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

 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

•

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/

Straategy/business

Process , IT

strategy/ (business

process, IS)

Modelling levels --- --- functional strategy functional functional functional

Strategy/functiona

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