Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
itif cn e Ci oc nS fl ea rn eo ni ct ea 2nr 0e 1t 1nI
ISC 2011
Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science, Economics and Art 2011
ISC 2011
International Conference onSocial Science, Economics and Art
ICSSEA 2011
SRI EA V IUN
ITN IES
ED KOBIN
NR A
GJA
AL SA
AE
N P
M N
AA
LU
AT
YA
SS
AI
RE
P
NINO O
D
I TA ENI CO AI S
SSA TS NSTNEDU
Organized by Indonesian Students AssociationUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Proceeding of the
Cutting Edge Sciences for Future SustainabilityHotel Equatorial Bangi-Putrajaya, Malaysia, 14 - 15 January 2011
ISBN 978-983-42366-5-6
Hotel Equatorial Bangi-Putrajaya, Malaysia, 14 - 15 January 2011
A Competency Model for Strategic Information
Systems Planning (SISP) Success Naser Khani, Khalil Md Nor, Mojgan Bahrami
Faculty of Management and Human Resource Development
Universiti Technologi Malaysia
Johor, Skudai
Tel: 07 553 1900, E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract— Successful planning of IS is perhaps going to be more problematic in today’s world of rapid change and uncertainty. SISP
is a cornerstone of the information system discipline and very little attention has been paid to its success based on the resource- based
view point of the firm (RBV).The researchers believe that the aim to build a model for SISP success based on RBV theory is
important because this new perspective will be helpful for gaining a superior assessment and better underpinning of the SISP. The
purpose of this study is to conceptualize the relationship between IS competencies and SISP success and contingency factors
moderating that relationship. Finally, a competency model for SISP success is proposed.
Keywords— strategic information system planning, IS competency, moderating variables.
I. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, organizations are facing with more economic
uncertainty, more complex technologies and more
innovations. Additionally, technological and development
requirements have forced organizations to use more
effective and efficient Information Systems. Annually,
billions of dollars has been spent on Information Systems
(IS) formulation, implementation and maintenance. Studies
have shown that a large amount of organizational
expenditures is related to IS [1], [2]. If all these
expenditures were resulting in gaining benefits, spending
that amount of money was justified; but it does not happen
and almost half of the IS projects are unsuccessful [1], [3].
Those failures could be explained by turbulences in both
business and IS environments and lead to the strategic
importance of IS planning.
Successful planning of IS is perhaps going to be more
problematic in today’s world of rapid change and
uncertainty. Lack of successful IS management could result
in (a) missing business opportunities, (b)duplication of
efforts, (c) inaccurate and inadequate information, (d)
incorrect prioritizing, (e) low business performance and low
IS productivity, (f) incoherent technology strategy, (g)
retrospective resource allocation, and (h) conflict between
IS users that leads to inappropriate solution [3].
IS success has been such an attractive research subject
for many scholars and researchers. In addition, it has been
interpreted as an important management issue. Some
believe that strategic information system planning (as of
now: SISP) is the best framework for assuring that IS
efforts are concordant with other organization’s activities
and arising needs [4]. According to Bechor et al [5], SISP
“is the process of strategic thinking that identifies the most
desirable IS on which the firm can implement and enforce
its long-term IS activities and policies” (p: 1). Prior
research on SISP success involves topics such as the effect
of senior management enforcement [6], SISP critical
success factors [5], [7], and various other aspects.
Until now, empirical research examining the SISP
success has been established on key success factors (KSFs).
Some of these KSFs are organizational commitment, senior
management support and team involvement [5].Those
studies, despite their valuable contribution to the body of
knowledge on SISP field, suffer from lack of sound
theoretical framework. A review of the existing literature
revealed that there was no prior research in SISP field
289
dealing with the resource based view of the firm
(RBV).Hence, RBV attracted our attention.
According to RBV, it is possible to exploit technical and
business dimensions of information systems (i.e. IS
competencies) as another view to SISP process. In this paper
through a competence perspective we argue about the factors
that influence SISP success. Many studies have been done
on SISP or competencies, but there is room to examine the
relationship between IS competencies and SISP success and
moderating factors affecting this relationship.
II. SISP
SISP is required to provide a strategic plan for future
IS/IT requirements according to the business objectives. In
the 1970s information systems were implemented for
manual processes automation resulting in more effective
daily routines and ultimately in cost savings [8], [9].
In the mid-1980s the use of IS for competitive advantage
became a significant determinant for competitive position of
the firm. Consequently, this role as an important
organizational activity becomes strategic. Therefore,
strategic information system planning attracted many
scholars attention.
The distinction attribute of strategic information system
that makes it different from Data Processing (DP) and
Management Information System (MIS) is in its strategic
focus. Strategic systems are necessary to acquire competitive
advantage. According to Ernest and Chen [10], a strategic
system can change: (a) the overall performance, (b) the way
of doing business, (c) the way of interaction with customers
or suppliers, and (d) the instruments for goal achieving.
Information system has all above characteristics, thus it
could be strategic. In order to do IS strategically, managers
in SISP process have to answer three questions: (1) what is
the current status? , (2) what are the objectives? and (3) How
to implement planning? Therefore SISP is the process of
preparing a plan for IS implementation in line with
organization goals [11].
Several research streams can be identified that have tried
to improve SISP practice. One stream is focusing on “SISP
success” by discussing issues of planning (i.e. finding
critical success factors of planning process). This stream has
resulted in new methodologies and tools for this process.
There is another research stream that is working on
“contextual factors” affecting SISP process. Researchers in
this flow believe that the appropriateness of those context-
free studies is questionable and accordingly, contingency
theory is the pivotal theory in this group. Another research
flow is about applying those theories and models that have
been tested in private sector in “other organization types”
such as public sector, non for profit organizations and
universities. A considerable attention has been paid to “SISP
approach” and “top management support” as well.
SISP is now a crucial issue of the firm’s strategic planning
process; but it has some characteristics that make it
intriguing: (1) it is an ongoing process, rather than an event
[3]; (2) SISP process has many stakeholders working
together not individually [11], and (3) the biggest detriment
of an improper SISP process is in its possible missed
opportunities rather than in direct financial effects. All above
specifications with considering costs of IS failure support
this argument that SISP success is a valuable area for more
research and investigation.
III. SISP SUCCESS
SISP requires significant amount of financial and human
resources and considerable budget and managerial efforts
[12] and is a crucial issue for IS and business managers and,
furthermore, oftentimes is unsuccessful and hard to complete
[13], [14]. These issues have made it a legitimate goal for
research. But such research could not be simply established
on financial measures like return on investment (ROI) and so
on; because like any other strategic planning it contains
several intangible outcomes. There are several research
streams that have explored SISP success. First efforts
resulted in single items known as key success factors (KSFs).
After introducing single dimension scales in early stages of
IS success measurement (see [7]) multi item scales were
explored as well. Then, Raghunathan and Raghunathan [14]
proposed a two dimensional model involving capabilities
improvement and gaining objectives of SISP
process .Another well-known research is the work of Segars
and Grover [12].They introduced alignment, analysis,
capabilities improvement, and cooperation as four
dimension of SISP success and suggest that SISP
effectiveness can be predicted through those four factors.
Recently, IS research area has been influenced by
resource based view of firm [15]. Resource-based view
(RBV) claims that the organizational resources are the main
source of competitive advantage and a subset of them will
provide excellent performance [16].These resources must be
valuable, rare, inimitable, and hard to replace [17]. RBV
introduces resources, capabilities, competencies and core
competencies respectively as the hierarchy of resources [18],
[19]. Combining resources for building particular firm
abilities will develop competencies [20].
The competition pressure has forced organizations to
develop their competence and trying to find new ways for
performance improvement .This paper proposes the
relationship of those competencies and success of SISP
process. As will be seen in the following sections, the
concept of IS competency is introduced in IS management
field.
IV. IS COMPETENCY
Some researchers have proposed that IS management area
has arrived to a “4th era” of IS management [21]. Previous
eras are DP (data processing), MIS (management
information systems), and SIS (strategic information
systems) respectively. The focus of this 4th era is not on
strategic use of IS, or IS planning methodology, but rather
on IS competency development. In the model of Peppard and
Ward [21], IS competencies are the components of IS
capability and this capability affects business and IS
strategy, operations, and firm performance.
290
It is well established that by ongoing readjustment or
radical change, firms try to build a set of competencies that
will guarantee future success. The real challenge is how to
recognize those competencies and their components. In other
terms, the changing nature of business, and with the pressure
for acquiring competitive advantage from IS investments
have made this new challenge for SISP: the challenge of
measuring firm’s competencies to gain benefit of IS
investments [9].In IS management area, the notion of” IS
competencies” is defined as the organizational ability to gain
benefits from IS investments through a set of required
abilities and skills, knowledge and capacities in both
individual and organizational level [3]. Firms expand
competencies through experience step by step and as a result
they will be able to compete properly. It should be
mentioned that competency building and development is a
process not a quick change. Simply stated, by merging
notions of the RBV in IS area, researchers [15], [19], [21],
[22], [23], [24], [25], [26] could exploit various IS
competencies that produce value for the organization.
IS competencies are not merely embodied in the IS
function, but they diffuse across business [3]. IS
competencies must be seen from business perspective not
solely from IS function perspective. Marchand et al. [27],
believe that for improving businesses use of IS, more efforts
must be done in combining IS competencies with IS
routines. This is very important to view those IS
competencies from an overall business point of view rather
than from a limited IS functional vision.
In this paper, IS competencies will be viewed from the
perspective of an organizational ability to gain benefits from
IS investments. According to the previous research, IS
competencies are a cluster of related IS strategy, IS
contribution, IT capability and exploitation, IS supply, and
many other competencies ranging from fundamental to
facilitating competencies [15] and from strategic to
exploitation and supply [23]. Calderia and Dhillon [15]
introduce 6 fundamental and 17 facilitating competencies as
follow:
Fundamental IS competencies:
1. Ability to conduct IT strategic thinking and planning;
2. Ability to align IT with business processes and objectives;
3. Ability to deploy cost effective applications and systems;
4. Ability to conceptualize the maintenance of data integrity
and confidentiality.
5. Ability to facilitate behavior enrichment for technology
adoption;
6. Ability to ensure compliance with standard IT methods
and procedures; (p: 6) and
Facilitating IS competencies:
1. Ability to select and manage IT staff;
2. Ability to provide ongoing IT training;
3. Ability to get top management support in IT projects;
4. Ability to design business processes for effective use of IT
expertise;
5. Ability to maintain systems consistency;
6. Ability to involve users in IT projects;
7. Ability to institute SLAs (Service Level Agreements) with
IT suppliers;
8. Ability to identify and set IT standards and procedures;
9. Ability to develop software in-house;
10. Ability to select and contract IT vendors and IS
consultants;
11. Ability to decide on software sourcing strategies;
12. Ability to maintain or decrease system response time;
13. Ability to ensure user application knowledge;
14. Ability to identify business IS requirements;
15. Ability to increase the credibility of the IT department;
16. Ability to increase service accountability;
17. Ability to develop an IS architecture (p: 10, 11).
By defining IS competencies, the question is that “what is
the nature of the relationship between IS competencies and
SISP success.
V. COMBINING IS COMPETENCIES AND SISP
SUCCESS
As Lee and Bai [29] suggest, a large number of studies in
SISP field suffer from a lack of investigating the relationship
between organizational aspects and SISP success. To fill this
gap we introduced IS competencies as a type of
organizational aspect. Providing such aspect may lead to
better underpinning of SISP success. Further, despite this
fact that SISP is a cornerstone of the information system
discipline, very little attention has been given to its success
based on the resource- based view of the firm (RBV) that is
the latter discipline in strategic management studies.
Finally, literature review shows significantly little effort
about integrating RBV and SISP in general and about
recommending a framework for understanding the
relationship between “IS competencies” and “SISP success”
in particular. To be clearer, the question is that what kind of
skills and abilities, knowledge, and qualification or capacity
is required in organization level to have a successful
strategic information system planning? And what conditions
affect this relationship?
VI. THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
IS COMPETENCIES AND SISP SUCCESS
According to this fact that information systems are
becoming more important in organizations, managers realize
that they have to equip their organizations with other tools
more than solely human and physical resource to ensure that
IS planning and implementation would be successful. In
other words, individual and organizational levels in which
strategic information system planning is taking place in them
need to be researched appropriately to identify issues and
failure reasons.
If organizations could understand the competencies
required for IS success, by developing and leveraging them,
they can use their IS investment more competitive and more
effective.
291
VII. MODERATOR VARIABLES
There might be a possible planning paradox [5] in
studying the relationship between IS competencies and SISP
success. The SISP process and implementation can not
merely anticipate from IS competencies. Based on a
contingency model, there are moderating factors that might
affect this relationship. Wade and Hulland [30] introduce
external environment (that mostly refers to environmental
uncertainty) and internal influences (organizational culture,
and organizational structure) and top management support as
main contextual factors in IS studies. Therefore, in this
paper, organizational and environmental influences are
selected as moderator variables.
VIII. RESEARCH MODEL
Based on prior discussion, the research model is as follow
(Fig.1). This study established on some of theoretical
perspectives to introduce the relationship between IS
competencies and SISP success (H1). The model also
considers the role of moderating variables; environmental
and organizational influences (H2, H3).
Figure 1. The relationship between IScompetencies and SISP
success
IX. CONCLUSION
The purpose of this paper was to investigate what
competencies are necessary and what factors are moderating
or mediating the possible relationship between IS
competencies and SISP success. Consequently, through a
competence perspective, SISP success was investigated. For
this aim, we studied the relationship between IS
competencies and SISP success as the basic relationship and
Because of possible inconsistency between those two
variables (IS competencies and SISP success), factors
moderating this relationship were introduced based on a
contingency model to address planning paradox. While IS
failure has many consequences for organizations, the results
of this research can support organizations understanding the
competencies they need to acquire in order to have a
successful SISP. This research specifically investigated the
detailed relation amongst characteristics of IS users and the
firm in which they work (IS competencies) and SISP success
and requires empirical research to examine abovementioned
relationships.
REFERENCES [1] N.G. Carr, Does IT Matter, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
MA, 2004.
[2] K.S. Nash, “What It Takes to Succeed Now as a CIO,” in: CIO,
International Data Group, 2008. [3] J. Ward, , j. Peppard, , strategic planning for information systems,
Cranfield School of management, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, UK, third
edition, 2002. [4] R. Sabherwal, Y.E. Chau,” Alignment between business and IS
strategies: A study of prospectors, analysers and defenders”,
Information Systems Research 12 (1, pp. 11-33.), 2001. [5] T. Bechor, S. Neumann, M. Zuiran, C. Glezer, “A competency model
FOR estimating success of strategic information systems planning”, Journal of Information and management, Vo47, pp.17-29, 2010.
[6] G.S. Kearns, “The effect of top management support of SISP on
strategic IS management: insights from the US electric power industry”, Omega 34, pp. 236–253, 2006.
[7] V. Basu, E. Hartono, A.L. Lederer, V. Sethi, “The impact of
organizational commitment, senior management involvement, and team involvement on strategic information systems planning”,
Information and Management 39 (6, pp. 513–524), 2002.
[8] S. Zuboff, In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY, 1988.
[9] R. Hackney, “challenging assumptions for strategic information
system planning: theoretical perspectives”, communications of the association for information systems, V3, April 2000.
[10] T. Ernst, C. Chen, “Strategic information systems planning: a
management problem”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 34 (3), 19–23, 1994.
[11] S.K. Min, E.H. Suh, S.Y. Kim, “An integrated approach toward
strategic information system planning”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol 8, pp.373-394, 1999.
[12] A.H. Segars, V. Grover, “Strategic Information Systems Planning
Success: An Investigation of the Construct and Its Measurement”, MIS Quarterly, 22(2), 139-163, 1998.
[13] A. L. Lederer, H. Salmela, “toward a theory of strategic information
systems planning”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 5, 237–253, 1996.
[14] B. Raghunathan, T. S. Raghunathan, “Relationship of the rank of
informative systems executive to the organizational role and planning dimensions of information systems”. Journal of Management
Information Systems, V6, 111–126, 1989.
[15] M. Calderia, G. Dhillon, “Are we really competent? Assessing organizational ability in delivering IT benefits”, journal of business
process management, Vol 16, pp.5-28, 2010.
[16] C.K. Parahald, G. Hamel, “The core competence of the corporation”, (also includes a related article on the corporate structure at Vickers
Co.), Harvard Business Review (68:3), pp 79-92, 1990.
[17] J. Barney, “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, V 17, 99-120, 1991.
[18] M. Javidan, “Core competencies: what does it mean in practice?”
Journal of long range planning, Vol: 31, pp: 60-71, 1998. [19] L. Chasalow, A model of organizational competencies for business
intelligence success, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond,
Virginia, unpublished doctorate dissertation, May 2009. [20] D.J. Teece, G. Pisano, A. Shuen, “Dynamic Capabilities and
Strategic Management”, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-
533, 1997. [21] J. Peppard, J. Ward, “beyond strategic information systems: Towards
an IS capability”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13, 167–
194, 2004. [22] D. E. Feeny, L. P. Wilcocks, “Core IS Capabilities for Exploiting
Information Technology” Sloan Management Review, 39(3), 9-21,
1998. [23] G. Dhillon, “Organizational competence for harnessing IT: A case
study”, Information and Management 45, pp.297-303, 2008. [24] G. Bassellier, B.H. Reich, Benbasat, I., “Information technology
competence of business managers: A definition and research model”
Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 159–182, 2001. [25] M. Wade, J. Hulland, “Review: The Resource-Based View and
Information Systems Research: Review, Extension, and Suggestions
for Future Research”, MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 107-142, 2004. [26] N.F. Doherty, M. Terry, “the role of IS capabilities in delivering
sustainable improvements to competitive positioning”, Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 18 (2), 100–116, 2009.
IS COMPETENCIES
SISP SUCCESS
ORGANIZATIONAL INFLENCES
ENVIRONMENTAL
INFLUENCES
H1
H2
H3
292
[27] D.A. Marchand, W. Kettinger and J.D. Rollins, “Information orientation: People, technology and bottom line”, Sloan Management
Review, summer, 69–80, 2000.
[28] J.T. Hackos, “From Theory to Practice: Using the Information Process-Maturity Model as a Tool for Strategic Planning”, Technical
Communication, 369-381, June1997.
[29] G. Lee, R. Bai, “Organizational mechanisms for successful IS/IT strategic planning in the digital era”, Management decision, Vol.41,
Iss 1, pp. 32-42, 2003.
293