STRATEGIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS ALIGNMENT

A Decision Support Application for the Internet Era

David Lanc

Department of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton Campus, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK

Lachlan MacKinnon

Department of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton Campus, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK

Keywords HISSOM, SISP, SISA, IS Alignment, Holistic IS, Decision Support Applications, HDSA

Abstract Strategic information systems planning

, SISP, methods have proven organisationally complex to

utilise, despite 40 years of research and evolution of Information Systems, IS, in the organisational

context. The diverse nature of organisational strategy and environmental factors have been mooted as

primary causes. On one hand, confusion exists in the literature due to divergent, deficient definitions

of SISP. On the other, a lack of distinction exists between SISP as a planning process, and the broader

alignment of organisational direction with the IS capability that provides the context for sustainable IS

intellectual and cultural integration. Consequently, no methods or models for alignment of IS and

organisational activities exist that have both validity in the literature and sustainability in practice.

HISSOM (Holistic Information Systems Strategy for Organisational Management) is a practical,

holistic model that co-ordinates and facilitates cohesive alignment of organisational needs and the IS

capability required to meet those needs, at (1) stakeholder; (2) feedback metrics; (3) strategy and

change management; and (4) organisational culture and capability levels. HISSOM was initially

developed as a logical extension of the IS-alignment literature, and has been validated by action

research in several significant studies in different industries, markets and organisational settings. The

HISSOM model has been revised in the light of these studies, and a practical, Web-based decision

support application, the HISSOM Decision Support Advisor, HDSA, is now under development, to

promote wider use of the model and obtain evolutionary feedback from the user community. A

synthesis of the development of HISSOM and work on designing the HDSA architecture is described,

together with the impact of this research on extending the field of SISP and IS-alignment.

1 INTRODUCTION

Business-IS alignment seeks to align Information

Systems Strategy, ISS, and Information Systems, IS,

capabilities with organisational strategy and needs,

historically through strategic information systems

planning, SISP, approaches. Despite research

stretching back 40 years, and an unfounded but

widespread belief by researchers and practitioners

that this area has been comprehensively addressed,

no approach exists that successfully achieves this

alignment.

Recent research recognises the need to

reconside

r the field of SISP, and to respect the wider

aspects of IS-alignment, including social and

behavioural (McGrath et al, 1998)(Reich and

Benbasat, 1996, 2000), human relational (Pyburn,

1983), participatory (Hatten and Hatten, 1997),

cultural (Chan et al, 1997) and stakeholder (Lanc

and MacKinnon, 2001, 2003, 2004a) aspects that

influence organisational activity.

A dearth of significant empirical evidence into

IS-align

ment remains evident, questioning the

completeness of SISP as a driver of IS-alignment

(Sabherwal and King, 1995)(Teo and King,

1996)(Luftman, 2000). Conflict between those

supporting formal planning methodologies

(Bergeron et al, 1991), and those that do not

(McFarlan, 1971)(Runge, 1988)(King et al, 1989), is

evident in research (Earl, 1989, 1990, 1993)(Vitale

100

Lanc D. and MacKinnon L. (2005).

STRATEGIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS ALIGNMENT - A Decision Support Application for the Internet Era.

In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 100-110

DOI: 10.5220/0002527701000110

 SciTePress

et al, 1986)(Sabherwal and King, 1995), supporting

the hypothesis that SISP is incomplete.

The central tenet of SISP as an IS-alignment

enabler has been directly challenged by researchers

(e.g. Lederer and Mendelow, 1989;Lederer and

Sethi, 1992;Mentzas, 1997), and commercial

surveys (e.g. Computer Technology Research

Corporation, 1994) supporting the existence of an

undefined phenomenon of IS-alignment that

transcends the confines of SISP, towards a more

holistic strategic IS-alignment, SISA, phenomenon,

comprising the structural, social, behavioural,

cultural and political aspects of organisational

endeavour (Lanc and MacKinnon, 2004c).

This wider alignment phenomenon is more

critical to the Internet era, which has introduced

direct, global organisational-consumer contact

through Web-based IS (Lanc and MacKinnon,

2003)(Porter, 2001)(Butler Group, 1997) hitherto

possible only through traditional EDI (Galliers,

1999)(Ward and Peppard, 2002). To facilitate

strategic alignment beyond the historic limitations of

SISP, SISA must address IS’s appropriate

organisational standing (Feld and Stoddard, 2004),

rectify the historic absence of top management

representation and poor credibility (Benjamin et al,

1984)(Earl and Feeny, 1994), IS-organisational

performance alignment, and improved education and

interaction of both business and IS management

(Teo and King, 1997).

HISSOM (Holistic Information Systems Strategy

for Organisational Management) was developed to

address the limitations of SISP, and to bring life to

the concept of SISA, adopting a holistic, multi-

dimensional view of IS-organisational alignment.

HISSOM is therefore a logical but important

extension of the literature.

This paper describes the development of HISSOM

from initial concept, validated through extensive

analysis of the literature and significant

ethnographic action research studies.

It defines the concept of SISA, and a new

definition of SISP, fit for the Internet era,

differentiating the two. Finally, the HISSOM

Decision Support Advisor, HDSA, catalysing SISA

and SISP into practical use, is described.

2 HISSOM BACKGROUND

2.1 The HISSOM model

HISSOM addresses the limitations of IS-

organisational alignment evidenced in the literature.

It facilitates practical alignment of the IS needs and

capabilities of an organisation, through combining

rational-analytical approaches of the past with

structural, cultural, social and behavioural aspects.

Importantly, HISSOM integrates insight, feedback

and control mechanisms, thereby aligning metrics

for targeting and monitoring delivery. It does this

from five key organisational perspectives, giving

unique insight into organisational activity systems:

• The stakeholder perspective;

• The organisational management perspective;

• The business emphasis perspective;

• The IS strategy perspective; and

• The baseline capability perspective.

HISSOM also recognises (1) the organisation’s

external context, or Weltanschauung (Avison &

Fitzgerald, 1995); (2) the perspectives of external

stakeholders, recognised as often ignored (Ward and

Peppard, 2002), that influence organisational

behaviour; and (3) the importance of continuous

improvement methods again often ignored (Galliers,

1991,1999) (Porter, 1996, 2001).

2.2 Application of HISSOM

The initial HISSOM model was developed in 2000

(Lanc & MacKinnon, 2000, 2001). HISSOM was

then applied to four diverse real-world settings:

• Europe’s largest bancassurance organisation

created by merger of two mature financial

services organisations (Lanc & MacKinnon,

2004a). One author was the director responsible

for the integration and new, IS-enabled strategy

of the business;

• A US Internet start-up providing payment

processing services for Web-based merchants

(Lanc & MacKinnon, 2003). One author was the

Chief Operating Officer, responsible for the IS-

led strategy for the organisation;

• The UK’s largest integrated Cards Business, and

its analytics-driven strategy. One author was the

strategy and development director of the

business; and

• The UK Chip and PIN rollout, the largest

financial services change in the UK since

decimalisation. One author was a pivotal

member of the UK Steering Group for the

rollout, representing the largest infrastructure

payments participant.

The original HISSOM conceptual model was

enhanced in light of action research results, and the

concept of SISA developed, before being converted

into a requirements specification for the

development of the HDSA. It must be emphasised

that the action research performed was extremely

STRATEGIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS ALIGNMENT - A Decision Support Application for the Internet Era

101

substantive in nature, influencing both the

organisational and IS strategies for these settings,

with one of the authors occupying a senior role in

each of the organisations involved for the duration

of the process.

2.2 SISA and SISP: Essential

components of alignment

Strategic IS alignment (SISA) has been the subject

of much work over the last 5 years by the authors

(Lanc and MacKinnon, 2001, 2003, 2004a, 2004b).

Based upon practitioner experience and IS strategy

literature from the academic, practitioner,

organisational capability, business management, and

commercial developer/consultant communities,

HISSOM was developed and applied, initially based

upon extending the concept of SISP, in several

ethnographic studies in the UK and US markets.

The evolution of HISSOM from a limited SISP

to a more holistic SISA approach entailed

consideration of 7 drivers (Appendix A) that impact

the decisions and actions of each of the 5 HISSOM

perspectives. Each driver represents an

organisational “layer” that requires vertical co-

ordination to facilitate dynamic equilibrium between

organisational needs, capabilities and the insight,

feedback and control mechanisms required to direct

and monitor action.

Additionally, HISSOM facilitates horizontal

alignment of each driver/layer, facilitating a “cross-

perspective” evaluation of the degree of alignment

of that layer (e.g. assessing the degree of strategy

alignment, or performance metrics, across all

stakeholders). The vertical and horizontal alignment

evaluations enable a holistic approach to be

evaluated, across perspective groups and

organisational layers, bringing conceptual and

practical rigour to the concept of SISA, whilst

highlighting its distinction from SISP as follows:

• SISP is concerned with analysis, planning and

implementation activities associated with

meeting organisational needs and achieving

competitive differentiation; and

• SISA is concerned, in addition, with ongoing

cultural and behavioural alignment of the IS

capability with the wider organisational context.

The organisational context (e.g. structure,

decision-making style, formality) dictates

whether any IS endeavour is ultimately strategic

(Sabherwal and King, 1995), a factor supporting

the encapsulation of SISP within SISA.

HISSOM’s 7 layers are consolidated within

“insight, control and feedback,” “need” and

“capability” classifications, as follows:

• “Insight, control and feedback” layers: external

benchmarks, market position and balanced

scorecard metrics;

• “Need” layers: organisational objectives, strategy

planning, change management and continuous

improvement, organisational culture (as an

undeveloped need), resource management,

training and support; and

• “Organisational capability” layers: culture (as an

in situ capability), governance, people, process,

data, technology and capital components.

The drivers and limitations/assumptions

underpinning SISA and SISP were validated against

a broad synthesis of the literature (Lanc and

MacKinnon, 2004c), resulting in definitions of SISP

and SISA as follows:

SISP is a continuous, organisational analysis and

planning activity, involving participation and

commitment from all relevant organisational

constituents, concerning:

• Identification, assessment, introduction and

reorganisation, within organisational limitations,

of all IS capabilities required to drive and pursue

organisational goals;

• Assessment of internally and externally derived

IS innovations, including those from continuous

improvement and operational transformation

activities, exploited by the organisation for

competitive advantage or sustainable benefit; and

• Identification, implementation, management

control and feedback of the planned change

activities derived from the assessment of IS

capabilities and innovations, including non-IS

organisational activities and resources.

SISA is a dynamic organisational behaviour,

involving participation, knowledge sharing,

commitment and cultural alignment of

organisational management and staff with the IS

function, concerning:

• Acceptance of the importance, participation and

representation at the appropriate level, of IS as a

key, integrated organisational capability;

• Recognition of the need for SISP (as defined) to

align dynamically the IS capability with

organisational needs and goals;

• Development, management and organisation of

the IS capability, including outsourcing and other

external relationships, to maintain realistic (that

is, affordable), dynamic equilibrium with

foreseeable organisational needs; and

• Development and management of appropriate

organisational governance and relationships, in

pursuit of cohesive, integrated organisational

interactions, communication, policies and

knowledge development.

Appendix A illustrates in tabular form the latest

version of the HISSOM model, incorporating the

concepts of SISA and SISP. The remainder of this

ICEIS 2005 - ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS

102

paper describes the current state of development of

the HISSOM DSA, in terms of workflow design,

logical architecture and components.

3 THE HISSOM DSA

3.1 Current stage of development

The HISSOM Decision Support Advisor, HDSA, is

under development to provide a support facility for

organisational executives and managers involved in

the development of IS strategy. Currently, the model

is dependent on experience-based evaluation by the

authors, or the user having extensive relevant

experience in the same area. To improve the model’s

availability and applicability, the HDSA will be

enhanced to provide a step-by-step evaluative model

with contextual filtering of output advice on the

development of IS strategy for specific

organisational situations. Additionally, we intend to

evolve the HDSA by capturing empirical

information from HISSOM applications within the

user community, using this information to enhance

and expand the underpinning database and

contextual rules engine.

The architecture of the HDSA is based on a

classic AI decision support model, utilising a

deterministic form-based questionnaire model to

capture organisational information and determine

advice strategies, combined with a rules-based

filtering engine to tailor advice to the particular

situation. An underpinning database provides the

question and answer elements for the forms, and the

individual elements used to compose the output

advice stream. To date, a fully configurable forms-

based interface has been developed in C# for .NET,

with the underpinning database currently an SQL-

based relational DBMS. We are in the process of

developing the rules engine as a logic-predicate

model, realising the features identified from the

HISSOM development necessary for the HDSA.

HDSA features arising from our extensive action

research, comprise:

• An evaluation of organisational maturity in co-

ordinating and managing IS alignment;

• An assessment of the experience, expertise and

seniority of IS professionals;

• Identification of the cultural, social and

behavioural contexts within which organisational

activity and interactions occur;

• An assessment of the organisational governance

regime; and

• An evaluation of the influence of the five

HISSOM perspective groups, in order to

establish the perspective weighting inherent in

influencing organisational activity.

The above evaluations facilitate generation of an

early hypothesis with regard to expected

organisational behaviour. This evaluation helps

recognise the organisation’s environmental context

recognised as largely absent in IS-alignment models

(e.g. Avison & Fitzgerald, 1995, Galliers, 1999).

Table 1 illustrates, from action research results,

rankings used as proxies for the relative influence of

each HISSOM perspective group in each study. The

results regarding the influence of these groups upon

organisational direction comprised:

• A direct correlation between management tenure

and the relative influences of the organisational

management and business emphasis

perspectives, resulting in greater coherence of

direction setting. Conversely, the less established

an organisation’s management (in structured

interaction and operating culture), the more

directive its influence in decision-making;

• Strictly controlled organisational contexts drive

top-down, hierarchical influences. The Cards

Business study typified this relationship by the

relative ranking of the external, organisational

management, business emphasis and IS strategy

perspectives. The immature management

environment of the Internet study, displayed a

more fragmented relationship;

• The baseline IS capability, representing the

influence of the IS function specialists, is

generally regarded as a “gatekeeper” in mature

or relatively mature settings, regardless of its

ability to innovate. This was typified in the Cards

Business study, in which its IS capabilities were

unsupported by Corporate IS resources. The

influence exerted by the Cards IS function was a

facet of its specialisation, non-compliant

architecture and integration with external

solution providers’ systems, an anomaly within

the larger Group;

• An organisation’s proximity to an external event

such as a merger, industry initiative or new start-

up, positively correlates the relationship between

the external stakeholder and organisational

management groups;

• The existence of integrated IS Strategy resources

positively correlates with a greater level of IS-

organisational alignment. The outsourced IS

capability of the Internet start-up was not

integrated into organisational planning activities.

This resulted in poor communication and

interaction highlighted historically (Hatten &

Hatten, 1997;McGrath et al, 1998), and a lack of

cohesion between organisational management, IS

executives (IS strategy perspective) and IS

function (Baseline IS Capability perspective).

STRATEGIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS ALIGNMENT - A Decision Support Application for the Internet Era

103

Table 1: Perspective Influence Rankings (1=high)

Perspective Group

UK Bancassurer

(Mature)

US Start-up

(Immature)

Cards Business

(Relatively mature)

Chip & PIN

Industry Group

(Relatively mature)

External Stakeholder 2 2 1 2

Organisational Management 2 1 2 1

Business Emphasis 1 4 3 1

IS Strategy 2 5 4 2

Baseline IS Capability 2 5 3 2

The relative ranking between the Business

Emphasis, IS Strategy and Baseline IS Capability

perspectives remained constant in all studies.

Significant IS capability and competence existed, in

terms of skills, experience and operating processes in

each study. However, wider alignment was only visible

in the more “mature” organisational contexts, where

interaction of organisational management and Business

Emphasis perspectives catalysed improved

organisational coherence.

The absence of a holistic management interaction

culture within the start-up study rendered the best

attempts of IS and business management to be more

involved of little impact. This mirrored findings that

executives should recognise the importance of IS

alignment with organisational goals (e.g. Pyburn,

1983;Earl, 1993), and the level of understanding that

IS management has of organisational needs (Luftman,

2000;Luftman et al, 1999).

Table 1 summarises the interaction of each

perspective based on more detailed underlying

analyses from action research (page count restricts

publication). For example, the external stakeholder

perspective was evaluated using a “Cause & Effect”

grid, analysing the interaction and influence of various

external stakeholder groups upon the organisation. This

directly impacted each external stakeholder perspective

layer, in turn driving specific HDSA workflow steps:

• Identifying specific external groups that could

realistically influence the organisation;

• Identifying the impact of each external group

through the seven HISSOM driver layers;

• Identifying and weighting the relative influence of

each group upon the seven layers; and

• Identifying specific activities that an external

group, or one of its constituents, can influence or

restrict the organisation pursuing.

Decision support analyses based upon the HDSA

grid are then generated, based on user judgment of the

likelihood of events (using Likert scale forms) and

their likely impact over time (i.e. immediate or longer

term). The output of this analysis is designed to

provide management with an indication of the key

external influence groups, the immediacy of their

influence, and the organisational aspects of interest to

those groups. An outcome is generated by the HDSA

that was previously only possible in HISSOM

evaluations through experience-based evaluations of

the authors. Importantly, the HDSA will ultimately

gain feedback from a wider population of users,

enriching the range of outcomes currently limited by

the authors’ experience (and biased by that

experience).

The concept of “organisational maturity” of IS-

alignment required careful consideration in the HDSA

design. Table 2 identifies the organisational maturity

matrix, comprising four maturity evaluation

classifications derived from experience and practice of

the authors, supported by the literature.

Table 2: Organisational Maturity Matrix

Organisational

Background

Organisational

Culture

Skills

/Experience

Policies

/Governance

Strategy Focus Tenure of management Management experience Organisational Governance

Dependency on IS Internal innovation dependency Non-executive/adviser

status

Responsibility for IS

Historic IS investment Existing IS-organisational alignment External IS dependencies Responsibility for Strategy Planning

IS outsource status Barriers to IS innovation IS Management

Experience

Strategy planning governance

Other capability outsource

status

Acquisition v Organic Growth IS technical competency Resource planning,

training & prioritisation

External influences IS function size/structure Functional management IS

awareness

IS strategy responsibility

Regulatory influences Strategy Planning approach Continuous Improvement approach

Communications/Education/Interaction IS Governance

Integration v devolution/silo regime IS resource prioritisation

Risk profile

ICEIS 2005 - ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS

104

Organisational culture and specifically the

behavioural interaction of organisational executives

impacted all studies. Although experiential learning

facilitates adaptation to cultural environments during

action research, a complication for the HDSA is

consideration of how to help future users evaluate

the “organisational psyche” that sets the theme for

any organisational change activity. Hence,

management tenure, evidence of innovation

programmes and IS positioning within the

organisation are key maturity attributes. Evaluating

IS-organisational alignment history provides insight

into organisational behaviour regarding strategy and

investment in IS, and whether the IS capability is

deemed ancillary or core. The presence of IS skills

and competence, and of formal/informal governance

over strategic direction and IS management, also

support an overall assessment of organisational

maturity.

Each HDSA element drives detailed questions

sets which ultimately drive a “maturity” metric,

categorised as follows:

(a) Mature;

(b) Relatively mature;

(d) Immature.

A “level of assurance,” related to the integrity of

results based on the profile of individuals

completing the HDSA questionnaire is calculated,

recognising some users will be less familiar with the

organisational context than others. The question of

objectivity in determining HDSA results remains a

further complexity, given the small number of

studies providing insight to the initial HDSA

construct. An evaluation matrix was therefore

developed (Appendix B) to assess the level of

subjectivity associated with each output, based on

user profiles of those completing the evaluation.

The result is a metric with 12 possible outcomes

for the organisational maturity evaluation and 90

possible outcomes, classified into a “capability-

maturity” grading, for the perspective weighting

evaluation, on a scale from “There is a high level of

assurance of a dominant perspective” (stating which

one) to “There is a low level of assurance that the

perspectives are in balance.”

Evaluation results are utilised at relevant points

in the HDSA workflow, to ensure departures from

expectation (based on user inputs) can be

highlighted and potential conflicts alerted to users.

Analysis performed in defining the HDSA

reveals a number of design implications that directly

impact the HDSA logical architecture (Figure 1).

Early HDSA results will necessarily depend upon

results from HISSOM case studies, given lack of

wider results. To develop the HDSA into a more

robust decision support tool, an Artificial

Intelligence, AI, database engine is required, both

locally at each user site and centrally, to facilitate

mapping and collation of results from the universe

of HDSA installations, providing increased levels of

assurance to the HDSA community.

Figure 1: HDSA High Level Logical Architecture

INPUT PHASE

PROCESS PHASE

External Stakeholder Perspective Evaluation Or

anisational Mana

ement Pers

ective Evaluat

Business Emphasis Perspective Evaluation

IS Strategy Perspective Evaluation Baseline IS Capability Perspective Evaluation

OUTPUT PHASE

HDSA FINAL OUTCOME

IP U

dates

HDSA Hi

h Level Lo

ical Architecture

Central HDSA Applicatio

Iteratio

Perspective Weightin

Evaluatio

INTERACTIVE PROCESS REQUIRING ALIGNMENT WITH THE "INPUT" OUTCOMES AND WITH EACH PERSPECTIVE EVALU

OUTCOME

OUTCOME 1 OUTCOME 2

Maturity Evaluation

INTERACTIVE PROCESS REQUIRING ALIGNMENT WITH THE "INPUT" AND PERSPECTIVE OUTCOMES

OUTCOME 3 OUTCOME 4 OUTCOME 5 OUTCOME 6 OUTCOME 7

Organisational HDSA Application

Evaluator

Questionnaire Led

Evaluation

Evaluator

Questionnaire Led

Evaluation

HDSA Local

Database

HDSA Local

A.I. Engine

HDSA Central

A.I. Engine

HDSA Central

Database

Figure 1: HDSA High Level Logical Architecture.

STRATEGIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS ALIGNMENT - A Decision Support Application for the Internet Era

105

The HDSA’s AI engine will take time to

develop fully. Therefore, the HDSA will comprise a

parking lot table of issues and anomalies that users

identify in practice, and store for further

consideration, to ensure anomalous results cannot

transcend the HDSA workflow unchecked.

The HDSA architecture will accordingly

facilitate the collation, interpretation and output of

improved results based on increased volumes of data

over time, which will increase objectivity based on

experiential results from a growing community of

users.

Once the perspective weighting and maturity

evaluations are complete, the HDSA workflow

mirrors HISSOM’s five perspective approach,

evaluating each perspective against the others, using

cross-referenced question sets to assess consistency

across layers within each perspective (Appendix A).

Over time, and with use of the distributed HDSA

architecture, initial question sets will be modified to

ensure a balance of user time commitment and

qualitative output is maintained.

Alignment of each perspective questionnaire

results with all other HISSOM perspectives and the

maturity and perspective weighting evaluations takes

place within the “process” phase of the HDSA

architecture (figure 1). Action research results and

outputs will be used as an initial output set. Over

time, the HDSA’s AI engine will help build a more

cohesive universe of possible outcomes into a more

holistic output set, facilitating extension of the

HDSA into wider user communities.

HISSOM in practice is not restricted by strict

workflow rules, allowing each perspective phase to

be completed in any order. Designing this “real-

world” iterative workflow approach to IS-alignment

into an unsupervised, computerised application,

introduces complexity. For example, changing

strategic decisions in practice will require iteration

with the existing state of alignment that the

underlying HDSA database holds.

To aid user understanding of this iterative

process, an “evaluation status” will be visible on all

key HDSA pages, comprising “compulsory”,

“optional” and “dependent” classifications. Where a

compulsory task changes (such as organisational

sign-off of a particular change activity), its

dependent tasks will require re-evaluation (such as

the IS resource effort required for the change

activity) to ensure they remain valid. Optional tasks,

such as planning project management resources, will

not halt workflow progress to the extent an

incomplete, dependent task would. This aspect of the

HDSA is critical to providing valid outcomes and

will be a key success factor in practice. To facilitate

flexibility in practice, the HDSA task grid will be

partially user definable, with specific tasks key to

the underlying HISSOM model structured in such a

way as to ensure a valid outcome can be generated

for valid inputs.

3.2 Future HDSA development

Current HDSA development is focused on

functional design and logical architecture. The next

phase of development comprises:

• Workflow completion (web-based);

• Development of local/central AI engines;

• User profile questionnaire development/analysis;

• HDSA perspective alignment process;

• Supplementary support and maintenance; and

• IP-based process workflow for continuous

update of central and local AI engines.

Once the above are complete, user testing and

Web-based distribution will follow, before an initial

HDSA application is released for practical use.

4 SUMMARY

The HDSA is the result of five years of work

involving ethnographic case studies in large, mature

organisations, entrepreneurial start-ups and large-

scale industry rollouts of new technologies. It

incorporates over twenty years of practical

experience from the authors. Fundamentally, its

foundation is supported by, and extends the

literature pertaining to IS- alignment.

The HDSA incorporates unique aspects that

target weaknesses in historic IS-alignment methods

by incorporating:

• Initial maturity and perspective weighting

evaluations;

• Iterative decision support capabilities aligned to

each perspective;

• Identification of potential conflicts/anomalies

based upon user inputs and intelligent answer

sets; and

• Assessment of user profiles incorporating skills,

experience and organisational status elements to

aid decision support.

No IS- alignment model can guarantee market

success. However, the HDSA will provide

organisations for the first time with a practical, self-

evolving, decision support framework based upon

both sound concepts and rigorous practice.

ICEIS 2005 - ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS

106

REFERENCES

Avison, D.E. & Fitzgerald, G., 1995. Information Systems

Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools,

ed. McGraw-Hill Int’l (UK) Ltd.

Benjamin, R.I., Rockart, J.F., Scott Morton, M.S. and

Wyman, J. 1984. Information technology: a strategic

opportunity, Spring.

Bergeron, F., Buteau, C., Raymond, L. 1991.

Identification of strategic information systems

opportunities: applying and comparing two

methodologies, MIS Quarterly 15(1).

Butler Group, 1997. Business Intelligence, Information

Synergy for the Enterprise, Volume 4.

Chan, Y.E., Huff, S.L., Barclay, D.W., Copeland, D.G.,

1997. Business Strategic Orientation, Information

Systems Strategic Orientation, and Strategic

Alignment, Information Systems Research, Vol. 8, 2.

Computer People 2003. Survey of 500 UK companies, IT

Week, 27

October 2003.

Computer Technology Research Corp., 1994. Information

Systems Strategic Planning, 4

ed.

Earl,M.J. 1989. Management Strategies for Information

Technology. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead.

Earl, M.J. 1990. Approaches To Strategic Information

Systems Planning Experience In Twenty One United

Kingdom Companies Approaches To Strategic

Information Systems Planning, Proceedings of the

International Conference on Information Systems,

Copenhagen.

Earl, M.J. 1993. Experiences in Strategic Information

Systems Planning, MIS Quarterly, 17(1)

Earl, M.J. & Feeny, D.F. 1994 Is your CIO adding value?

Sloan Management Review, Spring.

Field, C.S., Stoddard, D.B. 2004. Getting IT Right,

Harvard Business Review, February.

Galliers, B. 1999. Towards the Integration of E-Business,

Knowledge Management and Policy Considerations

within an Information Systems Strategy Framework|.

Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 8(3).

Hatten, M. L. and Hatten, K.J., 1997. Information Systems

Strategy: Long overdue-and Still Note Here, Long

Range Planning, 30 (2).

King, W.R., Grover, V., Hufnagel, E.H. 1989. Using

information and information technology for

sustainable competitive advantage: some empirical

evidence. Information and Management, v.17 n.2.

Lanc, D. Mackinnon, L, 2001. A Holistic Information

Systems Strategy for Organisational management –

HISSOM, Enterprise Information Systems II, Kluwer.

Lanc, D., Mackinnon, L, 2003. A Application of An

Holistic Information Systems Strategy for

Organisational Management (HISSOM), to an e-

commerce Card Payment Processor, Proceedings of

the IADIS International Conference.

Lanc, D., Mackinnon, L, 2004a. A Application of An

Holistic Information Systems Strategy for

Organisational Management (HISSOM), Applied to

Europe’s Largest Bancassurer, Proceedings of the

ICEIS International Conference.

Lanc, D., Mackinnon, L, 2004b. Development of a

Decision Support Application for alignment of

information systems and organisational strategy,

Proceedings of BNCOD.

Lanc, D., MacKinnon, L., 2004c. SISA – A reflective

Taxonomy of information systems alignment for the

internet paradigm, In print.

Lederer, A.L., Mendelow, A.L. 1989. Coordination of

information systems plans with business plans, Journal

of Management Information Systems, v.6 n.2.

Lederer, A.L., Sethi, V. 1992. Meeting the Challenges of

Information Systems Planning, Long Range Planning,

25(2).

Luftman, J.N., Papp, R., & Brier, T. 1999. Enablers and

Inhibitors of Business-IT Alignment, Communications

of the Association for Information Systems, Volume 1,

Article 11.

Luftman, J.N. 2000. Assessing Business-IT Alignment

Maturity. Communications of the Association for

Information Systems, Volume 4.

McFarlan, F.W. 1971. Problems in Planning the

Information System, Harvard Business Review 49.

McGrath, G.M., Dampney, C.N.G., and More, E.A, 1998.

Structured Approach to Conflict Prediction in

Information Systems Strategy Implementation.

International Journal of Intelligent Systems in

Accounting Finance & Management 7.

Mentzas, G., 1997. Implementing IS Strategy-A Team

Approach. Long Range Planning, 30 (1).

Porter, M.E. 1996. What is Strategy?, Harvard Business

Review, November-December.

Porter, M.E. 2001. Strategy and the Internet, Harvard

Business Review, March.

Pyburn, P., 1983. Linking the MIS Plan with Corporate

Strategy: An Exploratory Study, MIS Quarterly.

Reich, B. H., Benbasat, I. 1996. Measuring the linkage

between business and information technology

objectives, MIS Quarterly, v.20 n.1, March 1996.

Reich, B. H., Benbasat, I. 2000. Factors that influence the

social dimension of alignment between business and

information technology objectives, MIS Quarterly,

v.24 n.1.

Runge, D.A., 1988. Winning with telecommunications:

An approach for corporate strategists, International

Centre for Information Technology Press, Washington

D.C.

Sabherwal, R. & King, W.R. 1995. An Empirical

Taxonomy of the Decision-Making Processes

Concerning Strategic Applications of Information

Systems, Journal of Management Information

Systems, 11(4).

STRATEGIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS ALIGNMENT - A Decision Support Application for the Internet Era

107

Teo, T.S. & King, W.R. 1996. Assessing the impact of

integrating business planning and IS planning,

Information and Management, 30.

Teo, T.S.H., King, W.R. 1997. Integration between

Business Planning and IS Planning: An evolutionary-

Contingency Perspective, Journal of Management

information Systems, Vol. 14, No. 1.

Vitale, M.R., Ives, B., & Beath, C.M. 1986. Linking

information technology and corporate strategy: an

organisational view, Proceedings of the 7

International Conference on Information Systems.

Ward, J. & Griffiths, P. 1996. Strategic Planning for

Information Systems. 2

Edition. John Wiley, Hemel

Hempstead.

Ward, J. & Peppard, J. 2002. Strategic Planning for

Information Systems. 3

Edition. John Wiley, Hemel

Hempstead.

ICEIS 2005 - ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS

108

APPENDIX A – HISSOM MODEL TABULAR REPRESENTATION

HISSOM 3.3 Matrix with transferable & integrated layers

Capability/

Need Classifications

Perspective

Layer

Rationale

Stakeholder

Organisational

Management

Business

Emphasis

IS Strategy

Baseline IS

Capability

Insight, Control &

Feedback

Determination (Metric)

Layer

Metrics visible and used to

understand and evaluate

organisational

drivers/direction

External

Benchmarks

Market Position

(Existing & Future)

& Organisational

Balanced Scorecard

Organisational &

Functional Balanced

Scorecards,

Financial

IS/IS/EIS/DSS

Organisational & IS

Balanced Scorecards,

Financial

IS/MIS/EIS/DSS

Organisational & IS

Balanced Scorecards,

Financial

IS/MIS/EIS/DSS

Direction (Driver) Layer

Drivers of organisational

strategy supported by

Definition Layer

Organisational

Objectives

Competitive

Advantage, Market

Differentiation &

Organisational

Objectives

Organisational

Applications &

Knowledge

Management

Architecture

Organisational

Applications &

Knowledge

Management

Architecture

Organisational

Applications &

Knowledge

Management

Architecture

Definition (Decision) Layer

Strategy and direction setting

activity supporting Driver

Layer, interacts with Change,

Driver & Metric Layers

Organisational

Strategy

Organisational

Strategy Planning

Business Function

Strategy Planning

Information Systems

Strategy Planning

Information Systems

Strategy Planning

Change Layer

Organisational change

activity supporting and

gaining insight from Decision

Layer, interacting with

capability layers (WHAT WE

DO)

Change

Management

Change

Management

Change Management,

Continuous

Improvement &

Project Portfolio

Change Management,

Continuous

Improvement &

Project Portfolio

Change Management,

Continuous

Improvement &

Project Portfolio

Organisational

Need Layers

Collaborative

Combative

Equilibrium

Culture Layer

Behavioural context in which

organisation develops, Organisational Organisational

Resource Management

& Liaison, Support,

Resource Management

& Liaison, Support,

Resource Management

& Liaison, Support,

operates and interacts;

supports & limits all layers

(THE WAY WE DO)

Culture

Recruitment &

Training

Recruitment &

Training

Recruitment &

Training

Integrity Layer

Activities maintaining

organisational integrity from

all key dimensions; supports

and limits all layers

Risk & Financial

Management,

Org Governance

(inc. reputation

risk)

Risk & Financial

Management,

Org Governance

Contingency &

Capacity Planning,

Functional

Governance, Security

& Control

Contingency &

Capacity Planning, IS

Governance, Security

& Control

Contingency &

Capacity Planning, IS

Governance, Security

& Control

Organisational

Capability

Layers

Infrastructure Layer

Core capability necessary for

basic organisational operation;

supports and limits all layers

People, Process,

Org Structure,

Data, Technology,

Capital

People, Process, Org

Structure, Data,

Technology, Capital

Functional

infrastructure,

Processes, Data,

Functional structure &

HR, Capital

Information Systems

infrastructure,

Processes, Data, IS

structure

& IS HR, Capital

Information Systems

infrastructure,

Processes, Data, IS

structure & IS HR,

Capital

Notes: (1) Includes Data Sources & External Communications (e.g. EDI, E-commerce, M-commerce); (2) Includes performance

measurement for change activities; (3) Includes general and specific policy and procedure issues.

STRATEGIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS ALIGNMENT - A Decision Support Application for the Internet Era

109

Appendix B

HDSA Maturity & Perspective Weighting Evaluation Matrix Extracts

Evaluation Metric

HDSA

Process

Process Steps

Basis of

Evaluation

Basis of Judgement

Judgement

Type

Potential

Influences on

Evaluation

Consequential or

Mitigating Action

Relative/

Absolute

Scenario

Universe Valid Outcomes

Maturity

Evaluation

1.1 Survey data Objective

Evaluator

See 1.2 Relative 4 scenarios (a) Mature

Survey

evaluation

Survey data

input

Logical relationships

between input data elements

Objective Completeness

Over time, HDSA AI

engine will identify

anomalies (b)

Relatively

Mature

Over time, based on HDSA

AI engine Objective (c)

Relatively

Immature

Organisation-specific data

element relationships Subjective

Over time, based on HDSA

AI engine (d) Immature

1.2Evaluator User profile

Position relative to

organisational setting Objective

N/a Iteration within HDSA Relative 3 scenarios (a) High

Over time, based on HDSA

AI engine

(b) Medium

Position relative to

organisational setting

Subjective

Over time, based on HDSA

AI engine

2.1

Survey

evaluation

Survey data

input Survey data Objective Evaluators See 2.3 5 scenarios (a)

One dominant

perspective

Perspective

Weighting

Evaluation

(Individual

perspectives)

Logical relationships of

input data elements

Objective Completeness

Over time, HDSA AI eng.

will identify anomalies

Relative (b)

Two dominant

perspectives

Linkage with Maturity

evaluation Objective (c)

One weak

perspective

Organisation-specific data

element relationships Subjective

Over time, based on HDSA

AI engine (d)

Two weak

perspectives

Linkage with Maturity

evaluation

Subjective (e)

Balanced

perspectives

2.2

Survey

evaluation 2.1 output As above As above As above As above As above 6 scenarios - Level 0-5

(All

perspectives)

2.3Evaluators User profile

Position relative to

organisational setting Objective

N/a Iteration within HDSA Relative 3 scenarios - High, Medium,

Over time, based on HDSA

AI engine

Low

Position relative to

organisational setting Subjective

Over time, based on HDSA

AI engine

ICEIS 2005 - ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS

110