The Implementation of Strategic Information Systems Planning Methodologies

Author(s): Albert L. Lederer and Vijay Sethi
Source: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Sep., 1988), pp. 445-461
Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota
Stable URL: .
Accessed: 21/08/2013 11:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact


Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to MIS Quarterly.

This content downloaded from on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SISPdefined Keywords: Planning. a University of Pittsburgh majorobjective of senior IS executives (Hartog Pittsburgh. applyingit. the primaryobjectivesof sys- MISQuarterly/September1988 445 This content downloaded from 128. PA 15260 and Herbert. Finally.1987).it when they attemptto implementsuch a method.52 on Wed. Sinclair (1986) found the implementation of a Strategicinformationsystems planning(SISP)is planningtechnique to be a majorproblem. organizations conventionallyapply one of several methodolo- gies (ArthurAndersen and Co.and reviewingits output. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .. accordingto McLean ACMCategories: K. Moskowitz. Inthe late 1970s. K. NY 14260 resources.KatzGraduate School of 1971). Itthen discusses need for substantial furtheranalysis in order to frequentlyappliedSISP methodologies. Joseph M.103. Inorderto performeffectiveSISP.1986). methodology.Itelucidatesthe relative A surveyof 80 organizationsexaminedthe prob- lems faced by informationsystems managers severityof the problemsand examines some fac- tors potentiallyrelatedto this severity.informationsystems. it carryout the plan. ThisarticledefinesSISP anddescribesthreepop- ularSISP methodologies. its resource requirements. presents a categorizationof common problems The survey also investigated some potential encounteredduringthe SISP process. Thisarticlegives a thorough minethe natureof this problem. computer applications which the organization however.To date. However. 1986). Next. Similarly.4 and Soden (1977). EffectiveSISP can helporganizationsuse Business informationsystems to reach business goals. Because the purposeof SISP is Methodologies to identifythe most appropriatetargets for au- tomationand to schedule theirinstallation.there has been no broadstudyto deter- should implement. 1986. pro- cess. Thetwo problems ratedmost severe were the difficultyin securing top management Background commitmentfor implementingthe plan and the This section firstdefines SISP. recent re- search by Ledererand Mendelow (1986a) has shownthatimplementingsuch a methodologyis a top problemfaced by systems managers during Abstract SISP. the failureto School of Management carefullycarryout SISP can resultbothin lost op- State University of New Yorkat Buffalo portunities and the waste of expensive IS Buffalo. The concept of SISP has evolved over the last mationmanagement decade. Thesubjects' overallsatisfactionwiththe problemsof the three populartechniques. StrategicPlanning The Implementation of Introduction Information Improvedstrategicinformation systems planning Strategic (SISP)is the most criticalissue facinginformation systems executives today (Brancheau and Systems Planning Wetherbe.6.0. Itcan also enable organiza- tions to use informationsystems to significantly VijaySethi impacttheir strategies.The theprocess of deciding the objectives fororgani- zational computing and identifying potential problemencompasses justifyingthe methodol- ogy. Martin. satisfactoryplans but thatorganizationslack the management commitmentand controlmecha- nisms to ensure thatthey followthe plans. definitionof SISP and thenillustratesit withthree methodologies. Surveyresults suggest discusses literaturewhichlaysthe groundwork for an investigationof some factors potentiallyre- thatthe SISP methodologies may oftenproduce latedto the SISP problems. considerssome similaritiesand differencesinthe ology. output.and finalexecution were notpartic- causes of the problems. a study of seven companies. Lederer businesses and other organizations(McFarlan. infor.SISP has the potentialto make huge contributionsto By: Albert L.149. Finally. However.6.

competitors (Clemens. 1986. The team leader reviews the com- piled business data and the top IS executive ex- plainsrecentIS activitiesand problemsto the al. They compile data on the firm'sbusiness functionsand currentIS support. on one side of the dichotomy. basis of competition. withusers.1984).Moskowitz(1986) observes thatan pact and the abilityto create an advantage over additionalobjectiveof SISP has become the de. SISP the CustomerResourceLifeCycle(Ivesand Lear- also entails the definitionof databases and sys. AnalyzingCurrentSystems Support The studyteam identifieshow IS currentlysupports the organization. is identifiedto spend fulltime leading the studyteam of 4 to 7 executives. generate new products.149. Rackoff. SISP promotesinnovationandcreativity.StrategicPlanning tems planningwere to improvecommunication their organization's goals.and producea workplan.103.52 on Wed. 1983. reviewschedule.interviewsched- ule. ture. 446 MISQuarterly/September1988 This content downloaded from 128. DefiningBusiness Processes The study team identifiesthe business processes which formthe basis for executive interviews. Parsons.SISP As such.1985). ValueChainAnalysis(Porter. cate resources. SISP may distinctionbetween the two approaches and re- mean the selection of ratherprosaicapplications. 1984.and otherstudyactivities. such as brainstorming (Osborn. and Mendelow. Startingthe Study The executivesponsor reviewsthe study'spurpose withthe team. perhaps the sponsor.thatwouldbest fitthe cur.Simultaneously. such an assumptionmay be unfounded(Lederer to betterforecast resourcerequirementsand allo. and finalreportoutline.Theteamdevelops chartsshowing organizational processes and the responsible departments.1957. or change the balance of This articleadopts a broad. or consequently realizingits business goals.A team leader. Table 1. SISP can help organizations IndexSystems (1986) suggest thatthe identifica. Vitale.1984). to determinemore opportunities forimprovingthe MISdepartment.SISP can also new and higherpaybackcomputerapplications. entail searching for applicationswith a high im- Morerecently. Ives and Lear- velopmentof an organization-widedata architec. 268). month.1987).et al.1984. ganization in executing its business plans and al. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 1985). to increase top managementsupport. ferredto the formeras attemptingto "align"MIS almost as iffroma list. 1985).dichotomousview of powerin supplierrelationships(McFarlan.. Preparingforthe Study Team members are trainedin BSP.change the mainobjectiveof SISP. Description of BSP Study Steps GainingExecutive Commitment A top executive sponsor and various other inter- ested executives are identifiedas the majorsources of informationto the study. Hence. buildin switchingcosts.bothVitale. (1986) recognizedthe tems to support those applications. (1986) and Wiseman. objectiveswithorganizationalgoals andthe latter rentand projectedneeds of the organization.and to identify Onthe otherside of the dichotomy. Defining Data Classes Data are grouped into categories called data classes based on theirrelationshipsto the business processes identifiedabove. refers to the process of identifyinga portfolioof and might employ idea-generating techniques computer-basedapplicationsthatwillassist an or. use informationsystems in innovative ways to tionof strategicapplicationshas arisenas another buildbarriersagainst new entrants.the definitionof the futureinformationarchitecture. month.This as attemptingto "impact"organizationalstrate- assumes thatinformationsystems plannersknow gies (p. plans and strategy. Chartsare builtto re- flectthose relationships. SISP.

ReportingResults Thestudyteam gives a talkalongwitha briefsummary anda moredetailed(usuallyverythick)reportcoverinc the study's purpose. of the responses to the survey. and a networkof com. and methods of strengtheningIS manage- ment.The dura- tiongenerallydepends on the scope of the study. DefiningFindingsand Conclusions The study team develops categories of findingsand conclusions and then classifies previouslyidentified problemsintothe categories.adjustmentsto current systems.involvestop-downplanningwithbottom- tions. Resource Management Thestudyteam evaluatesthe currentISorganization's ReviewingInformation strengths and weaknesses.52 on Wed. neering(Martin.The organizationformscommitteesof (HollandSystems.they accountedforhalf and auditits results. Table 1. Lederer methodologyandthen embarkson a major. recognizes its business mission. data needs.and how these determineits business the applications.Italso prepares a schedule for processes. Architecture Definingthe Information The studyteam uses the business processes and the data classes to design databases. developed In additionto identifyingthe portfolioof applica. by IBM.inten. The processes are analyzedfortheir developmentand installation. the likelihoodof success. Priorities DeterminingArchitectural The team sets systems developmentprioritiesbased on potentialfinancialand non. Business Systems Planning (BSP). 1986).A multi-stepprocedureis car.1975.1982).financialbenefits.149. Three popular methodologies include mode). data elements. objectives and putersandcommunicationsequipmentto support functions. The final BSP plan describes an Frequentlyappliedmethodologies overallinformation system architectureas well as Organizationsgenerallyapplyone of a numberof the installationschedule of individualsystems. StrategicSystems Planning sive organizationusuallyselects an existing Business Systems Planning(IBM. Itdefines up implementation. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . riedout over several weeks or months.103.In this methodology. methodologies in order to performthese SISP Table 1 detailsthe steps inthe study. Theyare describedbriefly Itmost likelyuses the SISP vendor'seducational methodologiesandwillbe alludedto as illustrative supportto trainthe committeemembers and the in the research findings. (continued) Determiningthe Executive Perspective Executive interviewsgain the commitmentof addi- tionalexecutives and helpthe studyteam understand the problemswhose solutionswillbe representedby the futuresystems. Databases are developed by combiningsimilar data classes. DevelopingRecommendationsand ActionPlan The team preparesan actionplanwithrecommenda- tionsabouthardware. MISQuarterly/September1988 447 This content downloaded from 128. and the organization'sdemand foreach system. rec- ommendationsand prescribedactions. the organizationprioritizesthem.These three were se- vendor's consulting support to guide the study lected because. and data classes are then identified. methodology. together. StrategicPlanning To carry out SISP (especially in the alignment A steering committee is establishedto set policyand controlthe function. The team prepares charts relatingthe processes to the classes and the systems to subsystems. and Putnam. and InformationEngi- users withISspecialists as membersor advisors.a firm databases.1986).

orthe produces reportsin a wide range of formatsand Customer Resource Life Cycle (Ives and Lear- withvarious levels of detail. while "clustering"reportsgive guidancefor firmsoften select features of these Alternatively. mationQualityAnalysis(Vacca. mateddesign tools. guishes them by their primaryfocus.LDDis used to and whetherthey provideautomatedsupport. develop their own in- dictionaryinterfacefacilitatessharing SSP data house approach(Arthur Andersenand Co. InconjunctionwithIE. HollandSystems Corporation some methodologies. 1984). Finally..TSP is a methodol. data models. systems. Table 2 presents four majordistinctionsamong Inadditionto SSP. A data consulting assistance. technique for identifyingissues considered by this research used three categories-resources. (Recentversionsof BSP also use CSF.) ecutive sponsorshipis perceivedas critical. personnel.An applicationgeneratoris in- tegrated with IE and produces systems with Strategic Systems Planning (SSP). infor- An informationsystems architecturethen identi.and presentation of the Farlan. data collected duringthe SISP process. database design. Althoughthe language differs slightly. each general manager should use CSF.The table also distin- cal Database Design (LDD). 1984).provides techniques for building cate and complex activityfraughtwith problems enterprise models. Ends/Means Analysis (Wetherbe and A majordifferencefromBSP is SSP's automated Davis. Adata architectureis derivedfromthe business function Othermethodologies model by combining informationrequirements Besides BSP.defines a business function modelby analyzingmajorfunctionalareas. business executives as the most vitalforthe suc. and then is used to mapthe structuresto the SSP data architecture. 1979). Menus guide the user through methodologies and then. mentor impactapproaches. "affin- month. Process-related 448 MISQuarterly/September1988 This content downloaded from 128. and tion systems. However.Top ex. 1985. 1971). the (Carlson. developed by Ithas long been recognizedthat SISP is an intri- James Martin. Software 1978). develop data structures for modules from the study or fromother systems. informationsystem architecture. a Inorderto organizeandsummarizethe problems. IE differs from other methodologies by providing automated large volume of informationthat IBMhas begun tools to linkits outputto subsequent systems de- marketingan automatedversion called Informa- tionQualityAnalysis(Vacca.cases.1981).1979). The re. by Robert Holland.1985). Business Information Character- steps inthe SSP procedureare similarto those in ization Study (Kerner. ity"reportsshow the frequencies of accesses to data. Forexample.Resource-relatedproblems cess of their organization. IE is considered by some to be a investigatesmostof the methodologiesdescribed more technically oriented approach than other previously. CSF (Rockart.1984). manipulation.Infor- mationsystems analysts mightserve primarilyin IEprovidesseveral softwarepackages for facili- an advisorycapacity. developed COBOLcode.1979). and conceptualstudies. and output. Nolan Norton Methodology (Moskowitz. InformationAnalysis and IntegrationTechnique ule.Itclassifies them as align- offersTacticalSystems Planning(TSP)and ogy for guiding the implementation of the shows whetherthey define a data architecture.Martinadvocates the use of CriticalSuccess Factors(CSF)(Rockart. SSP and IE. money. fieldsurveys.52 on Wed.1986). and process (McFarlan.Theirworkis based on base whichthen creates and maintainsinforma.Martinsuggests that addressed the issues of time-requirements. with an existing data dictionaryor other auto.A reviewof the most significantof their SISP methodologies. Business fies new systems andtheirimplementation sched.These forma comprehensiveknowledge scribed these problems. Problemswiththemethodologies Information Engineering (IE). firms mightchoose intogeneric data entities and subjectdatabases.The study producessuch a tating the SISP effort. Several authors have de- models. articlesserved as the basis to create a compre- hensive listof the problems(see Table3). 1979).103. velopmentefforts.149. ValueChainAnalysis(Porter. 1982). Sullivan. BSP. 1982). possibly with outside online data collection and maintenance.1987). process.StrategicPlanning BSP places heavy emphasis on top management by helping identifyfuture management control commitmentand executive involvement. Method/1(Arthur Andersenand Co. StrategySet Transformation (King. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . PortfolioManagement(Mc- storage.and top managementsupport sultingfactorswillthen guide the SISP endeavor for the initiationof the study.

97). However. Some Characteristics of DifferentMethodologies Methodology Impact Focus Defines Automated or Data Support Alignment Architecture Business Systems Primarily Planning Alignment Data Yes No StrategicSystems Primarily Planning Alignment Data Yes Yes Information Primarily Engineering Alignment Data Yes Yes Method/1 Alignment Projects No No CriticalSuccess Decision Factors Can Be Both Information No No CustomerResource LifeCycle Impact Customers No No ValueChain Internal Analysis Impact Operations No No problemsinvolvedthe limitationsof the analysis Mendelow. froma similarscheme used to definethe different 1978).as business plan- done by the methodology.there are some reasons to believe that certain organizational and managerial factors Reporting Relationship of the IS Executive mightbe relatedto SISP problems. Itconcludedthe enced in planningand more informedabout the following:"Althoughcompanies employa variety firm'sgoals. Top IS executives who participatein strategic agerialfactorsthataffectthese problemsindiffer. that the absence of formal business planning cases and conceptual studies.Finally. Similarly.they shouldencounterless severe impedimentto IS planning(Ledererand severe SISP problems. have been paraphrased. They are more experi- Cresap.output-related ning becomes more sophisticated (and hence problemsdealt withthe comprehensiveness and routine). Hence.simplifiedand catego- rizedintothe framework.theyare less likelyto have of techniques and approaches.and have greater Sophistication in Business Planning planningability. Johnson (1984) refers to a standingtop management'sobjectives (Lederer 1983 study by the New Yorkconsulting firmof and Mendelow.size of enterprise. success in plan.149. and imple- The complete lack of a business plan can be a mentits output.The following McFarlan(1971) suggests thatfirmsin whichthe variablesrepresenta selection (notintendedto be comprehensive)of such factors. The problems makes SISP moredifficult. very littleis knownaboutthe man. their SISP problems and organizationalarrangement"(p.103. This categorization was derived effectively aligned with business goals (King. expected in firmswith more sophisticated busi- ness planning. methodology used.and Paget. acquire its resources. Participationby IS Departmentin Business Potentialcausal factors Planning Unfortunately.and the IS plancan thus be more methodology. and the text ex.less severe SISP problemswouldbe componentsof IS planning(King. StrategicPlanning Table 2. top ISexecutivereportsto a higherlevel business executive place moreemphasis on planning. ganizationalgoals.1986b). shouldbe less severe. Therefore. business planning have less difficultyunder- ent organizations. MISQuarterly/September1988 449 This content downloaded from 128.use plainsreasons forexpectingtheireffects. 1987). IS resources more effectively.52 on Wed.McLeanandSoden (1977)confirm Table 3 shows the problems from the surveys. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .organizationalgoals and strategies are appropriatenessof the finalplanproducedby the betterdefined.Thus. McCormick.1984).Thus.These firmscouldmoreeasily ini- tiate a study. problems guiding or participatingin the SISP ning is surprisinglyunaffectedby such factorsas study and in ensuringthat its outputsupportsor- industry.

P5 The methodologyfailsto assess the externaltechnological King. 1984 P11 The methodologyrequirestoo muchtop management Bowman.1982 R10 Adequateexternalconsultantsupportis notavailablefor Zachman.1982 P14 The methodologydoes not sufficientlyinvolvetop Kay.1983 organizationsize. 1977 R13 Itis difficultto convincetop managementto approvethe al.103.1983 organizationstructure.1984 environment. P7 The methodologyfailsto take intoaccountissues relatedto Zachman. Zachman. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .. Vacca. R4 The success of the methodologyis greatlydependenton the team Zachman.149..StrategicPlanning Table 3.1982 should be followedforimplementingthe methodology. The Problems Problem Problem Statement Source Code Resources for Implementingthe Methodology R1 The size of the planningteam is very large. R5 Manysupportpersonnelare requiredfordata gatheringand Rockart. Planning Process Specified by the Methodology P1 The methodologyfailsto take intoaccountorganizational King. 1983 by the methodology. R14 The methodologymakes inappropriate assumptionsabout Yadav. 1984 P13 The planningprocedureis al. P6 The methodologyfailsto assess the organization'scompetitive King. inappropriate. R11 The methodologyis not based on any theoreticalframework. P9 The methodologydoes not sufficientlyinvolveusers.1986 R8 The documentationdoes notadequatelydescribethe steps that Zachman.1978 goals and strategies. P3 The methodologyfailsto analyzethe currentstrengthsand King. Kay. 1980 P10 Managersfinditdifficultto answerquestions specifiedby Boyntonand Zmud.1982 leader.1982 planimplementation. P8 The methodologyfailsto take intoaccountchanges inthe organizationduringSISP. 1983 R7 The planningexercise is veryexpensive.1984 environmentalissues. P4 The methodologyfailsto take intoaccountlegal and al. R15 The methodologymakes inappropriate assumptionsabout Yadav.1970 systems applicationsportfolio. R3 Itis difficultto findteam memberswho meet the criteriaspecified Vacca. Zachman. 1980 management. 450 MISQuarterly/September1988 This content downloaded from 128.1979 analysis duringthe study.1984 environment.1984 weaknesses of the IS department. 1983 R2 Itis difficultto finda team leaderwho meets the criteriaspecified Vacca. 1983 involvement. Zachman. Bowman.. P12 The methodologyrequirestoo muchuser involvement.. 1983 by the methodology. the methodology. Boyntonand Zmud. R9 The methodologylacks sufficientcomputersupport. R6 The planningexercise takes very long.1982 R12 The planninghorizonconsideredby the methodologyis McLeanand Soden. P2 The methodologyfailsto assess the currentinformation al.1982 implementingthe methodology. Moskowitz. 1983 methodology.52 on Wed.

IS department. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . objectivesforthe IS department.52 on Wed. IS planninghorizons vary depending on The scope of the SISP study refersto the organi. Scope of the SISP Study 1971). 019 The finaloutputdocumentis notveryuseful.. Thus.1985 Administration inthe organization. unanticipatedchanges inthe organizationand its environment. Rockartand Crescenzi. the commitmentand involvementthat IS execu- tives seek. 1975.1985).1981 management. top managementinitiationof the study should reflect problems. and less severe SISP problemswould Planning Horizon then be anticipated. 1977 013 SISP outputfailsto sufficientlyaddress the roleof a King. 1977 09 SISP outputfails to includean overallorganizationaldata Sullivan. coverthe entireorganization.1984 020 The SISP outputdoes notcaptureallthe information that Gill. less severe problems MISQuarterly/September1988 451 This content downloaded from 128. plan. 1977 02 SISP outputfails to designate specificnew steeringcommittees. al.1984 permanentIS planninggroup.corpo- rate scope may be associated withmore severe 1982. McLeanand Soden.1982 forthe organization.1978 emphasized (IBMCorporation.1981 was developed duringthe study.1982). Effectiveusers of informa- tion resources employsuch horizons(McFarlan. 011 SISP outputfails to includean overallpersonneland training McLeanand Soden. 1977 015 The outputis not in accordancewiththe expectationsof top Gill. 1977 012 SISP outputfails to includean overallfinancialplanforthe McLeanand Soden. SISP at the corporate the studyteam to be moredetailedin its analysis level must address additional complex issues and to develop a schedule.1985 communicationsplan.A study might and other organizationalfactors (Martin.ormerely Because the use of a planninghorizonmightforce a particularfunctionalarea.the use of data Top managementinvolvementin SISP has been communications. a broad. 06 SISP outputfailsto provideprioritiesfordevelopingspecific Zachman. Thus. planforthe IS department. 010 SISP outputfails to outlinechanges inthe reportingrelationships inthe IS department. business planninghorizons.1982 sufficientlytransferableacross divisions.1982 databases. Martin. 018 The experiences fromimplementingthe methodologyare not Zachman.1981 implementingthe plan. King. 08 SISP outputfailsto includean overallorganizationalhardware McLeanand Soden.a division. 1980.103. 1984). 1977 04 SISP outputfails to determinea uniformbasis forprioritizing King.149. 014 The outputplans are notflexibleenough to take intoaccount McLeanand Soden. 07 SISP outputfails to sufficientlyaddress the need forData Sullivan.1982 inthe SISP outputrequiressubstantialfurtheranalysis. Sullivan.managementstyle.and data architecture(Kay. 03 SISP outputfailsto identifyspecificnew projects. 016 Implementingthe projectsand the data architectureidentified Zachman. The planninghorizonrefersto the planningperiod covered by the study. 05 SISP outputfailsto determinean overalldata architecture Zachman. 017 Itis difficultto secure top managementcommitmentfor Gill. StrategicPlanning Table 3. zational unit under investigation. Initiatorof the SISP Study such as technologymanagement. (continued) Outputof the Planning Methodology 01 SISP outputfailsto providea statementof organizational McLeanand Soden.

Itthen examines the find- naire.SISP problemswouldlikelybe moresevere. major. methodology.StrategicPlanning mayoccurinstudies thatconsidera specificplan.Therefore. reminders planning is more dependent on external con. Their study showed that in publiclyheld firms. differentoutputs of the plan had been affected. is currentlyan independentconsultantin the SISP As Table5 shows. the most severe problemis the area. Subjects rated each nizational and managerial factors potentially relatedto the problems. highlyexperienced professionalswith exposure In the second part.the "MinorProb- internationalpetroleum corporation. Results Methodology This section initiallydiscusses some characteris- The survey instrumentwas a currentlyresponsiblefor problemat all. andto the firmsinVacca's (1983) study. it focuses on a particulardi- fiedthe extent to whichthey had encounteredthe mensionof the problemsand considers the orga- aforementionedproblems.respondents identifiedthe ings aboutthe problemsof implementingan SISP methodologythatthey had used.52 on Wed.with 21 as extreme. The "Extremeor MajorProblem" SISP at a large regionalgrocery chain and was columninthe table shows the percentageof sub- previouslyone of the top plannersat a Fortune50 jects ratingthe problemas such. Two experienced strategic IS planners pilot.Inthe questionnaire.These were adapted from Mcleanand Soden (1977). an SISP study and thus provided usable data. (or32%)of these firmshad alreadyparticipatedin ies (McLeanand Soden.the subjects also answered to morethanone employerandthatthey currently scaled questions abouttheirsatisfactionwithvari.theirdemographicprofilesdiffered. workedfor mediumand large firms.103. problemsthat were incorporatedinto the ques- ninghorizon. Table5 shows a rankingof the problemsof adopt- ing an SISP methodology. tics of the respondents.149. shows that the respondents were. Thiswas a highrateconsideringthatthe question- The second partof the instrumentincludedques. Eighty Thisscale has been used insimilarpreviousstud.or not a years of ISexperience.minor. They appear in Table 3 without references. subjects had ratedthe problemslisted in Table 3 tested the questionnaire. planner. recommendations. Theyalso identi. naire was eight pages long and fairlycomplex.A totalof istics of publiclyand privatelyheld companies. 1977).Table4 strategicdirectionof the ISfunction. Inthe firstpart. tionsrelatedto the implementationof plans. where quentlyused methodologies. 251 organizations received the questionnaire. The pilottest broughtout three additional failureto secure topmanagementcommitmentfor 452 MISQuarterly/September1988 This content downloaded from 128.withnearly30 years of IS compares fre- problemon a scale of one to five.Table 4 also ous aspects of the SISP experienceand aboutthe shows thatBSP.The other lem"columndisplaysthe analogous percentage.Next.Finally. ThisfollowsKing's(1984) recommendationthata Althoughallof the 80 SISP participantshad either criterionfor evaluatinga planningsystem is the completedor were completingan ongoing SISP extent to whichthe finalplan actuallyguides the study. in general.Inthis The rate attests to the fact that the respondents section. respondentsindicatedthe extentto which foundthistopicto be important. SSP and IEaccountedfor50%of reasons for any deviation from the final SISP the methodologiesused by the participants. One planner. Three weeks after the first mailing. Organization Ownership The revised questionnaire was then mailed to McLean and Soden (1977) had expected but membersof the StrategicData PlanningInstitute failedto finda relationshipin the SISP character.insignificant. methodologies tionalcharacteristics. tionnaire. straints. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 1 = not a problem 2 = an insignificant problem 3 = a minor problem of therespondents Characteristics 4 = a major problem One hundredsixty-threefirmsreturnedthe com- 5 = an extreme problem pleted surveyfor a response rate of 65%. were sent to those who had notyet responded. The thirdpartof the surveycontaineda numberof Extentofproblemsof SISP questions related to respondent and organiza.

andwiththe SISP resource Division FunctionalArea 10% requirementswas 3. in fact. Fewerthan 1.1 Morethan 500 9% Furtherevidence focusing on the problemof ef- Methodology Business Systems Planning 21% fectingthe plan arises froma comparisonof the StrategicSystems Planning 15% elapsed planninghorizonwiththe degree of com- InformationEngineering 14% pletion of SISP outputs.the lack Consultant 6% of resources appears to play a very significant Other 15% role. Characteristics of Respondents sufficientresources. IS Experienceof Respondents Less than 10 years 17% 10 to 20 years 63% Furtherevidenceof theresource Over20 years 20% problem Industriesof Respondents On a scale of zero to six (wherezero refersto ex- Manufacturing 26% Utilities 13% tremelydissatisfied and six refers to extremely Insurance 10% satisfied). Alterna- Manager 36% tively. 56% of the planning In-house 14% horizonshad elapsed.However. withthe EntireEnterprise 44% 40% SISP outputwas 3.52 on Wed. wherea neutralscore wouldhave been Other/NotAvailable 38% 3.There- fore.satisfactionwithcarryingoutfinalSISP Morethan 10.02.itmaybe thatthe methodologiesmakepoor Supervisor/GroupLeader 6% use of the resources allocatedto the study. Itmightalso possiblybe rea- soned that the requirementfor furtheranalysis Job Titlesof Respondents President 6% (rankedsecond) is a problemsimplybecause in- Vice President 8% sufficientresources are allottedto complete an Director 14% appropriatelycomprehensive study. universityprofessornotedthatif his argued that the difficultyof securing top man.103. Furthermore.Satis- Scope of Studies factionwiththe SISP process was 3. study.000 42% However. the respondents' average ratingfor Government 8% overall satisfaction withthe SISP methodology Retail 5% was 3.itappearsthatfirmsmayhave been failingto initiateprojectsas rapidlyas necessary inorderto carrying out the final plan.73 years.4 projects recommended in the SISP NotAvailable 5% studies.000 32% planswas muchlower(2. However.68. The second most completethemduringthe planninghorizon. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . StrategicPlanning Table 4. Giventhe evidence inthe NotAvailable 6% is interesting Theauthorsoffernoassertionsabouttheabsoluteval- to note that six of the eight remaining top ten ues ofthesatisfactionratings.000 to 10.1 years had passed since the NolanNorton 3% studies' completion. Table 6 summarizes the respon- Fewerthan 100 36% dents' satisfaction with these aspects of the 100 to 500 55% SISP. Satisfactionscores for the differentdimen- sions of SISP were also slightlyfavorable. The average planning Method/1 9% horizonof the SISP studies was 3.000 23% 1.despite the fact that those two problemsare output-related.Italso severe problemis the requirementforsubstantial furtheranalysis afterthe completionof the SISP appears that there may have been insufficient projectstart-upsin orderto realizethe plan. firedforincompetentteaching! MIS Quarterly/September 1988 453 This content downloaded from is notsurprisingthatsatis- faction withthe SISP resource requirementsis Numberof Employees less thansatisfactionwiththe process andoutput.7 (24%)had been initiated.149.out of an aver- Others 16% age of 23.38. it mightbe ingthem. Re- Analyst/DataAdministrator 9% gardless.Thus.53).55.thus. in the view of the respondents.afterexamin- problemsare resource-related. while CriticalSuccess Factors 4% an average of 2. only32%of Notavailable 3% the respondents were satisfied while 53% were Numberof IS Employees dissatisfied.he wouldeventuallybe (rankedfirst)is associated withthe approvalof in. students'ratingsofhisclassroominstruction remained agement commitment to carry out the plan consistentlyat these levels.

Extent of Problems of SISP Methodologies Problem Abbreviated Problem Statement Extreme Minor Code or Major Problem Problem 017 Difficultto secure top managementcommitment 52% 16% 016 Requiresfurtheranalysis 46% 31% R4 Success dependenton team leader 41% 30% R2 Difficultto findteam leadermeetingcriteria 37% 17% R9 Methodologylacks sufficientcomputersupport 36% 27% R6 Planningexercise takes longtime 33% 30% P7 Ignoresplan implementationissues 33% 18% R13 Difficultto obtaintop managementapproval 32% 36% 011 No trainingplanfor IS department 30% 29% R3 Difficultto findteam membersmeetingcriteria 30% 24% 012 No financialplanfor IS department 29% 28% R8 Documentationis inadequate 28% 33% 06 No prioritiesfordevelopingdatabases 27% 26% 05 No overalldata architectureis determined 27% 22% R7 Veryexpensive 26% 29% 013 No permanentIS planninggroup 26% 24% R5 Manysupportpersonnelrequired 26% 23% 07 No data administration need addressed 26% 16% 018 Experiencesnot sufficientlytransferable 24% 19% 09 No organizationaldata communicationsplan 22% 38% 010 No changes in IS reportingrelationships 22% 31% 04 No prioritization scheme provided 22% 19% 015 Outputbelies top managementexpectations 22% 15% P3 No analysis of IS departmentstrengths/weaknesses 21% 32% 08 No hardwareplan 20% 36% P11 Heavytop managementinvolvement 20% 21% 014 Resultingplans are inflexible 20% 18% P5 No analysis of technologicalenvironment 19% 20% P12 Too muchuser involvement 18% 28% 019 Finaloutputdocumentnotvery useful 18% 20% P10 Questionsdifficultformanagersto answer 17% 39% 020 Information duringstudy notcaptured 17% 25% P4 Methodologyignores legal/environmental issues 14% 16% R14 Bad assumptionsaboutorganizationstructure 14% 14% P8 Ignoresorganizationchanges duringSISP 13% 25% 01 No objectivesfor IS departmentare provided 13% 21% P9 Insufficientuser involvement 13% 5% R1 Verylarge planningteam required 12% 21% P6 Methodologyignorescompetitiveenvironment 12% 19% 03 No new projectsidentifiedinfinalplans 12% 13% 02 Outputfails to designate new steeringcommittees 11% 18% P13 Rigidityof planningprocedure 9% 17% P2 No assessment of currentapplicationsportfolio 9% 16% P14 Lackof top managementinvolvement 9% 13% P1 Ignoresorganizationalgoals and strategies 8% 10% R12 Inappropriate planninghorizon 6% 7% R10 Inadequateconsultantsupport 5% 11% R15 Inappropriate size assumptions 4% 8% R11 No theoreticalframework 3% 5% 454 MISQuarterly/September1988 This content downloaded from 128.103. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .149.StrategicPlanning Table 5.52 on Wed. ensure thatthe SISP outputssupport for subjects who stated that theirbusiness plan. The subsequent discussion further ulatethatthe methodologieshave failedto gener. characterizedtheirbusiness planningas strate- vented or ignored.Table7 shows the levels of statisticalsignif- where the SISP had recommended changes in icance forthe alternativewithmore severe prob- the IS department.the findingsare not necessarilysurpris- ing. and justifyingresources. existing more severe problems than organizations that SISP procedures were either purposelycircum. overall) problems. Giventheirgreat expense and timeconsumption. tiated after the study. In such sophisticated secured the necessary resources.55 54% 23% 23% The Resources Required 3.38 55% 17% 28% CarryingOutthe Plan 2. suggested. mean scores underalternativesfor each factor. projectswhich were not partof their SISP plan. not to SISP categories.The headings reflectthe study'sfindings the systems envisionedbythe planninggroupand based strictlyon the alternativewith the lower theirfinalimplementations. organizations had begun ning was financial/tacticalratherthan strategic. mean score. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . such findingsseriouslychallenge the utilityof the Factor 1: Organizations with less sophistica- planning methodologies represented in this tion in business planning had more study.cautiousin- ate useful ideas which organizationscould then terpretationof the non-significantdifferences is translateinto implementablecomputersystems.e. OverallSatisfaction Average Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied The Methodology 3. the egy formulationenables the IS department to 2." i.Participationin strat- all 49 (i. shows the mean ratingsof the problemsfromthe The directionof the effect suggests the impor- resources. It nificantin any category. but largely to "productchampi. overcame re. severe problems than more sophis- ticated organizations..103.carryingoutthe process.68 48% 17% 25% The Methodology'sOutput 3.02 38% 24% 38% The Methodology'sProcess 3. some of the problems are considerably less severe thanothers. phisticationinsettinggoals andobjectivesperme- ons.this effect held in allfour. They confirmthe workof Runge (1985) who Organizationsthat characterizedtheir business studiedsuccessfully implementedstrategicinfor.53 32% 15% 53% At the same time. Finally. organizations.) These data suggest thatthe respondentsdid not execute theirfinalplans very scrupulously.. The effectwas significantforratingsinallfour ful implementationof these systems. IS executives have less trouble sistance to approval and development. and outputcategoriesandfor tance of such participation. considersthe strengthof the findings. implementation. column 1 refers to the average betterunderstandtop management'sobjectives severityof the 15 resource problems(inTable3) and thus. For example. theirgoals.One mightalso spec.38 in row 1.149. gic. MISQuarterly/September1988 455 This content downloaded from 128.52 on Wed. planningas financialor tacticalhad significantly mation systems. Table7 identifiesthe previouslydiscussed organi- zational and managerial factors potentiallyre. top general business executives who ates the SISP activities. Analysisof variancetested the differencein the These constituted about 38% of all projects ini. It is not surprisingthat a general so- methodologies.Runge attributedthe success. Althoughthe differenceswere notstatisticallysig- lated to the severity of the SISP problems. process. StrategicPlanning Table 6.They The followingsubsections discuss the problem raise questions about the resemblance between factors. in organizations Thus. In 80% of his cases. Factor 2: Organizations with less participa- tion by the IS department in busi- Potentialcausal factorsaffecting ness planning had more severe extentof problems problems than organizations with greater participation. only 50% of these changes lems. (The relativelylow mean scores reflectthat had been carriedout. and actively promoted the systems during analyzingthe output. However.

28 Enterprise 2.55 1. To WhomDoes the Top IS ExecutiveReport Controller 2.33 2. (1985) who observedthatchiefinformation offi.94 2. OrganizationalUnit'sDegree of Sophisticationin Business Planning Financial/Tactical 2.The reportingrelationshipmight the performanceof IS management.carryout. ***Refersto the .13*** 2.the primarily fi.34*** Strategic 1. of the top informationexecutives surveyed re- ecutive reported to a controller had portedto a senior-levelfinancialofficer.33 2.Althoughdifferences cers in leading-edgecompanies frequentlyreport in ratingswere not statisticallysignificant. OrganizationOwnership PubliclyOwned 2.21 2.StrategicPlanning Factor 3: Organizations where the top IS ex.the findingmightsimplybe executives frequentlyreportto a controller. findingsuggests thatalthoughISexecutives seek and analyze SISP exercises. **Refers to the .26 1.Topmanagement-initiated SISP hance the IS Department'spositionor contribute studies maylikelybe the resultof displeasurewith to its SISP skills.87 1. Itparallelsthe findingsof Benjamin. Thisfindingwas surprising. Considerationof Specific Planning HorizonBy the SISP Study No PlanningHorizon 2.14 4.10 1.46*** 2.80 2.28 2.31 PrivatelyOwned 2.16 7.45 2.20 5.01 level of significance.However. categories. Scope of the SISP Study Division/Function 2.91 1.58* 2. The IS executives can more easily initiate.103.39 2.IS manage- merelyreflectmore archaicorganizations.30 2.13 2.20 3. more severe problems than organi- zations where the top IS executive Factor 4: Organizations where top manage- reported to a president or vice ment initiated the study had more president.09 1. Participationby IS Department in Business Planning Does Not Participate 2. Also.94 2.34 Participates 2.98 2.66** 2.16 2.59** President/VP 2. Table 7. (1986) recentlyfoundthat32% IS executives.27 1.07 * Refersto the .20 2.29 al. ment-initiatedSISP studies probablypermitIS managementto exercise moreinfluenceover the importantbecause top IS Thisresultis particularly SISP study. Initiatorof the SISP Study Top Management 2.38** 2.the ef- to an area otherthanfinance. maintaincontrol.69*** 2.52 on Wed.04 2.Arthur to the fact thatthe respondentswere attributable Andersenand Co.82 2.43* 2.20 1. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .31 IS/OtherManagement 2. 456 MISQuarterly/September1988 This content downloaded from 128. Morehighlyplaced fect was uniformacross all fourcategories.16 6. top managementinvolvement.87 2.35 2. Factors Related to SISP Problems MeanSeverity of Problems Category Resources Process Output Overall 1.they stillpreferto nancial orientationof the controllermay not en.95 2.28 2.38 2. severe problems than organiza- tions where IS management This effect was statisticallysignificantfor all four initiated it.05 level of significance.32 2.55*** 2.10 level of significance.40 2.39 2.53 2.47* HorizonSpecified 2.149.08 1.

four categories and was significant for the re- sources and overallcategories.1987). For the output support. Infact.Itforces planningpar.the implicationmightbe that publicly-owned firmsare generally more bureaucraticand more subject to externalpressures than privately-held organizations. problems were more severe than when it did mentation. cau- egories. tively. Itdemands that a schedule clude the difficultyin obtainingtop management be drawnup and followed. BSP's top ten that are not in SSP's and IE'stop The effect of thisfindingwas consistentacross all ten.The impli.The same effect. 1983. BSP's top problem tion as their scope had more severe is thatits documentationdoes not adequatelyde- problems than studies with the en. possibly because it is easier to Summaryand Conclusion controlplanningin a privately-heldfirm.52 on Wed.furtheranal- strengthsis its detaileddocumentation(Bowman.Top man- used SISP methodologiesappearinTable8. commitmentforimplementingthe outputs. StrategicPlanning Factor 5: SISP studies with a division or func.The majorproblemof in-house-developed thoughnotstatisticallysignificant.The top problemof SSP tire enterprise as their scope. tious interpretation Still. vendors)are less well-knownto top management cantly more severe resource problems than than IBM.a planninghorizonis a ologies. Its implicationis Amongthe top ten problemsof the fourmethod- fairlystraightforward. 12. likelihoodthata firmwoulddo so. computer-basedinformation systems.this is notsurprisingwhen one considers category. is surpris. scribethe steps to follow. ties amongthe methodologies. haps because these methodologies (and their ing. ences amongthe methodologies. Theproblemsof specific SISP The results suggest that IS planners are not methodologies particularlysatisfied with their methodologies. exercise are two problemsin SSP's and IE'stop ten thatare notinBSP'stopten.the ratingswere nearlyequal (although the expense of developingsuch supportand the inthe opposite directionas the others).. 11. Zachman. Effectiveplanningis essential to difficultyin obtaining resources. executing the the realizationof the potentialstrategicimpactof process. relatedto carryingout the plan and the planning tal volatilityhas made its use more difficult(Led. Factor 7: Publicly-owned organizations had These similarities and differences might offer more severe problems than pri.and the to meet their milestones.due to smallsample sizes (17. Sullivan. Inadequatedocu- ify a planning horizon. and analyzingthe output. cationof this findingis thatthe broadand general recommendations of the methodologies might Table 8 also shows some other potentialdiffer- simplybe bettersuited to the definitionof data ar.the finding. De. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .was trueforthe methodologiesis theirlackof sufficientcomputer process and overall categories. most thatthe importanceof a planninghorizonhas not of the top ten problemsof each methodologyare diminishedeven though increasingenvironmen. Thisarticle has examined the difficultiesof implementinga methodologyto performSISP.lackof computersupport. developingan SISP methodology. none of the differenceswere significant. some preliminaryguidance to firmsselecting or vately-owned organizations.Itmay also be due to theirmore recent studies of entireenterprises.149. respec- Althoughthe effect was consistentforallfourcat.These in- controlmechanism. agement commitment is not easily obtained.this findingaccents the underlyingsimilari- ererand Mendelow. team.However. ysis is requiredbefore the execution of the plan MISQuarterly/September1988 457 This content downloaded from 128. Studies of divisionsand functionshad signifi. IS ImprovedSISP is a majorchallengefacing IS ex- departmentsin publiccompanieswouldfindmore ecutives today. and IE is the difficultyof obtainingtop manage- mentcommitmentforimplementingthe plan.per- Again. spite the common belief that one of BSP's major Whenthe SISP exercise is complete.103.1982).the re- ticipantsto confrontand resolveproblemsinorder quirementforsubstantialfurtheranalysis.and depen- dence on a team leader are three problems in specify a planning horizon.1986c. The top ten problemsof the fourmost frequently Planningrequirestoo manyresources. et al.Thus.Lackof a train- chitecturesof broaderscopes. ing plan and the lengthydurationof the planning Factor 6: When the SISP study failed to spec. and 11. al- origin.althoughveryweak. three are common to all four. of thistable is suggested.forthe fourmethodologiesinTable8). This findingsuggests difficultyfindinga good team leader.

management commitmentto the plan might be lengthy and complex SISP may be of limited missing or the means of controllingits execution value.149.then detailed. ercise can be to use informationtechnology to 458 MISQuarterly/September1988 This content downloaded from 128. Consequently. Alternatively. Extent of Problems of DifferentMethodologies Problem Abbreviated Problem Statement Extreme Minor Code or Major Problem Problem BSP R8 Documentationis inadequate 58% 16% 017 Difficultto secure top managementcommitment 53% 32% R4 Success dependenton team leader 53% 26% 016 Requiresfurtheranalysis 53% 21% R9 Methodologylacks sufficientcomputersupport 47% 26% 06 No prioritiesfordevelopingdatabases 47% 26% P7 Ignoresplanimplementationissues 44% 17% R2 Difficultto findteam leadermeetingcriteria 42% 26% R7 Veryexpensive 37% 32% P5 No analysis of technologicalenvironment 37% 21% IE 017 Difficultto secure top managementcommitment 60% 10% R2 Difficultto findteam leadermeetingcriteria 46% 9% 016 Requiresfurtheranalysis 44% 11% 011 No trainingplanfor IS department 40% 10% 08 No hardwareplan 36% 27% P12 Too muchuser involvement 36% 27% R6 Planningexercise takes longtime 36% 18% P11 Heavytop managementinvolvement 36% 18% 07 No data administration need addressed 36% 9% 013 No permanentIS planninggroup 30% 20% SSP 017 Difficultto secure top managementcommitment 67% 8% 011 No trainingplanfor IS department 58% 17% 016 Requiresfurtheranalysis 46% 39% R13 Difficultto obtaintop managementapproval 46% 39% P3 No analysis of IS departmentstrengths/weaknesses 46% 27% R3 Difficultto findteam membersmeetingcriteria 46% 15% R6 Planningexercise takes longtime 42% 25% 012 No financialplanfor IS department 42% 25% 018 Experiencesnot sufficientlytransferable 42% 8% R2 Difficultto findteam leadermeetingcriteria 38% 31% In-House R9 Methodologylacks sufficientcomputersupport 55% 18% 016 Requiresfurtheranalysis 50% 30% R4 Success dependenton team leader 46% 36% R3 Difficultto findteam membersmeetingcriteria 46% 36% 017 Difficultto secure top managementcommitment 40% 20% R8 Documentationis inadequate 36% 46% P10 Questionsdifficultformanagersto answer 36% 18% R2 Difficultto findteam leader meetingcriteria 36% 9% 018 Experiencesnot sufficientlytransferable 33% 11% R13 Difficultto obtaintop managementapproval 30% 20% can take place. However.52 on Wed. used by participantsin this study).103. the objectiveof an SISP ex- mightbe ineffective. carryingout the Therefore. to alignISobjectiveswithbusiness goals (as is the primaryobjective of most of the methodologies The final plan might be a good plan.StrategicPlanning Table 8. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .ifthe objectiveof the SISP exercise is planis often not very extensive.

Perhaps because they use extensive re- plans.52 on Wed. MISQuarterly/September1988 459 This content downloaded from 128. to expect thata committeechargedwithdetailed business analysis and database design could Practitionersmightalso pay particularattentionto generate strategicvisions aboutsystems forcre- methods of attenuatingthe potential. For example. tentiallyassociated with the problems of SISP methodologyimplementation was reportedinthis Practitionersmightalso consider the managerial article.Thisstudy ideas to fulfillthatpurpose. innovativealternativesforperformingSISP. tecture development activity. Subject File SISP and investigateit.The resultssuggest thatit mightbe fruitful and organizationalissues investigatedinthisarti. provide limited results. Menon. tify a team leader with excellent business skills and sufficientIS savvy? Whatcan I offerto man- agement to convince them to authorizesufficient Acknowledgement SISP resources? The authors acknowledge their appreciationto How will I avoid developing a thickand detailed PremkumarGopalaswamyand T.Itmaybe too much effects of some of the unavoidablefactors (such to expect thatthe combinationof the strategicap- as publicownershipor top managementinitiation plicationidentificationphase and the data archi- of the study).Practitionerscan problems. hazardous to their users' health.Usingthis model. lays the foundationforfurtherworkin the area. without product rected to the IS management's use of rewards champions for each. ologies requiretoo much detail in theirbusiness such a notion was proposed in Lederer and analysisanddatabase design.detrimental atinga competitiveadvantage.Practitioners specific process problems?Likewise. StrategicPlanning impacta business strategy. sources. Perhaps re- mitment?HowwillI develop a planthatdoes not searchers should search forcompletelynew and requireextensive furtheranalysis?HowwillIiden. it has prepared re- hensive list of the potential problems of imple.N.The find. Table5 incor- The investigationof a smallnumberof factorspo- porates evidence about the relativeconcerns of the variousproblemsin otherorganizations. searchers to studythe relationshipsbetween the mentingan SISP methodology. searchers mightask: Underwhat circumstances ecutive's reportingrelationshipand the organiza.Table3 can serve as a comprehensive lems be relatedto specificoutputproblems? checklistfordiscussion and debate. Ithas reached the top of AA4665. can produce valuable re- and sanctions to controlthe executionof the final sults. to develop a comprehensive model and test a cle and theirpotentialeffect on SISP intheirfirms. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . In doing so.the method. widervarietyof such factors. the methodologies are actually panywillIsecure genuine top managementcom.who contributedto the earlyphases of this might can develop strategies for circumventing the specific resource problems and process prob- problems. under what circum- examine the problemsand attemptto anticipate stances mightspecific resourceproblemslead to themwithintheirown organizations. plan that ultimatelysits on my shelf and collects dust? References forresearchers Implications ArthurAndersenand The two most significantissues are the top IS ex. The other?Howwoulda firmcullfeaturesfromthe var- findingsrelatingto the firstissue add strengthto ious techniques in order to assemble its own the positionof any ISdirectorswho are attempting in-housemethodology? to convince managementthatthey should report to a president ratherthan a controller.however.149. several practitionersurveys and therefore de- ologies in this study may not generate the useful serves the attentionof IS researchers. and raise expectations for projects that might never be Thus the practitionermightask: Howin my com. portant ones. Itmaybe too much Mendelow(1986b).103.Item57. woulda firmbest choose one methodologyor an- tion's business planning sophistication. implemented. 1982. The articlepromptsone finalresearch question: Whatare the alternativesto the methodologies ings relatingto the second issue suggest thatthe described in this study? Perhaps these method- need foreffective ISplanningmightpossiblystim- ulate the need for effective business planning. Methodl/: An Informa- Researchers need to recognizethe importanceof tion Systems Methodology. Special considerationcould be di. This article has examined a number of critical forpractitioners Implications problemsof SISP and has identifiedthe most im- This articleprovidespractitionerswitha compre.

and Rockart. Planning Process. Business.W.1984. "PortfolioApproachto Informa- Arbor. pp."Proceedings Stage Modelof MISPlanning. publica. tion.W. Johnson. Changes the Way You Compete.N." MIS ing Paper Series. A. 245- mationSystems Officer.J. 1986b. 389-400. Free zationStudy. 27-37. C.A. pp.. "StrategicPlanningfor Management mation Systems for CompetitiveAdvantage: InformationSystems. pp.25. "Business InformationCharacteri."DataBase.W.and Mendelow. pp. ment: Final Report.G.1984.1977. Martin.K. Executive Guide to King. December 1986.A."Computerworld. G." Cambridge. L."Information and of the Seventh International Conferenceon In- Management(6:1). 131. formationSystems Planning.F. and Mendelow."1985OpinionSurvey 1982. 1975. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Universityof ArthurAndersenand Co.B. Spring1979. pp. "TheInformation Sys." Datama. 75-89. E.. September 1987.M.Winter1986.M.F. L. F.1986. Prentice-HallInc.1986. pp. 175-186. pp. pp.Fall1983. R.. Scribners. pp. Business Review (62:3).G." Clemons. (59:5).A."Problemsin Planningthe Infor- (10:4). Management (10:10). agement (3:5). 255. InformationSystems PlanningGuide. Strategic Data-PlanningMethodolo- December 1981.StrategicPlanning ArthurAndersen and Co. tems Planningin the ContemporaryEnviron. L. Porter. Applied Imagination. C. 460 MISQuarterly/September1988 This content downloaded from 128. 177-188. December 15." MIS March1978. L. 98-103. CompetitiveAdvantage: Creating Kerner..W. tion Systems.A. "PRISM:InformationSys. 6129. May-June1984."Sloan Manage.1985.103. R. "Evaluatingan Information Systems Strategic InformationPlanning. March1987.C.March-April Planning. Rackoff."Communica. 1193-1201. MIS. pp. pp.A. Strategic Plan- December 1986. W. "TheChangingRoleof the CorporateInfor. "Business InformationAnalysis Lederer. pp. 10. TheChangingShape of Pittsburgh. "StrategicSystems PlanningShifts tions of the ACM(27:12). L.R. V. of CriticalSuccess Factors. Universityof Pittsburgh. "Information and IntegrationTechnique(BIAIT): A New Hori. Inc. Press. pp. and Wetherbe. Review. May12. December1985. Dickinson.. 23-45.S. (49:2)." InformationStrategy: The Executives' Journal(2:2)." Informationand Man. New York. J. Jr. J.N. 12-18."Information and J. pp. York. 97-103.R. Lederer. M."MIS Quarterly(9:3).NJ. R.52 on Wed. pp.J. 17. 3-9.R. Wiseman."Work- in InformationSystems Management. Osborn.264. and Sustaining Superior Performance. document #M0154-04861986."Information MIS Quarterly(11:3)."Informationand Management (4:5). Moskowitz. W. tem as a CompetitiveWeapon.W. pp. September 1985." Working Paper #592. "InformationSystems Planning:A Case BSP. tems Objectives to Business Strategy with Gill. 285-294. "Information Technology tion#GE20-0527-4. and Wetherbe. Summer1984. #86-6230.A.Business Systems Planning. B. Boynton.C. Review (25:1). R.M. 3-14. to Data-OrientedApproach. pp. Graduate School of Business. Systems forSustain.D. Davis. MA. EnglewoodCliffs."Infor- King. "AnAssessment San Diego.and Mendelow. and Zmud. CA. 11. V. Resource Planning:OvercomingDifficultiesin zon. McFarlan. Ann McFarlan. booklet #85.J.. "ConnectingSys- 136."TheImpactof ment Review (25:4).A.StrategicSystems 1971. L. December 15-17. and Soden. 254."Data Base. New York.MI. and Learmonth. L. and Ullrich.and Bartz.E.August1983.I. L. and Putnam. formationSystems. pp.W. Spring1979. L. IdentifyingTop Management's Objectives. "KeyIssues mationSystems: A TheoreticalModel." MIS Quarterly(2:1). pp. 142-150. New Ives." HarvardBusiness Review HollandSystems Corporation.C. Inc.Szypenski. McLean.A. Lederer. "Three InformationSystems Planning.F. "Issues in In- Benjamin. able CompetitiveAdvantage.A. 109-119. John Wileyand Sons. Hartog. Kay. May 1986a. 1986. Parsons.F.A. Carlson. Lederer. of MISManagers:Key Issues..September-October1981.1986c." Sloan Management the Corporate Level. Horing. R. and Herbert.J." Harvard Business Review IBMCorporation.C.E."Information and Management (11:3)." Harvard Index Systems.A. October 1986. 233-238.. the Environmenton the Managementof Infor- Brancheau. "EnterpriseAnalysis.L.1957. gies. ning for MIS. pp. and Mendelow.pp. pp." MIS Quarterly McFarlan. Implementationof a PlanningProcess. "Information Technology:A New "StrategicPlanningof InformationSystems at Competitive Weapon."Paradoxesof Bowman. Lederer.A. mation System.149. December 1984.1985. G. December 1980. 350-361.K. Quarterly(9:4). Graduate School of Quarterly(11:1). pp. 17-27.

1985. C. and several otherjournals.Information Minnesota."Data Base. "IBM'sInformation QualityAnalysis. parison.Ives. Jr.Winter1985.Jr. Review.C. "Determiningan Organization'sIn- Data Needs."Proceedings of the University. R. "AnEvolutionaryNew Logic of Systems Management. 31-53. 1984. 215-229. pp. pp. R. B. computing.S.Universityof Oxford. H. 8. pp. on the measurementof the extentto whichan in- Wetherbe. Universityof areforthcominginINFOR.Sloan Management (26:2). Dow planning. Spring 1986..103." Business InformationControlStudy: A Com- Sloan ManagementReview (25:4).52 on Wed. May1984.B." Sloan Management Review peared inthe MISQuarterly." Computer. formationtechnology applicationprovidescom- ningThroughEnds/MeansAnalysis. M."Systems Planninginthe Infor.H. Systems Planning. and DATABASE. unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. S."JournalofInformation Sys. C.. A. Vacca."IBMSystems Journal(21:1). B. decision support systems. Schwartz.Homewood. His Wiseman. petitiveadvantage.J. 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . His research interests includethe planningand Vacca. systems. CA.and expertsystems.Interfaces. 1986. School of Business at the Universityof Pittsburgh 17. State University. 1982.M."EngagingTop Zachman. 3-16. pp. otherresearchinterestsare informationsystems tion Systems as CompetitiveWeapons. AbouttheAuthors land. 18-31. Rockart.A. "ChiefExecutivesDefineTheirOwn Yadav. "TheThreeDomainsof Information the Universityof Pittsburgh. and Beath.December 10. KatzGraduateSchool of Business at Sinclair." Computerworld.Eng. editorfora newjournal. pp. Using Telecommunications for CompetitiveAdvantage. pp. B. pp.R. Management Review. 265-276. G. "MISPlanning. Winter1987.He is the consulting mationStrategy:TheExecutive'sJournal(3:2).Ledererspent overten years Sullivan. 13-19.149. F. and Crescenzi. March1983. Ledereris an assistant professorat the September 1.fromOhio An OrganizationalView.S.A. Katz Graduate tion Systems. formationRequirements:A State of the ArtSur- March-April 1979. WorkingPaper. of Management at the State Universityof New formationTechnologyand CorporateStrategy: Yorkat Buffalo. Runge. and Davis.He is currentlycompletinghis doctoral Seventh InternationalConferenceon Informa.C. Strategy and Computers:Informa.Oxford. VijaySethi is an assistantprofessorat the School Vitale. F. pp. 1970.M.He earned his M.W. pp. Albert L. in industryin the MISfield. December 15. implementation of management information world. Informationand Management. 3-13. StrategicPlanning Rockart."Linking In.He earnedhis M. "StrategicPlan.. H.J.Hisarticleshave appearedor search Center. "BusinessSystems Planningand Management in Information Technology." Datamation. MISQuarterly/September1988 461 This content downloaded from 128.C. D.IL. Joseph M.D.D." Harvard Business Review.Dr. computerand informationscience and his Ph. 3-20. Spring1983.Journal Sullivan.J. Business Horizons. end-user Jones-lrwin. Redefines StrategicSystems Planning.A."Infor.J.1982. His articleshave ap- mation Age. tems Management (3:2). vey. in industrialand systems engineeringat the Ohio 16.Computersin Personnel.J. San Diego.J."MISRe. dissertation at the Joseph M. "BSP:HowIs ItWorking.