Strategic Aligment IT

7/27/2019 Strategic Aligment IT

1/10

Survey of Strategic Alignment Impacts on Organizational Performance

in International European Companies

Hajer KEFI

Associate ProfessorCREPA, University of Paris-Dauphine

Place du Marchal-De-Lattre-De-

Tassigny 75016 Paris France

[email protected]

Michel Kalika

Professor

CREPA, University of Paris Dauphine

Place du Marchal-De-Lattre-De-

Tassigny 75016 Paris France

[email protected]

AbstractThe strategic use of technology based in-

formation systems (IS/IT) is a fundamen-tal issue for every business. This is par-

ticularly true in the case of firms that en-gage in international business activities.The present paper is part of an empiri-cally oriented project to investigate theimpacts of strategic alignment on organ-izational performance, especially in thecase of European International Compa-nies.We use Structural Equation Modeling toapprehend the strategic alignment con-cept as an emergent variable derived

from the co variation of two components :(1) business strategy; and (2) the IS/IT

strategy. Then, we explore the role of thisemergent concept as a determinant of or-ganizational performance.We use data from a large database con-

structed due to survey instruments to as-sess the usage of IS/IT among Europeanfirms. 505 questionnaires have been ex-ploited in this study.The results obtained will be presentedand discussed in this paper.

Key-words:

Strategic alignment, organizational per-

formance, co variation approach, struc-

tural equation modeling.

1. Introduction

The globalization of business reflects the view that

most companies have to compete in a borderless

environment. Challenges and opportunities are

tremendous especially in the European Commu-nity, where profound changes have been experi-

enced (common currency, restructuring of Eastern

Europe, etc.). The European companies have to

compete in an increasingly competitive global

market. They have to undergo the continuous

threats of new entrants and substitute products and

the strengthening bargaining power of all their

business partners, within or beyond the European

frontiers (Kalika, et al., 2003).

In this context, the achievement of sustainable

competitive advantage requires dramatic business

process changes, moving toward more flexible and

agile structures. Strategic alliances and partneringcan support and enable these transformations, via

joint ventures, knowledge exchange, outsourcing,

etc. Such arrangements can help companies (the

small ones, as well as the giants) to target custom-

ers once beyond their grasp.

Historically, the role of IT in the organization has

evolved. It has been treated for a long time as a

cost center or an expense rather than a strategic

weapon (Alter, 1995). Since the 1980s, this role

has been recognized as strategic (Porter and

Millar, 1985). It has been considered as an enabler

to achieve competitive advantage. For some 20

years now, the assumption that technology basedinformation systems (IS/IT) provide a crucial sup-

port to operational and strategic business proc-

esses has been widely accepted (Luftman, 1996;

Ward and Griffiths, 1997). However, empirical

evidence that provides a good correlation between

IS/IT alignment with business strategy and organ-

izational performance is still needed. As stated by

Sabherwal and Chan (2001): empirical research

on the performance implications of this alignment

has been sparse and fragmented.

0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE

Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005

1


2/10

Building upon the strategic alignment model

(Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993) and a co

variation perspective of the alignment mechanism

(Van de Ven and Drazins and Venkatraman,

1989), we will try to examine whether the align-

ment between business strategy and IS/IT strategy

correlates positively with organizational perform-ance. A sample of 505 international companies

mainly headquartered in the European Community

and engaged in partnership and alliances will be

used.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Defining strategic alignment

Numerous alternative terms have been proposed to

refer to the phenomenon of IS/IT and business

strategy alignment in the current IS and manage-

ment literature. First, concerning the term strat-

egy, many variations exist, some authors talk

about objectives (Reich and Benbasat, 1996),others find more accurate the term plan or

planning (Lederer and Mendelow, 1989; Teo

and King, 1996, 1997).

In this paper, we will refer to the IS/IT strategy as

the major choices concerning the implementation

and usage of technology based information sys-

tems within the firm (McFarlan, McKenney and

Pyburn, 1983; Knight and Silk, 1990; Das et al.,

1991). In a similar vein, Business strategy is de-

fined here as the major choices that determine the

firm positioning in the business arena (Porter,

1980).

Regarding the term alignment, there is no con-sensus between researchers. Lederer and Men-

delow (1989) define it in terms of co-ordination

which can be achieved when the information sys-

tems strategy is derived from the organization

strategy (p.6). They propose three domains of

linkage : (1) content linkage, concerned with the

consistency between business plans and IS/IT

plans; (2) timing linkage, concerned with whether

IS/IT plans are developed after, simultaneously or

before business plans; and (3) personnel linkage,

concerned with the degree of involvement of the

different participants in the two planning domains,

business and IS/IT.King and Teo (1997) explicit four types of inte-

gration that describe evolving strengths of the

relationship between business and IS/IT strategy

(administrative integration, sequential integration,

reciprocal integration and full integration).

Reich and Benbasat (1996) view this relationship

in terms of linkage: the degree to which the IT

mission, objectives and plans supported and are

supported by business mission, objectives and

plans (p.56). They define linkage in terms of in-

tellectual and social dimensions. According to

them, intellectual linkage is achieved when the

contents of IS/IT and business plans are internally

consistent and externally valid. Whereas, social

linkage occurs when IS/IT and business executives

understand each others mission, objectives and

plans.

We consider the definition given by Henderson

and Venkatraman (1993) as the most suitable for

this study. These authors provide a comprehensive

framework to approach the alignment concept and

state it as the Strategic Alignment Model. In this

framework, two distinct relationships are de-

scribed: strategic fit and functional integra-

tion. Strategic fit is the external relationship con-

cerned with the harmonization of business strategy

choices (e.g. business scope, partnerships, alli-

ances) and strategic choices concerning IS/IT de-

ployment. Functional integration is the corre-

sponding internal relationship concerned with or-ganizational infrastructure and processes and IS/IT

infrastructure and processes (Henderson and

Venkatraman, 1993; Luftman, 1996).

From this analysis, the authors identified four per-

spectives on business IS/IT interaction, termed:

(1) business execution; (2) competitive potential;

(3) IT potential; and (4) service level.

Although the strategic alignment model introduces

an original reasoning in the IS field, it provides

mainly a descriptive view and does not help firms

deciding what perspective to adopt in what cir-

cumstances. To address this issue, Luftman, Lewis

and Oldach (1993) propose to identify the firmstrengths and weaknesses to identify what are the

components of the strategic alignment model that

can be considered as: (1) the strongest domain or

anchor, which is the driver of change ;(2) the

weakest domain or pivot, which is the area that has

to be addressed; and (3) the impacted domain,

where the changes driven by the anchor occur in

order to find solutions to the pivot.

Some research studies have attempted to go for-

ward this analysis. Papp, Luftman and Brier

(1995) propose to consider independently (non-

fusion) and simultaneously (fusion) the four per-

spectives; and identified 12 perspectives. Morerecently, Reich and Benbasat (2000) define two

types of strategic alignment : (1) short term (busi-

ness and IT executives understand and are com-

mitted to each others short-term plans and objec-

tives); and (2) long term (business and IT execu-

tives share a common vision of the ways in which

IT will contribute to the success of the business

unit).

We can also notice that a consensus appears

among the body of research concerned with the

0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE


2


3/10

strategic alignment phenomenon: the alignment

between business strategy and IS/IT strategy is

recognized as a necessary prerequisite for compa-

nies to realize benefits form there IS/IT invest-

ments. Even though, empirical evidence that con-

firms this proposition is still needed. Only, a few

studies propose to operationalize the strategicalignment concept and to demonstrate that a posi-

tive linkage exists between alignment and per-

formance.

Before examining this relationship empirically, we

argue that contingency theory provides a good lens

to view: first the relationship between the vari-

ables that define strategic alignment; and second

the implications of this strategic alignment on per-

formance.

2.2 Implications on Performance: A Con-tingency Approach

We use Venkatramans (1989) and Van de Vens

and Drazins (1985) work on the concept of fit to

discuss the implications of strategic alignment on

organizational performance at a theoretical and an

operational level. Venkatraman (1989) defines fit

from six different perspectives: matching, modera-

tion, mediation, gestalts, co variation and profile

deviation.

Fit as matching is a theoretically defined match

between two related variables (Venkatraman,

1989). It is also related to Van de Vens and Dra-

zins (1985) selection that considers fit as the re-

sult of managerial choice to achieve congruence to

organizational context. Using this perspective,

Chan et al. (1997) found that strategic alignment

contributes to achieve higher levels of perform-

ance. To the contrary, another study (Palmer and

Markus, 2000) using also the matching perspective

has concluded that there is no linkage between the

two variables.

Fit as moderation (or interaction) refers to con-

formance to a linear relationship of context and

design (Van de Ven and Drazin, 1985). Here, the

impact of a predictor variable (design variable) on

a dependent variable (performance) is moderated

by a third variable (context variable). Alignment

or fit is the interaction between the moderator and

the predictor (Shin, 2003).

Fit as mediation considers the perspective of the

intervention between an antecedent variable (busi-

ness strategy or IS/IT strategy) and a consequent

variable (performance). The mediation perspective

has been adopted in multiple empirical studies that

assess the strategic alignment implications on per-

formance, as in Bergeron and Raymond (1995)

and Teo and King (1996). According to these two

studies, a positive relationship exists between the

two variables.

Fit as gestaltis related to a systems perspective, in

which fit is understood as an internal congruence

of many contingencies and performance criteria. It

represented in an interpretive rather than a func-

tional approach (Shin, 2003). Fit as gestalt is not

commonly used in cross-sectional empirical stud-

ies.

Fit as co variation represents internal consistency

among related variables. According to Venkatra-

man (1989), co variation indicates the linkage

(alignment) among considered independent vari-

ables. This author suggests that first-or second-

order factors from both exploratory and confirma-

tory factor analyses could be utilized to identify

the unobservable state of linkage (alignment). This

perspective has been used by Croteau et al. (2001)

who have found that higher level of alignment im-

plies higher level of performance.

Fit as profile deviation assumes the viability of

profile specification for variable associated to a

criterion variable. Fit represents the degree of ad-

herence to a specified profile and the level of fit is

expected to affect performance (Shin, 2003). Sab-

herwal and Chan (2001) have used the profile de-

viation perspective and have concluded that

alignment affects perceived business strategies,

but only in certain organizations (p. 11).

3. Research study

3.1 Research Model

With this background, we now present a research

model to examine the main research hypothesis in

this study:

The alignment considered as a co variation

mechanism between business strategy and IS/IT

strategy is positively correlated to organizational

performance.

This model is derived from the external compo-

nent of Henderson and Venkatramans strategicalignment model (1993) called strategic fit. It

proposes to link strategic alignment with organiza-

tional performance and considers fundamentally

this alignment as the product -at a certain point of

time- of the co variation between two independent

variables: business strategy and IS/IT strategy.

This major argument in our study is the basis for

our choices of how the variables will be depicted

and linked.

0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE


3


4/10

Figure 1: the research model

Business strategy is the first independent variable

of the model. According to Henderson and

Venkatraman (1993): this construct is concerned

with decisions such as product-market offering

and the distinctive strategy attributes that differen-

tiate the firm from its competitors, as well as the

range of make-versus-buy decisions, includingpartnerships and alliances.

Many researchers have adopted the classical Miles

and Snow (1978) typology of business strategy

including Defenders, Analyzers and Prospectors,

and have examined for each strategic type the

linkage between alignment and performance (Cro-

teau et al., 2000; Sabherwal and Chan, 2001).

From a more pragmatic point of view, we will fo-

cus on a specific achieved business strategy based

on partnerships and alliances. For instance, we

argue that:

(1) the deployment of business beyond the physi-

cal organizational borders, through outsourcing,

externalization, delocalization and other modali-

ties of partnership and alliances strategies are con-

sidered now as unavoidable for companies en-

gaged in international business (Faulkner, 1995;

Bartlett and Goshal, 1998);

(2) IS/IT are recognized as a very useful support

to these strategic choices because they create elec-

tronic linkages intra and inter-firms (Ives and Jar-

venpaa, 1991; Reix, 2002, Kalika et al. 2003).

IS/IT strategy is the second independent variable

of our model. Henderson and Venkatraman (1993)

argued that IS/IT strategy should be elevated from

its traditional internal focus to address external

issues of how the firm is positioned in the IT mar-

ket place. These authors propose to consider both

the external and the internal domains of IT. The

external IS/IT domain involves at least three sets

of choices: (1) Information technology scope (in-

cluding local and wide-area networks, expert sys-

tems, etc.); (2) Systemic competencies required to

take fully advantage of IT; and (3) IT governance,

including the selection and use of mechanisms to

obtain IT competencies. The internal domain of IT

addresses at least three components: (1) IS/IT ar-

chitecture; (2) IS/IT processes; and (3) IS/IT

skills.

In this study, we argue that the IS/IT strategy con-

struct can be addressed through four major

choices: (1) IS/IT perceived strategic role; (2)

IS/IT systemic competencies: those attributes ofIS/IT strategy that contribute to the creation of

new business strategies or better support competi-

tive advantage; (3) IS/IT architecture choices: the

technical deployment of these information tech-

nologies; and (4) IS/IT processes choices: the

work processes central to the operation of IS/IT

infrastructure (Kalika et al. 2003)

Strategic alignment is considered as an emergent

concept resulting from the co-variation at a spe-

cific point of time between:

(1) the attributes of business strategy: part-

nerships and/or alliances strategic choices;

(2) and those of IS/IT strategy: IS/IT strate-

gic role; IS/IT systemic competencies; IS/IT archi-

tecture choices; IS/IT processes choices.

This approach is globally consistent with the

original model of Henderson and Venkatraman

(1993) who have explicitly termed: strategic

alignment: the emergent concept. It is also ap-

plied in respect of the co variation alignment

mechanism defined by Van de Ven and Drazin

(1985) and Venkatraman (1989). Furthermore, a

number of recent empirical works have adopted

this approach (Croteau et al. 2001).

Organizational performance is the ultimate de-pendent variable of the model. As noted by Bruce

(1998, p. 17): if alignment is needed to facilitate

optimum business benefit, how do we know when

we have it? It is important to look at the impact IT

is having on business results.

Evaluating performance related to IS/IT in the

organizations is certainly one of the major issues

in the IS field (Delone & McLean, 1992; Bryn-

jolfsson, 1993). Concerning the studies related to

IS/IT alignment, the analysis unit being measured

PerformanceStrategic Alignment

Business strategyOutsourcing / Partnership

IS/IT strategy

0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE


4


5/10

is either IS effectiveness (Ma et al., 1998), com-

petitive advantage (Kearns and Lederer, 2000) or

IT business value (Tallon et al., 2000).

In our model, we have chosen to focus on organ-

izational performance and to measure it in a multi-

dimensional perspective using five criteria: (1)

productivity (addressed at the individual level); (2)

Cost reduction; (3) Innovation capabilities; (3)

reactivity capabilities toward business opportuni-

ties; (4) responsiveness to customer requirements;

(5) collaborative relationships with business part-

ners (Kalika et al., 2003).

3.2 Data collection and items identification

We have used data from a database constructed by

the Cegos Dauphine e-management observatory

to assess the IT diffusion (Cooper and Zmud,

1990) in the French and European companies.

Data has been stored due to a survey consisting of

two series of questionnaires: the first questionnaire

investigates executives attitudes toward IT diffu-

sion, usage and impacts in the firm; the second

investigates how individuals experience IT imple-

mentation in their day-to-day life at the workplace.

The survey is conducted once a year during a pe-

riod of five years (2001- 2005).

To test our research model, we have used data

colleted in 2002 due to the first survey instrument

(the executives attitudes). A total of 505 ques-

tionnaires were available for analysis (correspond-

ing to 505 companies). 30% of the respondents

were chief executives, 57% IT managers and 13%

other business executives. 42% of the companies

in the sample have multiple sites in the European

Community, 22% are implemented worldwide.

The manufacturing sector is strongly represented

(49%), Telecommunications and IT services pro-

viders represent 6% of the firms studied. The other

characteristics of the sample are presented in the

tables 1 and 2.

50- 500 employees 75%

501- 5000 employees 13%

> 5000 employees 12%

Table 1: The companies size

French headquartered 61%

European headquartered 28%USA headquartered

(and operating in Europe)

11%

Table 2: the companies origin

The first survey instrument (used in our study)

includes 74 questions. Number of them relate spe-

cifically to the four components of our model:

business strategy, IS/IT strategy and organiza-

tional performance. This instrument has been pre-

tested before being phone-administered by a spe-

cialized survey conducting company. Answers to

all the questions are chosen from a 5-point Likert

scale (from 1-strongly disagree, to 5-strongly

agree). We have chosen the items that are the most

relevant to operationalize our theoretical research

model.

In this model, strategic alignment is an emergent

construct, resulting from the co-variation of the

two constructs: business strategy and IS/IT strat-

egy. As a latent variable considered as a second-

order factor resulting from a confirmatory factor

analysis, no specific item is needed to measure this

construct.

Business strategy, IS/IT strategy and organiza-

tional are considered as first order factors meas-

ured with reflective constructs (observed vari-

ables: the items of the questionnaire).

The table 3 depicts the four constructs of this

model and their relating measurement criteria and

questionnaire items.

0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE


5


6/10

construct Measurement criteria Questionnaire items

Partnership Business strategy choice (Q8A): the business development of your

firm strongly relies on partnerships

Business Strategy

Outsourcing Business strategy choice (Q8B): the business development of your

firm strongly relies on activities outsourcingIS/IT perceived strategic role (Q9): Top management is committed to the

strategic use of IS/IT

IS/IT competencies (Q12): IS/IT contribute to build distinctive

comparative advantage to your firm

IS/IT architecture choices (Q47): the Cooperative relationships with

your strategic partners are supported by elec-

tronic linkages built upon IS/IT tools and

architecture networks

IS/IT strategy

IS/IT processes choices (Q29): the work processes within intra and

inter-firms group projects are facilitated due

to IS/IT

Individual productivity (Q13B): IS/IT usage has increased the pro-

ductivity of the members of your firm

Costs reduction (Q13C): IS/IT usage has led to costs reduc-

tion in your firmInnovation capabilities (Q13D): IS/IT usage has increased the inno-

vation capabilities of your firm

Reactivity (Q13E): IS/IT usage has increased the reac-

tivity of your firm to environment stimuli

responsiveness to customer requirements (Q13F): due to IS/IT usage, the expectancies

of the customers are more fully understood

and satisfied

Organizational per-

formance

Collaborative relationships with business

partners.

(Q13A): due to IS/IT usage, the relationships

of your firm with their partners (suppliers)

have significantly shifted from rivalry to col-

laboration

Strategic alignment Emergent variable (latent variable)

No measurement criteria

No Item

Table 3: Items identification

3.3 Data analysis and results

The research model has been tested by structural

equation modelling, using AMOS 4.0. The con-

structs business strategy, IS/IT strategy and organ-

izational performance are considered as non-

observed or latent variables, measured by specific

observed variables (the items Q8A, Q8B, Q9,

Q12, Q29, Q47, Q13A, Q13B, Q13C, Q13D,

Q13E and Q13F, see table 3).

First, we examine if the overall model (the meas-

urement model and the structural model, see ap-

pendix, figure 2) presents good fit for the data. As

noted by Chin and Newsted (1995), there is no one

agreed goodness of fit measure for structural equa-

tion models. Various goodness of fit measures are

used to compare the estimated population covari-

ance based on the structural equation model with

the sample covariance matrix that is calculated

from the sample data. As recommended by Rous-

sel and al. (2002), we propose to use absolute,

incremental and parsimonious goodness-of-fit in-

dices to estimate the structural model. Table 4presents the indices obtained for this model and

illustrates how they compare to the recommended

indices and to the saturated model (where all the

latent variables are interrelated).

0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE


6


7/10

Goodness-of-fit measures Observed values Recommended

Absolute indices

Chi-square

Ddl

119.802

52

None

GFI .962 > .9

AGFI .943 > .9Holfers critical N 294 > 200

RMR .069 The closest to 0

RMSEA .051 .9

CFI .958 > .9

Parsimonious indices

Chi-square adjusted 2.304 As low as possible

AIC 171.808

(156.000 for the saturated model)

As low as possible

(the closest to the saturated

model)

ECVI .341

(.310 for the saturated model)

As low as possible

(the closest to the saturatedmodel)

PGFI .641 As high as possible

Table 4: Goodness-of-fit of the model

The overall fit indices are good. Therefore, the

research model presented in figure 2 is plausible

in the population. The regression coefficients and

the squared multiple correlation coefficient R2

(which is similar to the determination value in

regression analysis) can now be examined.

For all the variables in the model, the correlation

coefficients are significant (C.R > 1.96; Chin,1998). The path coefficients represented in figure

3 (see appendix) are standardized partial regres-

sion coefficients.

The strategic alignment variable is significantly

correlated with both of the two independent vari-

ables of the model: Business strategy and IS/IT

strategy.

The squared multiple correlation for organiza-

tional performance is .759. The path from strate-

gic fit to organizational performance is .871 (with

a C.R = 10.671). This means that higher levels of

strategic alignement lead to higher levels of or-

ganizational performance.The overall fit indices, the squared multiple corre-

lation coefficients for the constructs in the model

and the path coefficients lend support to the vi-

ability of the research model presented in figure 2

(see appendix).

4. Conclusions

This study proposed a theoretical model adapted

from the strategic alignment model of Henderson

and Venkatraman (1993) and from previous theo-

retical and empirical research studies related to the

business/IT alignment issue. This model has been

tested in the context of European international

companies that engage in partnering and outsourc-

ing activities to deploy their business strategies at

an international level.

We have used Structural Equation Modelling to

apprehend the strategic alignment concept as an

emergent latent variable derived from the covariation of the two former components and their

corresponding measures, rather than an observed

variable measured by perceptual items. Then, we

have explored the role of this emergent concept as

a determinant of organizational performance.

The major finding of this study stipulates that

these companies are likely to attain higher levels

of performance if their IS/IT strategy presents

concurrently the following characteristics: (1) Top

management is committed to the strategic use of

IS/IT; (2) IS/IT are recognized as a support for

building distinctive comparative advantage; (3)

the Cooperative relationships with the firms stra-

tegic partners are supported by electronic linkages

built upon IS/IT tools and architecture networks;

and (4) the work processes in intra and inter-firms

group projects are supported by IS/IT.

This study provides support to previous empirical

works. In this issue, further efforts are still needed

to deepen the theoretical developments and to en-

hance them by empirical validation. Other re-

search perspectives could investigate contingency

factors (management style, IT functionalities, us-

ers characteristics, environment, size, etc.); or

0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE


7


8/10

conduct process-oriented studies that take explic-

itly into consideration time as well as the align-

ment context. The use of qualitative methodolo-

gies (case studies for example), rather than quanti-

tative methodologies (surveys in multi sector field

settings) is also recommended.

References

Alter, A. (1995): The profit center paradox. Com-

puterworld, 24, pp. 101-105.

Bartlett, C.A., A., and Ghoshal, S. (1998): Managing

Across Borders: the transnational solution. Harvard

Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.

Bergeron, F. and Raymond, L. (1995): The Contribu-

tion of Information Technology to the Bottom Line:

A Contingency Perspective of Strategic Dimen-

sions. Proceedings of International Conference on

Information Systems, pp. 167-181.

Bruce,K. (1998): Can you align business with strat-

egy. Strategy & Leadership, 26(5), pp. 16-21.Brynjolfsson, E. (1993): The productivity paradox of

information technology: Review and assessment.

Communications of the ACM, 36(12), pp. 66-77.

Burn, J.M., Szeto, C. (2000): A comparison of the

views of business and IT management on success

factors for strategic alignment . Information &

Management, 37, pp. 197-216.

Chan, Y., Huff, S., Barclay, D. and Copeland, D.(1997):

Business Strategic Orientation, Information Strate-

gic Orientation and strategic alignment, Informa-

tion Systems Research, 8, pp. 125-150.

Chin, W.W. (1998): "Issues and Opinion on Structural

Equation Modeling". MIS Quarterly, 22(1), pp. 43-

67.Chin, W.W. and Newsted, P.R. (1995): The Impor-

tance of Specification in Causal Modeling: The case

of End-User Computing Satisfaction, Information

Systems Research, 6, 1, pp. 73-81.

Cooper, R.B. and Zmud, R.W. (1990): Information

Technology Implementation Research: A Techno-

logical Diffusion Approach. Management Science,

36(2), 123- 139.

Cragg, P., King, M. and Hussin, H. (2002): IT align-

ment and firm performance in small manufacturing

firms. Journal of Strategic Information Systems,

11, pp. 109-132.

Croteau, A.M., Raymond, L. and Bergeron, F. (2000):

Stratgie daffaires et dploiement des technologies

de linformation : Alignement et performance .

Proceedings of the AIM Conference.

Croteau, A.M., Solomon, S., Raymond, L. and

Bergeron, F. (2001): Organizational and Techno-

logical Infrastructures Alignment. Proceedings of

the the Hawaii International Conference on System

Sciences, Maui, Hawaii, pp.1-10.

Das, S.R., Zahra, S.A. and Warkentin, M.E. (1991):

Integrating the Content and Process of Strategic

MIS Planning with Competitive Strategy.Decision

Sciences, (22), pp. 953-984.

Delone, W. H. and McLean, E. R.(1992): Information

Systems Success : The quest for the dependent vari-

able. Information Systems Research, 3(1), pp. 60-

95.

Faulkner, D. (1995): Strategic Alliances: cooperating tocompete, McGraw-Hill, 1995.

Henderson, J.C. and Venkatraman, N. (1993): Strate-

gic Alignment: leveraging Information Technology

for Transforming Organizations . IBM Systems

Journal, 32(1), pp. 4-16.

Ives, B. and Jarvenpaa, S.L. (1991): Applications of

Global Information Technology: Key Issues for

Management, MIS Quarterly, 15(1), pp. 33-49.

Kalika, M., Ledru, M., Isaac, H., Beyou, C., Josserand,

E., (2003): Le e-management : quelles transforma-

tions pour lentreprise ? Editions Liaisons.

Kearns, G. and Lederer, A. (2000): The effect of stra-

tegic alignment on the use of IS-based resources for

competitive advantage. Journal of Strategic Infor-

mation Systems, 9, pp. 265-293.

Kefi, H. (2002): IS/IT Evaluation: A ProcessOriented

and Context-based perspective. Doctoral disserta-

tion, Paris Dauphine University.

Knight, A.V. and Silk, D.J. (1990): Management Infor-

mation. Information Systems for todays general

manager. McGraw-Hill Book Company Editions.

Koza, M. and Lewin, A.; (1998): the co-evolution of

strategic alliances. Organization Science, vol.9, n

3, pp.255-264.

Lederer, A. and Mendelow, A. (1989): Co-ordination

of information systems plans with business plans,

Journal of Management Information Systems, 6, pp.5-19.

Luftman, J.N. (ed.) (1996): Competing in the Informa-

tion Age. Strategic Alignment in Practice. Editions

Oxford University Press.

Luftman, J.N., Lewis, P.R. and Oldach, S.H. (1993):

Transforming the enterprise: The alignment of

business and information technology strategies.

IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), pp. 198-203.

McFarlan, E.W., McKenney, J.L. and Pyburn, P.

(1983): The Information Archipelago Plotting a

Course.Harvard Business Review, 61(1), pp. 145-

156.

Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C (1978): Organizational

Strategy, Structure and Processes. McGraw-Hill,

NY.

Palmer, J.W. and Markus, M.L. (2000): The Perform-

ance Impacts of Quick Response and Strategic

Alignment in Specialty Retailing,Information Sys-

tems Research, 11(3), pp. 241-259.

Papp, R. , Luftman, J.N. et Brier, T. (1995): Strategic

Alignment: perspectives, assessments, enablers and

inhibitors. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Con-

ference of the International Academy for Informa-

tion Management, pp. 163-172.

0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE


8


9/10

Porter, M.E. (1980): Competitive Strategy: Techniques

for Analyzing Industries And Competitors, The Free

Press, NY.

Porter, M.E. and Millar, V. (1985): How Information

gives you Competitive Advantage. Harvard Busi-

ness Review, 63(4), pp. 149-160.

Reich, B.H. and Benbasat, I. (1996): Measuring theLinkage Between Business and Information Tech-

nology Objectives. MIS Quarterly, 20(1), pp. 55-

81.

Reich, B.H. and Benbasat, I. (2000): Factors that influ-

ence the social dimension of alignment between

business and information technology objectives.

MIS Quarterly, 24, pp. 81-113.

Reix, R. (2002) : Systmes dinformation et perfor-

mance de lentreprise tendue , (Chapter 19), in

Rowe, F., (2002) ;Faire de la recherche en systme

dinformation, Vuibert.

Roussel, P., Durrieu, F. Campoy, E. and El Akremi, A.

(2002) : Mthodes dEquations Structurelles: Re-

cherche et Applications en Gestion. Economica.

Sabherwal, R. and Chan, Y. (2001): Alignment Be-

tween Business and IS strategies: A study of Pros-

pectors, Analyzers and Defenders. Information

Systems Research, 12(1), pp. 11-33.

Sethi, V. and King, W.R. (1994): Development of

measures to assess the extent to which an informa-

tion technology application provides competitive

advantage. Management Science, 40(12), pp. 1601-

1627.

Shin, B. (2003): Telework Effectiveness: Task, Technol-

ogy & Communication Fit Perspective. Idea Group,

Inc.

Tallon, P.P., Kraemer, K.L. and Gurnaxani, V. (2000):

Executives Perceptions of the Business Value ofInformation Technology: A process-Oriented Ap-

proach. Journal of Management Information Sys-

tems, 16(4), pp. 145-173.

Tavakolian, H. (1989): Linking the Information Tech-

nology Structure with Organizational Competitive

Strategy: A Survey, MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp.

309-317.

Teo, T. and King, W. (1996): Assessing the Impact of

Integrating Business Planning and IS planning, In-

formation & Management, 30, pp. 309-321.

Teo, T. and King, W. (1997): Assessing the Impact of

Integrating Business Planning and IS planning, In-

formation & Management, 30, pp. 309-321.

Van de Ven, A.H. and Drazin, R. (1985): The Concept

of Fit in Contingency Theory. Research in Organ-

izational Behavior, 7, pp. 333-365.

Venkatraman, N (1989): The Concept of Fit in Strat-

egy Research: Toward Verbal and Statistical Corre-

spondence. Academy of Management Review,

14(3), pp. 423-444.

Ward, J. and Griffiths, P. (1997): Strategic Planning forInformation Systems. John Wiley & Sons Editions

0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE


9


10/10

Appendix.

Performance

IS/IT

Strategy

Alignment

Businessstrategy

Q8A

Q8B

Q9

Q12

Q47

Q29

Q13A

Q13C

Q13D

Q13E

Q13F

Q13B

e1

e2

e4

e5

e6

e16

e3

e8

e14

e9

e10

e11

e12

e13

e15

Figure 2: The structural model

Performance

IS/IT

Strategy

Alignment

BusinessStrategy

Q8A

Q8B

Q9

Q12

Q47

Q29

Q13A

Q13C

Q13D

Q13E

Q13F

Q13B

e1

e2

e4

e5

e6

e16

e3

e8

e14

e9

e10

e11

e12

e13

e15

.87

.55

.95

.30

.90

.62

.51

.38

.20

0,56

0,59

040

0,52

.31

.35

.16

.28

.54

.69

.75

.75

.70

.70

.29

.48

.56

.57

.49

.49

Figure 3: Results of the structural equation modeling

Performance

IS/IT

Strategy

Alignment

Businessstrategy

Q8A

Q8B

Q9

Q12

Q47

Q29

Q13A

Q13C

Q13D

Q13E

Q13F

Q13B

e1

e2

e4

e5

e6

e16

e3

e8

e14

e9

e10

e11

e12

e13

e15


Performance

IS/IT

Strategy

Alignment

Businessstrategy

Q8A

Q8B

Q9

Q12

Q47

Q29

Q13A

Q13C

Q13D

Q13E

Q13F

Q13B

e1

e2

e4

e5

e6

e16

e3

e8

e14

e9

e10

e11

e12

e13

e15


Performance

IS/IT

Strategy

Alignment

BusinessStrategy

Q8A

Q8B

Q9

Q12

Q47

Q29

Q13A

Q13C

Q13D

Q13E

Q13F

Q13B

e1

e2

e4

e5

e6

e16

e3

e8

e14

e9

e10

e11

e12

e13

e15

.87

.55

.95

.30

.90

.62

.51

.38

.20

0,56

0,59

040

0,52

.31

.35

.16

.28

.54

.69

.75

.75

.70

.70

.29

.48

.56

.57

.49

.49


Performance

IS/IT

Strategy

Alignment

BusinessStrategy

Q8A

Q8B

Q9

Q12

Q47

Q29

Q13A

Q13C

Q13D

Q13E

Q13F

Q13B

e1

e2

e4

e5

e6

e16

e3

e8

e14

e9

e10

e11

e12

e13

e15

.87

.55

.95

.30

.90

.62

.51

.38

.20

0,56

0,59

040

0,52

.31

.35

.16

.28

.54

.69

.75

.75

.70

.70

.29

.48

.56

.57

.49

.49

Performance

IS/IT

Strategy

Alignment

BusinessStrategy

Q8A

Q8B

Q9

Q12

Q47

Q29

Q13A

Q13C

Q13D

Q13E

Q13F

Q13B

e1

e2

e4

e5

e6

e16

e3

e8

e14

e9

e10

e11

e12

e13

e15

.87

.55

.95

.30

.90

.62

.51

.38

.20

0,56

0,59

040

0,52

.31

.35

.16

.28

.54

.69

.75

.75

.70

.70

.29

.48

.56

.57

.49

.49


.76


Strategic Aligment IT

Documents

Transcript of Strategic Aligment IT