A Conceptual Framework to Classify Strategic Information Systems
Planning Methodologies
Hadi Kandjani
1
, Amir Mohtarami
2
, Amirhossein Eslami Andargoli
1
and Reza Shokoohmand
4
1
Centre for Enterprise Architecture Research and Management, School of ICT, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
2
Department of Information Technology Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3
Department of Information Technology, Tehran Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Strategic Information Systems Planning, SISP Methodology, Conceptual Framework.
Abstract: For many information systems executives, strategic planning for information systems continues to be a
critical issue and remains a top concern of many organisations. Also, a comprehensive review of the recent
IS planning literature reveals that selecting a proper methodology used in developing an information
systems plan is one of the success factors related to the success of the IS planning process. Although this
individual success factor should have attracted more research and discussions, there have not been enough
attempts to create a framework to compare and classify strategic information systems planning
methodologies to select a proper method for a specific organisation with its unique requirements. The
purpose of this paper is primarily theoretical and is to propose a conceptual framework to classify strategic
information systems planning methodologies to choose the suitable methodology(ies) according to the
specific given requirements of an organisation.
1 INTRODUCTION
Strategic information systems planning (SISP) is
essential for organisations to succeed (Newkirk et
al., 2003). It is a continuous exercise that enables
organisations to develop priorities for information
system (IS) development. IS strategies are defined
for their alignment with business objectives or their
capacity to create significant impact on the
organisation's competitive positioning.
Therefore, improving SISP practice as one of the
most critical issues facing IS executives has been
critically studied through the last two decades and
continues to be a critical issue and remains a top
concern of many organisations (Doherty et al.,
1999); (Moynihan, 1990); (Peppard and Ward,
2004); (Ward and Peppard, 2002).
A comprehensive review of the IS planning
literature reveals that the following factors are
related to the success of the IS planning process
(Doherty et al., 1999):
1. The need to align corporate objectives and IS
strategy (Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993);
2. The underlying motivation for the initialisation
of the planning process (Banker et al., 1990);
3. The assessment model of Business-IT alignment
of the organisation (Luftman, 2004);
4. The selection of a methodology used in
developing the IS plan (Bergeon, 1991); (Lederer
and Sethi, 1988); (Lederer and Sethi, 1998)
5. The framework used for setting IT investment
priorities (Burch, 1990);
6. The measurement of effectiveness used for the IS
department (Clark Jr, 1992);
7. Preparation of an implementation plan to meet
SISP objectives (Lederer and Sethi, 1996).
Although the fourth success factor should have
attracted more research and discussions, there have
been only a few attempts to create a framework to
compare and classify SISP methodologies. The
proliferation of methods and the variations in
satisfaction indicate a need to provide guidance to
assess the appropriateness of different approaches
and the applicability of using several approaches in
practice.
Indeed, there is little guidance available in the
literature regarding what relative strengths and
weaknesses of existing approaches are (Rogerson &
Fidler, 1994). Also many techniques have been
advocated for use within the SISP process (Ward et
190
Kandjani H., Mohtarami A., Eslami Andargoli A. and Shokoohmand R..
A Conceptual Framework to Classify Strategic Information Systems Planning Methodologies.
DOI: 10.5220/0004438801900196
In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2013), pages 190-196
ISBN: 978-989-8565-60-0
Copyright
c
2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
al., 2002), including the definition and the analysis
of the critical success factors (CSFs), SWOT
analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats) and value-chain analysis (VCA).
Some organisations, which specialise in
information technologies and their applications,
have coupled together different methodologies
resulting in a complete SISP methodology such as
the work by Min et al., (1999) proposing an
integrated approach toward strategic information
systems planning (Min et al., 1999).
Several studies also have focused on SISP
approaches e.g. by following Mintsberg’s models in
his book: the rise and fall of strategic planning
(Mintzberg, 2000), the stage of growth analysis
which relates to Nolan’s work (Gibson and Nolan,
1974) or by invoking the Organisation’s Theory in
order to obtain an organisational fit for IS (Burn,
1991). Through the comprehensive studies and
practices of SISP, many methodologies are being
applied in order to perform SISP processes,
therefore organisations may need a set of criteria to
better understand different methods, techniques, and
tools to choose the proper one based on their
requirements (Basahel, 2009); (Basahel and Irani,
2009).
2 A FRAMEWORK TO CLASSIFY
SISP METHOOLOGIES
In this paper, we firstly introduce a conceptual
framework to classify SISP methodologies then we
compare some major SISP methodologies using our
proposed conceptual framework (as demonstrated in
Table 2 in the appendix).
There are different frameworks to evaluate and
classify IS development methodologies such as
NIMSAD (Jayaratna, 1986), DESMET (Kitchenham
et al., 1996), and Avison and Fitzgerald’s framework
(Avison and Fitzgerald, 2006); (Avison and
Fitzgerald, 2003) however there is only a few
attempts to classify and compare IS planning
methodologies (Basahel, 2009); (Basahel and Irani,
2009); (Rogerson and Fidler, 1994).
Avison and Fitzgerald’s framework has the right
level of abstraction and generality and could be
mapped and adjusted in order to also evaluate and
classify IS planning methodologies. According to
the General System Theory (GST) (Von Bertalanffy,
1968), models, principles, and laws exist that apply
to generalised systems or their subclasses,
independent from their specific kind, the nature of
their sub-elements, and the relationships among
them.
Therefore, by looking at Avison and Fitzgerald’s
framework as a ‘system’ of comparison, it is
possible to generalise this framework and adjust it
(from the IS development level) to the IS planning
level. This adjusted conceptual framework will be
then used as a guide to choose a relevant SISP
methodology when planning for information
systems. This conceptual framework is introduced in
the following sections (2.1 to 2.7):
2.1 Fundamental Philosophy
Fundamental philosophy is a vision upon which the
methodology has been established and forms the
approach of problem solving. This criterion
considers SISP methodologies as problem solving
approaches with different fundamental philosophy.
When choosing a methodology, it is important to
determine a proper approach towards SISP process
and select ones with adaptable approach to the
problem with which organisation is facing. It
consists of three factors of 1) Paradigm, 2)
Methodology objective and 3) Domain and target of
the methodology (Avison and Fitzgerald, 2006);
(Avison and Fitzgerald, 2003).
2.1.1 Paradigm
Avison and Fitzgerald define paradigm as the
problem solving approach of a methodology
(Avison and Fitzgerald, 2006); (Avison and
Fitzgerald, 2003). They classify paradigm as science
paradigm vs. systems paradigm. Science paradigm
explains the world through reductionism,
repeatability, refutation and systems paradigm is
concerned with whole picture, interrelationships
between parts of the whole. (Avison and Fitzgerald,
2006); (Avison and Fitzgerald, 2003).
In our conceptual framework to classify SISP
methodologies, we interpret paradigm as the way a
methodology considers 3 distinct factors in the
process of problem solving as equivalent of the
Science and the System paradigms which
includes: 1) Technical paradigm, 2) Social paradigm
and 3) Socio-technical paradigm. In one side of a
spectrum there are methodologies which only look at
the technical side of planning for information
systems with less attention to the human aspect of
IS, while on the other side of this spectrum there are
other methodologies that are more human-oriented
and consider more of human aspect of information
systems when planning for a change in IS planning
AConceptualFrameworktoClassifyStrategicInformationSystemsPlanningMethodologies
191
practice.
In between, there exist other methodologies
which combine the advantages of both ends together
and form the socio-technical paradigm of planning
for information systems (Robson, 1997; 2002).
2.1.2 Methodology Objectives
Robson compares and classifies some SISP
methodologies based on the following three factors:
1) Efficiency, 2) Effectiveness and 3) Competitive
Advantage (Robson, 1997; 2002). One may consider
them as the objectives and the main aims of the
methodologies.
The aim of some IS planning methodologies is to
use information technology and information systems
as a means of increasing the efficiency of using
organisational resources, while the objective of the
second group of IS planning methodologies is to
enhance the alignment between IS and business
objectives and contributing to the organisations to
achieve their strategic business goals and objectives.
The third group of methodologies improves the
competitive position of an organisation over its
rivals and creates a competitive edge which is not
easy to imitate.
2.1.3 Domain and Target of Methodology
Robson categorises SISP methodologies according
to the organisational level that they are being applied
to in the organisations (Robson, 1997; 2002). This
criterion is also possible to be mapped to our
proposed conceptual framework including the
following levels as the domain and target of
methodologies: 1) Strategic Business Unit (SBU)
level, 2) Corporate level and 3) Business level. Each
SISP methodology is applicable to one or more
specific organisational level(s). An SISP
methodology would target a specific or multiple
organisational domains.
2.2 Modelling Method
Modeling method of a methodology also derives
from its fundamental philosophy and is formed
according to the following 3 factors (Avison and
Fitzgerald, 2006); (Avison and Fitzgerald, 2003): 1)
Conversation Tool, 2) System Capture and 3)
Exhibition of the IS and the business concepts.
Modeling method is also an abstraction and the
representation of major factors of information
systems or organisations and a means of
communication.
Modeling methods have four different types
(Yaghini et al., 2009): 1) Verbal, 2) Analytical or
mathematical, 3) Iconic, pictorial or schematic and
4) Simulations. Each SISP methodology uses one or
a combination of these modeling methods to
communicate with SISP stakeholders and the project
team by creating an abstract representation of the IS
and the business problem domain.
2.3 Tools & Techniques
This criterion consists of tools and techniques used
by SISP team or Information Systems Department of
an organisation when using a specific SISP
methodology, e.g. Functional Hierarchy Diagram
(FHD) or Data group/Process Matrix in Business
Systems Planning methodology (BSP) or Operations
Research techniques in Ends-Means Analysis
Methodology are some tools and techniques used in
SISP process of a specific methodology.
2.4 Scope
Scope of a methodology is the breadth and depth of
steps that an SISP methodology could cover. Every
SISP methodology has its own scope. Some of the
methodologies cover all the steps of SISP process
and are called ‘full-scope methodologies’ such as the
Integrated Algorithm (Min et al., 1999).
This criterion is also adjusted to the IS planning
level using an extended model for the scope of SISP
process introduced by Mentzas (Mentzas, 1997) and
validated by Newkirk (Newkirk et al., 2003). (see
Table 1)
2.5 Output
Ultimately, every methodology creates specific
outputs that are different according to
methodology’s unique scope. In fact the output of a
methodology depends upon the scope that is
mentioned in the previous criterion.
2.6 Practice
The main factor determining practice of an SISP
methodology is the development team’s a) Business
related and b) IS related skills and expertise
necessary to apply that specific methodology. For
example, BSP requires a high level of expertise and
skills in IS field due to the intensity of modeling and
designing IS related diagrams and outputs, however
it needs a medium level of business related skills and
expertise. While Critical Success Factors analysis
methodology (CSF) requires a high level of business
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
192
related knowledge and expertise. Therefore, we
classify this criterion in 3 level of expertise in two
fields of IS and Business: 1) High expertise, 2)
Medium expertise and 3) Low expertise.
2.7 Product
The other criterion when assessing and choosing a
methodology is the support of the methodology and
its product and existence of supporting companies to
provide services for the people or customers using
the methodology in forms of providing them with
related software or consulting services. For example
BSP is supported, by IBM Company
3 COMPARISON OF SISP
METHODOLOGIES
Once the framework is introduced, a set of SISP
methodologies could be compared based on the
framework. The set of methodologies include: 1)
Critical Success Factors Analysis (Rockart, 1982),
2) IBM Business System Planning (Zachman, 1977),
3) Porter's 5 Forces Model (Porter Michael, 1979),
4) SWOT Analysis (Ansoff, 1987); (Humphrey,
2004) and 5) Value Chain Analysis (Porter, 1985).
Table 2 demonstrates the results of the comparison
and the evaluation of these SISP Methodologies.
This comparison requires further validation through
empirical research which will be accomplished as
the next step of the research process. (See table 2 in
the Appendix)
4 CONCLUSIONS
Since the selection of proper SISP methodology(ies)
to develop the IS plan has been proven as a success
factor of the IS planning process, the purpose of this
theoretical paper was to propose a conceptual
framework to classify SISP methodologies to choose
the suitable methodology(ies) according to the
specific given requirements of an organisation.
Using this proposed conceptual framework, one
could compare SISP methodologies to benefit from
the mostly suited one(s) to the organisation’s
requirements and also may combine a set of
methodologies in order to cover all SISP phases and
tasks in a full scope manner.
The next phase in current research in progress
work is to concentrate on the application of this
conceptual framework in empirical research in order
to assess the validity and reliability of this research’s
results.
REFERENCES
Ansoff Igor, H. (1987). Corporate strategy: London,
Penguin Books.
Avison, D., & Fitzgerald, G. (2006). Methodologies for
Developing Information Systems: A Historical
Perspective. The Past and Future of Information
Systems: 1976–2006 and Beyond, 27-38.
Avison, D., & Fitzgerald, G. (2003). Information systems
development: methodologies, techniques and tools.
Banker, R., Kauffman, R., & Morey, R. (1990). Measuring
gains in operational efficiency from information
technology: a study of the Positran deployment at
Hardee's Inc. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 29-54.
Basahel, A. (2009). A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION
OF STRATEGIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
PLANNING (SISP) TECHNIQUES. Paper presented at
the Brunel Business School Doctoral Symposium
2009.
Basahel, A., & Irani, Z. (2009). Novel Taxonomy For
Evaluation Of Strategic Information System Planning
(SISP) Techniques. Paper presented at the UK
Academy for Information Systems 2009.
Bergeon, F., Buteau, C., Raymond, L. (1991).
Identification of strategic information systems
opportunities:
applying and comparing two methodologies. MIS
Quarterly, 15 (1), 89-103.
Burch, J. (1990). Planning and building strategic
information systems. Journal of Systems Management,
41(7), 21-27.
Burn, J. (1991). Stages of growth in strategic information
systems planning (SISP).
Clark Jr, T. (1992). Corporate systems management: an
overview and research perspective. Communications
of the ACM, 35(2), 75.
Doherty, N., Marples, C., & Suhaimi, A. (1999). The
relative success of alternative approaches to strategic
information systems planning: an empirical analysis.
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 8(3),
263-283.
Gibson, C., & Nolan, R. (1974). Managing the four stages
of EDP growth. Harvard Business Review, 52(1), 76-
88.
Henderson, J., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic
alignment: Leveraging information technology for
transforming organizations. IBM systems Journal,
32(1), 4-16.
Humphrey, A. (2004). The origins of the SWOT analysis
model. SWOT Analysis, by Alan Chapman, www.
bussinessballs. com.
Jayaratna, N. (1986). Normative Information Model-Based
Systems Analysis and Design (NIMSAD): A
framework for understanding and evaluating
AConceptualFrameworktoClassifyStrategicInformationSystemsPlanningMethodologies
193
methodologies. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis,
13, 73-88.
Kitchenham, B., Linkman, S., & Law, D. (1996).
DESMET: A method for evaluating software
engineering methods and tools. Keele University.
Lederer, A., & Sethi, V. (1988). The implementation of
strategic information systems planning methodologies.
MIS Quarterly, 12(3), 445-461.
Lederer, A., & Sethi, V. (1996). Key prescriptions for
strategic information systems planning. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 13(1), 62.
Lederer, A., Sethi, V. (1998). The implementation of
strategic information systems planning methodologies.
MIS
Quarterly(September), 445-461.
Luftman, J. (2004). Assessing business-IT alignment
maturity. Strategies for information technology
governance, 99.
Mentzas, G. (1997). Implementing an IS strategy—a team
approach. Long Range Planning, 30(1), 84-95.
Min, S., Suh, E., & Kim, S. (1999). An integrated
approach toward strategic information systems
planning. The Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 8(4), 373-394.
Mintzberg, H. (2000). The rise and fall of strategic
planning: Pearson Education.
Moynihan, T. (1990). What chief executives and senior
managers want from their IT departments. MIS
Quarterly, 14(1), 15-25.
Newkirk, H., Lederer, A., & Srinivasan, C. (2003).
Strategic information systems planning: too little or
too much? The Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 12(3), 201-228.
Peppard, J., & Ward, J. (2004). Beyond strategic
information systems: towards an IS capability. The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(2), 167-
194.
Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage: creating and
sustaining superior performance: with a new
introduction: Free Pr.
Porter Michael, E. (1979). How competitive forces shape
strategy. Harvard Business Review, Boston, 57(2).
Robson, W. (1997). Strategic management and
information systems: Pitman London.
Robson, W. (2002). Strategic Management and
Information Systems: an Integrated Approach.
Financial Times.
Rockart, J. (1982). The changing role of the information
systems executive: a critical success factors
perspective. Sloan Management Review, 24(1), 3-13.
Rogerson, S., & Fidler, C. (1994). Strategic information
systems planning: Its adoption and use. Information
Management and Computer Security, 2, 12-12.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory:
Foundations, development, applications: G. Braziller
New York.
Ward, J., Griffiths, P., & Whitmore, P. (2002).
Strategic
planning for information systems: Wiley Chichester.
Ward, J., & Peppard, J. (2002). Strategic planning for
information systems: Wiley.
Yaghini, M., Bourouni, A., & Hesam Amiri, R. (2009). A
Framework for Selection of Information Systems
Development Methodologies. Computer and
Information Science, 2(1), P3.
Zachman, J. (1977). The information systems management
system: a framework for planning. ACM SIGMIS
Database, 9(3), 13.
APPENDIX
Table 1: IS planning phases and tasks, source: (Newkirk et al., 2003); (Mentzas, 1997).
IS planning phases IS planning tasks
Planning the IS planning process (i.e.
strategic awareness)
Determining key planning issues
Defining planning objectives
Organizing the planning team(s)
Obtaining top management commitment
Analyzing the current environment (i.e.
situation analysis)
Analyzing current business systems
Analyzing current organisational systems
Analyzing current information systems
Analyzing the current external business environment
Analyzing the current external IT environment
Conceiving strategy alternatives (i.e.
strategy conception)
Identifying major IT objectives
Identifying opportunities for improvement
Evaluating opportunities for improvement
Identifying high level IT strategies
Selecting strategy (i.e. strategy
formulation)
Identifying new business processes
Identifying new IT architectures
Identifying specific new projects
Identifying priorities for new projects
Planning strategy implementation (i.e.
strategy implementation planning)
Defining change management approach
Defining action plan
Evaluating action plan
Defining follow-up and control procedure
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
194
Table 2: Evaluation and classification of some of the major SISP Methodologies based on the conceptual framework.
Methodology
Criteria
CSF
Analysis
BSP
Porter's
5 Forces
Model
SWOT
Analysis
Value
chain
Analysis
Planning the IS planning process
Determining key planning issues
Defining planning objectives
Organizing the planning team(s)
Obtaining top management commitment
Analyzing the current environment
Analyzing current business systems
Analyzing current organisational systems
Analyzing current information systems
Analyzing the current external business
environment
Analyzing the current external IT environment
Conceiving strategy alternatives
Identifying major IT objectives
Identifying opportunities for improvement
Evaluating opportunities for improvement
Identifying high level IT strategies
Selecting strategy
Identifying new business processes
Identifying new IT architectures
Identifying specific new projects
Identifying priorities for new projects
Planning strategy implementation
Defining change management approach
Defining action plan
Evaluating action plan
Defining follow-up and control procedure
AConceptualFrameworktoClassifyStrategicInformationSystemsPlanningMethodologies
195
Table 2: Evaluation and classification of some of the major SISP Methodologies based on the conceptual framework
(Continued).
Methodology
Criteria
CSF Analysis BSP
Porter's 5
Forces Model
SWOT
Analysis
Value Chain
Analysis
Fundamental
Paradigm
Paradigm
Socio-technical Socio-technical Socio-technical Socio-technical Socio-technical
Objectives
Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Effectiveness
Efficiency/
Effectiveness
Domain
Business/
Corporate/
SBU
Corporate
Corporate/
SBU
Business/
Corporate/
SBU
Business/
Corporate/
SBU
Modelling Method
Verbal
Analytical or
mathematical
Verbal, Iconic,
pictorial or
schematic
Verbal
Analytical or
mathematical,
Iconic,
pictorial or
schematic
Verbal
Analytical or
mathematical,
Iconic, pictorial
or schematic
Verbal
Analytical,
Iconic, pictorial
or schematic
Tools and Techniques
Delphi
Technique,
Pareto Analysis,
Fish Bone
Diagram,
Drawing Tools,
Mathematical
Methods
FHD,ERD,DFD
, Process/
Organisation
Matrix, Data
group/ Process
Matrix, System/
Process & etc.
Schematic
Tools,
Mathematical
Tools
Action
Diagram,
Mathematical
Methods
Action
Diagram,
Analytical
Diagram
Output
Information
Flow of SBUs of
the Organisation,
Information
reflecting the
KPIs & CSFs of
effectiveness of
SBUs
Information
Architecture,
Information
Systems
Architecture,
Architecture of
Application
Software,
Hardware and
Network
Infrastructure,
Project
implementation
Priorities
Opportunities
for Information
Systems
Aligned with
Corporate
Competitive
Strategy in the
Competitive
Environment
of Organisation
Strategic
alternatives for
Information
Systems
Aligned with
Corporate
Competitive
Strategy
A big Picture of
Information
systems
required in the
Value chain of
organization
Practice
Low IS /High
Business
High IS
/Medium
Business
Medium IS
/High Business
Low IS /High
Business
Medium IS
/High Business
Supporting Product
_
IBM Company,
System
Architect
_ _ _
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
196
