Strategic planning for office automation

Information & Management 21 (1991) 201-215

North-Holland 201

Research

Strategic planning for office automation

Courtney S. Ferguson North Cttrohno Cenirttl Universi[v, Durham, NC 27707, USA

Hugh J. Watson and Robert Gatewood The Uniuerstty of Georgw Athens, GA 30602. USA

A conceptual model of strategic planning for office auto-

mation is developed. Survey data on the practice of strategic

planning for office automation in 59 Fortune 500 firms is

presented as is the perceived value associated with the results

of the process. An analysis shows that firms that adhered more

closely to the conceptual model perceived more value than

those that did not.

Keywords: Strategic planning, Office automation, Management

of information systems.

Schol

Robert D. Gatewood has a Ph.D. in Industrial Psychology from Purdue University and currently is the Interim Chairman of the Department of Management at The University of Ge- orgia. His main areas of interest are recruitment, selection, and performance measurement. His latest book is Human Resource Selection published by Dryden Press.

~uururey 3. Ferguson, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Management In- formation Systems (MIS) at North Carolina Central University (NCCU), Durham, NC. She has been involved in MIS while holding positions from programmer, systems analyst, project leader, supervisor, and consultant in industry to research assistant, instruc- tor, assistant professor, director of grants, and lead professor in academia. Dr. Ferguson has been the lead professor of MIS for many years in the

01 of Business at NCCU. Her research interests are stra- *e. . ._.._

Introduction

One of the significant developments of the 1980s is the growing role, nature, and impact of office automation (OA). It has expanded beyond word processing to include a wide variety of computer- related technologies and applications. OA now is having a significant impact on managerial and professional as well as clerical personnel.

There is evidence that many larger organizations are involved in strategic planning for OA. A 1984 study by the OMNI Group, Ltd. found that many Fortune 500 firms were to have such strategic plans in place within a year [lo]. This is an appropriate development, given the growing recognition of the importance of information systems (IS) planning [6,8]; the need to integrate OA plans into the IS and business plans in order to support the strategic objectives of the firm [14]; the advisability of integrating the OA, communi-

Hugh J. Watson holds the C. Herman and Mary Virginia Terry Chair of Business Administration and is Direc- tor of MIS Programs at The Univer- sity of Georgia. He is the author of 16 books and over 60 articles in Informa- tion and Management, MIS Quarterly, Communications of the ACM, Journal of Management Inform&on Systems, Management Science, Academy of Management Journal. and other leading journals. He serves as the Com- puters and Management Information

regK managemenr, OrrIce automation, and methodologes for effective MIS teaching. She received the Ph.D. in MIS from the

Systems series editor for John Wiley & Sons. His primary

University of Georgia. research interests involve computer support for decision making.

0378-7206/‘91/$03.50 0 1991 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

202 Research Information & Managemenr

cations, and data processing “islands of technology” [25]; and the growth of end user computing

1211. While much has been written about strategic

and IS planning, a comprehensive approach to OA strategic planning has not emerged. In response, the authors reviewed the literature to develop a conceptual model of how it should be performed. Guided by this model, a survey of U.S. Fortune 500 firms was conducted to explore actual strategic planning practices. An analysis was performed to see whether firms that adhere more closely to this model have greater perceived value with the results of their process than those that conform less closely. The findings provide insights on how organizations should strategically plan for OA and its results.

Even though practioners indicate that IS planning is important [6,8], only a few studies have explored its impact on organizations. While these studies do not provide a rigorous assessment of IS planning, they do suggest that those organizations that do plan are more effective than those that do not [24,26,31]. None of the studies have specifically explored OA strategic planning. This study adds to the limited number of empirical investiga- tions of the effectiveness of various IS planning processes. Building this body of knowledge is important because of the popularity and the resources consumed by planning actitivites.

Background

Office workers are an important part of the workforce. They represent close to one half of all employees and well over one half of the salaries paid by organizations. Because of their number and wages, office workers are attractive targets for improved productivity.

One way to improve productivity is to provide automation tools. Evidence of this possibility is seen in the 1980 Booz, Allen & Hamilton study of managers and other professionals. It concluded that 15 percent of their time could be saved if office automation systems were fully employed [3].

The term “office automation,” while having a variety of meanings, is defined here as:

a multi-function, integrated, computer-based system that allows many office activities to be performed in an electronic mode.

This is a broad definition that includes the technologies for word processing, electronic mail, voice mail, facsimile, teleconferencing, telecommuting, personal computing, computer terminals, and mi- crographics.

Successful office automation requires a number of actions, such as careful planning, selecting appropriate technologies and products, and assimi- lating the technologies into the organization. Doll [9] discussed OA strategic planning and its possible contribution to increasing a firm’s productivity and profitability. Related to this, Reitzfeld [29] cited the lack of strategic planning as one of the reasons for OA failure.

Strategic planning for OA clearly is important, but there are no accepted conceptual models for this process, much less empirically tested ones. There is, however, a well developed body of knowledge about strategic planning in general [2,7,1_5,34,35] and a growing understanding of IS

planning [5,17,19,27]. Based on the definitions and concepts associated with planning, the following definition is used here:

Strategic planning for office automation is the process of setting and linking OA objectives and goals, deciding on resources required to attain objectives and accomplish goals, and establishing broad guidelines that are to govern acquisition, use, and disposition of resources for the total office support systems of the enterprise.

Based on the literature, the strategic planning process should: (1) be performed periodically and for a specific time horizon; (2) assess the organization’s current and future needs for OA products and services; (3) identify the skills and capabilities that are required to develop, implement, and manage OA within the organization; and (4) be

performed by a centrally organized group which plans for the needs and/or total system of the organization.

The Conceptual Model

Drawing on the strategic planning, information systems, and OA literature, a conceptual model of strategic planning for OA was developed [19]. The model consists of seven sequential, interactive, and iterative steps with specific elements associated with each. These are:

Infhwumon &Management C.S. Ferguson et al. / Strategic Planning 203

l Appointing the task force l Establishing the mission l Scanning the environment l Setting the objectives and goals l Setting the strategies l Surfacing assumptions and identifying CSFs l Establishing the guidelines

Appointing the Task Force

The task force is the group that develops the 0.4 strategic plan. Other authors have pointed out that it should include representatives from the areas potentially affected by OA, key user groups, the organization’s functional areas, data processing, and possibly outside consultants [1,18,22,23]. The task force should also include members with appropriate technical skills, who are knowledgeable and competent in their areas of business, and whose opinions carry weight with the rest of the organization [16]. The leader of the task force should possess good managerial and interpersonal skills.

Establishing the Mission

The OA mission is the broad statement of purpose. It should come from the business plan or it should be developed by the OA strategic planning task force [28]. It should be linked to the organization’s business plan and other IS plans. It should state explicitly what OA is to achieve. The mission should evolve in order to satisfy a network or matrix of purposes: socio-economic factors, management’s values, internal and external interests. efficiency and effectiveness considerations, products and services, etc. [12].

Stunning the Environment

Environmental scanning involves obtaining and assessing information about internal and external factors that might affect the OA effort. Internal factors include the demand for OA; attitudes toward OA by users; the potential for cost savings and value-added applications; opportunities for standardization; training requirements; the need for human resources in order to plan, develop, implement, and evaluate the effort; and the organization’s strengths and weaknesses in regard to its implementation of OA [13]. External factors

include the demands for OA by external groups (e.g., customers, the government), its use by other organizations, current and future OA products and services and how they might be acquired and financed, and possible changes in the external environment (e.g., the divestiture of AT&T) that might affect the OA plan.

Setting the Objectives und Goals

The OA objectives are the desired results to be achieved. Goals are specific objectives that can be measured in quality and quantity within a specific time period. Objectives and goals should be elements of the final action plan, derived from the mission, and subsequently linked to the plan’s

strategies.

Setting the Strategies

Strategies are the courses of action through which the mission, objectives, and goals are achieved. Strategy setting is a process of inter- meshing: (1) general courses of action, types of resources, and subpolicies for a long-range plan (i.e., 5 years and over); (2) action priorities, resource levels, standards, and procedures for a medium-range plan (i.e., 2-3 years), and (3) performance targets, task schedules, and specific resource requirements for a short-range plan (i.e., 1 year). The strategies should establish priorities for the various objectives, goals, and actions, and be accepted by senior management.

Surfacing Assumptions and Identifying CSFs

Any assumptions embedded in the OA mission, objectives, goals, and strategies need to be examined. Critical success factors (CSFs) should be identified [30]. Arguments for and against various aspects of the plan should be given. Potential conflicts with employers, customers, and other parties should be identified. Various alternatives to the OA plan should be explored. This is likely to require loops back to previous steps in the planning process.

Establishing the Guidelines

Office automation guidelines are the broad suggestions, directions, rules, and standards

204 Research Information & Management

established to regulate strategies. They guide the acquisition of equipment, software, maintenance

contracts, consulting, etc. They all affect the planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and control- ling of the OA effort [32]. They guide how the OA resources are allocated and used.

Study Purpose

Our purpose was to determine whether ad- herence to the steps of this conceptual model has an effect on the results of the OA strategic planning process. To investigate this, two hypotheses were tested:

Hl: The extent of use of the model In the OA planning process is related to the overall perceived value of its results.

H2: Each step of the model demonstrates value to the OA planning process.

Methodology

Data were collected by means of two self-report questionnaires. Questionnaire 1, addressed to the Chairperson of Strategic Planning of Office Auto- mation, contained a series of questions that measured the degree to which the organization’s strategic planning process adhered to each of the seven steps of the conceptual mode1 developed for this study. Questionnaire 2, addressed to the Di- rector of Office Automation, contained questions that measured the judged value of each of the steps of the conceptual mode1 that were actually used by the organization in its OA strategic planning process and also the judged overall value of the total planning process. Both questionnaires are provided in Appendix A, along with summary statistics for each question.

Questionnaire I

The 59 items were developed from a review of published material on strategic planning, office automation, information systems, and information resource management. The sources used most heavily for the formation of specific items were: McLean and Soden [27], the IBM Business Sys- tems Plan [16], Rockart [30], Mason and Mitroff

[23], and Steiner [33]. Seven scales were formed, one to measure each step of the conceptual model.

Items were written with strategic planning concepts phrased in appropriate OA terminology. For example, the members of the strategic planning task force (Step 1) were identified as members of “key user groups” and the strategic mission statements (Step 2) “were interfaced with other information system missions, such as data processing.”

Each question used a four-point response format ranging from no extent (scored as 1) to high extent (scored as 4). To respond, the Chairperson of Strategic Planning of Office automation merely had to circle the alternative that indicated the extent to which the item was a part of the firm’s OA planning process. Scale scores were derived by summing the items of each scale to obtain a total score and then dividing this by the number of items in the scale to determine a mean score per item. This, essentially, developed a common met- ric for all seven scales despite a different number of items in each of the seven scales. These mean scores were interpreted as measures of the extent to which each of the seven steps in the OA conceptual model was incorporated by the firm into its planning process.

Questionnaire 2

The 26 items of this questionnaire were desig- ned to measure both the value of each step of the OA planning mode1 to the firm and also the overall value of the OA planning process used by the firm. Items were written specifically for this

instrument and were based on the same literature as Questionnaire 1. There were two genera1 parts: Part 1 contained five items that asked about the perceived value of the overall OA plan; these were regarded as a scale that served as a global measure of value. Part 2 contained 21 items that asked about the perceived value of each step of the proposed OA planning model. These 21 items were grouped into seven scales, each measuring the value of one step of the OA planning mode1 in the company’ s planning process.

As in Questionnaire 1, the items used a four- point response format ranging from no extent (scored as 1) to high extent (scored as 4). To respond, the Director of Office Automation marked the alternative which indicated the value of that item to the outcome of the strategic plan-

C.S. Fergwon et al. / Strufegic Planning 205

ning process. For each scale, a mean score was

calculated.

Questionnaire Administration

Preliminary versions of the questionnaires were submitted to MIS faculty knowledgeable about strategic planning and office automation. After recommended changes were made, pilot tests were conducted in three firms. Additional changes were made as a result of these tests.

The final questionnaires were addressed to the office automation director, the information sys-

tems director, or the data processing manager in each of the Fortune 500 firms. The Applied Com-

puter Kesearch Top Executive Directory was used to identify the specific persons. The assumption was that these firms would be leaders in OA planning because of their size and resources.

The cover letter with the questionnaires indicated that Questionnaire 1 should be completed by the person who chaired the most recent strategic planning effort for OA, and Questionnaire 2 should be completed by a person directing OA who participated in the planning process and also used the resulting plan. This letter indicated that a single person might be able to complete both parts of the questionnaire, if he or she chaired the strategic planning effort and was using the plan. A follow-up letter was sent and telephone calls were made to non-respondents four weeks after t& original mailing. In all, complete data (i.e., both questionnaires) were obtained from 59 organizations.

Results

Important characteristics of the sample are presented in Table I. Nineteen of the 25 industries in the Fortune 500 are represented in the sample. The 59 respondent firms were generally among the largest; 41 were in the top 200 firms on the list. This dominance of very large firms was not unex- pected. These are the firms with the resources, expertise, and competitive need to be innovators in the field of OA planning. There is nothing in the proposed model that makes it appropriate only for large organizations. However, it was thought that in the early stages of strategic planning for OA, large firms would be the ones devel-

Table 1

Industry and Size of Respondent Firms.

Industry

Chemical

Forest products

Building materials

Aerospace

Metals

Electronics

Motor vehicles and parts

Food

Petroleum refining

Computers

Pharmaceuticals

Metal products Industrial & farm equipment

Transportation equipment

Other

Size

l-100 of Fortune 500

101-200 of Fortune 500




7

6

6

5

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

5

23

18

5

7

6

oping and implementing specific features of the model. One purpose was to learn what these firms were doing in OA planning; this could prove of benefit to other organizations.

Tub/e 2 summarizes specific characteristics of the respondents and of their organizations. Based on computed means, respondents appeared to be experienced in both OA (5.1 years) and planning (9.2 years). Similarly, the organizations were expe-

Table 2

OA and Planning Characteristics of Respondents and Firms.

Characteristic Sample

Size

Mean

Years respondent was involved

with some type of planning

Years respondent was involved

with OA in some capacity Years firm had done

58 9.2 years

57 5.1 years

business strategic planning Years company had done OA

strategic planning

Time horizon of OA plans

How long ago OA planning was done

53 17.3 years

59 3.4 years 58 5.3 years

57 9.4 months

206 Research Information & Management

Table 3

Multiple Regression of Overall Perceived Value of OA Plan-

ning il.

Regression Equatmn

Y =1.17-0.05x, -0.01x, +0.11x, -0.07x,+0.41x,

IO.201 [0.14] [0.22] [0.18] [0.24]

+0.17x, +0.04x,

[0.22] [0.16]

R = 0.49 F = 2.29

Rz = 0.24 (p < 0.05)

fndependent Varmbles

X, = task force composition

X, = mission statement

X, = environmental scanning

X, = objectives&goals

X s = strategies

X, = assumptions & critical success factors

X7 = guidelines

a Brackets contain standard error of estimate for each coeffi-

cient.

rienced in planning activities (17.3 years), but much less experienced in OA planning (3.4 years). However, it was thought advantageous that the OA planning was, on the average, completed 9.4 months prior to the study; this was considered recent enough to allow for the accurate recall of data to answer Questionnaire 1 and yet long enough to allow for a valid perception of the value of the process, which was required to answer Questionnaire 2.

To test Hl, multiple regression was performed. The ratings of the overall perceived value of the planning process (taken from Questionnaire 2) was the dependent variable and the scores on the scales measuring the extent of use of each of the

seven steps of the model (taken from Question- naire 1) were the independent variables.

The regression (Table 3) yielded a significant

correlation (0.49) supporting HI that the overall model was related to the overall perceived value of the OA planning process.

A series of t-tests were conducted to test H2, that each separate step of the OA planning model would demonstrate value to the planning process. All of these followed the same form. They were made by dividing the sample of firms into three groups, based upon the mean response of each firm to those scales in Questionnaire 1, which measured the extent the particular planning step was used by the organization. For example, in testing the impact of Step 1 of the OA planning model, the sample of firms was divided into three equal groups of high, medium, and low use, based on the mean scores for Scale 1 of Questionnaire 1. Because use of this OA model was not the same for the organizations at each step, the specific composition of the firms in each of these three groups changed for each step in the model. The t-test was conducted between the high and low groups. The mean scores of the corresponding scale of Questionnaire 2 was used as the dependent measure. Thus, the t-test examined differences in perceived value of the first step of the OA planning model between firms that had high and low use of that step of the model. The results of the t-tests for all seven steps are presented in Tuhle 4. Significant differences were found between the high and low groups for each of the steps, except for Step 2, establishing the mission. These significant differences were interpreted as support for H2.

Table 4

T-tests of Perceived Value of Each Step of the OA Planning Model.

OA

Step

Task Force Mission

Environ. Scan

Objective & Goal Strategy

Assumpts. & CSF Guideline

** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001

Highest Firms Lowest Firms t value

Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.

3.27 0.39 2.71 0.28 5.10 ***

3.47 0.61 3.26 0.87 0.86

3.25 0.52 2.71 0.79 2.47 * *

3.68 0.48 2.97 0.70 3.67 * * *

3.84 0.37 3.32 0.75 2.74 * * *

3.53 0.51 2.71 0.73 3.98 * * *

3.79 0.42 3.26 0.81 2.53 * * *

C.S. Ferguson et ul. / Strategic Planning 201 Informatron &Munagement

Discussion

Our findings offer evidence that the seven-step OA strategic planning model proposed in this study is part of the actual OA strategic planning process used by Fortune 500 firms, and that its use is associated with favorable perceived results. The steps and specific items can be used as a planning guide by other organizations. The model also relates well to current IS practice, concerns, and trends. We now consider four related issues: (1) linking the OA, IS, and business plans; (2) managing the assimilation of technology; (3) integrating OA, telecommunications, and data processing; and (4) planning for end user computing.

First, information systems managers are in- creasingly aware of the need to support the strategic objectives of the enterprise and to link the information systems plan to the overall business plan. The steps of this strategic planning model contain a number of elements that specifically address these needs. It calls for involvement by top management and functional area personnel. The OA mission is linked to the corporate mission. Also, attention is given to a number of considerations that relate to the competitive position of the firm: the internal and external demand for OA applications, the use of the technology by competitors, and the development of cost displacement and value-added applications.

A second related issue is the need to match planning processes with IS stages of evolution. Gibson and Nolan [ll] were the first to apply the concept of a stage hypothesis to information systems. They determined that EDP budgets plotted over time assumed an S-shaped curve with distinct turning points. These points correspond to major changes or events in the evolution of information systems and mark four stages of growth: initiation, expansion or contagion, formalization or control, and maturity.

McKenney and McFarlan later suggested that this concept of stages of growth is a special case of an organization adapting a technology to meet its needs. A similar process is applicable to all new technologies and can be described by four phases: investment or project initiation, technology learn- ing and adaptation, management control, and widespread technology transfer.

OA systems are going through stages of evolu-

tion. Most firms have implemented one or more office systems and have seen their use spread throughout the organization. As one considers the benchmark variables associated with the stages of evolution frameworks, many organizations appear to be in the management control stage of OA. A key variable associated with this stage is formal- ized planning and control: the application of an appropriate strategic planning process is an important element of management practice. The strategic planning process described here appears to be a useful response to this need.

A third related issue is the need to plan for the various “islands of technology” using an integrated process. McKenney and McFarlan argue persuasively that decision making about OA, telecommunications, and data processing needs to be consolidated at the policy level of the organization. The strategic planning model supports this objective. It calls for participation on the task force by all relevant areas. The OA mission is interfaced with other missions, including those for telecommunications and data processing. Because of its broad definition, elements of telecommunications (e.g., electronic mail) and data processing (e.g.. personal computers) are included in the technologies for which integrating guidelines are established.

Lastly, this planning model is relevant to the growth of end user computing. Because, information technology is now in the hands of end users, the nature of IS management is changed forever. It is suggested that the IS function will increas- ingly need to act like the federal government in a

quasi-open market similar to that of the United States [4]. The government does not dictate what private businesses do, but it does influence their actions through national policies, regulations, legislation, and standards. It also provides certain services (e.g., national defense) that are required or desired by the nation. Similarly, the IS function is called upon to provide organizational policy, guidelines, standards, rules, procedures, and services for end user computing.

Planning will be critical to this new role for IS. Insights about how planning may be carried out are gained by examining how other types of IS planning are conducted. Strategic planning for OA seems particularly relevant in such an ex- amination, because of the overlap between OA and end user computing. Most of the steps and

208 Reseurch

elements seem equally appropriate for end user computing planning.

It is useful to think of a process which leads to a strategic plan, which, when implemented, pro- duces organizational results. One hopes that a thorough planning process will increase the likeli- hood that a useful plan will emerge and that there will be some carryover to create favorable organizational results. We have established the first of these relationships. Use of the planning model was found to be related to the creation of a valuable strategic plan for OA. Further research is needed to determine whether the existence of the plan is then related to the successful implementation of OA. Linking the existence of an IS strategic plan to organizational results is a recent area of investi- gation [20].

Summary

A strategic planning process for office automation has been proposed. It consists of seven steps:

l Appointing the task force l Establishing the mission l Scanning the environment

Informntion & Management

Setting the objectives and goals Setting the strategies Surfacing assumptions and identifying CSFs Establishing the guidelines

Each has recommended component parts. Data from 59 Fortune 500 firms were collected

and analyzed to determine how they were planning for OA and whether firms which adhered more closely to the proposed planning process expressed greater perceived value of planning than those which did not. The analyses statistically supported the appropriateness of the steps with the exception of establishing the mission.

There are many indicators of the importance of strategic planning for OA. They include the overall recognition of the need for IS planning, the growing importance of integrating the IS plan into the business plan and supporting the strategic objects of the firm, the need for OA planning as many firms move into the control phase of OA evolution, the importance of linking OA to data processing and telecommunications strategy, the potential of OA planning to serve as a reference point for end user computing planning, and the potential impact that OA strategic planning can have on the results of OA efforts.

Appendix A

Sample Questionnaire 1 (Sent to Chairperson of Strategic Planning of Office Automation)

Part I. Background information

Name of Respondent (Optional) Title Department Telephone No. Area Code Number Extension

Were you directly involved in the strategic planning process for office automation? (Circle) Yes or No Were you the chairperson of the strategic planning of OA? (Circle) Yes or No Now many years have you been involved with some type of strategic planning? Mean = 9.2 years How many years has your company done strategic planning of office automation? Mean = 3.4 years What is vour strategic nlanning time horizon for OA? Mean = 5.3 vears

2 Y I 2

How long ago did your company do the last OA strategic planning, including updates? Mean = 9.4 months How many years has your firm done business strategic planning? Mean = 17.3 years

Part 2. Use the definition at the beginning of each section before responding. Circle below the most appropriate description in reference to the extent to which your company’s last strategic planning efforts for office automation (OA) were in conformance with these statements.

Informatron &Management

No Extent

(1)

C.S. Ferguson et al. / Stratep Planning 209

Low Moderate High Un- Mean Extent Extent Extent Known

(2) (3) (4) (W

A. Reluted to Task Force Appointment

OA task force is interpreted as the group(s) that actually developed the OA strategic plan for the company, corporate headquarters and/or division(s). Item

No.

1. There were representatives from the areas potentially affected by OA (users and non-users).

2. The task force members had technical backgrounds.

3. The leader of the task force exhibited managerial and interpersonal skills in guidmg the task force.

4. There were representatives from the key user groups on the task force.

5. Top management was represented from the organization’s functional areas.

6. The task force members were knowledgeable and competent their areas of business.

7. The task force members were responsible persons whose opinions carry weight with the rest of the organization.

8. Data processing management was represented on the task force.

9. Outside consultants were advisors to the task force.

15.2%

1.7

0 1.7 25.4

27.1 20.3 27.1

25.4 35.6 30.5

1.7

1.7

8.5

49.2

20.3 27.1

8.5 33.9

1.7

6.8

1.7

18.6

17.0

40.7 50.8

20.3 67.8

10.2 22.0

37.3

55.9

71.2

25.4

8.5

79.7

0

0

1.7

0

0

0

0

1.7

0

2.87

3.44

3.71

2.51

2.22

3.76

3.41

3.50

2.05

B. Related to Mission Establishment OA mission is interpreted as a network of aims including socio-economic purposes of the company, values of managers, business purposes, long-range objectives and short-range targets and goals which can be achieved through office automation. 1. The OA mission statement was given by

upper management to the OA task force. 42.4 35.6 10.2 10.2 1.7 1.89 2. The OA mission was linked to the

corporate mission. 10.2 17.0 33.9 35.6 3.4 2.99 3. The OA mission was stated explicitly

in terms of what was to be achieved by office automation. 6.8 17.0 39.0 35.0 1.7 3.05

4. The OA mission was interfaced with other information system missions, such as data processing. 8.5 3.4 23.7 62.7 1.7 3.43

5. The final OA mission was a modification of the original charge or position. 18.6 22.0 33.9 20.3 5.1 2.60

210 Research

C. Related to Environmental Scanning

Information & Management

Environmental scanning is the process of assessing and evaluating factors and background information relevant to the total office support needs of the enterprise where such issues as “why to,” “what to,” “where to,” “when to,” “who to,” and “how to” automate the office(s) are addressed.

1. Available OA software, hardware and services and their benefits and costs were identified.

2. Internal demands for OA from employees, managers, professionals, top management, etc. for new or revised applications were identified.

3. External demands for OA from customers, governments, unions, stockhol’ investors, suppliers and other agencies were identified (e.g., faster access different data format, etc.)

4. Long-term OA needs were identified (long-term identified as over 2 years).

5. Uses of OA by external organizations such as competitors and other similar organizations were identified.

6. Methods of OA acquisition such as purchase, rent and lease were identified.

7. Methods of OA financing such as existing budgets and short/long-term borrowing were identified.

8. Sources of people resources for OA planning, development, implementation and evaluation, such as internal staff, new hires, consultants, contractors, etc., were identified.

9. Attitudes toward change such as passive resistance sabotage were identified.

10. Training, pilot tests, prototype systems, conversions and other possible needs and costs were identified.

11. Current trends of OA technologies and likely technologies beyond the next five years were identified.

12. Cost displacement applications which replace personnel or procedures while reducing office costs were identified.

13. Value-added applications which enhance user job performance were identified.

14. Opportunities for standardization such as type of micro computer to be supported and procedures for use of OA were identified.

15. Organization’s strengths and weaknesses in terms of implementation of OA were identified.

3.4 6.8 37.3 52.4

1.7

ders,

10.2

28.8

10.2

42.4

13.6

20.3 28.3

11.9

15.2

17.0

23.7 33.9 27.1

10.2

15.2

1.7

5.1

11.9

5.1

3.4 5.1

6.8 25.4

43.4 45.9

25.4

35.6

3.4

39.0

39.0

33.9

11.9

37.3

11.9

28.9

39.0

35.6

37.3

20.3

11.9 40.7 45.8

11.9 32.2 50.8

28.8 35.6 23.7

15.2 42.4 37.3

11.9

44.1

79.7

23.7

0

0

0

1.7

0

0

0

1.7

0

0

0

0

0

0

3.39

3.32

2.04

3.05

2.43

2.97

2.73

3.05

2.61

3.31

3.29

2.72

3.12

3.68

2.85

Infhncrtion &Munugement C.S. Ferguson et al. / Strategic Planning 211

16. Unanticipated problems, opportunities and threats such as a divesture of AT&T, price wars and government regulations were identified. 20.3

D. Related to Objective and Goal Setting Objectives are the desired results to be achieved. Goals quality and quantity within a specific time period.

35.6 33.9 10.2 0 2.34

are specific objectives that can be measured in

1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

E.

OA objectives were established. OA goals were established. OA objectives and goals were linked to the mission of OA. The objectives were specific and explicit. The goals were measurable.

Related to Strategy Setting

1.7 3.4

5.1 5.1 8.5

6.8 27.1 64.4 0 3.54 17.0 35.6 44.1 0 3.20

10.2 35.6 44.1 0 3.36 25.4 33.9 35.6 0 3.00 32.2 40.7 18.6 0 2.70

Strategy is the broad action that is established to achieve objectives and goals. 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

F.

Strategies for OA were defined. 0 5.1 27.1 67.8 OA strategies were intricately interwoven with the objectives and goals set. 1.7 15.25 40.7 42.4

Alternative OA strategies were set. 15.2 37.3 39.0 6.8 OA strategies were set in broad terms. 1.7 5.1 47.5 45.8 OA strategies related to the use, acquisition and disposition (responsibility) for 0.4 were established. 1.7 40.0 27.1 32.2 OA strategies included a statement on the priority of objectives, goals and actions. 6.8 27.1 39.0 27.1

Related to Surfacing Assumptions and Identifying Critical Success Factors

0 3.63

0 3.24

1.7 2.38 0 3.38

0 2.90

0 2.87

Assumptions are environmental factors taken for granted which could prove critical to the subsequent planning, implementation and evaluation of OA. Critical success factors (means to ends) are the key areas, “where things must go right” to achieve goals. 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

The OA mission was examined in terms of a set of possible assumptions during the planning process. 8.5 23.7

The OA objectives and goals were examined in terms of a set of possible assumptions in the planning process. 6.8 18.6 The OA strategies were examined in terms of a set of possible assumptions in the planning process. 5.1 15.2 The OA objectives and goals were actually linked to the OA mission in the planning process. 8.5 11.9

The OA strategies were actually linked to the ob.jectives and goals in the planning process. 5.1 6.8 Critical success factors (means to ends) were identified and linked to the goals in the planning process. 13.6 23.7 Questions and issues were raised regarding the plan in terms of possible conflicting

40.7 25.4 1.7 2.84

49.2 25.4 0 2.93

50.8 28.8 0 3.04

44.1 33.9 1.7 3.06

49.2 35.6 3.4 3.21

33.9 27.1 1.7 2.77

212 Resecrrch In/ormafion & Managemenf

positions that could be held by

management, employees, customers and other parties interested in the organization during the process.

8. Arguments for and against the various aspects of the plan were given during the planning process.

9. Alternatives were compared prior to the final establishment of the strategic plan for OA, in the process.

1.7 30.5 39.0 28.8 0 2.95

1.7 15.25 32.2 50.8 0 3.33

1.7 22.0 47.5 28.8 0 3.03

G. Related to Guidelines Establishment

Guidelines are the broad suggestions, directions, rules and/or standards set to regulate strategies. 1. Guidelines were established to control

the acquisition of OA equipment, software, services, maintenance, consulting, contracts, etc.

2. Guidelines were established to guide the project selections, such as word processing, electronic mail, etc.

3. Guidelines were established to define the organizational management structure of the OA department(s) and/or units.

4. Guidelines were established on how to allocate resources (funds) for office automation.

5. Guidelines were established on who should be selected for the planning and OA evaluation task force(s).

6. Guidelines were established on selling OA services to outside users or organizations.

7. Guidelines were established on standardization of equipment, software development, data bases, expenditure of funds, etc.

8. Guidelines were established on what constitutes planning for various types of planning and evaluation of OA.

9. Guidelines were established on a time frame for all interacting processes related to OA planning and evaluation.

5.1

6.8

6.8 27.1 39.0 27.1

11.9 32.2 35.6 20.3

20.3

50.8

25.4 32.2 22.0

22.0 22.0 5.1

5.1

15.25

10.2

5.1 22.0 67.8

5.1 27.1 61.0

1.7

33.9

30.5

33.9 59.3

35.6 11.9

40.7 15.2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3.4

3.4

3.53

3.43

2.87

2.65

2.57

1.82

3.47

2.46

2.64

Sample Questionnaire 2 (Sent to Director of Office Automation) Part 1. Background information

Are you directly involved in using your company’s strategic plan for office automation? (Circle) Yes or No

How many years have you been involved with office automation in some capacity? Mean = 5.1 years Part 2. Circle below the degree of value perceived in regard to the strategic planning results or procedures used in your company’s last planning efforts for office automation (OA).

InJormation &Managemenr C.S. Ferguwn et al. / Strategic Planning 213

A. 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

B. 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Related to Overall Perceived Values Overall, our OA plan is useful to me in zarrying out my responsibilities. Dverall, our OA plan is useful to other managers and key personnel in carrying ,ut their responsibilities. Dverall, our OA plan is useful to the :hief executive officer in carrying out tis/her responsibilities. The overall benefits of the planning of 3A are perceived by managers as being sreater than the costs. Major changes are not needed in our llanning for OA.

Related to Specific Perceived Values The mission that was set in the planning process is valuable in guiding our OA efforts. Objectives that were set in the planning process are valuable in guiding our OA efforts. Goals that were set in the planning process are valuable in guiding our OA process. Strategies that were set in the planning process are valuable in guiding our OA efforts. Guidelines that were set in the planning process are valuable in guiding our OA efforts. Strengths and weaknesses that were assessed during the planning process are valuable in guiding our OA efforts. Inside Information on attitudes and positions of management, employees, and other parties that was assessed during the planning process is valuable in guiding our OA efforts. Outside information on vendors, competitors and other parties that was assessed during the planning process is valuable in guiding our OA efforts. Problems, opportunities and threats that were assessed in the planning process are valuable in guiding our OA efforts.

No Low Moderate High Un- Mean Extent Extent Extent Extent Known

(1) (2) (3) (41 (X1

1.7% 6.8 28.8 59.3 3.4 3.51

3.4 10.2 54.2 27.1 5.1 3.11

27.1 32.2 18.6 10.2 11.9 2.13

3.4

3.4

1.7

0

0

0

3.4

5.1 54.2 28.8

33.9 42.4 18.6

8.5

1.7

3.19

2.78

10.2 33.9 45.8 8.5 3.4

6.8 35.6 54.2 3.4

3.4

1.7

1.7

3.49

17.0

5.1

6.8

28.8 50.8 3.35

28.8 64.4 3.60

27.1 61.0 3.48

3.4 13.6 52.5 25.4 5.1 3.06

6.8 15.2 27.1 47.5 3.4 3.19

6.8 18.6

6.8 5.1

37.3

59.3

35.6

25.4

1.7

3.4

3.03

3.07

214 Reseurch Information & Management

10. Assumptions that were surfaced during the planning process are valuable in guiding our OA efforts. 5.1

11. Critical success factors (means to ends) that were identified during the planning process are valuable in guiding our OA efforts. 6.8

12. The planning group’s composition was appropriate for our OA planning efforts. 3.4

13. The planners representing areas potentially affected by OA (users and non-users) were valuable in our OA planning efforts. 5.1

14. The planners with technical backgrounds were valuable in our planning efforts. 1.7

15. The planners representing key OA user groups were valuable in our planning efforts. 10.2

16. The managerial and interpersonal skills exhibited by the leader were valuable in guiding our planning efforts. 0

17. The leader by being from an OA technical area rather than a user area was valuable in our planning efforts. 11.9

18. Top management representing the functional areas were valuable in our planning efforts. 25.4

19. Knowledgeable and competent persons in their areas of business were valuable in our planning efforts. 6.8

20. The planners whose opinions carry weight with the rest of the organization were valuable to our planning efforts. 3.4

21. Data processing management was valuable in our planning efforts. 5.09

References

[l] Abraham, S. “Need Analysis,” Computerworld OA,

Volume 16, Number 48A, December 1, 1982, pp. 24-26, 28-31, 34.

[2] Anthony, R.N. Planning and Control Systems: A Frame-

work for Analysis, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston, 1965.

[3] Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. “Human Factors Issues in Automation-Methodology for Automation to Improve Productivity at Managerial, Professional, and Clerical Levels,” Draft Report 09005-733-001, Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, Virginia, November 11, 1982.

[4] Boynton, A.C. and Zmud, R.W. “Information Technology Planning in the 1990’s: Directions for Practice and Re-

13.6 59.3 20.3

12.2 28.8 42.4

18.6 39.0 37.3

17.0

0

34.0

33.9

33.9

64.4

17.0 32.2 39.0

13.6 23.7 61.0

10.2 37.3

32.2 28.8

17.0

18.6

3.4

32.2

38.3

44.1

37.3

10.2

44.1

39.0

47.5

1.7

6.8

1.7

5.1

0

1.7

1.7

3.4

3.4

0

1.7

0

2.97

3.15

3.12

3.07

3.61

3.02

3.48

3.03

2.25

3.14

3.14

3.34

search,” MIS Quarrerly, Volume 11, Number 1, March 1987, pp. 59-71.

[5] Bowman, B., Davis, G. and Wetherbe, J. “Modeling for MIS,” Datum&ion, Volume 26, Number 13, July 1980, pp. 155-162.

[6] Brancheau, J.C. and Wetherbe, J.C. “Key Issues in Infor- mation Systems Management,” MIS Quarterly, Volume 11, Number 1, March 1987, pp. 23-26.

[7] Chandler, A.D. Strategy and Structure: Chapter in the

History of the American Enterprrse, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1962.

[8] Dickson, G.W., Leitheiser, R.L., Wetherbe, J.C., and Nechis, M. “Key Information Systems Issues for the

1980’s; MIS Quarterly, Volume 8, Number 3, September 1984, pp. 1355159.

[9] Doll, D. “Strategic Planning,” Computerworld OA, Volume 18, Number 15A, April 11, 1984, pp. 39-41.

Information &Management C.S. Ferguson et al. / Strategic Planning 215

[lo] Eldin, H.K. and Croft, R.M. Information Systems; A Management Science Approach, Petrocelli Books, New

York, 1974.

[ll] Gibson, CF. and Nolan, R.L. “Managing the Four Stages of EDP Growth,” Harvard Business Review, Volume 52,

Number 1, January-February 1974, pp. 59-70.

[12] Gross, B. “The Matrix of Purposes,” The Managing of Organizations, Volume 2, Chapter 19, The Free Press,

New York, 1964.

[13] Heiker, V.E. “The Black Art of Systems Planning,” Com-

puterworld, Volume 15, Number 45, November 9, 1981,

pp. 16, 18-19, 21, 24-27, 30, 32.

[14] Herbert, M. and Hartog, C. “MIS Rates the Issues,”

Dammarion, Volume 32, Number 22, November 1986,

pp.79-86.

[15] Hofer, C.W. and Schendel, D.E. Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts, West Publishing, St. Paul, Minnesota,

1978.

[16] IBM. Business Systems Planning: Information Systems Planning Guide, 3rd ed., Application Manual Number

GE20-0527, White Plains, New York, IBM Corporation,

Technical Publications, Department 824, 1133 Westches-

ter .4venue, White Plains, NY 10604, 1981.

[17] James, P.N. “A Framework for Strategic and Long-Range

Information Resource Planning,” Information Strategy: The Executive’s Journal, Volume 2, Number 1, Fall 1985,

pp. 4-12.

[1X] Jones, N.X. “Long-Range DP Planning,” Auerbach Sys- term Development Manual, Number 31-01-16, April-May

1981, pp. l-10.

1191 King, W.R. “Strategic Planning for Management Infor-

mation Systems”, MIS Quarterly, Volume 2, Number 1,

March 1978, pp. 27-37.

[20] King, W.R. and T.S. Raghunathan, “How Strategic IS

Information Systems Planning?” Datamarion, Volume 33,

Number 22, November 15, 1987, pp. 133-137.

(211 Kroeber, D.W. and Watson, H.J. Computer-Based In&r- matjon Systems, Macmillan, New York, 1984.

1221 LaBarbera, P.J. “OA Solutions, DP Lessons,” Computer-

world OA, Volume 17, Number 24A, June 15, 1983, pp. 9-11.

[23] Mason, R.O. and Mitroff, 1.1. Challenging Strategic Plan- ning Assumptions, Wiley, New York, 1981.

(241 McFarlan, F.W. “Problems in Planning the Information System,” Harvard Business Review, Volume 42, Number 2,

March-April 1971, pp. 75-89.

(251 McKenney, J.L. and McFarlan, F.W. “The Information

Archipelago-Maps and Bridges,” Harvard Business Re-

view, Volume 60, Number 5, September-October 1982, pp.

109-119.

(261 McKinsey Company, Inc. “Unlocking the Computer’s

Profit Potential “ The McKinsey Q, Fall, 1968, pp. 17-31.

1271 McLean, E.R. and Soden, J.V. Strategic Planning for MIS,

Wiley Interscience, New York, 1977.

[28] Presnik, W.J. “Inside an ‘Office of the Future’ Task

Force,” Administrative Management, Volume 42, Number

10, October 1981, pp. 24-27.

[29] Reitzfeld, M. “How to Plan for a Leading Edge Office,”

The Office, Volume 93, Number 1, January 1981, pp.

110-112, 192.

[30] Rockart, J.F. Chief Executives Define Their Own Data Needs,” Harvard Business Review, Volume 57, Number 2,

March-April, 1979, pp. 81-93.

[31] Raghunathan, T.S. and King, W.R. “The Impact of Infor-

mation Systems Planning on Organizations,” Omega: In-

ternational Journal of Management Science, Volume 16,

Number 2, March, 1988, pp. 85-93.

[32] Selig, G.J. “Strategic Planning for Information System

Resources Functions in a Multinational Environment,”

Doctoral Dissertation, Pace University, 1980.

1331 Steiner, G. “Evaluating the Planning System and Main-

taining a High Payoff,” Strategic Planning - What Every

Manager Must Know, The Free Press, New York, 1979, pp. 299-308.

[34] Steiner, G. Comprehensive Managerial Planning, The Plan-

ning Executives Institute, Oxford, Ohio, 1972, p. 42.

1351 Steiner, G. Top Management Planning, Macmillan, New

York, 1969.

Documents

Strategic planning for office automation