Stages of Growth in Strategic Information Systems Planning (SISP)

AUTHOR: Janice M Bum MA, DMS, MBA, FBCS, MBCS (HK), MHKCS Associate Head of Department Hong Kong Polytechnic Department of Computing

ABSTRACT.
Over the last decade we have seen a rapid increase in recognition of IT and the more integrated role IT has begun to play in the strategy and tactics of a wide range of organisations. Articles on the strategic use of IT have been appearing in the ress since 1984 (McFarlan, 1984, Cash and Kwsynski 1985, Porter and h l a r 1985, Synnott 1987, Johnston and Carrico 1988). Examples which have been cited include Hospital Supply systems; Airline s stems banking systems; international trade networks. The success of tlese ~nformation systems has been attributed to a number of factors which would imply that these organisations have particular strategies f6r ISnT designed to improve compehtive advantage in their industry. An analysis of these strategies shows that a two-layered approach is required which allows organisations to understand where IT can IMPACT on their markets and ALIGN information s stems with their corporate objectives. This, in itself, however, is insuficiently comprehensive as a model for other organisations who wish to emulate such suocesses; individual organisatiws must consider their own organisational culture and sta e of growth in IT usage and from this, derive a contingency framework for SkP. This paper reviews current Strategic Information Systems Planning (SISP) approaches and describes how Organisational theory, using Minaberg's models, and Stage of Growth analysis, related to Nolan can help to acheive an appropriate organisational "HT" for ISnT planning.

1985, 1988Benjamin 1982). As a consequence perhaps, strategic information systems planning (SISP) has been argued to be the singlemost important information systems management issue for the 1990s (Earl 1983, Dickson, Leitheiser, Wetherbe and Nechis 1984, Brancheau and Wetherbe 1987, Galliers 1987). 1.2.The Need for Strategic Information Systems Planning.
The concept of SISP has evolved over the last decade. In 1 9 7 0 ' s the primary objectives of systems the late planning were to improve communication with users, to increase top management support, to better forecast resource requirements and allocate resources, to determine more opportunities for improving the MIS department, and to identify new and higher payback computer applications. (McLean and Soden 1 9 7 7 ) . In become the the 80s an additional objective has development of an organisation wide architecture (Moskowitz 1986) and also the identification of strategic applications (Vitale et al 1 9 8 6 ) . Given that the purpose of SISP is to identify the most appropriate targets for automation and to schedule their implementation, SISP has the potential to make huge contributions to businesses and other organisations. (McFarlan 1984, Lederer and Sethi 1 9 8 8 ) . Effective SISP can help organisations use information systems to reach business goals (Hartog and Herbert 1986) and enable organisations to significantly impact their strategies (Runge 1985). This implies a somewhat dichotomous view of SISP. On one side, SISP refers to the process of identifying a portfolio of computer based applications which will assist an organisation in executing its business plans and realising business goals. This may mean the selection of rather prosaic applications as if from a list that would best fit the current and pmjected needs of the organisation and also entails the definitions of databases and systems to support these applications. Techniques which are commonly used include Business Systems Planning (BSP) and Critical Success Factors (CSF).This assumes that information systems planners and prospective users know their organisation's goals, plans and strategies - an assumption which may be unfounded. On the other side of the dichotomy, SISP can also imply searching for applications with a high impact and the ability to create an advantage over competitors. SISP can help organisations in innovative ways to build barriers against new entrants, change the basis of competition, generate new products, build in switching costs or change the balance of power in

1 . 1 . The Strategic Role of Information Systems.

It is now widely accepted that information systems (IS) can be regarded as a strategic resource in an organisation (Parsons 1983, Benjamin, Rockart, Scott Morton and Wyman 1984, McFarlan 1984, Porter and Miller 1985, Earl 1987, Benjamin and Scott Morton 1988, Johnston and Carrico 1 9 8 8 ) . The opportunities can be classified in 4 areas

- to gain competitive advantage - to improve productivity and performance - to enable new ways of managing and organising - to develop new businesses
This is not to say, however, that all strategic systems provide an organisation with an advantage. As Clemens and Kimbrough (1987) argue a system can be strategically important for different reasons - it can be a source of competitive advantage or it can be a strategic necessity, necessary for the business but widely available in the industry. Furthermore, they believe in an evolutionary theory of strategic development whereby ultimately all strategic systems become strategic necessities. This expanding role of information technology (IT) in business has forced strategic systems planners to change the scope, objectives, style and sources of expertise in planning (Lucas and Turner 1981, Sullivan

0073-1 129/91/0000/0543$01 .OO 0 1991 IEEE

543

supplier relationships (McFarlan 1984). As such SISP promotes innovation and creativity, and may employ idea-generating techniques such as brainstorming, Portfolio Analysis (McFarlan et a1 1983) Value Chain Analysis or the Market Positioning Model porter 1985). The distinction between these two approaches has been recognised by Vitale et ai (1986) who refer to the former as attempting to "ALIGN" MIS objectives with organisation goals and the latter as attempting to "IMPACT" organisational strategies.
2.1. The Impact Strategies.

requirements databases (McKessons), product research and evaluation.

4.

Products and services where IS can give a visibly higher and unique level of customer service and need satisfaction which can be built into the end price education and training, financial and reordering systems, maintenance of products and warranties. Information services can themselves become unique products as spin-offs from the original IS. NICHE POSITIONING. implies products which are tailored more specifically to customer needs. This can be acheived through database market analysis of customer sales profiles for selective advertising or by creating unique services in a market such as the American Airlines "AADVANTAGE PROGRAM" which can only be supported by IS. Information systems themselves as products can be sold with applications or tutorials and specialised information services can be developed: real-estate brokerage systems, home shopping and banking systems, legal research and library systems. Galliers (1985) has extended the list of strategies to 8: competitive

This

Typically, papers which have analysed the application of IT to secure strategic advantage have focussed on one of two complementary models - market positioning and the value-added chain.
2.2. Market positioning model.

The market positioning model (Porter 1980, Millar and Porter 1985) indicates that competitive advantage can be gained by understanding where a firm stands in relation to its suppliers, customers, competition and threat of new entrants or substitution of new products and services - figure 2.1.
2.1.

potential entrants industry competitors

suppliers

---+

buyers

1. Establishing entry bamers 2. Introducing or raising switching costs 3. Differentiating products/services or the company as a whole. 4. Limiting access to distribution channels. 5. Ensuring competitive pricing. 6. Reducing supply costs and easing supply. 7. Increasing cost effectiveness/efficiency. 8. Using the information resource as a product in itself. 2.3. Value-added chain.

substitutes
2.1. COMPETITIVE FORCES as identified by PORTER

From this understanding, three primary strategies emerge: low cost producer product differentiation niche positioning

competitive

LOW COST PRODUCER.

In terms of IT implementation this can be interpreted as "be a lower cost producer". This has a particular implication for manufacturing companies using Just-In-Time (JIT) principles but also for retailers and distributors where inventory must be minimised and response times and rapid access to data become the key to effective demand forecasting. PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION. McFarlan and McKenney (1988) list some strategic contributions which IT can make to this strategy:

The value-added chain (also based on Porter and Millar) breaks the activities of the firm into analysable components which reflect operational and support activities. Each component contributes a value to the final product or service and so if the total value added is exceeded by the market price of the product then a profit results. The value-added chain can be analysed to determine which activities can most influence the organisation's cost of production or its ability to differentiate its uroduct. The inbound lorristics. operations, outbound 'logistics, marketing and sal& and service form the primary activities of the firm and are matched against the support activities of procurement, technology development, human resource management and the corporate infrastructure. Each is said to contribute a value to the final product (or service). These then become the critical elements in the value-added chain and can be used to fashion competitive strategy through focussing on differentiation or low cost of production. This framework is useful since

1.

1.

Products and services where IT is a significant component on-line airline scheduling services, specialised banking and investment services. electronic mail delivery.

it provides a structure which with a little customisation can be applied to any organisation to analyse activities and functions the linkages between the value activities often require and benefit from improved application of IT. It encourages analysis of the wider industry value system of which the organisation is a part and so can search for potential areas of competitive advantage it is simple to understand and opportunities to actual operations relates strategic

2.

2.

Products and services where IS can significantly impact lead times for delivery - Computer Aided Design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems, marketing and financial analysis systems. Products and services where IS can customise a product more specifically to the needs of customers - customer

3.

4. 3.

544

2.4. Portfolio analysis.

2.2.

At this level, portfolio analysis (McFarlan 1983) would be applied to the market and to the organisational product line. The analysis is based on marketing concepts showing four possible strategic areas for product development. The strategic grid follows the possible life cycle of a product. Using these concepts the organisation can plot their market position by product against others in the same industry and so identify where possible strategic opportunities exist. Synott (1987) has expanded this concept to include the Porter model and allows the organisation to develop their strategy over six stages profitability analysis return on capital analysis portfolio analysis of market share against market growth analysis of strategic business units and missions matching information resources to missions matching business strategies to information requirements. In this way, portfolio analysis covers both impact and alignment strategies.
2.5. Summary.

STRATEGIES
I

ORGANISATIONAL MODEL EVALUATION

1 1 1

ALIGNMENT STRATEGIES

_1

- simple - machine bureaucracy - professional bureaucracy - divisionalised bureaucracy - adhocracy

3.1. Alignment strategies.

Sullivan (1988) suggests that planning may be viewed as a rational response to the evolving IS environment. Stages can be viewed as follows:
1. Stage-of-growth management.

Impact strategies are well documented approaches to identify areas where information systems can be developed to secure a competitive advantage. The impact is unlikely to be confined to one organisation and will normally affect the market as a whole. Not all organisations, however, will bear the same impact within the same market. A new young organisation with a simple but dynamic structure will be able to take advantage of very different market conditions compared to a large bureaucracy. It is therefore necessary to develop a contingency framework which will allow the organisation to combine a strategic impact analysis with an alignment model to enable the organisation to fit a model of information systems to its corporate plan. Mintzberg's work on the structure of organisations provides a possible basis for such an approach. Mintzberg (1979) is one of the first organisational theorists to advocate a "get it all together approach". In essence, this is an extension of a contingency approach - structure should reflect the organisation's situation - to suggest that a company can logically configure parameters of organisational design to form a grouping consistent with the overall needs of the organisation. The important implication of his conclusion is that organisations can reflect their situations in accordance with their structural designs just as much as they can select their designs in accordance with their situations. Hence, an organisation may seek out an IMPACT model for IS/IT development if it already has a dynamic entrepreneurial structure but, equally, may consider a realignment of structure and IS/IT policies if an analysis shows that the environment in which it operates has become more stable. The model developed by Mintzberg has five configurations (recently extended to six, 1988) which form a basis for organisational analysis as shown in figure 2.2.

Planning at this stage addressed the key issues involved in managing an unfamiliar business function developing in a mainframe environment. Characteristically, organisations would encounter similar problems and pass through similar stages of growth classified by Anthony (1965) in his seminal work on business planning and control as operations, control and planning. structures, These three categories formed the hierarchy of the organisation, represented by a pyramid - figure 3.1.
3.1.
/\

,,,,&mina

operations transactions In the early stages, most application development efforts occur at the transactional or operational level whilst in later years attention shifts to control and planning applications. The IS planning process was very much a bottom-up approach with operational systems creating the foundation for MIS. Gorry and Scott Morton (1971) used this as a basis to develop their framework for MIS by applying Simon's (1960) classification of decision making across Anthony's hierarchy of management functions. From this, they proposed seven characteristics of information that vary among Anthony's types of decision categories and so provide a framework in an which relates functional activities organisation with the requirements of the information needed to support them. This has become a widely accepted classification and has acted as a basis for more recent classification schemas such as Zmud's (1983) organisationally based IS typology which associates IS types with common organisational functions. This includes:

T.

545

TPS - transaction processing systems which support

procedural activities that do not require choices. IRS - information reporting systems where the focus is on organisational directions and redirections. DSS - decision supporting systems which involve un-structured decision making and a number of choices. Whilst these frameworks have proved popular the relationships are descriptive and summative rather than precisely defined relationships which have been empirically validated.

CSFs are business led rather than technology driven and are often intuitively appealing to senior management but there are considerable short comings in the method if additional analysis does not take place at a political cultural and market level.
All these methods rely on the creation of a model of the IS and its environments as do all other IS planning methods. Whilst each has contributed to making planning more responsive and useful, a more comprehensive approach is called for which can deal with the complexities of IS planning as previously identified.

4 . 1 . SISP Complexity.
Cash, McFarlan and McKenney (1988) suggest that complexity comes in three guises:
1. At

2. Data Architectures.
In the late 60s and 70s the issues changed and the emphasis moved from applications and the computer system to the importance of data as a corporate resource for flexibility and the management of databases. The most popular answer was IBM's Business Systems Planning (BSP) methodology and derivatives which offered topdown analysis of information needs and bottom-up implementation of applications. This aims to build flexible data organisation which permits applications to multiply and change with greater ease but, as a result, it tends to be the interrelation of data classes that dictate developmental processes rather than the business requirements. More recently, this has formed the basis for the development of technology driven long-range planning (Carlson, Gardner and Ruth 1989). TDP is an approach to MIS planning directed by two considerations - strategic alignment and the establishment of a desired future computing environment which can change the overall goals of an organisation. The series of steps merges the traditional and strategic alignment process of BSP with the MIS department's goals objectives and forecast of technological developments. As it stands this can be a very dangerous approach when used in an organisation without a clear understanding of the role which IT can play and can most certainly provoke a "tail wagging the dog" situation. As with most such planning methods, it requires time and understanding but it also demands an organisational environment which can suuuort the approach and where technology is a recog&ed and implicit asset.

any time, IT plays very different strategic roles in companies and this influences the structure and the planning process and its interconnection to the corporate planning process.

2. In any individual year, an organisation will be dealing

with a mix of older and newer technologies, each posing different problems, and complicating the planning task enormously.

3. The nature of the corporate planning process, formality versus informality of organisational decision making and planning, geographic and organisational distance of IT management from senior management - all influence how IT planning can best be done. These issues suggest that, as important as IT planning is, it must be evolutionary and highly individualistic to fit the specific organisation.
The best known example of evolutionary modelling is Nolan's Stage Growth Theory (Nolan, 1973, 1977, 1 9 7 9 ) . The model correlates IS problems with an S-shaped computing growth pattern predicted by an evolutionary teleological mechanism. The in mechanism allows us to predict rises computing costs by relating changes in the operations environment to an organisational learning cuwe describing the ability to control the technology diffusion. The learning curve is traced by changes in 4 growth processes:

IS portfolio type of operations environment nature of the development environment changes in the user environment.
In this way, the model identifies complex interrelationships between organisational learning and technological development and their joint impact on IS problems. This model has been one of the most widely used to develop planning and control strategies to manage IS evolution and is very much an Alignment strategy but also helps to control the implementation at a broader level than most of the Implementation models by adopting a Contingency approach. On its own, it can be argued that the model is too broad to be useful in dealing with specific IS problems and fails to account fully for the complex relationships which exist between all components in the IS context but it can be a powerful tool when combined with other Impact and Alignment models. This implies a more complex model of the planning process as shown in figure 4 . 1 .

3. Critical success factors.

More recently, IS planning has focussed on the needs of managerial and professional workers and, in response, the emphasis has shifted to providing key decision makers with data for analysis of performance. This has been associated with methodologies related to Rockart's (1979) Critical Success Factors (CSF). CSF adopts a top-down approach and chooses reporting options which are most critical to senior and line managers but does not necessarily consider whether such monitoring and control functions are essential to the success of the organisation.

546

4.1.
ALIGNMENT STRATEGIES EVALUATION STRATEGIES

If we extend this model to include the Stage Growth Theory we can hypothesise that different planning styles will be appropriate at certain stages of ISDT development as shown in Figure 4.3. 4.3.

mcdels

Organisational mcdels
(5)

IS model:

stage of growth
1 2 3 4
5

favoured planning style bottom-up multiple top-down top-down/bottom-up inside-out multiple

4.2. Contingency approaches A number of researchers (Earl 1988, Galliers 1987, Boynton and Zmud 1987, Parker and Benson 1989) have recently evaluated existing ISP models with surprisingly similar conclusions:

' 6

1. Organisations are different and so a generic action plan should provide diagnostic steps to fit the planning process to the requirements and circumstances of the specific organisation. In other words, a CONTINGENCY approach is advocated allowing the planner to define the most suitable approach.
2. Organisations generally consist of more than one line of business at different stages of development where the same planning process may not be appropriate. The focus should be on a line of business and not the organisation as a whole and so, in a sense, is bottom-up. 3. Many tools already exist for planning and so a generic planning methodology should not invent new ones but rather identify where existing tools can be applied. In order to satisfy these requirements a contingency framework is proposed which combines the framework illustrated in 4.2 with Earl's Multiple Methodology. Earl specifically challenges the Top-Down and Bottom-Up school to suggest that no single approach is always the best one. His multiple methodology or 3-pronged attack is shown in figure 4.2. 4.2.

Here, we suggest that with lax planning and control, the impetus for information systems development comes from a bottom-up perspective, reactive rather than proactive, although contrary to Nolan's belief - often userdriven (Nolan's theory has to be revised in the light of the personal computer explosion); as control becomes even more lax, we see multiple methodologies gaining acceptance and then, in order to effect cotrol at stage 3, a topdown approach. This is followed by a review of existing systems and a top-downbottom-up approach becomes necessary to effect this. Finally, in the last two stages, we see the need to take an inside-out planning approach to identify new opportunities, but, at the same time to allow multiple methods within the mature framework. The acceptance of different planning approaches for different stages of growth is not new (Earl 1988) but, if this is so, is this style of planning still the most appropriate for an organisation who wishes to change from one stage to another and does it also relate to the stage of growth in the organisational configuration? 4.3. Acheiving the Organisational "FIT". The emphasis in the Nolan approach is to define control mechanisms for the management of change. Similarly, organisational theories emphasise different planning modes, structures and configurations from a view point of change. Not every company needs or wants to change but, if we consider the interrelation of IT and organisational strategy we find three possible approaches
- IT leads the organisation - IT follows organisational strategy - IT and organisational strategy in conflict

In this methodology the first step involves identification and agreement of business objectives for each strategic business unit. The approach is topdown as a formal agreement needs to be reached to match IS investment with business needs. (IMPACr models). Step 2 of the model is generated bottom-up performing an audit on current systems. (ALIGNMENT models). Step 3 is concerned with the innovative use of IT. Each of these three "legs" demand different tools but also each of the three legs is insufficient on its own - the three-pronged attack needs to be an overall framework within the organisation.

Why is there not a fourth - IT and organisational strategy in harmony? We have emphasised this need for "fit" throughout and yet it is now disregarded as an approach. In a constantly changing environment we cannot assume a stable equilibrium between two driving forces for change; the "fit" will be acheived when the organisation changes to meet the challenges brought by an aggressive IT strategy or conversely, when the IT strategy firmly supports the organisational strategy (aggressive or otherwise). Alienation will result when neither supports the other and this reflects the lack of "fit" which we have previously stressed. The important feature is that the organisation can recognise the existing situation and adapt if change is required.

541

If we explore this further by relating Mintzberg to Nolan we can suggest that there are some planning approaches which are appropriate for an organisation who wish to retain their overall structure but to pmgress through stages of DP growth; there are also modes of planning which are more appropriate if an organisation wishes to change its structure by way of innovative or aggressive use of IT; and finally, there are modes of planning which may cause a reactive or, indeed a reactionary development within both the organisation and its IT usage. Figure 4.4 proposes a model framework.
4.4.

part of the organisation is now the technostructure and standardisation of work is the key co-ordinating machanism. In order to acheive this standardisation the emphasis needs to be on existing functional operations. Unfortunately, because of the degree of horizontal and vertical specialisation this is often difficult to co-ordinate in the initial stages of computerisation. The result can be that we have uncontrolled development such that some departments streak ahead with a bottom-up approach, others lag behind with no clear idea of possible developments and the central unit finds itself unable to adopt a standardisation policy because of the disparate approach to development. In order to maintain a stable environment as progression takes place through the 6 stages the machine bureaucracy will rely heavily on a steering committee with topdown planning philosophy. In the later stages, this will have to be modified to a combined top-down/bottom-up approach. The professional bureacracy is where the operating core come into their own as the key part of the organisation and so, for the first time a bottom-up approach can prove effective in the early stages. In a sense it may be the only viable approach since there is normally, extensive horizontal specialisation within this structure and so very different information system development needs. If integrated data based systems are going to be developed, however, the emphasis must go over to a more controlled top-down/bottom-up approach; this often causes a swing within the structure towards machine bureacracy and so we get a mismatch between the IT developments and the desired organisational structure. An alternative change movement may also occur either towards a divisional bureaucracy or adhocracy. This type of change can generally only be effected by an i n s i d e a t approach - often by using an external consultant to review the existing situation and propose a revised structure. Given the complex environment in which the professional bueaucracy survives it is difficult to envisage a sophistocated and integrated information systems development unless an inside-out approach becomes a formal part of the planning process. In the divisionalised form the key co-ordinating mechanism is through standardisation of outputs, but as vertical specialisation exists between divisions a variety of different approaches to planning may be necessary unless (and very unusually) each division is at the same stage of planning and IT growth. To acheive integration (not always necessary or desirable within this structure) a topdown/bottom-up approach will be necessary overall but individual divisions may still have a different planning approach and so a multiple planning approach is required. This structural form has in common with the two previous models a relatively stable environment. If this environment becomes more dynamic then the organisation may change and revert to a simple structure or move towards an adhocracy. The adhocracy is co-ordinated through mutual adjustment and the key part becomes the operating core and/or the support staff. With a great deal of horizontal specialisation and selective decentralisation planning methods are either very

I.itit7-I

Organlsatlon node I

Simple

Yachine Bureau0

Profession Bureaw

Bureauc

--------

plannlw match plannlng mlsmatch

In the model, a simple organisation can develop functional cost reduction applications at stage growth level 1 in an effective manner through top down or bottom up planning reflecting the entrepreneurial style of the strategic apex at that time but can progress through the later stages of IT growth maintaining a topdown approach as this will also therefore reflect the planning mode (coming from the top) and the structural form (controlled from the top), which will be required as the organisation matures in its use of IT. Earlier, we hypothesised that the most appropriate planning mode for stage 1 growth and development was bottom-up; and yet, now we are suggesting that a top-down approach can be equally effective why? In a simple structure, stages 1-3 can be combined since there is not a problem of diffuse and conflicting goals and a centralised control allows clear direction from the top. Typically, too this type of structure is found in the young and small organisation where information systems can be far less complex since there are fewer communication channels and so emphasis will be on functional systems rather than planning and control. It is only, if the organisation outgrows its simple structure that different planning approaches will be necessary. The nature of the new planning process will depend on the desired movement of change - a different method will be appropriate for a move towards a machine bureaucracy rather than a professional bureaucracy or adhocracy. In the machine bureaucracy, we find a very different emphasis which suggests that a bottom-up approach is essential in the early stages. The key

548

sophistocated or not at all. Typically, therefore, a variety of IT developments may be appropriate in the early stages of IT growth and a variety of approaches will hence be relevent. Unfortunately, the formalisation which may be imposed by staged growth in use of IT may cause alienation with the structural model and force this to change into one of the more bureaucratic models with associated planning modes. Figure 4.4 identifies matching strategies and unmatching ones ; this implies that the planning mode which is most easily implementable within a particular structure is not necessarily appropriate at a certain stage of IT development and growth and so IT strategy will not "fit" organisational strategy. The model, therefore, provides us with a basis to show the type of planning tool which a specific organisational configuration should consider if it intends to align the staged development of IT to fit the organisation and also the type of planning tool which should be considered if the organisation wishes to change either its stage of IT development or its organisational configuration.

The proposed model reflects the belief that organisations can make more effective use of IS/IT if they are in a position to make a conscious decision regarding the "best fit" between IS/IT strategy and organisational strategy. This can be acheived by examining the structural configuration and assessing the stage of growth in ISAT and the desired long term strategic direction. A defined strategic direction, however, implies a stable environment and this is where most SISP methods fail since by the implicit nature of IT, stability is an anachronism! The major problem, therefore, becomes one of change management and the need to develop a more comprehensive framework which allows not only for the management of change but also the initiation of change. References.
[l] R.N.

Thus in figure 4.4. we see that an organisation which can be described as a machine bureaucracy would be lagging in its use of IT until it reached stage 3 of IT growth; top down planning would be required to progress through further stages and acheive a "FIT"; top down and bottom up planning would be required if IT was required to take a leading role or if the organisation needed to change to an alternative configuration. Within this framework several other "FITS"can be considered such as the organisation of IT and the physical distribution of IT services. The most important aspect from the organisational point of view is to recognise the role of IT in the management of change and therefore to select a strategy which most clearly reflects the organisational strategy at that point in time.
This framework is not designed to show practitioners "HOW TO" but rather "WITHIN WHAT" their options are. It also tries to show the complexities of SISP and hence the very broad framework which must be adopted to encompass the many options. The stage of growth in DP is to some extent governed by the nature of the organisational model but the approach to SISP is also limited by these two factors.
5

Summary. The last two decades have seen a changing approach to systems planning and also a proliferation of IS planning methods. Many of the methods are specific to particular types of application, environment or organisation and on this, their success or failure rate relies. Confusion exists concerning the appropriateness of any one method for any one situation and the scope of SISP is extremely ill defined. This paper has examined a range of approaches to SISP and described a contingency framework which will allow management to select the most approprate SISP model to fit their organisational environment and to allow for the management of change - essential for any organisation who wish to exploit the use of information technology effectively.

Anthony, "Planning and control systems: A framework for analysis", Harvard University Press, Boston, 1964. [2] R. Benjamin, "Information technolgy in the 19%: A long range planning scenario", MIS Quarterly 6 (2), 1982. [3] R. Benjamin, M.S. Scott Morton, J.F. Rockart, and J. Wyman, "Infomation technology: a strategic opportunity", Sloan Management Review 25 (3), 1984. [4] R. Benjamin, and M.S. Scott Morton, "Information technology, integration, and organisational change", Interfaces 18 (3), 1988. [5] A.C. Boynton and R.W. Zmud, "Information Technology Planning in the 1990's: Directions for Practice and Research", MIS Quarterly, March 1987. [6] J.C. Brancheau, and J.C. Wetherbe, "Key issues in information systems management", MIS Quarterly 11 (l), 1987. Gardner and S.R. Ruth, [7] C.K. Carlson, E.P. "Technology-Driven Long-Range Planning", Journal of Information Systems Management, Summer 1989. [8] J. Cash, and B. Konsynski, "IS redraws competitive boundaries", Harvard Business Review 63 (2), 1985. [9] G.J. Cash, F. McFarlan, and J. McKenney, "Corporate information systems management - the issues facing senior executives", Irwin, Homewood, 1988. [lo] E.K. Clemens, and S.O. Kimbrough, "Information Systems and Business Strategy: A Review of Strategic Necessity". Working paper 87-01-04 Department of Decision Sciences, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1987. 111 G.W. Dickson, R.L. Leitheiser, J.C. Wetherbe, and M. Nechis, "Key information systems issues for the 1980's",MIS Quarterly 8 (3), 1984. 121 M.J. Earl, "Emerging trends in the management of new technologies". In N. Piercy (ed). The management implications of new information technologies. Croon Helm, 1983. 131 M.J. Earl, "Information systems strategy formulation". In R. Boland, and R. Hirscheim (eds), Critical issues in information systems research, North-Holland Amsterdam, 1987. 141 R.D. Galliers, "Information Systems and technology planning in a competitive strategy framework". In P. Griffiths (ed), Information management. State of the art report 14 (7). Pergamon Infotech, maidenhead Berks, 1987. [I51C. Gibson, and R.L. Nolan, "Managing the four stages of l ) , 1974. EDP growth", Harvard Business Review 52 ( [16] G.A. Gorry and M.S. Scott Morton, "A Framework for management Information Systems", Sloan Management Review 13:1, Fall, 1971. [17] C. Hartog, and M. Herbert, "1985 Opinion Survey of MIS managers: Key Issues", MIS Quarterly, December 1986.

549

[181 H.R. Johnston, and S.R. Carrico, "Developing capabilities

to use information strategically", MIS Quarterly, March 1988. [19] A.L. Lederer, and V. Sethi, "The Implementation of Strategic Information Systems Planning Methodologies", MIS Quarterly, September 1988. [20] H. Lucas, and J. Turner, "A corporate strategy for the control of information systems processing", CRIS 28, New York University, 1981. [21]F.W. McFarlan, J.L. McKenney and P. Pyburn, "The information archipelago - plotting a course", Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1983. [22] F.W. McFarlan, "Information technology changes the way you compete", Harvard Business Review 62 (3), 1984. [23] E.R. Mclean, and J.V. Soden, "Strategic Planning", for MIS. J. Wiley and sons NY, 1977. [24] H. Mintzberg, "Power in and around Organisations", Prentice -Hall Inc, 1983. [25] H. Mintzberg, "The Structuring of Organisations", Prentice-Hall Inc, 1973. [26] R. Moskowitz, "Strategic Systems Planning Shifts to Data-Oriented Approach", Computerworld, May 12 1986. [27] R.L. Nolan, "Managing the Crisis in Data Processing", Harvard Business Review 57, 2, 1979. [28]R.L. Nolan, and J.C. Wetherbe, "Towards a comprehensive framework for MIS research", MIS Quarterly 4 (2), 1980. [29] R.L. Nolan, "Managing the advanced stages of computer technology: key research issues", In F.W. McFarlan (ed), The information systems research challenge. Harvard University Press, Boston, 1984. [30] M.M. Parker, and R.J. Benson, "Enterprisewide Information Management: State-of-the-Art Strategic Planning", Journal of Information Systems Management, Summer 1989. [31] M. Porter, and V. Millar, "How information gives you competitive advantage", Harvard Business Review 63 (4), 1985. [32] J.F. Rockart, "Chief Executives Define their own Data Needs", Harvard Business Review, March-April 1979. [33] D. Runge, "Using Telecommunications for competitive advantage", PHd ;hasis Oxford University, 1985. [34]H.A. Simon, The New Science of Management Decisions", Harper and Bros. NY, 1960. [35] C.H. Sullivan jnr, "Systems planning in the information age", Sloan Management Review, Winter 1985. [36] C.H. Sullivan jnr, "The changing approach to systems planning", Journal of Information Systems Management, Summer 1988. [37] W.R. Synnott, "The information weapon", John Wiley & sons Inc, 1987. [38] M.R. Vitale, B. Ives, and C.M. Beath, "Linking Information Technology and Corporate Strategy: an Organisational View." Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, CA Dec 1986. 15-17.

550