BUSINESS IT ALIGNMENT
A Survey
Karim Doumi, Salah Baïna and Karim Baïna
ENSIAS, Mohamed V - Souissi University, Souissi, Morocco
Keywords: Strategic alignment, Enterprise architecture, Goals modelling, Strategy, Business process, Information
system.
Abstract: Nowadays, the strategic alignment of information systems has become a priority in most large
organizations. It is a question of aligning the information system on the business strategies of the
organization. This step is aimed at increasing the practical value of the information system and makes it a
strategic asset for the organization. In the literature several approaches have been developed to solve the
problem of alignment. For example the approach of alignment between architecture and the business
context, the approach needs oriented, approach alignment between process and information system...etc. In
this paper we propose a detailed study of each approach (benefits and limitation) and we propose a
comparison between these different approaches.
1 INTRODUCTION
The strategy of the enterprise is to set up the long-
term commitments to reach the explicit objectives. It
is a question of studying, via real cases, how an
enterprise can position itself in an international
competing. The alignment of this strategy with the
evolution of information system requires an
alignment allowing the perfect coherence of all the
actions and the decisions with the strategic
objectives of the enterprise. This alignment will
transform strategic objectives into operational
actions to align them in the information system.
Today, it is not quite enough to build powerful
information systems. In order for the enterprise to be
performing and be able to compete and evolve, its
information systems and business processes must be
permanently aligned and in perfect coherence with
its strategy.
Many authors have shown the importance of
alignment in the evolution of the enterprise
(Luftman and Maclean, 2004; Luftman, 2000) and
according to (Baïna, 2008; Chan et al., 1997;
Croteau and Bergeron, 2001; Tallon and Kraemer,
2002), this alignment has a great influence on the
performance of the organization and any rupture in
the process of alignment causes a fall of the
organization’s performance.
If the interest of alignment is greatly recognized,
its implementation remains very limited. According
to (Luftman and Maclean, 2004; Renner et al.,
2003), few leaders consider that the strategy and the
information systems are aligned. Thus, this implies
that actors of the organization are not able to
distinguish between alignment and non-alignment.
Also, the absence of methods of maintenance of
alignment makes
the task extremely difficult at the
decisional level.
In the literature several approaches have been
developed to solve the problem of alignment. In this
paper we present an evaluation of 7 approaches to
alignment, which we felt were relevant, applicable
and representing the state of the art.
The seven approaches are:
Approach of Enterprise Architecture :
Zachman Framework for alignment
documentation (Zachman, 1987)
Approach of Enterprise architecture
(French): urbanization of Information
System (Longépé, 2001).
Approach of modeling and construction of
alignment oriented needs (Bleistein, 2006).
Approach
of evaluation and evolution of
strategic alignment (Luftman, 2000)
Approach of modeling and construction of
alignment between the environment,
processes and the systems (Wegmann, 2005)
493
doumi K., Baïna S. and Baïna K..
BUSINESS IT ALIGNMENT - A Survey.
DOI: 10.5220/0003589504930499
In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2011), pages 493-499
ISBN: 978-989-8425-56-0
Copyright
c
2011 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
Approach of evaluation of the degree of
alignment of the business process and
Information system (Etien, 2006; Etien and
Salinesi, 2005)
Approach of evaluation of the degree of
alignment between the couple strategy of the
enterprise and <Business process,
information system> (Thevenet et al., 2009)
Approach oriented values (Ideas, 2003).
This document is structured in four parts. In Section
2, we present a set of approaches to strategic
alignment. Each approach is briefly presented
(description and limits). In Section 3, we present a
comparative study between these approaches. We
conclude and present our work in progress in
Section 4.
2 APPROACHES OF STRATEGIC
ALIGNMENT
2.1 Approach of Enterprise
Architecture “Zachman”
Approach:
Several studies have shown that enterprise
architecture is practiced in major international
organizations and governmental institutions that
have adopted it as a tool of strategic governance
Several frameworks and methods of enterprise
architecture are available on the market: Zachman,
TOGAF, AEP, JTA, DODAF, CIMOSA,
SAGA…etc and most used are probably Zachman
and TOGAF.
Zachman proposes a framework in which there
are 36 models distributed according to six prospects
and six aspects of the enterprise and system.
In this framework there are three categories of
model:
(1) Business models (2) system information
models and (3) technological models (IT).
The first type of models is present in the first two
rows of the matrix and is interested in the enterprise
and its environment (strategy, objectives, activities
...). The 2nd type on the 3rd line and describes the
architecture of information systems. Finally the last
type of model is on the last two lines that describe
the technical architecture of the enterprise.
Limits:
Real experiments have shown interest of the
Zachman Framework (Brown, 2005) to help manage
change and improve the availability of enterprise
documentation. However, several practical issues
were raised (Meersman, 2004; Khory and Simoff,
2004). We can cite for example the lack of
methodological process to guide a process of
alignment, lack of dynamics and lack of integration
of different views.
2.2 Approach of Enterprise
Architecture (French):
Urbanization of Information
System (Longépé, 2001)
Approach:
If it has been usual for a long time to speak about
architecture of the information systems, the concept
of town planning is more recent but spreads quickly.
The problems thus consist in making the
information system most reactive possible (i.e. able
to evolve quickly to answer the new requests) while
preserving the informational inheritance of the
enterprise. The urbanization of the information
systems aims at bringing an answer to this need.
The approach of urbanization of information
system was studied by many authors (Longépé,
2001; Bonne and Maddaloni, 2004). The works of
these authors supplement the works relative to the
enterprise’s architecture (Zachman, 1987). All these
authors use the metaphors to found the concept
structures and urbanization of information system, in
particular the metaphor of the city is used like base
of urbanization of information system. Thus in the
city of information, the individuals are the
information
applicants. The plan of urbanization
defines a common vision of what would be the target i.e.
an information system urbanized and aligned on the
strategy of the organization.
Methods of urbanization of information systems
have all in common eight essential steps:
Model business processes
Document the current (As-Is)
Define the target « future » (To-Be)
Define a migration plan.
Use a modeling tool for documenting the
EA
Set rules.
Assist projects
Manage projects
Various methods have been proposed in the
context of urban information systems. The most
known of these methods is that proposed by
(Longépé, 2001). The approach is organized into
seven phases which are:
(
1) planning, (2) the
revision of the strategic axes, (3) analyzing the
ICEIS 2011 - 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
494
existing situation, (4) the definition of the strategy,
(5) develop a convergence plan, (6) publication of
the strategy, and (7) updating the strategy.
Moreover, the method proposes to use the
mapping information system for documentation and
analysis of modularity.
The main goal of mapping is the decomposition
of the information system, is so a facet of the
decomposition of the enterprise. In the approach of
urbanization information system, these facets are
organized into levels: enterprise strategy, business
process, function, application and technical
architecture.
Limits:
Urbanization Information System provides a guide
to manage the strategic alignment to define future
Information system. However, the method of this
approach does not say how to ensure an evolution of
enterprise strategy, its business processes and its
information system and how to measure and
improve the alignment between these elements.
2.3 Approach of Modeling and
Construction of Alignment
Oriented Needs (Bleistein, 2006)
Approach:
Bleistein (Bleistein, 2006) seeks to align enterprise
strategy to the system. For this they propose
requirements engineering approach that brings in the
same model (1) the strategic objectives of the
organization and (2) the activities and processes to
which these objectives are achieved.
This approach uses goals modeling for modeling
the enterprise strategy. Bleistein use the model BRG
(Business Rules group) to organize enterprise
strategy. This model is a conceptual framework
consists of two concepts: (1) Ends: that are the
things the enterprise wants to reach as (goal,
objective, vision) (2) Means: the things that the
company uses to achieve those purposes as (strategy,
tactics, mission).
This model does not use specific language of
representation that is why Bleistein uses the
modeling language I *(Yu, 1997). He proposed to
match the model I * with BRG to make it
operational.
This approach allows building a system aligned
with enterprise strategy and business processes. It is
based on:
Modeling strategy using the model I *
Defining the business context using problem
fram (Jackson, 2001). This step is based on the
clear separation between the context of existing
problems and solutions to build.
The modeling of business processes through
diagrams roles activities.
Business role models can make the link between
goals, objectives and tasks defined in the model I *
and contexts (system, domain).
In this approach the relationship between entities
is via a typology of links. Typology of linkages of
the I * and “references links” that exist in the
diagrams.
Limits:
The approach of Bleistein is interesting in the sense
that it takes into account the strategic level in the
presentation of the alignment but is impractical and
very complicated to master it.
Is an approach to building alignment and not the
evaluation and evolution of the alignment.
The guide is not defined, the method proposes to
use the fram problem of Jackson and match the BRG
model with elements of model I * but there is no
clear guide to construct the alignment.
2.4 Approach of Evaluation and Evolution
of Strategic Alignment (Luftman,
2000)
Approach:
Luftman (Luftman, 2000) proposes a framework for
measuring the alignment between two entities: the
enterprise strategy and IT strategy. This framework
incorporates the fundamentals of the CMM model
(Capability Maturity Model).
The approach aims to assess and improve the
relationship of alignment between enterprise strategy
and IT strategy.
The approach does not define any relationship
between the elements of the alignment. Luftman
tries to explain the “understanding of IT by the
business”.
To identify the level of alignment of an
organization, six criteria were identified:
The degree of maturity of communication.
The maturity of the ability to measure.
The maturity to lead (steering).
The maturity of the partnership between
business and IT.
The degree of maturity of the architecture.
The maturity of knowledge.
Guidance is proposed through six steps:
• (1)
Define goals and develop a team of managers
and engineers from functional entities. The team
BUSINESS IT ALIGNMENT - A Survey
495
must assess the maturity of the alignment between
enterprise strategies and IT strategies.
(2) Understanding the link between business and IT.
The team assesses each of the six criteria with the
objective of converging towards a single vision.
(3) Analyze gaps. This step aims to analyze the
actions needed to improve alignment. For each
criterion, the differences are fixed between the
current situation of organization and the situation
that the team has set. The high level of maturity
serves as a guideline to identify actions to put in
place.
(4) Specifying actions: Knowing the maturity level
of alignment helps identify actions to improve
alignment. This step aims to assign tasks to each of
the gaps identified in the previous step in precisely
defining the documentation, resources, risks,
measures to ensure that the problem of the gap has
been resolved.
(5) Choose and evaluate success criteria. This step
requires review the goals and revisit regularly
measurement criteria identified to assess the
implementation of projects.
(6) Maintain alignment. This step is, according to
Luftman (Luftman, 2000), the most difficult.
Limits:
The approach of Luftamn gives guidance for the
construction of the alignment. The approach does
not seek to change the alignment of the elements but
to achieve a higher maturity level of alignment
between strategic objectives and IT strategy.
2.5 Approach of Modeling and
Construction of Alignment between
the Environment, Processes and the
Systems (Wegmann, 2005)
Approach:
The SEAM approach ("Systemic Enterprise
Architecture Method") aims to build a future
situation in which the company and its system are
aligned (Wegmann, 2005).
The SEAM method focuses not only on the
alignment between the system and the company but
also a managerial view “between the enterprise and
its environment, the market...)
In SEAM, the company is represented by a
hierarchical model. Each level contains systems. A
system may be an information system, department,
enterprise or corporate of enterprise or even a
market.
A SEAM enterprise model has three levels: (1)
the business level representing enterprise, (2) the
operational level and (3) the level of information
technology
In SEAM, the alignment is defined as follows:
• Alignment of sets of entities from different
organizational levels: two representations of a set of
entities in two adjacent levels of the organization are
aligned if it is possible to identify the conduct
described in the highest level in the conduct
described in the lowest organizational level.
• Alignment of sets of entities of different functional
levels: two representations of entities with two
different functional levels are aligned if it is possible
to identify in the conduct described above in the
functional behavior described at the functional level
as low.
• Alignment of business and information technology:
the alignment of business and IT requires alignment
of sets of entities from different organizational levels
and alignment of sets of entities of different
functional levels.
Limits:
The SEAM method uses the same notations in
different levels and thus between the different
elements of alignment. The SEAM method does not
take into account the particularity of each level of
abstraction.
2.6 Approach of Evaluation of the
Degree of Alignment of the
Business Process and Information
System (Etien, 2006)
Approach:
The method ACEM (Alignment Correction Method
and Evolution) focuses on the alignment between
two entities, business processes and information
system (functional level).
The method proposes to adapt the model
business processes with the system information
model in order to restore the alignment between
these two entities.
ACEM method proposes an approach that allows
an organization to move from a present situation to a
future situation.
The present situation is characterized by the As-
Is models PM (Process Model) and As-Is SM
(System Model) that represent business processes
and system functionality. The future situation is
characterized by the models To-Be PM and To-Be
SM representing respectively the state of business
and system, after evolution.
The methodology proposes three steps ACEM,
presented and detailed in (Etien, 2006). The three
ICEIS 2011 - 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
496
steps are: (1) Obtaining the pivot model for a unified
view of the process model and system (2) The
evolution of the pivot model with the identification
of gaps that can express a change or improvement in
the alignment (3) analyze of the gaps identified in
the pivot model system models and processes.
ACEM method takes into account requirements
changes respectively from (1) dysfunction of the
system or process (2) breaks the relation of
alignment.
The requirements of change are expressed as
differences between the model pivot As Is and
model pivot To Be. Evolution is the common model,
pivot, and then there is an impact on entities to align,
so it is a method of evolution interdependence type.
Limits:
This approach allows to model and evolve the
alignment between business process and information
system but do not take into consideration the
strategic level in the representation of the alignment.
2.7 Approach of Evaluation of the
Degree of Alignment between the
Couple Strategy of the Enterprise
and (Business Process, Information
System) (Thevenet et al., 2009)
Approach:
The method INSTAL (Intentional Strategic
Alignment) focuses on the alignment between two
levels, strategic and functional level.
The operational level includes business processes
and information systems. The strategic level
involves the enterprise strategy and needs at high
level.
This method proposes first to document the
strategic alignment by: (1) the intentional model
representing the two levels and (2) the definition of
alignment links between this model and the elements
of the enterprise (documents, methods, procedures)
from the strategic and operational level.
The approach uses the formalism maps (Rolland,
2007) to represent elements of the two levels.
Links strategic alignment, which are attached to
the intentions of MAPs, defines all the elements
justifying strategic intentions and all operational
elements contributing or not to them.
Then INSTAL offers metrics and measures.
Metrics provide quantitative or qualitative view of
the alignment. Each metric or measure is defined by
a specific method. The methods may be objective
(based quantification of numerical rules) or
subjective.
The evolution guided by INSTAL takes place at
the operational level, and simultaneously on
business processes and information systems. As
such, INSTAL can be seen as a methodological
approach that guides the co-evolution of business
processes and information system with respect to
strategy.
The methodological approach INSTAL consists
of three steps:
(1) Diagnosis of strategic alignment.
(2) Discovery and analysis of requirements
evolution.
(3) Propagation et validation des exigences
d'évolution
Limits:
The method takes into consideration the INSTALL
strategic level in representing the strategic alignment
but impractical because it uses formalizes card that
does not include all elements of the strategic level.
3 COMPARAISON AND
EVALUATION OF
APPROACHES
In other words, the classical vision of alignment
involves two main areas: the area of Business
(competitive strategy and activities of the
organization) and the field of IT (IT strategy and IS
support) that it is to ensure consistency.
The issue of business IT alignment must
necessarily pass through the life cycle of alignment:
(1) identification of elements that will contribute to
the construction of the alignment and (2) the
evaluation, and (3) necessary actions to correct this
alignment (figure 1).
Figure 1: Cycle of strategic alignment.
Our evaluation criteria are related to this cycle of
alignment: modeling (alignment entity, modeling
language), evaluation and correction of alignment.
BUSINESS IT ALIGNMENT - A Survey
497
Table 1: Comparative table of the approaches of strategic alignment.
Study
Criterion
Luftman
2000
Zachman
2003
Bodhuin
2004
Bleinstein
2005
Wegmann
2005
Etien
2006
Longépé
2006
Gordijn
2006
Thevenet
2009
Alignment entity
strategy/ IT
Enterprise
strategy& IT
BP, System,
environment,
organisation,
architecture.
Business
process/ IS
Strategy/
Business
Process
Environment/
Business
process
Business
process/IS
Strategy/
IS
Straategy/business
Process , IT
strategy/ (business
process, IS)
Modelling levels --- --- functional strategy functional functional functional
Strategy/functiona
l
Strategy/functional
Construction of alignment __ ___ Top-Down Top-Down Top-Down Top-Down Top-Down Top-Down Top-Down
Modelling --
Artifact
classification
---
Goals modeling
(I*)
--- Ontology ---
Goals modeling/
Business Model
card formalism
Evaluation of alignment
No No yes No No yes NO NO yes
Alignment Entity. As the table shows it, the
majority of the approaches of alignment connect 3
entities at the maximum only the approach of
(Zachman, 1987) has seven entities.
In the whole of these approaches, alignment
passes between a pair of entities. (Luftman, 2000) is
interested in the alignment of enterprise strategies
and IT strategies. (Wegmann, 2005) in alignment
between the system, the processes and the
environment, (Thevenet et al., 2009) alignment
between the couple strategy of the
company/business process, information system.
Modeling. The modeling or the documentation of
alignment is based on the modeling of the objectives
for (Wegmann, 2005), while (Etien, 2006) uses the
intentional approach based on ontology of WWB.
(Zachman, 1987) uses a modeling based on a matrix
according to 6 prospects and 6 aspects.
Evaluation. (Wegmann, 2005) proposes an
approach of evaluation which rests on interpretation,
judgment. These are the interpretations which make
it possible to show if there is alignment or not
without evaluating a degree of this alignment. Other
approaches propose criteria of evaluation associated
with quantitative measurements. For example, to
count to accounting) the number of activities dealt
with by the system (Etien, 2006; Etien and Salinesi,
2005).
Correction. (correction method used) several
approaches were interested in the correction of
strategic alignment. For example (Etien, 2006;
Thevenet, 2009) are based on the results of the
evaluation of alignment to define the evolutions to
be implemented. The correction is done step by step
by evaluating alignment after each change (Etien,
2006). In all these approaches, actions proposed for
the corrections are very difficult to implement and
very poor at detail provided.
4 CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a state of art and a comparison
between some approaches of alignment. The
objective is then to propose a model for
representation of the alignment that takes into
account three entities: enterprise strategy, business
processes and information system.
We consider that the strategic level defines the
intentions of the enterprise. Its implementation is
done through the conduct of business processes and
thus the treatment of strategic alignment between
business strategy and information system does can
be done without going through the business
processes that support enterprise activities.
REFERENCES
J. Luftman, E. R. Maclean, “Key issues for IT executives”.
MIS Quarterly Executive, 3, pp.89-104, 2004.
J. Luftman, “Assessing business-IT alignment maturity.
Communications of the association for Information
Systems“, Vol. 4, N°14, pp. 1-50, 2000.
ICEIS 2011 - 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
498
S. Baïna, P. Ansias, M. Petit and A. Castiaux, “ Strategic
Business/IT Alignment using Goal Models”. In
Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on
Business/IT Alignment and Interoperability
(BUSITAL'08) held in conjunction with CAISE'08
Conference Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008
Y. Chan, S. Huff, D. Barclay and D. Copeland, “Business
Strategic Orientation: Information Systems Strategic
Orientation and Strategic Alignment“, Information
Systems Research, 8, 125-150. 1997.
A.-M. Croteau, F. Bergeron, “An Information Technology
Trilogy: Business Strategy“, Technological
Deployment and Organizational Performance. Journal
of Strategic Information Systems, 10, 77-99. 2001.
P. P. Tallon, K. L. Kraemer, “Executives' Perspectives on
IT: Unraveling the Link between Business Strategy,
Management Practices and IT Business Value“,
Americas Conference on Information Systems,
ACIS2002. Dallas, TX, USA. 2002.
A. R. Renner, D. Latimore, D. Wong, “Business and IT
operational models in financial services: Beyond
strategic alignment”, IBM Institute for Business
Value study, 2003.
J. A. Zachman, “A Framework for Information Systems
Architecture”, IBM Systemps Journal, Vol. 26, pp.
276-292, 1987.
C. Longépé. “Le projet d’urbanisation du SI”. Collection
Informatique et Entreprise, Dunod 2001.
S. J. Bleistein, “B-SCP: an integrated approach for
validating alignment of organizational IT
requirements with competitive business strategy”, the
university of new south wales, phD thesis, Sydney
Australia, January 3, 2006.
A. Wegmann, R.Regev, B. Loison, “Business and IT
Alignment with SEAM”. Proceedings of REBNITA
Requirements Engineering for Business Need and IT
Alignment, Paris, France, August 2005.
A. Etien, “L’ingénierie de l’alignement: Concepts,
Modèles et Processus“. La méthode ACEM pour la
correction et l’évolution d’un système d’information
aux processus d’entreprise, thèse de doctorat,
Université Paris 1, 13 mars 2006.
A. Etien, C. Salinesi, “Managing Requirements in a Co-
evolution Context”. Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Requirements
Engineering, Paris, France, Sept 2005.
L. H. Thevenet, C. Rolland, C. Salinesi, “Alignement de la
stratégie et de l’organisation : Présentation de la
méthode INSTAL, Ingénierie des Systèmes
d'Information (ISI)“. Revue Ingénierie des Systèmes
d’Information Special Issue on Information System
Evolution., Hermès, pp17-37, June 2009.
T. Brown, “The Value of Enterprise Architecture”, ZIFA
report, 2005.
B., Meersman, “The Commission Enterprise Architecture
cadre”, Presentation to European Commission
Directorate Genral Informatics, 2004.
R. Khory, S.J. Simoff, “Enterprise architecture modelling
using elastic metaphors”, Proceedings of the first
Asian-Pacific conference on Conceptual modelling,
vol 31, 2004.
J. C. Bonne, A. Maddaloni. “Convaincre pour urbaniser
le SI“. Hermes, Lavoisier 2004.
M. Jackson, “Problem Frames: Analyzing and Structuring
Software Development Problem“, Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, 2001.
E. Yu, “Towards Modeling and Reasoning Support for
Early-Phase Requirements Engineering”, Proceedings
of the 3rd IEEE International Symposium on
Requirements Engineering (RE'97), pp 226, 1997.
C. Rolland, "Capturing System Intentionality with Maps",
Conceptual Modeling un information Systems
Engineering, Springer-Verlag, Berlin heidelberg,
Germany, pp. 141 – 158, 2007.
Ideas. Requirements Engineering, 8(2):114–134, 2003.
J. Gordijn, M. Petit, R. Wieringa. Understanding business
strategies of networked value constellations using
goal- and value modeling. In Martin Glinz and Robyn
Lutz editors, Proceedings of the 14th IEEE
International Requirements Engineering Conference,
Pages 129-138, IEEE CS, Los Alamitos, CA, 2006.
V. Pijpers, J. Gordijn, H. Akkermans. Exploring inter-
organizational alignment wit e3alignment – An
Aviation Case. 2009, BLED'09, 22nd Bled
eConference eEnablement: Facilitating an Open,
Effective and Representative eSociety, June 14 - 17,
2009; Bled, Slovenia
McKeen, J. D. et Smith, H. A. (2003) Making IT Happen:
Critical Issues in IT Management, Chichester: Wiley.
Reich, B. H. et Benbasat, I. (1996) Measuring the Linkage
between Business and Information Technology
Objectives. MIS Quarterly, 20(1): 55- 81.
BUSINESS IT ALIGNMENT - A Survey
499