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: http://www.jstor.org/stable/249212 .
Accessed: 21/08/2013 11:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Implementation of
Information
Strategic
Systems Planning
Methodologies
By: Albert L. Lederer
Joseph M.KatzGraduate School of
Business
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
VijaySethi
School of Management
State University of New Yorkat Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260
Abstract
Strategicinformationsystems planning(SISP)is
theprocess of deciding the objectives fororgani-
zational computing and identifying potential
computer applications which the organization
should implement. Thisarticlegives a thorough
definitionof SISP and thenillustratesit withthree
methodologies.
A surveyof 80 organizationsexaminedthe prob-
lems faced by informationsystems managers
when they attemptto implementsuch a method-
ology. Thesubjects' overallsatisfactionwiththe
methodology, its resource requirements, pro-
cess, output,and finalexecution were notpartic-
ularlyhigh. Thetwo problems ratedmost severe
were the difficultyin securing top management
commitmentfor implementingthe plan and the
need for substantial furtheranalysis in order to
carryout the plan.
The survey also investigated some potential
causes of the problems. Surveyresults suggest
thatthe SISP methodologies may oftenproduce
satisfactoryplans but thatorganizationslack the
management commitmentand controlmecha-
nisms to ensure thatthey followthe plans.
Keywords: Planning,informationsystems, infor-
mationmanagement
ACMCategories: K.6.0, K.6.4
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
StrategicPlanning
Introduction
Improvedstrategicinformation systems planning
(SISP)is the most criticalissue facinginformation
systems executives today (Brancheau and
Wetherbe,1987). Because the purposeof SISP is
to identifythe most appropriatetargets for au-
tomationand to schedule theirinstallation,SISP
has the potentialto make huge contributionsto
businesses and other organizations(McFarlan,
1971). EffectiveSISP can helporganizationsuse
informationsystems to reach business goals, a
majorobjective of senior IS executives (Hartog
and Herbert,1986). Itcan also enable organiza-
tions to use informationsystems to significantly
impacttheir strategies. However, the failureto
carefullycarryout SISP can resultbothin lost op-
portunities and the waste of expensive IS
resources.
Inorderto performeffectiveSISP, organizations
conventionallyapply one of several methodolo-
gies (ArthurAndersen and Co., 1986; Martin,
1982; Moskowitz, 1986). However, recent re-
search by Ledererand Mendelow (1986a) has
shownthatimplementingsuch a methodologyis a
top problemfaced by systems managers during
SISP. Similarly,in a study of seven companies,
Sinclair (1986) found the implementation of a
planningtechnique to be a majorproblem.The
problemencompasses justifyingthe methodol-
ogy, applyingit,and reviewingits output.To date,
however,there has been no broadstudyto deter-
minethe natureof this problem.
ThisarticledefinesSISP anddescribesthreepop-
ularSISP methodologies.Itelucidatesthe relative
severityof the problemsand examines some fac-
tors potentiallyrelatedto this severity. Finally,it
considerssome similaritiesand differencesinthe
problemsof the three populartechniques.
Background
This section firstdefines SISP. Itthen discusses
frequentlyappliedSISP methodologies. Next, it
presents a categorizationof common problems
encounteredduringthe SISP process. Finally,it
discusses literaturewhichlaysthe groundwork for
an investigationof some factors potentiallyre-
latedto the SISP problems.
SISPdefined
The concept of SISP has evolved over the last
decade. Inthe late 1970s, accordingto McLean
and Soden (1977), the primaryobjectivesof sys-
MISQuarterly/September1988 445
StrategicPlanning
tems planningwere to improvecommunication
withusers, to increase top managementsupport,
to betterforecast resourcerequirementsand allo-
cate resources, to determinemore opportunities
forimprovingthe MISdepartment,and to identify
new and higherpaybackcomputerapplications.
Morerecently,Moskowitz(1986) observes thatan
additionalobjectiveof SISP has become the de-
velopmentof an organization-widedata architec-
ture.Simultaneously,bothVitale,et al. (1986) and
IndexSystems (1986) suggest thatthe identifica-
tionof strategicapplicationshas arisenas another
mainobjectiveof SISP.
This articleadopts a broad,dichotomousview of
SISP. Hence, on one side of the dichotomy,SISP
refers to the process of identifyinga portfolioof
computer-basedapplicationsthatwillassist an or-
ganization in executing its business plans and
consequently realizingits business goals. SISP
also entails the definitionof databases and sys-
tems to support those applications. SISP may
mean the selection of ratherprosaicapplications,
almost as iffroma list,thatwouldbest fitthe cur-
rentand projectedneeds of the organization.This
assumes thatinformationsystems plannersknow
Table 1. Description of BSP Study Steps
GainingExecutive Commitment
Preparingforthe Study
Startingthe Study
DefiningBusiness Processes
Defining Data Classes
AnalyzingCurrentSystems Support
446 MISQuarterly/September1988
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
their organization's goals, plans and strategy;
such an assumptionmay be unfounded(Lederer
and Mendelow,1987).
Onthe otherside of the dichotomy,SISP can also
entail searching for applicationswith a high im-
pact and the abilityto create an advantage over
competitors (Clemens, 1986; Ives and Lear-
month, 1984; McFarlan,1984; Parsons, 1983;
Wiseman, 1985). SISP can help organizations
use informationsystems in innovative ways to
buildbarriersagainst new entrants,change the
basis of competition, generate new products,
buildin switchingcosts, or change the balance of
powerin supplierrelationships(McFarlan,1984).
As such, SISP promotesinnovationandcreativity,
and might employ idea-generating techniques
such as brainstorming (Osborn,1957; Rackoff,et
al., 1985), ValueChainAnalysis(Porter,1985), or
the CustomerResourceLifeCycle(Ivesand Lear-
month,1984). Vitale,et al. (1986) recognizedthe
distinctionbetween the two approaches and re-
ferredto the formeras attemptingto "align"MIS
objectiveswithorganizationalgoals andthe latter
as attemptingto "impact"organizationalstrate-
gies (p. 268).
A top executive sponsor and various other inter-
ested executives are identifiedas the majorsources
of informationto the study.A team leader, perhaps
the sponsor, is identifiedto spend fulltime leading
the studyteam of 4 to 7 executives.
Team members are trainedin BSP. They compile
data on the firm'sbusiness functionsand currentIS
support,and producea workplan,interviewsched-
ule, reviewschedule, and finalreportoutline.
The executivesponsor reviewsthe study'spurpose
withthe team. The team leader reviews the com-
piled business data and the top IS executive ex-
plainsrecentIS activitiesand problemsto the team.
The study team identifiesthe business processes
which formthe basis for executive interviews,the
definitionof the futureinformationarchitecture,and
otherstudyactivities.
Data are grouped into categories called data
classes based on theirrelationshipsto the business
processes identifiedabove. Chartsare builtto re-
flectthose relationships.
The studyteam identifieshow IS currentlysupports
the organization.Theteamdevelops chartsshowing
organizational processes and the responsible
departments.
 StrategicPlanning

To carry out SISP (especially in the alignment
mode),an organizationusuallyselects an existing
methodologyandthen embarkson a major,inten-
sive study.The organizationformscommitteesof
users withISspecialists as membersor advisors.
Itmost likelyuses the SISP vendor'seducational
supportto trainthe committeemembers and the
vendor's consulting support to guide the study
and auditits results.A multi-stepprocedureis car-
riedout over several weeks or months.The dura-
tiongenerallydepends on the scope of the study.
In additionto identifyingthe portfolioof applica-
tions, the organizationprioritizesthem. Itdefines
databases, data elements, and a networkof com-
putersandcommunicationsequipmentto support
the applications.Italso prepares a schedule for
developmentand installation.
Frequentlyappliedmethodologies
Organizationsgenerallyapplyone of a numberof
methodologies in order to performthese SISP
studies. Three popular methodologies include
Business Systems Planning(IBM,1975; Lederer
and Putnam,1986), StrategicSystems Planning
(HollandSystems, 1986), and InformationEngi-
neering(Martin,1982). Theyare describedbriefly
methodologiesandwillbe alludedto
as illustrative
in the research findings.These three were se-
lected because, together,they accountedforhalf
of the responses to the survey.
Business Systems Planning (BSP), developed
by IBM,involvestop-downplanningwithbottom-
up implementation.In this methodology,a firm
recognizes its business mission, objectives and
functions,and how these determineits business
processes. The processes are analyzedfortheir
data needs, and data classes are then identified.
Databases are developed by combiningsimilar
data classes. The final BSP plan describes an
overallinformation system architectureas well as
the installationschedule of individualsystems.
Table 1 detailsthe steps inthe study.

Table 1. (continued)

Determiningthe Executive Perspective Executive interviewsgain the commitmentof addi-

tionalexecutives and helpthe studyteam understand
the problemswhose solutionswillbe representedby
the futuresystems.

DefiningFindingsand Conclusions The study team develops categories of findingsand

conclusions and then classifies previouslyidentified
problemsintothe categories.
Architecture
Definingthe Information The studyteam uses the business processes and the
data classes to design databases. The team prepares
charts relatingthe processes to the classes and the
systems to subsystems.
Priorities
DeterminingArchitectural The team sets systems developmentprioritiesbased
on potentialfinancialand non- financialbenefits, the
likelihoodof success, and the organization'sdemand
foreach system.
Resource Management Thestudyteam evaluatesthe currentISorganization's
ReviewingInformation
strengths and weaknesses. A steering committee is
establishedto set policyand controlthe function.

DevelopingRecommendationsand ActionPlan The team preparesan actionplanwithrecommenda-

tionsabouthardware,software,adjustmentsto current
systems, and methods of strengtheningIS manage-
ment.

ReportingResults Thestudyteam gives a talkalongwitha briefsummary

anda moredetailed(usuallyverythick)reportcoverinc
the study's purpose, methodology,conclusions, rec-
ommendationsand prescribedactions.

MISQuarterly/September1988 447

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
StrategicPlanning
BSP places heavy emphasis on top management
commitmentand executive involvement.Top ex-
ecutive sponsorshipis perceivedas critical.Infor-
mationsystems analysts mightserve primarilyin
an advisorycapacity.The study producessuch a
large volume of informationthat IBMhas begun
marketingan automatedversion called Informa-
tionQualityAnalysis(Vacca, 1984).
Strategic Systems Planning (SSP), developed
by Robert Holland,defines a business function
modelby analyzingmajorfunctionalareas. Adata
architectureis derivedfromthe business function
model by combining informationrequirements
intogeneric data entities and subjectdatabases.
An informationsystems architecturethen identi-
fies new systems andtheirimplementation sched-
ule. Althoughthe language differs slightly, the
steps inthe SSP procedureare similarto those in
BSP.
A majordifferencefromBSP is SSP's automated
storage, manipulation,and presentation of the
data collected duringthe SISP process. Software
produces reportsin a wide range of formatsand
withvarious levels of detail. Forexample, "affin-
ity"reportsshow the frequencies of accesses to
data, while "clustering"reportsgive guidancefor
database design. Menus guide the user through
online data collection and maintenance. A data
dictionaryinterfacefacilitatessharing SSP data
with an existing data dictionaryor other auto-
mateddesign tools.
Inadditionto SSP, HollandSystems Corporation
offersTacticalSystems Planning(TSP)and Logi-
cal Database Design (LDD).TSP is a methodol-
ogy for guiding the implementation of the
informationsystem architecture.LDDis used to
develop data structures for modules from the
study or fromother systems, and then is used to
mapthe structuresto the SSP data architecture.
Information Engineering (IE), developed by
James Martin,provides techniques for building
enterprise models, data models, and process
models.These forma comprehensiveknowledge
base whichthen creates and maintainsinforma-
tion systems. IE is considered by some to be a
more technically oriented approach than other
SISP methodologies.
InconjunctionwithIE,Martinadvocates the use of
CriticalSuccess Factors(CSF)(Rockart,1979), a
technique for identifyingissues considered by
business executives as the most vitalforthe suc-
cess of their organization.Martinsuggests that
each general manager should use CSF. The re-
sultingfactorswillthen guide the SISP endeavor
448 MISQuarterly/September1988
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
by helping identifyfuture management control
systems. (Recentversionsof BSP also use CSF.)
IEprovidesseveral softwarepackages for facili-
tating the SISP effort. However, IE differs from
other methodologies by providing automated
tools to linkits outputto subsequent systems de-
velopmentefforts.An applicationgeneratoris in-
tegrated with IE and produces systems with
COBOLcode.
Othermethodologies
Besides BSP, SSP and IE, firms mightchoose
Method/1(Arthur Andersenand Co., 1982), infor-
mationQualityAnalysis(Vacca, 1984), Business
InformationAnalysis and IntegrationTechnique
(Carlson,1979), Business Information
Character-
ization Study (Kerner, 1979), CSF (Rockart,
1979), Ends/Means Analysis (Wetherbe and
Davis, 1982), Nolan Norton Methodology
(Moskowitz,1986), PortfolioManagement(Mc-
Farlan,1981), StrategySet Transformation
(King,
1978), ValueChainAnalysis(Porter,1985), orthe
Customer Resource Life Cycle (Ives and Lear-
month,1984).
firmsoften select features of these
Alternatively,
methodologies and then, possibly with outside
consulting assistance, develop their own in-
house approach(Arthur Andersenand Co, 1985;
Sullivan,1987).
Table 2 presents four majordistinctionsamong
some methodologies.Itclassifies them as align-
mentor impactapproaches.The table also distin-
guishes them by their primaryfocus. Finally,it
shows whetherthey define a data architecture,
and whetherthey provideautomatedsupport.
Problemswiththemethodologies
Ithas long been recognizedthat SISP is an intri-
cate and complex activityfraughtwith problems
(McFarlan, 1971). Several authors have de-
scribed these problems.Theirworkis based on
fieldsurveys,cases, and conceptualstudies, and
investigatesmostof the methodologiesdescribed
previously.A reviewof the most significantof their
articlesserved as the basis to create a compre-
hensive listof the problems(see Table3).
Inorderto organizeandsummarizethe problems,
this research used three categories-resources,
process, and output.Resource-relatedproblems
addressed the issues of time-requirements,
money, personnel,and top managementsupport
for the initiationof the study. Process-related
 StrategicPlanning

Table 2. 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,1986b). Similarly,as business plan-

done by the methodology.Finally,output-related
problemsdealt withthe comprehensiveness and
appropriatenessof the finalplanproducedby the
methodology. This categorization was derived
froma similarscheme used to definethe different
componentsof IS planning(King,1984).
Table 3 shows the problems from the surveys,
cases and conceptual studies. The problems
have been paraphrased,simplifiedand catego-
rizedintothe framework.
Potentialcausal factors
Unfortunately, very littleis knownaboutthe man-
agerialfactorsthataffectthese problemsindiffer-
ent organizations. Johnson (1984) refers to a
1983 study by the New Yorkconsulting firmof
Cresap, McCormick,and Paget. Itconcludedthe
following:"Althoughcompanies employa variety
of techniques and approaches, success in plan-
ning is surprisinglyunaffectedby such factorsas
industry,size of enterprise, methodology used,
and organizationalarrangement"(p. 97).
ning becomes more sophisticated (and hence
routine),organizationalgoals and strategies are
betterdefined,and the IS plancan thus be more
effectively aligned with business goals (King,
1978).Thus,less severe SISP problemswouldbe
expected in firmswith more sophisticated busi-
ness planning.McLeanandSoden (1977)confirm
that the absence of formal business planning
makes SISP moredifficult.
Participationby IS Departmentin Business
Planning
Top IS executives who participatein strategic
business planning have less difficultyunder-
standingtop management'sobjectives (Lederer
and Mendelow, 1987). They are more experi-
enced in planningand more informedabout the
firm'sgoals. Therefore,theyare less likelyto have
problems guiding or participatingin the SISP
study and in ensuringthat its outputsupportsor-
ganizationalgoals. Hence, their SISP problems
shouldbe less severe.

However,there are some reasons to believe that

certain organizational and managerial factors
mightbe relatedto SISP problems.The following
variablesrepresenta selection (notintendedto be
comprehensive)of such factors, and the text ex-
plainsreasons forexpectingtheireffects.
Sophistication in Business Planning
The complete lack of a business plan can be a
severe impedimentto IS planning(Ledererand
Reporting Relationship of the IS Executive
McFarlan(1971) suggests thatfirmsin whichthe
top ISexecutivereportsto a higherlevel business
executive place moreemphasis on planning,use
IS resources more effectively,and have greater
planningability.These firmscouldmoreeasily ini-
tiate a study, acquire its resources, and imple-
mentits output.Thus,they shouldencounterless
severe SISP problems.

MISQuarterly/September1988 449

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
StrategicPlanning

Table 3. The Problems

Problem Problem Statement Source
Code
Resources for Implementingthe Methodology
R1 The size of the planningteam is very large. Vacca, 1983
R2 Itis difficultto finda team leaderwho meets the criteriaspecified Vacca, 1983
by the methodology.
R3 Itis difficultto findteam memberswho meet the criteriaspecified Vacca, 1983
by the methodology.
R4 The success of the methodologyis greatlydependenton the team Zachman,1982
leader.
R5 Manysupportpersonnelare requiredfordata gatheringand Rockart,1979
analysis duringthe study.
R6 The planningexercise takes very long. Bowman,et al., 1983
R7 The planningexercise is veryexpensive. Moskowitz,1986
R8 The documentationdoes notadequatelydescribethe steps that Zachman,1982
should be followedforimplementingthe methodology.
R9 The methodologylacks sufficientcomputersupport. Zachman,1982
R10 Adequateexternalconsultantsupportis notavailablefor Zachman,1982
implementingthe methodology.
R11 The methodologyis not based on any theoreticalframework. Zachman,1982
R12 The planninghorizonconsideredby the methodologyis McLeanand Soden,
inappropriate. 1977
R13 Itis difficultto convincetop managementto approvethe Vacca, 1983
methodology.
R14 The methodologymakes inappropriate assumptionsabout Yadav,1983
organizationstructure.
R15 The methodologymakes inappropriate assumptionsabout Yadav,1983
organizationsize.
Planning Process Specified by the Methodology
P1 The methodologyfailsto take intoaccountorganizational King,1978
goals and strategies.
P2 The methodologyfailsto assess the currentinformation Schwartz,1970
systems applicationsportfolio.
P3 The methodologyfailsto analyzethe currentstrengthsand King,1984
weaknesses of the IS department.
P4 The methodologyfailsto take intoaccountlegal and King,1984
environmentalissues.
P5 The methodologyfailsto assess the externaltechnological King,1984
environment.
P6 The methodologyfailsto assess the organization'scompetitive King,1984
environment.
P7 The methodologyfailsto take intoaccountissues relatedto Zachman,1982
planimplementation.
P8 The methodologyfailsto take intoaccountchanges inthe
organizationduringSISP.
P9 The methodologydoes not sufficientlyinvolveusers. Kay,et al., 1980
P10 Managersfinditdifficultto answerquestions specifiedby Boyntonand Zmud,
the methodology. 1984
P11 The methodologyrequirestoo muchtop management Bowman,et al., 1983
involvement.
P12 The methodologyrequirestoo muchuser involvement. Boyntonand Zmud,
1984
P13 The planningprocedureis rigid. Zachman,1982
P14 The methodologydoes not sufficientlyinvolvetop Kay,et al., 1980
management.

450 MISQuarterly/September1988

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 StrategicPlanning

Table 3. (continued)
Outputof the Planning Methodology
01 SISP outputfailsto providea statementof organizational McLeanand Soden,
objectivesforthe IS department. 1977
02 SISP outputfails to designate specificnew steeringcommittees.
03 SISP outputfailsto identifyspecificnew projects. McLeanand Soden,
1977
04 SISP outputfails to determinea uniformbasis forprioritizing King,1978
projects.
05 SISP outputfailsto determinean overalldata architecture Zachman,1982
forthe organization.
06 SISP outputfailsto provideprioritiesfordevelopingspecific Zachman,1982
databases.
07 SISP outputfails to sufficientlyaddress the need forData Sullivan,1985
Administration inthe organization.
08 SISP outputfailsto includean overallorganizationalhardware McLeanand Soden,
plan. 1977
09 SISP outputfails to includean overallorganizationaldata Sullivan,1985
communicationsplan.
010 SISP outputfails to outlinechanges inthe reportingrelationships
inthe IS department.
011 SISP outputfails to includean overallpersonneland training McLeanand Soden,
planforthe IS department. 1977
012 SISP outputfails to includean overallfinancialplanforthe McLeanand Soden,
IS department. 1977
013 SISP outputfailsto sufficientlyaddress the roleof a King,1984
permanentIS planninggroup.
014 The outputplans are notflexibleenough to take intoaccount McLeanand Soden,
unanticipatedchanges inthe organizationand its environment. 1977
015 The outputis not in accordancewiththe expectationsof top Gill,1981
management.
016 Implementingthe projectsand the data architectureidentified Zachman,1982
inthe SISP outputrequiressubstantialfurtheranalysis.
017 Itis difficultto secure top managementcommitmentfor Gill,1981
implementingthe plan.
018 The experiences fromimplementingthe methodologyare not Zachman,1982
sufficientlytransferableacross divisions.
019 The finaloutputdocumentis notveryuseful. King,1984
020 The SISP outputdoes notcaptureallthe information that Gill,1981
was developed duringthe study.

Initiatorof the SISP Study such as technologymanagement,the use of data

Top managementinvolvementin SISP has been
emphasized (IBMCorporation, 1975; Martin,
1982; Rockartand Crescenzi, 1984). Thus, top
managementinitiationof the study should reflect
the commitmentand involvementthat IS execu-
tives seek, and less severe SISP problemswould
then be anticipated.
Scope of the SISP Study
The scope of the SISP study refersto the organi-
zational unit under investigation.A study might
coverthe entireorganization,a division,ormerely
a particularfunctionalarea. SISP at the corporate
level must address additional complex issues
communications,and data architecture(Kay,et
al., 1980; Sullivan,1985). Thus, a broad,corpo-
rate scope may be associated withmore severe
problems.
Planning Horizon
The planninghorizonrefersto the planningperiod
covered by the study. Effectiveusers of informa-
tion resources employsuch horizons(McFarlan,
1971). IS planninghorizons vary depending on
business planninghorizons,managementstyle,
and other organizationalfactors (Martin,1982).
Because the use of a planninghorizonmightforce
the studyteam to be moredetailedin its analysis
and to develop a schedule, less severe problems

MISQuarterly/September1988 451

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
StrategicPlanning
mayoccurinstudies thatconsidera specificplan-
ninghorizon.
Organization Ownership
McLean and Soden (1977) had expected but
failedto finda relationshipin the SISP character-
istics of publiclyand privatelyheld companies.
Their study showed that in publiclyheld firms,
planning is more dependent on external con-
straints.Therefore,SISP problemswouldlikelybe
moresevere.
Methodology
The survey instrumentwas a three-partquestion-
naire. Inthe firstpart,respondents identifiedthe
methodologythatthey had used. Theyalso identi-
fiedthe extent to whichthey had encounteredthe
aforementionedproblems. Subjects rated each
problemon a scale of one to five, where
1 = not a problem
2 = an insignificant problem
3 = a minor problem
4 = a major problem
5 = an extreme problem
Thisscale has been used insimilarpreviousstud-
ies (McLeanand Soden, 1977).
The second partof the instrumentincludedques-
tionsrelatedto the implementationof plans.Inthis
section, respondentsindicatedthe extentto which
differentoutputs of the plan had been affected.
ThisfollowsKing's(1984) recommendationthata
criterionfor evaluatinga planningsystem is the
extent to whichthe finalplan actuallyguides the
strategicdirectionof the ISfunction.
In the second part,the subjects also answered
scaled questions abouttheirsatisfactionwithvari-
ous aspects of the SISP experienceand aboutthe
reasons for any deviation from the final SISP
recommendations.
The thirdpartof the surveycontaineda numberof
questions related to respondent and organiza-
tionalcharacteristics.These were adapted from
Mcleanand Soden (1977).
Two experienced strategic IS planners pilot-
tested the questionnaire. One planner,with 21
years of ISexperience,is currentlyresponsiblefor
SISP at a large regionalgrocery chain and was
previouslyone of the top plannersat a Fortune50
internationalpetroleum corporation.The other
planner,withnearly30 years of IS experience, is
currentlyan independentconsultantin the SISP
area. The pilottest broughtout three additional
452 MISQuarterly/September1988
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
problemsthat were incorporatedinto the ques-
tionnaire. They appear in Table 3 without
references.
The revised questionnaire was then mailed to
membersof the StrategicData PlanningInstitute
andto the firmsinVacca's (1983) study.A totalof
251 organizations received the questionnaire.
Three weeks after the first mailing, reminders
were sent to those who had notyet responded.
Results
This section initiallydiscusses some characteris-
tics of the respondents.Itthen examines the find-
ings aboutthe problemsof implementingan SISP
methodology.Next, it focuses on a particulardi-
mensionof the problemsand considers the orga-
nizational and managerial factors potentially
relatedto the problems.Finally,it compares fre-
quentlyused methodologies.
of therespondents
Characteristics
One hundredsixty-threefirmsreturnedthe com-
pleted surveyfor a response rate of 65%. Eighty
(or32%)of these firmshad alreadyparticipatedin
an SISP study and thus provided usable data.
Thiswas a highrateconsideringthatthe question-
naire was eight pages long and fairlycomplex.
The rate attests to the fact that the respondents
foundthistopicto be important.
Althoughallof the 80 SISP participantshad either
completedor were completingan ongoing SISP
study,theirdemographicprofilesdiffered.Table4
shows that the respondents were, in general,
highlyexperienced professionalswith exposure
to morethanone employerandthatthey currently
workedfor mediumand large firms.Table 4 also
shows thatBSP, SSP and IEaccountedfor50%of
the methodologiesused by the participants.
Extentofproblemsof SISP
methodologies
Table5 shows a rankingof the problemsof adopt-
ing an SISP methodology.Inthe questionnaire,
subjects had ratedthe problemslisted in Table 3
as extreme, major,minor,insignificant,or not a
problemat all. The "Extremeor MajorProblem"
columninthe table shows the percentageof sub-
jects ratingthe problemas such;the "MinorProb-
lem"columndisplaysthe analogous percentage.
As Table5 shows, the most severe problemis the
failureto secure topmanagementcommitmentfor
 StrategicPlanning

Table 4. Characteristics of Respondents sufficientresources. 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. Alterna-
Manager 36% tively,itmaybe thatthe methodologiesmakepoor
Supervisor/GroupLeader 6% use of the resources allocatedto the study. Re-
Analyst/DataAdministrator 9% gardless, in the view of the respondents,the lack
Consultant 6% of resources appears to play a very significant
Other 15% role.
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), the respondents' average ratingfor
Government 8% overall satisfaction withthe SISP methodology
Retail 5% was 3.55, wherea neutralscore wouldhave been
Other/NotAvailable 38% 3.00. Satisfactionscores for the differentdimen-
sions of SISP were also slightlyfavorable.Satis-
Scope of Studies factionwiththe SISP process was 3.68, withthe
EntireEnterprise 44%
40% SISP outputwas 3.38, andwiththe SISP resource
Division
FunctionalArea 10% requirementswas 3.02. Giventhe evidence inthe
NotAvailable 6% previoussubsection,it is notsurprisingthatsatis-
faction withthe SISP resource requirementsis
Numberof Employees less thansatisfactionwiththe process andoutput.
Fewerthan 1,000 23%
1,000 to 10,000 42% However,satisfactionwithcarryingoutfinalSISP
Morethan 10,000 32% planswas muchlower(2.53); in fact, only32%of
Notavailable 3% the respondents were satisfied while 53% were
Numberof IS Employees dissatisfied. Table 6 summarizes the respon-
Fewerthan 100 36% dents' satisfaction with these aspects of the
100 to 500 55% SISP.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 average planning
Method/1 9% horizonof the SISP studies was 3.73 years, while
CriticalSuccess Factors 4% an average of 2.1 years had passed since the
NolanNorton 3% studies' completion;thus, 56% of the planning
In-house 14% horizonshad elapsed. However,out of an aver-
Others 16% age of 23.4 projects recommended in the SISP
NotAvailable 5% studies, only5.7 (24%)had been initiated.There-
fore,itappearsthatfirmsmayhave been failingto
initiateprojectsas rapidlyas necessary inorderto
carrying out the final plan. The second most completethemduringthe planninghorizon.Italso
severe problemis the requirementforsubstantial
furtheranalysis afterthe completionof the SISP appears that there may have been insufficient
projectstart-upsin orderto realizethe plan.
study. Furthermore,despite the fact that those
two problemsare output-related,it is interesting Theauthorsoffernoassertionsabouttheabsoluteval-
to note that six of the eight remaining top ten ues ofthesatisfactionratings.However,afterexamin-
problemsare resource-related.Thus, it mightbe ingthem,one universityprofessornotedthatif his
argued that the difficultyof securing top man- students'ratingsofhisclassroominstruction
remained
agement commitment to carry out the plan consistentlyat these levels,he wouldeventuallybe
(rankedfirst)is associated withthe approvalof in- firedforincompetentteaching!

MIS Quarterly/September 1988 453

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
StrategicPlanning

Table 5. 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 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Table 6. OverallSatisfaction
Average
The Methodology 3.55
The Resources Required 3.02
The Methodology'sProcess 3.68
The Methodology'sOutput 3.38
CarryingOutthe Plan 2.53
At the same time, organizations had begun
projectswhich were not partof their SISP plan.
These constituted about 38% of all projects ini-
tiated after the study. Finally, in organizations
where the SISP had recommended changes in
the IS department, only 50% of these changes
had been carriedout.
These data suggest thatthe respondentsdid not
execute theirfinalplans very scrupulously.They
raise questions about the resemblance between
the systems envisionedbythe planninggroupand
theirfinalimplementations.One mightalso spec-
ulatethatthe methodologieshave failedto gener-
ate useful ideas which organizationscould then
translateinto implementablecomputersystems.
Giventheirgreat expense and timeconsumption,
such findingsseriouslychallenge the utilityof the
planning methodologies represented in this
study.
However,the findingsare not necessarilysurpris-
ing. They confirmthe workof Runge (1985) who
studiedsuccessfully implementedstrategicinfor-
mation systems. In 80% of his cases, existing
SISP procedures were either purposelycircum-
vented or ignored.Runge attributedthe success-
ful implementationof these systems, not to SISP
methodologies, but largely to "productchampi-
ons," i.e., top general business executives who
secured the necessary resources, overcame re-
sistance to approval and development, and
actively promoted the systems during
implementation.
Potentialcausal factorsaffecting
extentof problems
Table7 identifiesthe previouslydiscussed organi-
zational and managerial factors potentiallyre-
lated to the severity of the SISP problems. It
shows the mean ratingsof the problemsfromthe
resources, process, and outputcategoriesandfor
all 49 (i.e., overall) problems. For example, the
2.38 in row 1, column 1 refers to the average
severityof the 15 resource problems(inTable3)
for subjects who stated that theirbusiness plan-
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
StrategicPlanning
Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied
54% 23% 23%
38% 24% 38%
48% 17% 25%
55% 17% 28%
32% 15% 53%
ning was financial/tacticalratherthan strategic.
Analysisof variancetested the differencein the
mean scores underalternativesfor each factor.
Thus,Table7 shows the levels of statisticalsignif-
icance forthe alternativewithmore severe prob-
lems. (The relativelylow mean scores reflectthat
some of the problems are considerably less
severe thanothers.)
The followingsubsections discuss the problem
factors.The headings reflectthe study'sfindings
based strictlyon the alternativewith the lower
mean score. The subsequent discussion further
considersthe strengthof the findings;cautiousin-
terpretationof the non-significantdifferences is
suggested.
Factor 1: Organizations with less sophistica-
tion in business planning had more
severe problems than more sophis-
ticated organizations.
Organizationsthat characterizedtheir business
planningas financialor tacticalhad significantly
more severe problems than organizations that
characterizedtheirbusiness planningas strate-
gic. The effectwas significantforratingsinallfour
categories. It is not surprisingthat a general so-
phisticationinsettinggoals andobjectivesperme-
ates the SISP activities. In such sophisticated
organizations, IS executives have less trouble
justifyingresources,carryingoutthe process, and
analyzingthe output.
Factor 2: Organizations with less participa-
tion by the IS department in busi-
ness planning had more severe
problems than organizations with
greater participation.
Althoughthe differenceswere notstatisticallysig-
nificantin any category,this effect held in allfour.
The directionof the effect suggests the impor-
tance of such participation.Participationin strat-
egy formulationenables the IS department to
betterunderstandtop management'sobjectives
and thus,to ensure thatthe SISP outputssupport
theirgoals.
MISQuarterly/September1988 455
StrategicPlanning

Factor 3: Organizations where the top IS ex-
ecutive reported to a controller had
more severe problems than organi-
zations where the top IS executive
reported to a president or vice
president.
This effect was statisticallysignificantfor all four
categories. Itparallelsthe findingsof Benjamin,et
al. (1985) who observedthatchiefinformation offi-
cers in leading-edgecompanies frequentlyreport
to an area otherthanfinance. Morehighlyplaced
IS executives can more easily initiate,carryout,
and analyze SISP exercises. Also,the primarily fi-
nancial orientationof the controllermay not en-
hance the IS Department'spositionor contribute
to its SISP skills.The reportingrelationshipmight
merelyreflectmore archaicorganizations.
importantbecause top IS
Thisresultis particularly
executives frequentlyreportto a controller.Arthur
Andersenand Co. (1986) recentlyfoundthat32%
of the top informationexecutives surveyed re-
portedto a senior-levelfinancialofficer.
Factor 4: Organizations where top manage-
ment initiated the study had more
severe problems than organiza-
tions where IS management
initiated it.
Thisfindingwas surprising.Althoughdifferences
in ratingswere not statisticallysignificant,the ef-
fect was uniformacross all fourcategories. The
findingsuggests thatalthoughISexecutives seek
top managementinvolvement,they stillpreferto
maintaincontrol.Topmanagement-initiated SISP
studies maylikelybe the resultof displeasurewith
the performanceof IS management.IS manage-
ment-initiatedSISP studies probablypermitIS
managementto exercise moreinfluenceover the
SISP study.However,the findingmightsimplybe
to the fact thatthe respondentswere
attributable
IS executives.

Table 7. Factors Related to SISP Problems

MeanSeverity of Problems
Category Resources Process Output Overall
1. OrganizationalUnit'sDegree of
Sophisticationin Business Planning
Financial/Tactical 2.38** 2.13*** 2.46*** 2.34***
Strategic 1.87 1.55 1.91 1.80
2. Participationby IS Department
in Business Planning
Does Not Participate 2.38 2.13 2.45 2.34
Participates 2.26 1.98 2.30 2.20
3. To WhomDoes the Top IS
ExecutiveReport
Controller 2.69*** 2.55*** 2.66** 2.59**
President/VP 2.10 1.82 2.28 2.14
4. Initiatorof the SISP Study
Top Management 2.33 2.16 2.39 2.31
IS/OtherManagement 2.27 1.95 2.32 2.20
5. Scope of the SISP Study
Division/Function 2.43* 2.04 2.33 2.28
Enterprise 2.09 1.94 2.35 2.16
6. Considerationof Specific Planning
HorizonBy the SISP Study
No PlanningHorizon 2.58* 2.29 2.53 2.47*
HorizonSpecified 2.20 1.94 2.28 2.16
7. OrganizationOwnership
PubliclyOwned 2.39 2.20 2.40 2.31
PrivatelyOwned 2.08 1.87 2.21 2.07
* Refersto the .10 level of significance. ***Refersto the .01 level of significance.
**Refers to the .05 level of significance.

456 MISQuarterly/September1988

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Factor 5: SISP studies with a division or func-
tion as their scope had more severe
problems than studies with the en-
tire enterprise as their scope.
Again,the finding,althoughveryweak, is surpris-
ing. Studies of divisionsand functionshad signifi-
cantly more severe resource problems than
studies of entireenterprises.The same effect, al-
thoughnotstatisticallysignificant,was trueforthe
process and overall categories. For the output
category,the ratingswere nearlyequal (although
inthe opposite directionas the others).The impli-
cationof this findingis thatthe broadand general
recommendations of the methodologies might
simplybe bettersuited to the definitionof data ar-
chitecturesof broaderscopes.
Factor 6: When the SISP study failed to spec-
ify a planning horizon, problems
were more severe than when it did
specify a planning horizon.
The effect of thisfindingwas consistentacross all
four categories and was significant for the re-
sources and overallcategories. Its implicationis
fairlystraightforward- a planninghorizonis a
controlmechanism. Itdemands that a schedule
be drawnup and followed.Itforces planningpar-
ticipantsto confrontand resolveproblemsinorder
to meet their milestones. This findingsuggests
thatthe importanceof a planninghorizonhas not
diminishedeven though increasingenvironmen-
tal volatilityhas made its use more difficult(Led-
ererand Mendelow,1986c; Sullivan,1987).
Factor 7: Publicly-owned organizations had
more severe problems than pri-
vately-owned organizations.
Althoughthe effect was consistentforallfourcat-
egories, none of the differenceswere significant.
Still,the implicationmightbe that publicly-owned
firmsare generally more bureaucraticand more
subject to externalpressures than privately-held
organizations, possibly because it is easier to
controlplanningin a privately-heldfirm.Thus, IS
departmentsin publiccompanieswouldfindmore
difficultyin obtaining resources, executing the
process, and analyzingthe output.
Theproblemsof specific SISP
methodologies
The top ten problemsof the fourmost frequently
used SISP methodologiesappearinTable8. De-
spite the common belief that one of BSP's major
strengthsis its detaileddocumentation(Bowman,
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
StrategicPlanning
et al., 1983; Zachman,1982), BSP's top problem
is thatits documentationdoes not adequatelyde-
scribethe steps to follow.The top problemof SSP
and IE is the difficultyof obtainingtop manage-
mentcommitmentforimplementingthe plan,per-
haps because these methodologies (and their
vendors)are less well-knownto top management
than IBM.Itmay also be due to theirmore recent
origin.The majorproblemof in-house-developed
methodologiesis theirlackof sufficientcomputer
support;this is notsurprisingwhen one considers
the expense of developingsuch supportand the
likelihoodthata firmwoulddo so.
Table 8 also shows some other potentialdiffer-
ences amongthe methodologies.Lackof a train-
ing plan and the lengthydurationof the planning
exercise are two problemsin SSP's and IE'stop
ten thatare notinBSP'stopten. Inadequatedocu-
mentation,lackof computersupport,and depen-
dence on a team leader are three problems in
BSP's top ten that are not in SSP's and IE'stop
ten.
Amongthe top ten problemsof the fourmethod-
ologies, three are common to all four.These in-
clude the difficultyin obtainingtop management
commitmentforimplementingthe outputs,the re-
quirementforsubstantialfurtheranalysis,and the
difficultyfindinga good team leader. Infact, most
of the top ten problemsof each methodologyare
relatedto carryingout the plan and the planning
team;this findingaccents the underlyingsimilari-
ties amongthe methodologies.
These similarities and differences might offer
some preliminaryguidance to firmsselecting or
developingan SISP methodology.However,due
to smallsample sizes (17, 11, 12, and 11, respec-
tively,forthe fourmethodologiesinTable8), cau-
of thistable is suggested.
tious interpretation
Summaryand Conclusion
ImprovedSISP is a majorchallengefacing IS ex-
ecutives today. Effectiveplanningis essential to
the realizationof the potentialstrategicimpactof
computer-basedinformation systems. Thisarticle
has examined the difficultiesof implementinga
methodologyto performSISP.
The results suggest that IS planners are not
particularlysatisfied with their methodologies.
Planningrequirestoo manyresources.Top man-
agement commitment is not easily obtained.
Whenthe SISP exercise is complete,furtheranal-
ysis is requiredbefore the execution of the plan
MISQuarterly/September1988 457
StrategicPlanning

Table 8. 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. Consequently, carryingout the
planis often not very extensive.
The final plan might be a good plan. However,
management commitmentto the plan might be
missing or the means of controllingits execution
mightbe ineffective.
Therefore,ifthe objectiveof the SISP exercise is
to alignISobjectiveswithbusiness goals (as is the
primaryobjective of most of the methodologies
used by participantsin this study),then detailed,
lengthy and complex SISP may be of limited
value. Alternatively,
the objectiveof an SISP ex-
ercise can be to use informationtechnology to

458 MISQuarterly/September1988

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

impacta business strategy;however,the method-
ologies in this study may not generate the useful
ideas to fulfillthatpurpose.
forpractitioners
Implications
This articleprovidespractitionerswitha compre-
hensive list of the potential problems of imple-
mentingan SISP methodology.Practitionerscan
examine the problemsand attemptto anticipate
themwithintheirown organizations.Practitioners
can develop strategies for circumventing the
problems.Table3 can serve as a comprehensive
checklistfordiscussion and debate. Table5 incor-
porates evidence about the relativeconcerns of
the variousproblemsin otherorganizations.
Practitionersmightalso consider the managerial
and organizationalissues investigatedinthisarti-
cle and theirpotentialeffect on SISP intheirfirms.
The two most significantissues are the top IS ex-
ecutive's reportingrelationshipand the organiza-
tion's business planning sophistication. The
findingsrelatingto the firstissue add strengthto
the positionof any ISdirectorswho are attempting
to convince managementthatthey should report
to a president ratherthan a controller.The find-
ings relatingto the second issue suggest thatthe
need foreffective ISplanningmightpossiblystim-
ulate the need for effective business planning;
such a notion was proposed in Lederer and
Mendelow(1986b).
Practitionersmightalso pay particularattentionto
methods of attenuatingthe potential,detrimental
effects of some of the unavoidablefactors (such
as publicownershipor top managementinitiation
of the study). Special considerationcould be di-
rected to the IS management's use of rewards
and sanctions to controlthe executionof the final
plans.
Thus the practitionermightask: Howin my com-
panywillIsecure genuine top managementcom-
mitment?HowwillI develop a planthatdoes not
requireextensive furtheranalysis?HowwillIiden-
tify a team leader with excellent business skills
and sufficientIS savvy? Whatcan I offerto man-
agement to convince them to authorizesufficient
SISP resources?
How will I avoid developing a thickand detailed
plan that ultimatelysits on my shelf and collects
dust?
forresearchers
Implications
Researchers need to recognizethe importanceof
SISP and investigateit. Ithas reached the top of
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
StrategicPlanning
several practitionersurveys and therefore de-
serves the attentionof IS researchers.Thisstudy
lays the foundationforfurtherworkin the area.
This article has examined a number of critical
problemsof SISP and has identifiedthe most im-
portant ones. In doing so, it has prepared re-
searchers to studythe relationshipsbetween the
problems. For example, under what circum-
stances mightspecific resourceproblemslead to
specific process problems?Likewise,how might
specific resource problems and process prob-
lems be relatedto specificoutputproblems?
The investigationof a smallnumberof factorspo-
tentiallyassociated with the problems of SISP
methodologyimplementation was reportedinthis
article.The resultssuggest thatit mightbe fruitful
to develop a comprehensive model and test a
widervarietyof such factors.Usingthis model,re-
searchers mightask: Underwhat circumstances
woulda firmbest choose one methodologyor an-
other?Howwoulda firmcullfeaturesfromthe var-
ious techniques in order to assemble its own
in-housemethodology?
The articlepromptsone finalresearch question:
Whatare the alternativesto the methodologies
described in this study? Perhaps these method-
ologies requiretoo much detail in theirbusiness
analysisanddatabase design. Itmaybe too much
to expect thata committeechargedwithdetailed
business analysis and database design could
generate strategicvisions aboutsystems forcre-
atinga competitiveadvantage.Itmaybe too much
to expect thatthe combinationof the strategicap-
plicationidentificationphase and the data archi-
tecture development activity, without product
champions for each, can produce valuable re-
sults. Perhaps because they use extensive re-
sources, provide limited results, and raise
expectations for projects that might never be
implemented, the methodologies are actually
hazardous to their users' health. Perhaps re-
searchers should search forcompletelynew and
innovativealternativesforperformingSISP.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge their appreciationto
PremkumarGopalaswamyand T.N. Menon,who
contributedto the earlyphases of this research.
References
ArthurAndersenand Co. Methodl/: An Informa-
tion Systems Methodology, Subject File
AA4665,Item57, 1982.
MISQuarterly/September1988 459
StrategicPlanning
ArthurAndersen and Co. Executive Guide to
Strategic InformationPlanning, booklet #85-
6129,1985.
ArthurAndersenand Co. TheChangingShape of
MIS, #86-6230, 1986.
Benjamin, R.I., Dickinson, C., Jr. and Rockart,
J.F. "TheChangingRoleof the CorporateInfor-
mationSystems Officer,"MIS Quarterly(9:3),
September 1985, pp. 177-188.
Bowman,B., Davis, G. and Wetherbe,J. "Three
Stage Modelof MISPlanning,"Information and
Management(6:1),August1983, pp. 11- 25.
Boynton,A. C. and Zmud,R. W. "AnAssessment
of CriticalSuccess Factors,"Sloan Manage-
ment Review (25:4), Summer1984, pp. 17-27.
Brancheau,J.C. and Wetherbe,J.C. "KeyIssues
in InformationSystems Management," MIS
Quarterly(11:1), March1987, pp. 23-45.
Carlson, W. M. "Business InformationAnalysis
and IntegrationTechnique(BIAIT): A New Hori-
zon,"Data Base, Spring1979, pp. 3-9.
Clemons, E.K."Information
Systems forSustain-
able CompetitiveAdvantage,"Information and
Management (11:3), October 1986, pp. 131-
136.
Gill,S. "InformationSystems Planning:A Case
Review,"Informationand Management (4:5),
December 1981, pp. 233-238.
Hartog,C. and Herbert,M."1985OpinionSurvey
of MISManagers:Key Issues," MIS Quarterly
(10:4), December 1986, pp. 350-361.
HollandSystems Corporation.StrategicSystems
Planning, document #M0154-04861986, Ann
Arbor,MI,1986.
IBMCorporation.Business Systems Planning-
InformationSystems PlanningGuide, publica-
tion#GE20-0527-4, 1975.
Index Systems, Inc. "PRISM:InformationSys-
tems Planningin the ContemporaryEnviron-
ment: Final Report," Cambridge, MA,
December 1986.
Ives, B. and Learmonth,G. "TheInformation Sys-
tem as a CompetitiveWeapon,"Communica-
tions of the ACM(27:12), December 1984, pp.
1193-1201.
Johnson, J. R. "EnterpriseAnalysis," Datama-
tion, December 15,1984, pp. 97-103.
Kay,R.M.,Szypenski,N., Horing,K.and Bartz,G.
"StrategicPlanningof InformationSystems at
the Corporate Level," Informationand Man-
agement (3:5), December 1980, pp. 175-186.
Kerner,D. V. "Business InformationCharacteri-
zationStudy,"DataBase, Spring1979, pp. 10-
17.
King,W. R. "StrategicPlanningfor Management
InformationSystems," MIS Quarterly(2:1),
March1978, pp. 27-37.
460 MISQuarterly/September1988
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
King,W. R. "Evaluatingan Information Systems
Planning Process," Working Paper #592,
Graduate School of Business, Universityof
Pittsburgh,1984.
Lederer,A. L. and Mendelow,A. L. "Issues in In-
formationSystems Planning,"Information and
Management (10:10), May 1986a, pp. 245-
254.
Lederer,A. L.and Mendelow,A. L."Paradoxesof
InformationSystems Planning,"Proceedings
of the Seventh International Conferenceon In-
formationSystems, December 15-17, 1986b,
San Diego, CA,pp. 255- 264.
Lederer,A. L.and Mendelow,A. L."TheImpactof
the Environmenton the Managementof Infor-
mationSystems: A TheoreticalModel,"Work-
ing Paper Series, Graduate School of
Business, Universityof Pittsburgh,1986c.
Lederer,A. L. and Mendelow,A. L. "Information
Resource Planning:OvercomingDifficultiesin
IdentifyingTop Management's Objectives,"
MIS Quarterly(11:3), September 1987, pp.
389-400.
Lederer,A. L. and Putnam,A. "ConnectingSys-
tems Objectives to Business Strategy with
BSP," InformationStrategy: The Executives'
Journal(2:2),Winter1986, pp. 12-18.
Martin,J. Strategic Data-PlanningMethodolo-
gies, Prentice-HallInc., EnglewoodCliffs,NJ,
1982.
McFarlan,F.W."Problemsin Planningthe Infor-
mation System," HarvardBusiness Review
1971, pp. 75-89.
(49:2),March-April
McFarlan,F.W. "PortfolioApproachto Informa-
tion Systems," Harvard Business Review
(59:5),September-October1981, pp. 142-150.
McFarlan, F.W. "Information Technology
Changes the Way You Compete," Harvard
Business Review (62:3), May-June1984, pp.
98-103.
McLean,E. R. and Soden, J. V. Strategic Plan-
ning for MIS, John Wileyand Sons, Inc., New
York,1977.
Moskowitz,R. "StrategicSystems PlanningShifts
to Data-OrientedApproach,"Computerworld,
May12,1986, pp. 109-119.
Osborn, A.F. Applied Imagination, Scribners,
New York,1957.
Parsons, G.L. "Information Technology:A New
Competitive Weapon," Sloan Management
Review (25:1),Fall1983, pp. 3-14.
Porter,M.E. CompetitiveAdvantage: Creating
and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free
Press, New York,1985.
Rackoff,N., Wiseman,C. and Ullrich,W.A."Infor-
mation Systems for CompetitiveAdvantage:
Implementationof a PlanningProcess," MIS
Quarterly(9:4), December1985, pp. 285-294.

Rockart,J. F. "ChiefExecutivesDefineTheirOwn
Data Needs," Harvard Business Review,
March-April 1979, pp. 215-229.
Rockart,J. F. and Crescenzi,A.D."EngagingTop
Management in Information Technology,"
Sloan ManagementReview (25:4), May1984,
pp. 3-16.
Runge, D.A. Using Telecommunications for
CompetitiveAdvantage, unpublisheddoctoral
dissertation,Universityof Oxford,Oxford,Eng-
land, 1985.
Schwartz, M.H. "MISPlanning," Datamation,
September 1, 1970, pp. 18-31.
Sinclair,S.W. "TheThreeDomainsof Information
Systems Planning,"JournalofInformation Sys-
tems Management (3:2), Spring 1986, pp. 8-
16.
Sullivan,C. H.,Jr."Systems Planninginthe Infor-
mation Age," Sloan Management Review
(26:2),Winter1985, pp. 3-13.
Sullivan,C. H., Jr. "AnEvolutionaryNew Logic
Redefines StrategicSystems Planning,"Infor-
mationStrategy:TheExecutive'sJournal(3:2),
Winter1987, pp. 13-19.
Vacca,J. R. "BSP:HowIs ItWorking," Computer-
world, March1983.
Vacca,J. R. "IBM'sInformation QualityAnalysis,"
Computerworld,December 10, 1984.
Vitale,M.R.,Ives, B. and Beath,C.M."Linking In-
formationTechnologyand CorporateStrategy:
An OrganizationalView,"Proceedings of the
Seventh InternationalConferenceon Informa-
tion Systems, San Diego, CA, December 15-
17, 1986, pp. 265-276.
Wetherbe,J. C. and Davis, G. B. "StrategicPlan-
ningThroughEnds/MeansAnalysis,"MISRe-
search Center, WorkingPaper, Universityof
Minnesota,1982.
Wiseman, C. Strategy and Computers:Informa-
tion Systems as CompetitiveWeapons, Dow
Jones-lrwin,Homewood,IL,1985.
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:49:41 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
StrategicPlanning
Yadav, S. B. "Determiningan Organization'sIn-
formationRequirements:A State of the ArtSur-
vey,"Data Base, Spring1983, pp. 3-20.
Zachman,J. A. "BusinessSystems Planningand
Business InformationControlStudy: A Com-
parison,"IBMSystems Journal(21:1), 1982,
pp. 31-53.
AbouttheAuthors
Albert L. Ledereris an assistant professorat the
Joseph M. KatzGraduateSchool of Business at
the Universityof Pittsburgh.He earnedhis M.S.in
computerand informationscience and his Ph.D.
in industrialand systems engineeringat the Ohio
State University.Dr.Ledererspent overten years
in industryin the MISfield. His articleshave ap-
peared inthe MISQuarterly,Sloan Management
Review, Informationand Management,Journal
of Systems Management, Business Horizons,
and several otherjournals.He is the consulting
editorfora newjournal,Computersin Personnel.
His research interests includethe planningand
implementation of management information
systems.
VijaySethi is an assistantprofessorat the School
of Management at the State Universityof New
Yorkat Buffalo.He earned his M.B.A.fromOhio
University.He is currentlycompletinghis doctoral
dissertation at the Joseph M. Katz Graduate
School of Business at the Universityof Pittsburgh
on the measurementof the extentto whichan in-
formationtechnology applicationprovidescom-
petitiveadvantage.Hisarticleshave appearedor
areforthcominginINFOR,Interfaces,Information
Management Review, and DATABASE. His
otherresearchinterestsare informationsystems
planning, decision support systems, end-user
computing,and expertsystems.
MISQuarterly/September1988 461