environments are analysed.

Thisapproach does, however, enable various strategic alternatives and their

implications to be evaluated. Initially, the strategic statements are used instrategic

and tactical modelling to identify the information needed to support businessactivities at different management levels throughout the organization.

In contrast, the comprehensive nature of the Ward et al.process emerges. ATable 1. Breadth of process detail of five SISP approaches

Ward et al. Information Dickson/ Multidimensional InformationEngineering Wetherbe StrategyPlanning

Consider organizational x

goals and strategiesAssess current set X

of ISIdentify information X

needsEvaluate competitive x

environmentAssess external Xtechnical environment

Agree system X


7/34

priorities

Provide individual -project planningInvolve users X

Gain top management x

support/commitmentX X

X

X X

X X- X- X- X

X

- -

X XX XX X

X XX XX XX- X296Journal of Strategic Information SystemsD. J. FLYNN and E. GOLENIEWSKA

preplanning stage sets the framework for the planning study proper. Theapproachcan be seen as two-dimensional; analytical in the way the organization is

decomposed in order to derive the key business activities and their informationneeds, and creative in the way new and enhanced business opportunities can be

created through IS/IT.

The Dickson and Wetherbe approach is the only one to extend to detailedindividual project planning, in terms of task definition, cost and completion

datesand progress tracking. As regards the optimal allocation of development

resources,the authors stress that MIS projects are often not easily quantifiable in terms ofcost

and benefit, as organizational factors such as relative power or aggressivebargaining may influence the final allocation.

Securing top management support and commitment features extensivel y in boththe Ward et al. and ISP approaches. Martin and Leben (1989) describeinformation


8/34

as a vital corporate resource, affecting productivity and strategic decisions, and

assuch, requiring top management involvement.The Ward et al. and Multidimensional approaches initially appear to be verysimilar, as they both have analytical and creative stages. The main difference

lies inthe contingency nature of the Multidimensional approach. The approach

employsthe use of strategy modes which ensures that SISP is in line with the

organizationssector. Earl (1989) proposes a classification of four industry sectors - delivery,

dependent, drive and delayed - which describe the strategic impact and potentialof IT in different sectors. A three-legged approach is then constructed whichfits

this classification, suggesting whether a bottom-up, top-down or inside-out

approach should be employed. The inside -out approach identifies areas whichmay

yield unique and competitive advantage from IT.

outputThe final strategic plan is a reference document which will be employed to: (1)initiate new IS projects, (2) serve as a means of auditing current information

systems provision of IT use, (3) act as a project management tool, in terms ofdeadlines and priorities, and (4) serve as a means of assessing new IS projectproposals. Table 2 shows a comparison of the breadth of the outputs of the five

Table 2. Breadth of outputs of five SISP approaches

Ward et al. Information Dickson/ Multidimensional InformationEngineering Wetherbe StrategyPlanning

Organizational objectives x

and activitiesInformation XarchitectureApplication portfolio XPortfolio priorities X

IS management X

strategyIT strategy XProject plans -

X X X X

X X X XX X X- X X X- X - -


9/34

- X X X- X - -Vol2 No 4 December 1993 297

Use of SISP approaches in UK organizationsapproaches, based on the comprehensive set of outputs we identified in the

previous section.Each of the approaches outlined can provide a basis for an effective strategicplan, when applied in the appropriate circumstances. Table 2 shows that the

Dickson and Wetherbe approach delivers the widest range of products in itsstrategic plan, extending to project planning. However, the level of detail ismuch

less than that given by the Ward et al. approach, which produces three distinctand

detailed outputs: (a) business IS strategy, (b) IT strategy, and (c) IS/ITmanagement strategy. The business IS strategy consists of an IS strategy and

policies, the application portfolio and tables detailing information requirements.The Multidimensional approach produces a more directional than detailed

strategic plan, although it gives the most comprehensive application portfolio.TheIS management strategy is covered at a later stage. The applicat ions strategic

planis described as a shopping list of applications and projects, giving clear

directionfor IS development. This includes mandatory applications, strategic systems,research and development and infrastructure investment.

Finally, the ISP approach produces various enterprise and data models as itsmain output, which form a detailed knowledge base for the creation and

maintenance of future information systems. The absence of an IS managementstrategy from the output of ISP reflects the data-oriented nature of the approach.

Strategic advantage through ITThe exploitation of IT for strategic advantage has been widely documented

(Porter,

1985; Rackoffet al., 1985; Jackson, 1989), particularly the ways in which ITcan

support business strategy and create strategic options. The Ward et al. approach

and Earls Multidimensional approach are the only approaches which explicitlyaddress the use of IT for strategic advantage. A difference of viewpoint exists

between the two approaches, as Ward et al. argue that rather than beingincremental extensions from earlier developments or backlog lists, ISdevelopments need to be driven by current or future business needs.

Conversely,Earl points out that many strategic systems have been evoluti onary rather than


10/34

revolutionary and that the addition of a later facility to an existing system may

bringcompetitive advantage.

Within the Ward et al. approach, the creative approach is used to identifybusiness opportunities, which can be sustained, strengthened or created by the

useof IT. The Multidimensional approach proposes an inside -out stage to focuson IT

opportunities.

Comparison summaryAll the approaches share the view that information is a key resource and,correspondingly, they all produce an information (or data) architecture, usingsources such as staff interviews and current systems. All approaches except

Information Engineering use this to prioritize a set of information systemapplications.

Approach differences are due mainly to the bre adth of activities included, asonlysome approaches cover pre -planning, assessing the external technologicalenvironment, and producing IT and IS management strategies. Approaches also

differ in their aims, as one may be more impact -conscious than another (Ward

et al.and Multidimensional approaches), and they may also differ in their ability toadaptthemselves to different organizational circumstances, such as the

Multidimensional

approach.298 Journal of Strategic Information SystemsD. J. FLYNN and E. GOLENIEWSKAOrganizations with less SISP experience may prefer to concentrate on detailed,

step-by-step approaches which provide guidance frameworks, such as the Wardet

al. or Multidimensional approaches. As SISP experience increases, the approachcan be adopted to suit changing organizational circumstances and differentneeds.

No single approach is optimal for every organization, although there may exist a

particular set of circumstances under which it is superior. Another view is thatthestrengths and weaknesses of an approach are determined by the types of issuesthat

it does or does not consider.

A survey into current SISP practice

BackgroundThe primary purpose of this questionnaire-based survey is to establish a clearer


11/34


12/34

to over 400 000 employees, and only three had less than 300 employees. Table

3shows the size and industry representation of the organizations. Thequestionnaire

was addressed to the head of the IS department in each organization.

Respondentshad a mean of 21 years experience in IT, with values ranging from 7 to 30

years.Changing management roles and increasing awareness of the importance of IS

planning were reflected in five of the job titles, including information servicesdirector, business services manager, information architect and information

strategyplanning manager, signalling a specialization of the traditional role of the dataprocessing manager. It should be noted that the responses only reflect the views

of

IT personnel, and only one individual in each organization.Profile of planning approaches used (Part II)Ql: How are the systems mainly developed?Fifteen respondents (83 per cent) indicated that systems were mainly developed

centrally via the IT department. Only two respondents i ndicated that systemdevelopment was decentralized to user departments and one (the largestorganization) replied that all three types given in the question were used.

Q2: What kind of Information Systems strategic planning techniquedoes yourorganization use, if any, and how many years experience do you have of

thisplanning technique?We used the term Information Systems strategic planning technique in this

question, contrasting with in-house planning technique in the next question, aswe

wanted respondents to identify recognized SISP techniques or approaches that

theyused. The results are shown in Figure 1, where six respondents (33 per cent)

each

identified one of the following as a SISP technique they used: Ward et al.,

criticalsuccess factors (CSF), CCTA (Strategic planning for IS), Oracle, InformationEngineering Workbench (IEW) and Information Engineering. The mean of the

number of years experience with these was just over 4 years.

Q3:If no formal strategic planning technique is used, please give anoutline of the


13/34

present in-house planning technique(s) used in connection withInformation Systemsplanning.Figure 1 shows that 10 respondents (56 per cent) used in-house techniques,Table 3. Characteristics of survey organizations

Number of employeesLess than 1000 3

1000 to 10 000 8More than 10 000 7

IndustryDistribution 2

Manufacturing 6Government 2

Banking/Insurance 2

Transport 1

Utilities 1ConsultancyHealth :300 Journal of Strategic Information Systems

100

% respondents 1 569L

m mq mno SISP in-housetechnique technique techniqueD. J. FLYNNand E. GOLENIEWSKA

SISP techniques usad byrespondents:

.cSFIEW:oRAcLE. IE. Cost/benefita nalpis.SVkOT. Ward elalapproach. CCTA (Strategic planning for IS]

Figure 1. Types of planning techniques used by organizationsincluding critical success factors, cost/benefit analysis, strengths/weaknesses/

opportunities/threats (SWOT), feasibility studies, business/marketing-led

workshops,functionally-based IT steering groups and quarterly user group meetings.

Responses to questions 2 and 3 indicate that there is a difference in respondentsperceptions as to whether a technique is a recognized SISP technique, an in -

house


14/34

technique or is even related to SISP. For example, sever al techniques which

mightbe regarded as SISP techniques (such as CSF and SWOT) are given in responseto

question 3, while a DBMS tool such as Oracle, given in response to question 2,

isnot normally regarded as a SISP technique (although, conceivably, pla nners

mayuse this for its information architecture capability). A feasibility study was

given inresponse to question 3 as an in -house technique.

Our conclusion is that recognized SISP techniques are not well -known to themajority of these respondents, and they differ as to what constitutes such atechnique.

Q4:Please indicate whether you feel that the planning technique

mentioned in (2) or(3) meets the following objectives by rating each objective on a scale

from 1 to 5.Figure 2 shows that, of the six objectives, four received a rating below averageforRating:41 - not at all

3 - average

5-complately 3 -------

1ObjectivesFigure 2. Extent to which organizational planning technique meetsobjectivesVol2No 4 December 1993 301

Use of SISP approaches in UK organizationsthe extent to which they are met by the organizational planning technique. The

most positively rated objective was MIS objectives aligned withorganizational

goals, where the mean rating was 3.5. This is a well-known finding from other

studies, and has been noticed to apply particularly to IT respondents (Galliers,1989).Increased top management supportwas also rated slightly aboveaverage.

New and higher payback computer applications identifiedand betterforecasting andallocation of resources were both rated below average. The objective whichwas


15/34

rated lowest was new opportunities for improving the IT department. Thisimpliesthat SISP does not extend to the region of IS/IT management.

The other objective ranked lowest was competitive advantage created. SISPmay

either not consider the creation of competitive advantage, systems which couldbring about competitive advantage may not be implemented, or such advantage

may be difficult to measure. Bergeron et al. (1991) question whether IT canbringabout significant competitive advantage that will not be eroded as soon as

competitors follow a similar IT path.

Q5: What is the primary focus of your organizations planningtechnique?Figure 3 shows that the majority of respondents cited alignment as the primaryfocus of their organizations planning technique. This is consistent with the

findingsof question 4. Only two respondents indicated that impact of competitiveadvantage was the central aim of their respective organizations p lanning

efforts,while one respondent did not complete this question.

Q6:Does your planning technique define the data architecture?Figure 4 shows that only nine respondents indicated that their organizationsplanning technique defined the data architect ure, while eight respondents said it

did not. One respondent did not complete this question. Goodhue et al. (1992)and

Bidgood and Jelley (1991) have noted problems related to inadequate orincorrect

analysis, or inapplicability to all organization types, concerning the productionof a

data architecture.

Responses to questions 5 and 6 imply that the majority of the planningtechniques in use in the organizations may not be very broad, confining

themselvesto alignment only, omitting consideration of technol ogical impact, with only

half

going on to produce a data architecture.planning technique

focus:alignment impact

Figure 3. Focus of organizational planning technique - alignment orimpact302 Journal of Strategic Information Systems


16/34

D. J. FLYNN and E. GOLENIEWSKA

1 oo-%respondents56

0dataarchitecture dataarchitecture

defined not defined

Figure 4. Definition of data architecture by organizational planningtechniqueQ7: Are automated support facilities used in conjunction with yourorganizations

planning technique?Only one reply indicated that automated support facilities were used to assistSISP

(IEW planning/analysis). This follows from the response to questions 2 and 3,indicating that mainly in-house techniques are used, rather than recognized

SISP

techniques for which more tools are available. It also suggests that SISP is notsufficiently standardized to justify tool investment by software houses. It also

mayimply that the volume of data (particularly that of the data architecture)

generatedduring the process is not sufficiently high to warrant the use of standard systemsanalysis tools such as entity-relationship and dataflow diagrams.

Q8:Does the IT department participate in the organizations businessplanning?Figure 5 shows that, for most of the respondents, the IT department participates

inthe organizations business planning often or sometimes. Only four respondents

replied that the IT department never participated in any business planning.

Q9: Who typically initiates an information systems study?The IT department figures as the most frequent SISP study initiator, shown in

Figure 6, whilst management sometimes assumes this role. Other initiators ofthe

SISP study given include users, the Board of Directors, and the corporateplanning100% responses 1

Figure 5. Participation of IT department in business planningVol2 No 4 December 1993 303Use of SISP approaches in UK organizations


17/34

Initiated by MANAGEMENTInitiated by IT DEPARTMENT

Figure 6. Initiator of SZSP studyfunction (one response each).

Responses to questions 8 and 9 indicate that the IT department has considerableinfluence over SISP, and some influence over business planning.

QlO: Planning process breadthRespondents were asked to identify the extent to which certa in activities (based

onthe key activities used in the earlier section for SISP approach comparison)were

covered by the organizational SISP technique. The results, for often responses,are shown in Figure 7, and the emphasis on organizational goals and strategiesagain confirms earlier findings. It is also clear that users, with their knowledge

ofbusiness processes and organizational goals, are fully involved in the process.

Lessthan half of the respondents assess the organizational environment often. Of the

eight never responses, assess the organizations competitiveenvironmentactivityhad the most (three) responses.loo-

25-083%Ike orgnl

Daisintozcount72%

sessmrent IS

78%involve

users

55%50%

44%44%take orgnlassessexternalchangesntotech env aaxluntassess


18/34

competitiveenvofagninvolvetop mFznl

Figure 7. Activities often covered by organizational planning technique

11%low _?I mtingen304 Journal of Strategic Information SystemsD. J. FLYNN and E. GOLENIEWSKA

1 oo-

% responsesScope - Entire organizatiof

Figure 8. Scope of SZSP studyScope - Division Scope - Functio(lalarea

Qll : Contingency plans

From question 10, only two of the respondents indicated that contingency planswere often used in the planning process, although 13 said they were usedsometimes. If contingency plans were used, they were sometimes based on

different assumptions concerning organization strategy, were never as detailed

asthe main strategic plan and were only sometimes developed alongside the main

plan. The reason for this lack of emphasis may be to reduce planning time.

Q12: The scope of the planning study refers to the organizational unitcovered in theinvestigation. What does an IS planning study in your organization

typically cover?Figure 8 shows the responses to this question. Half the respondents cited theentire

organization and a particular functional area as the scope often chosen for aplanning study. The planning study would only sometimes cover a division.100 % responses 1I 56%0

~m (categories not mutually exclusive)Business Management Other

planninghorizonFigure 9. Factors involved in choice of IT planning horizonVol2No 4 December 1993 305

Use of SISP approaches in UK organizationsQ13: Theplanning horizon refers to the planning period covered by thestudy. What


19/34

are the factors involved in the choice of IT planning horizon in yourorganization?The business planning horizon was identified as the most important factor

involvedin the choice of IT planning horizon, and Figure 9 shows the responses. Other

factors (five responses) were finance, technological lead time and the ability topredict events.

Problems found (Part III)Q14: SISP problemsRespondents were presented with a set of 10 problems commonly encounteredin

SISP, compiled mainly from the ranked problem list identified by Lederer andSethi (1988), and were asked to rate the problems on a scale from 1 to 5 in order

ofsignificance, and the results are shown in Figure 10.

The most commonly experienced problems were:1. success of planning technique dependent on team leader;2. difficulty in securing top management commitment for implementing plan

findings;3. planning exercise very long;

4. difficulty of convincing management to implement planning technique.

All the problems appeared under control, in that they were clustered around the2

and 3 ratings (termed insignificant and minor respectively in thequestionnaire).

The problem concerning the length of the planning exercise may perhaps belinkedto the finding of question 12, where the entire organization was identified as the

most common scope for a planning study.

, I 3.03- atming

2.9dquezrzz ffia*tY

hsl2.7sder faaininsplanninexercisOpmiPtommit-Ratings


20/34

mplK?n

1 -mta anproblem 2.5 - extremeproblem

1 /R

dings4_

Figure 10. Problems encountered in SISPlanning Aechniqueloo ri id

306 Journal of Strategic Information SystemsD. J. FLYNN and E. GOLENIEWSKA

Areas concerned with organization structure/size or expense of planning

exercise, inappropriate planning horizon considered and finding the planningtechnique too rigid and constrained, were the least problematic areas.

Organizations feel that they can adapt SISP techniques for their own use, assuggested by question 3. One public sector organization stated that Finding and

determination of business objectives (is) difficult . . . when requirementsdependupon political initiative.

Q1.5: Overall satisfactionWe asked about levels of satisfaction with four factors relevant to SISP:

planning

technique, resources required, the planning process and planning process output.The results may be seen in Figure 11. Half of the respondents gave an average

orbetter rating to the planning technique they used, while for resources required,

nodissatisfaction was recorded. The planning process itself was the factor with

whichmost dissatisfaction was felt.Respondents were most satisfied with the output of the planning proces s. One

respondent commented that It is not the Method or tools which determines the

success of planning but the management of the process throughout. Several(four)respondents indicated that they were contemplating the acquisition of a formal

approach to planning. We discuss some implications of these findings in thenextsection.

Discussion of results

The aim of the survey was to identify broad approaches to SISP, to discover the


21/34

extent of problems experienced and to gauge the levels of satisfaction with

differentaspects of SISP. Respondents were not asked to base their questionnaireresponses

dissatisfied neutralaverage satisfied

96respons

planning resources planning planningtechnique required wmzss wocess outlxlt27% 27%56%

Figure 11. Levels of satisfaction with SZSP factorsVol2 No 4 December 1993 307

Use of SISP approaches in UK organizationson a recent project and replies should be taken as a reflection of their general

SISPexperience. Although, as remarked, the number of responses is relatively small,

anumber of interesting points do emerge from the survey.

In-house versus SISP techniquesThe fact that only a third of respondents perceive that their organizations use a

recognized SISP technique contrasts with the results in Lederer and Sethi

(1988)where 66 per cent of the organizations used well -known SISP techniques. This

may

indicate that US organizations are more developed in their use of SISP. Inaddition,

in our survey, no organizational technique was described as both impact - andalignment-oriented, which would have suggested a higher level of sophistication

inSISP. Galliers survey (1987) found that only 25 per cent of UK organizations

usedwhat he termed common or proprietary planning approaches.

However, another way to look at the results, ignoring respondents perceptions

as to what does or does not constitute a SISP technique, is to include the

recognizedtechniques given in response to question 3 with those from question 2. This

resultsin a figure of 44 per cent of organizations that, to some extent, use a recognized

SISP technique. Four organizations also stated that they intended to movetowards

more formal planning in the near future. Compared with Gallie rs survey (1987)in


22/34

1985/86, referred to above, this indicates that UK organizations may be

increasingtheir use of recognized SISP techniques.

Alignment not impactThe great majority (83 per cent) of respondents identified alignmentof

informationsystems objectives with organizational goals, as opposed to impact, as the key

focus

of their organizations planning technique, as shown in Figure 3, reinforcingGalliers (1989) finding concerning the favoured SISP focus for IT personnel.

Earlssurvey (1990) found alignment to be the primary SISP benefit realized.

User/management involvementLederer and Mendelow (1987) suggest that if senior IT personnel participate in

SISP, they will have a greater understanding of top management objectives and,

asa result, the output of any SISP study is more likely to be aligned with

organizational goals. This was borne out by the survey, as Figure 5 shows that alarge majority (77 per cent) of respondents indicated that the IT department

participated often or sometimes in the organizations business planning and,from

Figure 2, the objective most frequently met was MIS objectives aligned withorganizational goals.Despite the wide variety of SISP techniques and tools used, and the fact that, asshown in Figure 6, it is the IT department who are more likely to initiate the

SISPstudy, almost all planning takes place with user involvement, as shown inFigure 7.

Study scope and planning horizonIn contrast to Earl (1989), Ward et al. (1990) argue that SISP is not effectivewhen

the scope covers just a strategic business unit, although this may be modified ifitemerges that key integral business activities extend into other parts of the

organization. Figure 8 shows that, for half the organizations, the SISP study

oftencovers the entire organization (a finding shared by Lederer and Sethi (1988))whichcould be linked to one of the major problems found, that is, the length of the

SISPexercise.

308 Journal of Strategic Information Systems


23/34

D. J. FLYNN and E. GOLENIEWSKA

Figure 9 shows that the business planning horizon is cited by a small majority asthe most important factor involved in the choice of IT planning horizon,reinforcing

the notion of a bias towards alignment of SISP and business planning. We may

hypothesize that this indicates stronger links between SISP and businessplanning

than those found in Galliers survey (1987), who found that SISP wasundertaken in

response to business planning in only 27 per cent of organizations.

Problems found

OursurveyTeam leader dependence - the most significant problem highlighted by thesurvey,as shown in Figure 10, is the fact that the success of the SISP technique depends

onthe team leader, a problem also cited by Ward et al. (1990). An individual isthusrequired who combines both business (theoretical and practical) skills as well asIT

skills, can communicate equally well with senior management and ITmanagement,

who can balance varying demands of different divisions of an organization, cansuccessfully manage a complex and highly political planning study, and who

can

finally convince management to implement the plans findings. Finding such anindividual is clearly a problem.

Length of planning study - another problem found was the length of the SISPstudy. Martin and Leben (1989) suggest that a lengthy SISP study may be

attributedto the absence of a firm methodology or firm management of the planningprocess.

Ward et al. (1990) address this problem in the pre-planning stage, bysuggestingthat a planning schedule is produced, outlining the various stages of the SISP

process.Management commitment - it was difficult to convince management of theneed

both to adopt a SISP technique and, having completed a SISP study, toimplement

the findings. For example, one respondent stated that It is extremely difficult togetsenior management to plan beyond the end of the current year. In one small


24/34

organization, the respondent identified the main problem as being that

management had still not perceived the potential of IT (the most commonreasonfor difficulty in convincing management about IT benefits found in Lederer and

Mendelow (1987)).

There is an apparent conflict between these management problems and thesecond highest rated objective attained from Figure 2: increased topmanagementsupport. This might be explained by the fact that the existence of SISP plansaligned

with organizational objectives has made management consider the ITdepartment

more favourably.

Lederer and Sethi surveyAgreement - it is interesting to compare a list (Lederer and Sethi, 1988) of the

most commonly found problems in a SISP study, shown in Table 4, with thosefound in our survey. Lederer and Sethi classified problems as resource, processor

output based. For resource based problems, the surveys are in agreement, as theteam leader problem was rated highest in both. Similarly, the problems of thelength of the SISP study as well as the difficulty of obtaining top management

approval were both highly rated. For their output based problems, there isagreement with our survey with respect to the problem of securing top

managementcommitment (Lederer and Mendelow, 1987).

Vol2 No 4 December 1993 309Use of SISP approaches in UK organizations

Table 4. Most common problems encountered in SISP study (shownindescending order of

severity, within category, and adapted from survey in Lederer and Sethi

(1988))

outputs

1. Difficult to secure top management commitment2. Post-analysis required after study completed

3. No training plan for IT department

4. No financial plan for IT department5. No overall data architecture or databases determined

6. No permanent IS planning group7. No data administration need addressed

Resources

1. Success dependent on team leader2. Difficult to find team leader meeting criteria


25/34

3. Methodology lacks sufficient computer support

4. Planning exercise takes long time5. Difficult to obtain top management approval6. Difficult to find team members meeting criteria

7. Documentation is inadequate

8. Planning exercise very expensiveProcess

1. Ignores plan implementation issues2. No analysis of IT department strengths/weaknesses

3. No analysis of technological environment4. Too much user involvement

5. Questions difficult for managers to answer6. Ignores organization changes during SISP

Disagreement - however, there is no agreement on the issue of post -analysisbeing

required (post-analysis is the addition of detailed information to a strategicplan).The reason for this being perceived as only a minor problem in our survey may

bedue to the fact that our planners do not consider it to be a necessary output. Thiswould fit in with the point made in the analysis of question 6 above, concerning

thelack of breadth in planning techniq ues used. A similar explanation may be

appliedto the fact that, for output and process problems, IT department improvements

(considered a problem by Lederer and Sethi) were not considered an objectiveinour survey, as suggested in the analysis of question 4.

Rigidity of the planning procedure was considered less than insignificant inboth

surveys, implying that organizations feel free to adapt approaches andtechniques

as they see fit.

Earls surveyEarl (1990) found that resource constraints were ranked at the top of the list of

unsuccessful SISP features, with the length of time taken by the study amongstthe

top five features. The team leader problem found in our survey was notspecifically

mentioned. Top management acceptance was another problem, as wa s the factthatmuch of what was proposed by the strategic plan was not developed further or

implemented. When asked to list SISP success factors, top management


26/34

involvement and support were rated highest, followed by the availability of a

business strategy.


Galliers survey

In Galliers survey (1987), while senior management commitment andinvolvement

ranked in the top three critical success factors for SISP (as perceived by

informationsystems planners), the problems concerning team leader dependence and the

length of the planning exercise were not regarded as amongst the top ten factors.

Satisfaction with SISP

The levels of satisfaction shown in Figure 11 indicate that 44 per cent of

respondents report average or above levels of satisfaction with the planningprocess, rising to 67 per cent when the output of the planning process in

considered.These figures are lower than those in Galliers (1987), although not exactlycomparable, where 71 per cent of UK respondents perceived SISP, as viewed byIT

management, to be successful. Earl (1990) found that 76 per cent of IS directors

perceived the level of SISP success to be average or above average. (Galliers(1987)

and Earl (1990) show that SISP success may be perceived differently bydifferentorganizational groups. Our survey records only the success of SISP as perceived

byIT management.) In the conclusions we discuss how the output of the planning

process, which has the highest level of satisfaction recorded, may be limited inmany cases to plans only and may not be implemented.

The levels of satisfaction may be considered with Figure 2, which shows thatfourof the six objectives receive a rating of less than average for the extent to which

they are met by SISP.

Inter-organizational findings

In this section, we have attempted to relate organizational factors to different

typesof questionnaire responses. Because of the small number of organizations

involved,the results should be treated with caution and, at best, viewed as possible

hypotheses which might form the basis of future, more comprehensive surveys.

Publiclprivate sector organizationsThe survey involved both private and public sector organizations and there was


27/34

some indication that the private sector experienced less SISP problems (also

foundin Lederer and Sethi (1988)). In the public sector, problems that were resourcebased received a high rating and also included the difficulty of convincing

management to implement the SISP technique.

Notably, there was less participation of the IT department in organizationalplanning. In one public sector organization, no formal SISP process was used;

instead, individual departments identified information systems needs at anapplication level.

ITlbusiness leadershipSenior management involvement and commitment is critical to the success of

anySISP initiative (Martin and Leben, 1989). Hence top management initiation of

theplanning study should reflect that commitment and less severe planni ng

problemsshould be anticipated (Lederer and Sethi, 1988). However, survey results

indicated

that the IT department was more likely to initiate the IS planning study and norelationship was found between top management initiation of the planning studyand reduced planning problems.

Vol2 No 4 December 1993 311

Use of SISP approaches in UK organizationsData architectureWe found that the majority of organizations who used a recognized SISP

techniquealso produced a data architecture. Conversely, those wh o used an in-housetechnique tended not to produce a data architecture.

ProblemsWhen we considered the following organizational factors, and attempted to

relatethem to the severity or lack of severity of problems reported (measured by theproblem ratings in Figure lo), we reached the following conclusions:

Planning sophistication and level of satisfaction - there was no clearrelationship

between these two factors and problem severity (planning sophisticationestimated as determining a data architecture and analysing the external

environment).

IT department participation in business planning - all the departmentswhonever participated experienced more severe problems than those who didparticipate.


28/34

Top management initiate planning study - in contrast to Lederer andSethi(1988), we found that, in this situation, less severe problems were experienced,

compared to the situation where IT management initiate the study.

Size and planning scope - we did not find any relationship between these

twofactors (size measured by number of employees) and problem severity.

Conclusions

IT led planning studiesIT departments still fulfil the traditional role of being the main developer of

systemsin the majority of the survey organizations. Furthermore, IT departmen ts are the

main initiators of SISP studies. It may thus be hypothesized that planning anddevelopment are more likely to be IT led than user led, producing plans to fit an

IT

conception of what the organization wants. This view is suggested in the survey,where alignment is rated as the top SISP objective and activity. In addition, two

ofthe four top rated problems found were related to the difficulty of convincing

management of the need either for SISP or for implementing SISP findings.

Planning and implementation approachesThe majority of organizations use in-house rather than recognized SISPtechniques.In addition, whereas all organizations, often or sometimes, analyse

organizational

goals and objectives, analyse the current IS and identify a set of ap plicationswhichare aligned with organizational objectives:

less than half of the organizations analyse the external business andtechnologyenvironment often;

only half (a different half to that of the previous comment) of theorganizations

frequently produce an information architecture;

the SISP objective, new opportunities for improving the IT

department, is onlyslightly met.

Thus, we conclude that many organizations employ SISP approaches which useonly some of the facilities of a comprehensive approach such as that outlined

in the earlier, comparative section. In particular, we hypothesize that plan



29/34

implementation details such as an IS management strategy or an IT strate gy

mayoften be omitted from the strategic plan, and the recommendations of plans forinformation systems or other types of organizational change may not actually be

implemented. This hypothesis is supported by Earls (1990) findings.

The fact that there is difficulty in getting top management approval for planimplementation may be related to the low ratings given to the extent to which

theorganizational planning technique meets the following objectives: new and

higherpayback computer applications identified, better forecasting and allocation of

resources, and competitive advantage created.The top-rated process problem from Lederer and Sethi (1988) was ignores planimplementation issues, which implies that US organizations are more advanced

in

SISP than UK organizations, as they have identified this missing part of SISPapproaches as a problem.We therefore suggest that SISP approaches should be distinguished into

Planning.and Implementation approaches, where Implementation approaches emphasize

the

way in which the plan will be implemented. We further recommend, assuggestedby OConnor (1993), that in order to assess the effectiveness of, for example,

planned information systems on the organization, the levels of satisfacti on that

aremeasured should consider the outputs from the process of plan implementationas

well as those from the planning study.

Is the SISP approach chosen significant?We found that the top-rated problems were all resource-dependent, rather thancentred on the SISP approach itself or its outputs. This may imply that, up to a

point, any approach will do. However, if the need for a more comprehensiveSISPapproach is accepted, then differences between approaches (such as their

breadth)are important. Alternatively, rather than using just one approach, planners may

seek to use multiple approaches (as argued by Churchman (1971)) to check thevalidity of outputs.

Further researchAn important issue not covered in the survey was that of implementation of therecommendations in the strategic plan. While it may be a relatively inexpensive


30/34

exercise to produce a list of applications that fit in with organizational

objectives,implementation obviously calls for commitment of resources of a differentorder.

Lederer and Sethi (1988) found that only 24 per cent of applications

recommendedwere ultimately executed.

Lederer and Sethi (1988) also found that the second most highly rated problemconcerned the need to carry out substantial further analysis in order to

implementthe plan. The fact that this problem was not rated highly in our survey may

meanthat the issue of plan implementation may not be faced in all cases (Earl, 1990).Our survey has indicated that at least half of the organizations produce only

high-level plans, which may imply that SISP is a cosmetic exercise, with no

eventualintention to implement plan recommendations fully.An important issue for future work thus concerns the nature of plan outputs and

plan implementation. It is not clear whether the surveys referred to above havedistinguished sufficiently between different types of implementation, which will

obviously range in scale from the implementation of recommendations

concerning,for example, purchasing procedures for the IT department to organization -widedata sharing systems.

Vo12 No 4 December 1993 313

Use of SISP approaches in UK organizationsRelated issues are: the nature of the decision -making process to implement or

not implement plan recommendations; the nature of problems associated withimplementation; the extent of the recommendations actually implemented; the

degree to which the implemented recommendations have met objectives; ways

ofdetermining how objectives have been met; and the extent and nature of user

involvement. Another point to investigate concerns the reasons why it is theSISPprocess itself, rather than its outputs or the technique used, which causes most

dissatisfaction for IT management.Our survey was directed only at IT management. However, a future survey

should be directed at non-IT senior management to gain insight into theirperspective on strategic planning and the input of IT management. In addition,

based on the fact that, as remarked earlier, respondents had different perceptionsas to what constitutes a SISP or an in-house approach, a short section onterminology may be helpful in future survey instruments to lessen response

ambiguity.


31/34

From this survey we have raised several hypotheses concerning the types of

SISPapproaches used in UK organizations, the types of problems associated withcarrying out SISP studies, and how different organizational factors may be

interrelated, particularly those concerning the factors related to problems f ound

when carrying out the SISP study. We regard these hypotheses as usefulindicators

which may form the basis of future work which will further test theirsignificance.

SISP is growing in importance as a vital process in integrating IT intoorganizations, especially with the recent growth in interest in business process

reengineering (Hammer, 1990), and more work is required to understand thedifferent types of approaches that may be used, together with a greaterknowledge

of ways in which to increase their effectiveness.

ReferencesAhituv, N and Neumann, S (1990)Principles of Information Systems for

Management3rd edition, Wm C Brown, Dubuque, IA

Awad, E M (1988)Management Information Systems Concepts,Structure and ApplicationsBenjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CABergeron, F, Buteau, C and Raymond, L (1991) Identification of strategicinformation

systems opportunities: applying and comparing two methodologies MIS

Quarterly 15, 1,pp 89-103Bidgood, T and Jelley, R(1991) Modelling corporate information needs: freshapproaches

to the information architecture J. Strategic Znf. Syst. 1, 1, pp 38-42Cash, J I and Konsynski, BR(1985) IS redraws competitive boundaries

HarvardBus. Rev.3, 2,pp 134-142Churchman, C W (1971) The Design of Inquiring Systems: BasicConcepts of Systems and

Organization Basic Books, New YorkDickson, G W and Wetherhe, J C (1985)The Management of InformationSystemsMcGraw-Hill, New York

Earl, M J (1989)Management Strategies for Information TechnologyPrentice-Hall, London


32/34

Earl, M J (1990) Approaches to strategic information systems planning

experience in

twenty-one United Kingdom companies Proc. of 11th Znt. Conf. onInformation Systems,Copenhagen, Denmark, 16-19 December, pp 271-277

Finkelstein, C (1989)An Introduction to Information EngineeringAddison-Wesley,

WokinghamFlynn, D J (1992)Information Systems Requirements: Determinationand AnalysisMcGraw-Hill, Maidenhead

Galliers, RD (1987) Information systems planning in the United Kingdom andAustralia

Oxford Surveys in Inf. Technol. 4, pp 223-255314 Journal of Strategic Information Systems

D. .I. FLYNN and E. GOLENIEWSKAGalliers, R D (1989) Applied research in information systems planning InFeldman, P,

Bhahuta, L and Holloway, S (eds) Information Management and Planning:Database 87Gower Technical, Aldershot, pp 45-58

Goodhue, D L, Kirsch, L J, Quillard, J A and Wybo, M D (1992) Strategic dataplanning:

lessons from the fieldMIS Quarterly 16, 1, pp 11-34Hammer, M (1990) Reengineering work: dont automate, obliterate HarvardBus. Rev.(July-August), pp 104-112

Hartog, C and Herbert, M (1986) 1985 opinion survey of MIS managers: keyissues

MIS Quarterly 10, 4, pp 351-361Hirschheim, R A (1989) Information management planning: an implementation

perspective

In Feldman, P, Bhabuta, L and Holloway, S (eds) Information Managementand Planning:

Database 87Gower Technical, Aldershot, pp l-15Hochstrasser, B and Griffiths, C (1990)R e g aining Control of IT

Investments: A Handbookfor Senior UK ManagementThe Kobler Unit, William Penney Building,ImperialCollege, London

Jackson, C (1989) Building a competitive advantage through information

technology Long


33/34

Range Planning 22,pp 29-39Johnston, H R and Carrico, S R (1988) Developing capabilities to useinformation

strategically MIS Quarterly 12, 1, pp 37-48Lederer, A L and Mendelow, A L (1987) Information resource planning:

overcomingdifficulties in identifying top managements objectives MIS Quarterly 11,4,(September),pp 525-534Lederer, A L and Sethi, V (1988) The implementation of strategic information

systems

planning methodologiesMIS Quarterly 12, 3, pp 445-461Martin, J and Leben, J (1989) Strategic Information Planning

Methodologies 2nd ed,Prentice-Hall, New York

McLean, E R and Soden, J V (1977)Strategic Planning for MIS Wiley, NewYorkNiederman, F,Brancheau, J C and Wetherbe, J C (1991) Information systems

management

issues for the 1990s MIS Quarterly 15, 4,pp 475-500OConnor, A D (1993) Successful strategic information systems planning J.

Znf, Syst. 3,pp 71-83

Porter, M E (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and SustainingSuperior PerformanceFree Press, New YorkRackoff, N, Wiseman, C and Ullrich, W A (1985) Information systems for

competitive

advantage: implementation of a planning process MIS Quarterly 9, 4,pp 185-294

Vitale, M R, Ives, B and Beath, C M (1986) Linking information technologyand corporate

strategy: an organizational view Proc. of 7th Znt. Conf. on InformationSystems, SanDiego, CA, 15-17 December, pp 265-276

Ward, J, Griffiths, P and Whitmore, P (1990) Strategic Planning forInformation SystemsWiley, Chichester

Appendix

Questionnaire on Information Systems

Strategic Planning

Background


34/34

The purpose of this questionnaire is to provide a better understanding of the

InformationSystems strategic planning function, currently in practice.For the purposes of this questionnaire, Strategic Information Systems planning

is

understood as:The process of deciding the objectives for organizational computing and

identifyingpotential computer applications which the organization may implement. Thus,

StrategicVo12 No 4 December 1993 315

A Survey of the Use of Strategic Information

Documents

Transcript of A Survey of the Use of Strategic Information