StrategicPlanning
The Implementation of
Strategic Information
Systems Planning
Methodologies
By:Albert L. Lederer
JosephM. Katz GraduateSchoolof
Business
Universityof Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh,PA15260
Vijay Sethi
School of Management
State Universityof NewYorkat Buffalo
Buffalo, NY14260
Abstract
Strategic informationsystems planning(SlSP)
the processof decidingthe objectivesfor organ#
z.ational computingand identifying potential
computerappfications which the organization
shouldimplement.This article gives a thorough
definitionof SlSPandthenillustrates it withthree
methodologies.
A surveyof 80 organizationsexamined the prob-
lems faced by information systemsmanagers
whenthey attemptto implementsuch a method-
ology.Thesubjects’overall satisfactionwith the
methodology,its resourcerequirements,pro-
cess,output,andfinal executionwerenot partic-
ularly high. Thetwo problemsrated mostsevere
werethe difficulty in securingtop management
commitment for implementingthe plan and the
needfor substantialfurther analysisin order to
carryout the plan.
The survey also investigated somepotential
causesof the problems.Surveyresults suggest
that the SISPmethodologies mayoften produce
satisfactoryplansbut that organizations
lack the
management commitmentand control mecha-
nismsto ensurethat theyfollow the plans.
Keywords:Planning,informationsystems,infor-
mation management
ACM
Categories:K.6.0, K.6.4
Introduction
Improvedstrategic informationsystemsplanning
(SISP)is the mostcritical issuefacinginformation
systems executives today (Brancheau and
Wetherbe, 1987). Because the purposeof SISPis
to identify the mostappropriatetargets for au-
tomationandto schedule their installation, SISP
hasthe potential to makehugecontributions to
businessesand other organizations(McFarlan,
1971). Effective SISPcanhelporganizations use
information systemsto reachbusinessgoals, a
majorobjective of senior IS executives(Hartog
andHerbert,1986).It canalso enableorganiza-
tions to useinformationsystems to significantly
impacttheir strategies. However, the failure to
carefullycarryout SISPcanresult bothin lost op-
portunities and the waste of expensive IS
resources.
In orderto performeffective SISP,organizations
conventionallyapplyone of several methodolo-
gies (Arthur Andersenand Co., 1986;Martin,
1982; Moskowitz,1986). However,recent re-
search by Lederer and Mendelow(1986a) has
shownthat implementing sucha methodology is a
top problemfaced by systemsmanagers during
SISP.Similarly, in a studyof sevencompanies,
Sinclair (1986) foundthe implementationof
planningtechniqueto be a majorproblem.The
problemencompasses justifying the methodol-
ogy,applyingit, andreviewing its output.Todate,
however,therehasbeenno broadstudyto deter-
minethe natureof this problem.
Thisarticle definesSISPanddescribesthreepop-
ular SISPmethodologies. It elucidatesthe relative
severity of the problemsandexamines somefac-
tors potentiallyrelatedto this severity.Finally, it
considerssome similarities anddifferencesin the
problems of the threepopulartechniques.
Background
Thissectionfirst definesSISP.It thendiscusses
frequently appliedSISPmethodologies. Next, it
presents a categorization of common problems
encountered duringthe SISPprocess.Finally, it
discusses literature whichlays the groundwork
for
an investigationof somefactors potentially re-
lated to the SISPproblems.
SISP defined
Theconceptof SISPhas evolvedover the last
decade.In the late 1970s,accordingto McLean
andSoden (1977), the primaryobjectivesof sys-
MIS Quarterly/September 1988 445
StrategicPlanning
tems planning were to improvecommunication
with users, to increasetop management support,
to better forecastresourcerequirements andallo-
cate resources,to determinemoreopportunities
for improvingthe MISdepartment, andto identify
newand higher paybackcomputerapplications.
Morerecently, Moskowitz (1986)observesthat
additional objective of SISPhasbecome the de-
velopment of an organization-wide data architec-
ture. Simultaneously,bothVitale, et al. (1986)and
IndexSystems (1986)suggestthat the identifica-
tion of strategicapplicationshasarisenas another
mainobjectiveof SISP.
This article adoptsa broad,dichotomous viewof
SISP.Hence,on oneside of the dichotomy,SISP
refers to the process of identifyinga portfolio of
computer-based applicationsthat will assist anor-
ganization in executingits businessplans and
consequentlyrealizing its businessgoals. SISP
also entails the definition of databases andsys-
tems to support those applications. SlSPmay
mean the selectionof rather prosaicapplications,
almostas if froma list, that wouldbestfit thecur-
rent andprojectedneedsof the organization.This
assumes that information systemsplannersknow
Table1. Description
of BSPStudySteps
Gaining Executive Commitment
Preparingfor the Study
Starting the Study
Defining BusinessProcesses
Defining Data Classes
AnalyzingCurrent SystemsSupport
446 MIS Quarterly~September1988
their organization’sgoals, plansand strategy;
suchan assumptionmaybe unfounded(Lederer
and Mendelow, 1987).
Onthe otherside of the dichotomy, SISPcanalso
entail searchingfor applicationswith a highim-
pact andthe ability to createan advantage over
competitors (Clemens,1986; Ives and Lear-
month, 1984; McFarlan,1984; Parsons, 1983;
Wiseman,1985). SISPcan help organizations
use information systemsin innovative waysto
build barriers against newentrants, changethe
basis of competition, generatenewproducts,
build in switchingcosts, or changethe balanceof
powerin supplierrelationships(McFarlan,1984).
Assuch,SISPpromotes innovationandcreativity,
and might employidea-generating techniques
suchas brainstorming (Osborn,1957;Rackoff,et
al., 1985),ValueChainAnalysis(Porter,1985),
the Customer ResourceLife Cycle(Ives andLear-
month,1984).Vitale, et al. (1986)recognized
distinction betweenthe two approaches andre-
ferred to the formeras attemptingto "align" MIS
objectiveswithorganizational goalsandthe latter
as attemptingto "impact"organizationalstrate-
gies(p. 268).
A top executivesponsorandvarious other inter-
estedexecutivesare identified as the majorsources
of informationto the study. A teamleader, perhaps
the sponsor,is identified to spendfull timeleading
the studyteamof 4 to 7 executives.
Teammembers are trained in BSP.Theycompile
dataon the firm’s businessfunctionsandcurrentIS
support,andproducea workplan, interview sched-
ule, reviewschedule,andfinal reportoutline.
Theexecutivesponsorreviewsthe study’s purpose
with the team. Theteamleader reviewsthe com-
piled businessdata and the top IS executiveex-
plains recentIS activities andproblems
to the team.
Thestudy teamidentifies the businessprocesses
whichformthe basis for executiveinterviews, the
definitionof thefuture informationarchitecture,and
otherstudyactivities.
Data are groupedinto categories called data
classesbasedon their relationshipsto the business
processes identified above.Chartsare built to re-
flect thoserelationships.
Thestudyteamidentifies howIS currently supports
the organization.Theteamdevelopscharts showing
organizational processes and the responsible
departments.
 StrategicPlanning

To carry out SISP(especially in the alignment studies. Threepopular methodologies include

mode),anorganizationusuallyselectsanexisting
methodology andthen embarks on a major,inten-
sive study. Theorganizationformscommittees of
userswith IS specialistsas members or advisors.
It mostlikely usesthe SISPvendor’seducational
supportto train the committeemembers andthe
vendor’sconsulting supportto guide the study
andauditits results. A multi-stepprocedure is car-
ried out over severalweeksor months.Thedura-
tion generallydepends on the scopeof the study.
In additionto identifyingthe portfolio of applica-
tions, theorganizationprioritizes them.It defines
databases,data elements,and a networkof com-
puters and communications equipment to support
the applications.It also preparesa schedulefor
development andinstallation.
Frequently appfied methodologies
Organizations
generallyapplyoneof a numberof
methodologiesin order to performthese SISP
BusinessSystemsPlanning(IBM, 1975;Lederer
and Putnam,1986), Strategic SystemsPlanning
(HollandSystems,1986), andInformationEngi-
neering(Martin,1982).Theyare described briefly
as illustrative methodologies
andwill bealludedto
in the researchfindings. Thesethree werese-
lected because, together,theyaccounted for half
of the responses to the survey.
BusinessSystems Planning(BSP), developed
by IBM,involves top-down planningwith bottom-
up implementation.In this methodology, a firm
recognizesits businessmission,objectivesand
functions, andhowthese determineits business
processes.Theprocesses are analyzedfor their
dataneeds,anddataclassesare then identified.
Databasesare developedby combiningsimilar
data classes. Thefinal BSPplan describesan
overall informationsystemarchitectureas well as
the installation scheduleof individual systems.
Table1 detailsthe stepsin thestudy.

Table1. (continued)

Determiningthe ExecutivePerspective Executiveinterviews gain the commitment of addi-

tional executivesandhelp the studyteamunderstan¢
the problemswhosesolutions will be representedb~
the future systems.
Defining FindingsandConclusions Thestudy teamdevelopscategoriesof findings and
conclusionsandthen classifies previouslyidentifie¢
problems
into the categories.
Definingthe InformationArchitecture Thestudy teamusesthe businessprocessesand th~
data classesto designdatabases.Theteamprepare.,
charts relating the processes
to the classesandth~
systemsto subsystems.
Determining
ArchitecturalPriorities Theteamsets systemsdevelopment priorities base¢
onpotentialfinancial andnon-financial benefits,th~
likelihood of success,andthe organization’sdeman¢
for eachsystem.
ReviewingInformation ResourceManagementThestudyteamevaluatesthe currentIS organization’.,
strengthsand weaknesses. A steering committeei.,
established
to set policy andcontrolthe function.
DevelopingRecommendations
and Action Plan Theteampreparesan action plan with recommenda.
tions abouthardware,
software,adjustments
to curren
systems,and methodsof strengtheningIS manage.
ment.
ReportingResults Thestudyteamgivesa talk alongwith a brief summan~
anda moredetailed(usuallyverythick) reportcoverin(
the study’s purpose,methodology, conclusions,rec-
ommendations andprescribedactions.

MIS Quarterly~September1988 447

StrategicPlanning
BSPplaces heavy emphasison top management
commitment and executive involvement.Topex-
ecutivesponsorship
is perceived
as critical. Infor-
mationsystemsanalystsmightserveprimarily in
an advisorycapacity. Thestudy producessucha
large volumeof information that IBMhas begun
marketingan automated version called Informa-
tion QualityAnalysis(Vacca,1984).
Strategic Systems Planning(SSP), developed
by RobertHolland, defines a businessfunction
modelby analyzingmajorfunctionalareas.A data
architectureis derivedfromthe businessfunction
modelby combininginformation requirements
into genericdataentities andsubjectdatabases.
Aninformationsystemsarchitecturethen identi-
fies newsystemsandtheir implementation sched-
ule. Althoughthe language differs slightly, the
stepsin the SSPprocedure are similar to thosein
BSP.¯
A majordifference from BSPis SSP’sautomated
storage, manipulation,and presentationof the
data collected duringthe SISPprocess.Software
producesreports in a wide rangeof formatsand
with variouslevels of detail. Forexample,
"affin-
ity" reports showthe frequenciesof accesses to
data, while"clustering"reportsgive guidance for
databasedesign. Menus guide the user through
online data collection and maintenance. A data
dictionaryinterface facilitates sharingSSPdata
with an existing data dictionary or other auto-
mateddesigntools.
In addition to SSP,HollandSystemsCorporation
offers Tactical Systems
Planning(TSP)andLogi-
cal DatabaseDesign(LDD). TSPis a methodol-
ogy for guiding the implementation of the
informationsystemarchitecture. LDDis usedto
developdata structures for modulesfrom the
studyor fromother systems,andthen is usedto
mapthe structuresto the SSPdataarchitecture.
InformationEngineering(IE), developedby
JamesMartin, providestechniquesfor building
enterprise models, data models, and process
models.Theseform a comprehensive knowledge
basewhichthen createsand maintainsinforma-
tion systems.IE is consideredby someto be a
moretechnically oriented approachthan other
SISPmethodologies.
In conjunctionwith IE, Martinadvocates the useof
Critical Success Factors(CSF)(Rockart,1979),
techniquefor identifying issues consideredby
business executives as the mostvital for the suc-
cessof their organization.Martinsuggeststhat
each general managershould use CSF.There-
sulting factors will then guidethe SISPendeavor
448 MIS Quarterly~September1988
by helping identify future management
control
systems.(Recentversionsof BSPalso useCSF.)
IE providesseveralsoftwarepackages for facili-
tating the SISPeffortl However, IE differs from
other methodologiesby providing automated
tools to link its outputto subsequentsystems de-
velopment efforts. Anapplicationgeneratoris in-
tegrated with IE and producessystems with
COBOL code.
Othermethodologies
Besides BSP,SSPand IE, firms might choose
Method/1(Arthur Andersen
andCo., 1982),Infor-
mationQuality Analysis(Vacca,1984), Business
InformationAnalysisand Integration Technique
(Carlson,1979),BusinessInformationCharacter-
ization Study (Kerner, 1979), CSF(Rockart,
1979), Ends/MeansAnalysis (Wetherbe and
Davis, 1982), Nolan Norton Methodology
(Moskowitz,1986), Portfolio Management (Mc-
Farlan,1981),StrategySet Transformation
(King,
1978),ValueChainAnalysis(Porter, 1985),orthe
CustomerResourceLife Cycle (Ives and Lear-
month,1984).
Alternatively,firms often selectfeaturesof these
methodologies and then, possibly with outside
consulting assistance, developtheir ownin-
houseapproach(Arthur Andersenand Co, 1985;
Sullivan,1987).
Table2 presentsfour majordistinctions among
somemethodologies.It classifies themas align-
mentor impactapproaches.Thetable also distin-
guishesthemby their primaryfocus. Finally, it
showswhetherthey define a data architecture,
and whetherthey provideautomated support.
Problemswith the methodologies
It haslongbeenrecognized that SISPis anintri-
cate andcomplex activity fraught with problems
(McFarlan, 1971). Several authors have de-
scribed these problems.Their workis basedon
field surveys,cases,andconceptual studies, and
investigatesmostof the methodologies described
previously.A reviewof themostsignificantof their
articles servedas the basisto createa compre-
hensivelist of the problems(seeTable3).
In order to organizeandsummarize the problems,
this researchusedthree categories--resources,
process,and output. Resource-related problems
addressedthe issues of time-requirements,
money,personnel, and top management support
for the initiation of the study. Process-related
 StrategicPlanning

Table2. Some
Characteristicsof Different Methodologies
Methodology Impact Focus Defines Automated
or Data Support
Alignment Architecture
BusinessSystems Primarily
Planning Alignment Data Yes No
Strategic Systems Primarily
Planning Alignment Data Yes Yes
Information Primarily
Engineering Alignment Data Yes Yes
Method/1 Alignment Projects No No
Critical Success Decision
Factors CanBe Both Information No No
CustomerResource
Life Cycle Impact Customers No No
Value Chain Internal
Analysis Impact Operations No No

problemsinvolvedthe limitations of the analysis Mendelow, 1986b).Similarly, as businessplan-

doneby the methodology. Finally, output-related
problemsdealt with the comprehensiveness and
appropriatenessof the final planproduced by the
methodology.This categorization wasderived
froma similar schemeusedto definethe different
componentsof IS planning(King, 1984).
Table 3 showsthe problemsfrom the surveys,
cases and conceptual studies. The problems
have beenparaphrased,simplified and catego-
rized into the framework.
Potentialcausalfactors
Unfortunately,verylittle is known aboutthe man-
agerialfactorsthat affect theseproblems
in differ-
ent organizations. Johnson(1984)refers to
1983study by the NewYork consulting firm of
Cresap,McCormick, andPaget.It concludedthe
following: "Althoughcompanies employa variety
of techniquesand approaches, successin plan-
ningis surprisinglyunaffectedby suchfactors as
industry, size of enterprise, methodology used,
andorganizationalarrangement" (p. 97).
However, there are somereasonsto believe that
certain organizational and managerialfactors
mightbe related to SISPproblems.Thefollowing
variablesrepresenta selection(not intendedto be
comprehensive)of suchfactors, andthe text ex-
plainsreasonsfor expectingtheir effects¯
Sophisticationin Business
Planning
Thecompletelack of a businessplan can be a
severeimpedimentto IS planning (Ledererand
ning becomesmoresophisticated (and hence
routine), organizationalgoalsandstrategiesare
better defined,andthe IS plancanthus be more
effectively aligned with businessgoals(King,
1978).Thus,less severeSISPproblems wouldbe
expectedin firms with moresophisticatedbusi-
nessplanning. McLean andSoden(1977)confirm
that the absenceof formal businessplanning
makes SISPmoredifficult.
Participationby IS Department
in Business
Planning
TopIS executiveswhoparticipate in strategic
businessplanninghaveless difficulty under-
standingtop management’s objectives (Lederer
and Mendelow,1987). Theyare moreexperi-
encedin planningand moreinformedabout the
firm’s goals.Therefore,
theyarelesslikely to have
problemsguiding or participating in the SISP
studyandin ensuringthat its outputsupportsor-
ganizationalgoals¯ Hence,their SISPproblems
shouldbe less severe,
Reporting
Relationship
of the IS Executive
McFarlan (1971)suggeststhat firms in whichthe
top S executve reportsto a h~gherleve busness
executiveplace moreemphas~s on planning, use
IS resourcesmoreeffectively, andhavegreater
planningability. These firms couldmoreeasily ini-
tiat~¢ . a study, acquireits resources,andimple-
mentits output. Thus,they shouldencounter less
severeSISPproblems.

MIS Quarterly/September 1988 449

StrategicPlanning

Table3. TheProblems
Problem ProblemStatement Source
Code
Resources for Implementing the Methodology
R1 Thesize of the planningteamis verylarge. Vacca, 1983
R2 It is difficult to find a teamleaderwhomeetsthecriteria specified Vacca, 1983
by the methodology.
R3 It is difficult to find teammembers whomeetthe criteria specified Vacca, 1983
by the methodology.
R4 Thesuccessof the methodology is greatly dependent on the team Zachma~,1982
leader.
R5 Manysupportpersonnelare required for data gatheringand Rockart,1979
analysisduringthe study.
R6 Theplanningexercisetakesverylong. Bowman,et al., 1983
R7 Theplanningexerciseis very expensive. Moskowitz,1986
R8 Thedocumentation doesnot adequatelydescribethe stepsthat Zachman,1982
shouldbe followed for implementing the methodology,
R9 Themethodology lacks sufficient computersupport. Zachman,1982
R10 Adequate externalconsultantsupportis not availablefor Zachman,1982
implementingthe methodology.
Rll Themethodology is not basedon anytheoretical framework. Zachman,1982
R12 Theplanninghorizonconsideredby the methodology is McLeanand Soden,
inappropriate. 1977
R13 It is difficult to convincetop management to approve the Vacca, 1983
methodology.
R14 Themethodology makesinappropriate assumptions about Yadav,1983
organizationstructure.
R15 Themethodology makesinappropriate assumptions about Yadav,1983
organizationsize.
PlanningProcessSpecified by the Methodology
P1 Themethodology fails to take into accountorganizational King, 1978
goalsandstrategies,
P2 Themethodology fails to assessthe current information Schwartz,1970
systemsapplicationsportfolio.
P3 Themethodology fails to analyzethe currentstrengthsand King, 1984
weaknesses of the IS department.
P4 Themethodology fails to takeinto accountlegal and King, 1984
environmentalissues,
P5 Themethodology fails to assessthe external technological King, 1984
environment.
P6 Themethodology fails to assessthe organization’scompetitive King, 1984
environment.
P7 Themethodology fails to takeinto accountissuesrelated to Zachman,1982
plan implementation.
P8 Themethodology fails to takeinto accountchanges in the
organizationduringSISP.
P9 Themethodology doesnot sufficiently involveusers. Kay,et al., 1980
P10 Managersfind it difficult to answer questionsspecifiedby Boyntonand Zmud,
the methodology. 1984
Pll The methodology requires too muchtop management Bowman, et al., 1983
involvement.
P12 Themethodology requires too muchuser involvement. Boyntonand Zmud,
1984
P13 Theplanningprocedure is rigid. Zachman,1982
P14 Themethodology doesnot sufficiently involvetop Kay, etal.,1980
management.

450 MIS Quarterly/September 1988

 StrategicPlanning

Table3. (continued)
Outputof the PlanningMethodology
O1 SISPoutputfails to providea statement of organizational McLeanand Soden,
objectivesfor the IS department. 1977
02 SISPoutputfails to designatespecific newsteeringcommittees.
03 SISPoutputfails to identify specificnewprojects. McLeanand Soden,
1977
04 SISPout ~utfails to determine a uniformbasisfor prioritizing King, 1978
projects.
O5 SISPout )ut falls to determine an overalldataarchitecture Zachman,1982
for theorganization.
O6 SISPout )ut fails to providepriorities for developing specific Zachman,1982
databases.
07 SISPout ~utfails to sufficiently address theneedfor Data Sullivan, 1985
Administration in the organization.
O8 SISPout )ut fails to includeanoverall organizational hardware McLeanand Soden,
plan. 1977
09 SISPout )ut fails to includeanoverall organizational data Sullivan, 1985
communications plan.
O10 SISPoutputfails to outline changes in the reportingrelationships
in the IS department.
Oll SISPoutputfails to includean overall personnel andtraining McLeanand Soden,
plan for the IS department. 1977
O12 SISPoutputfalls to includeanoverallfinancialplanfor the McLeanand Soden,
IS department. 1977
O13 SISPoutputfails to sufficiently address the role of a King, 1984
permanent IS planninggroup.
O14 Theoutputplansare not flexible enough to takeinto account McLeanand Soden,
unanticipate.dchanges in the organizationandits environment. 1977
O15 Theoutputis not in accordance with the expectations of top Gi11,1981
management.
O16 Implementing the projectsandthe dataarchitectureidentified Zachman,1982
in the SISPoutputrequiressubstantialfurther analysis.
O17 It is difficult to securetop management commitment for Gill, 1981
implementing the plan.
O18 Theexperiencesfromimplementing the methodology are not Zachman,1982
sufficiently transferable acrossdivisions.
O19 Thefinal outputdocument is not veryuseful. King, 1984
020 TheSISPoutputdoesnot captureall the informationthat Gi11,1981
wasdeveloped duringthe study.

Initiator of the SlSPStudy suchas technologymanagement, the use of data

Top management involvementin SISPhas been
emphasized(IBM Corporation, 1975; Martin,
1982;Rockartand Crescenzi,1984). Thus,top
management
initiation of the studyshouldreflect
the commitment and involvementthat IS execu-
tives seek,andless severeSISPproblemswould
thenbe anticipated.
Scopeof the SISPStudy
Thescopeof the SISPstudyrefers to the organi-
zational unit underinvestigation. A studymight
coverthe entire organization,
a division, or merely
a particularfunctionalarea.SISPat the corporate
level must addressadditional complexissues
communications, and data architecture (Kay, et
al., 1980;Sullivan,1985).Thus,a broad,corpo-
rate scopemaybe associatedwith moresevere
problems.
PlanningHorizon
Theplanninghorizonrefers to the planningperiod
coveredby the study. Effective usersof informa-
tion resourcesemploysuchhorizons(McFarlan,
1971). IS planninghorizonsvary dependingon
businessplanninghorizons, management style,
andother organizationalfactors (Martin, 1982).
Becausethe useof a planninghorizonmightforce
the studyteamto bemoredetailedin its analysis
andto developa schedule,less severeproblems

MIS Quarterly/September 1988 451

StrategicPlanning
mayoccurin studiesthat considera specific plan-
ninghorizon.
OrganizationOwnership
McLeanand Soden(1977) had expected but
failed to find a relationshipin theSISPcharacter-
istics of publicly andprivately held companies.
Their studyshowed that in publicly held firms,
planning is moredependenton external con-
straints. Therefore,SISPproblems wouldlikely be
moresevere.
Methodology
Thesurveyinstrumentwasa three-part question-
naire. In the first part, respondents
identifiedthe
methodology that theyhadused.Theyalso identi-
fied the extent to whichthey hadencountered the
aforementionedproblems.Subjects rated each
problem on a scaleof oneto five, where
1 = not a problem
2 = an insignificant problem
3 = a minor problem
4 = a major problem
5 = an extremeproblem
Thisscalehasbeenusedin similar previousstud-
ies (McLeanand Soden,1977).
Thesecondpart of the instrumentincludedques-
tions relatedto the implementation
of plans.In this
section, respondents indicatedthe extentto which
different outputsof the plan hadbeenaffected.
This follows King’s (1984)recommendation that
criterion for evaluatinga planningsystemis the
extentto whichthe final plan actuallyguidesthe
strategicdirectionof theIS function.
In the secondpart, the subjects also answered
scaledquestions
abouttheir satisfactionwith vari-
ousaspectsof the SISPexperienceandaboutthe
reasonsfor any deviation from the final SISP
recommendations.
Thethird part of the surveycontained
a numberof
questionsrelated to respondentand organiza-
tional characteristics. Thesewereadaptedfrom
Mcleanand Soden(1977).
Twoexperiencedstrategic IS planners pilot-
tested the questionnaire.Oneplanner, with 21
yearsof IS experience,
is currentlyresponsible
for
SISPat a large regional grocery chain andwas
previouslyoneof the top plannersat a Fortune50
international petroleumcorporation. Theother
planner,with nearly30 yearsof IS experience,is
currently an independentconsultantin the SISP
area.Thepilot test broughtout threeadditional
452 MIS Quarterly~September1988
problemsthat wereincorporatedinto the ques-
tionnaire. They appear in Table 3 without
references.
Therevised questionnaire wasthen mailed to
members of the StrategicDataPlanningInstitute
andto thefirms in VaCca’s(1983)study.A total
251 organizationsreceivedthe questionnaire.
Threeweeksafter the first mailing, reminders
weresent to thosewhohadnot yet responded.
Results
This sectioninitially discussessome characteris-
tics of the respondents.It thenexamines the find-
ings aboutthe problems of implementing an SISP
methodology. Next, it focuseson a particular di-
mensionof the problemsandconsidersthe orga-
nizational and managerialfactors potentially
related to the problems. Finally, it comparesfre-
quently usedmethodologies.
Characteristicsof the respondents
Onehundredsixty-three firms returnedthe com-
pleted surveyfor a response rate of 65%.Eighty
(or 32%)of thesefirms hadalreadyparticipated
an SISPstudy and thus provided usable data.
Thiswasa highrate considering that the question-
naire waseight pageslong andfairly complex.
Therate attests to the fact that the respondents
foundthis topic to be important.
Althoughall of the 80SISPparticipantshadeither
completedor were completingan ongoingSISP
study,their demographic
profiles differed. Table4
showsthat the respondentswere, in general,
highly experiencedprofessionalswith exposure
to morethanoneemployer andthat they currently
workedfor medium andlarge firms. Table4 also
showsthat BSP,SSPandIE accounted for 50%of
the methodologiesusedby the participants.
Extent of problemsof SlSP
methodologies
Table5 showsa rankingof the problems of adopt-
ing an SISPmethodology. In the questionnaire,
subjectshadratedthe problems listed in Table3
as extreme,major,minor,insignificant, or not a
problemat all. The"Extremeor MajorProblem"
columnin the table shows the percentage of sub-
jects rating the problem
as such;the "MinorProb-
lem" columndisplays the analogouspercentage.
As Table5 shows,the mostsevereproblemis the
failure to securetop management
commitmentfor
 StrategicPlanning

Table4. Characteristicsof Respondents sufficient resources.

It mightalsopossiblyberea-
sonedthat the requirementfor further analysis
Job Titles of Respondents
6% (rankedsecond)is a problemsimplybecause in-
President
Vice President 8% sufficient resourcesare allotted to complete an
Director 14% appropriately comprehensive study. Alterna-
Manager 36% tively, it maybethat the methodologiesmake poor
Supervisor/GroupLeader 6% useof the resourcesallocatedto the study. Re-
Analyst/DataAdministrator 9% gardless,in the viewof the respondents,the lack
Consultant 6% of resourcesappearsto play a very significant
Other 15% role.
IS Experienceof Respondents
Lessthan 10 years 17%
10 to 20years 63% Further evidenceof the resource
Over20 years 20% problem
Industries of Respondents
Manufacturing 26% Ona scaleof zeroto six (wherezerorefers to ex-
Utilities 13% tremelydissatisfied andsix refers to extremely
Insurance 10% satisfied), the respondents’ averagerating for
Government 8% overall satisfaction with the SISPmethodology
Retail 5% was3.55, wherea neutral scorewouldhavebeen
Other/NotAvailable 38% 3.00. Satisfactionscoresfor the different dimen-
sionsof SISPwerealso slightly favorable.Satis-
Scopeof Studies faction with the SISPprocesswas3.68, with the
Entire Enterprise 44% SISPoutputwas3.38, andwith the SISPresource
Division 40%
FunctionalArea 10% requirements was3.02. Giventhe evidencein the
Not Available 6% previoussubsection,it is notsurprisingthat satis-
faction with the SISPresourcerequirementsis
Numberof Employees lessthansatisfactionwiththe process andoutput.
Fewerthan 1,000 23%
1,000to 10,000 42% However, satisfactionwith carryingout final SISP
Morethan 10,000 32% planswasmuch lower(2.53); in fact, only 32%
Not available 3% the respondentsweresatisfied while 53%were
Numberof IS Employees dissatisfied. Table 6 summarizes the respon-
Fewerthan 100 36% dents’ satisfaction with these aspectsof the
100to 500 55% 1
SISP.
Morethan 500 9%
Furtherevidencefocusingon the problemof ef-
Methodology
BusinessSystemsPlanning 21% fecting the planarises froma comparison of the
Strategic Systems Planning 15% elapsedplanninghorizonwith the degreeof com-
InformationEngineering 14% pletion of SISPoutputs. Theaverageplanning
Method/1 9% horizonof the SISPstudieswas3.73 years,while
Critical SuccessFactors 4% an averageof 2.1 years had passedsince the
NolanNorton 3% studies’ completion;thus, 56%of the planning
In-house 14% horizonshadelapsed.However, out of an aver-
Others 16% age of 23.4 projects recommended in the SISP
Not Available 5% studies,only 5.7 (24%)hadbeeninitiated. There-
fore, it appears that firmsmayhavebeenfailing to
initiate projectsas rapidlyas necessary in orderto
carrying out the final plan. The secondmost complete themduringthe planninghorizon.It also
severeproblem is the requirement for substantial appearsthat there mayhavebeeninsufficient
further analysisafter the completion of the SISP projectstart-upsin orderto realizetheplan.
study. Furthermore,despitethe fact that those
two problems are output-related,it is interesting 1, . abouttheabsolute
Theauthors offer noassertions val-
to note that six of the eight remainingtop ten uesof thesatisfaction ratings.However,
after examin-
problems are resource-related.Thus,it mightbe ing them,oneuniversityprofessor notedthat if his
arguedthat the difficulty of securingtop man- students’ ratingsof his classroom
instructionremained
agementcommitmentto carry out the plan consistently at theselevels, hewouldeventually be
(rankedfirst) is associated
withthe approval of in- fired for incompetentteaching!

MIS Quarterly~September1988 453

StrategicPlanning

Table5. Extentof Problems

of SISPMethodologies
Problem AbbreviatedProblemStatement Extreme Minor
Code or Major Problem
Problem
O17 Difficult to securetop management commitment 52% 16%
O16 Requires further analysis 46% 31%
R4 Successdependenton teamleader 41% 30%
R2 Difficult to find teamleadermeeting criteria 37% 17%
R9 Methodology lacks sufficient computer support 36% 27%
R6 Planningexercisetakeslong time 33% 30%
P7 Ignoresplan implementation issues 33% 18%
R13 Difficult to obtaintop management approval 32% 36%
O11 Notraining planfor IS department 30% 29%
R3 Difficult to find teammembers meetingcriteria 30% 24%
O12 Nofinancial plan for IS department 29% 28%
R8 Documentation is inadequate 28% 33%
06 Nopriorities for developing databases 27% 26%
05 Nooverall dataarchitectureis determined 27% 22%
R7 Very expensive 26% 29%
O13 NopermanentIS planninggroup 26% 24%
R5 Manysupportpersonnelrequired 26% 23%
07 Nodata administrationneedaddressed 26% 16%
O18 Experiences not sufficiently transferable 24% 19%
09 Noorganizationaldata communications plan 22% 38%
O10 Nochanges in IS reportingrelationships 22% 31%
04 Nopdodtization scheme provided 22% 19%
O15 Outputbelies top management expectations 22% 15%
P3 Noanalysis of IS departmentstrengths/weaknesses 21% 32%
08 Nohardwareplan 20% 36%
P11 Heavytop management involvement 20% 21%
O14 Resultingplansare inflexible 20% 18%
P5 Noanalysisof technologicalenvironment 19% 20%
P12 Toomuchuser involvement 18% 28%
O19 Final outputdocument not very useful 18% 20%
P10 Questions difficult for managers to answer 17% 39%
020 Informationduringstudynot captured 17% 25%
P4 Methodology ignoreslegal/environmentalissues 14% 16%
R14 Badassumptions aboutorganizationstructure 14% 14%
P8 Ignoresorganizationchangesduring SISP 13% 25%
O1 Noobjectivesfor IS department are provided 13% 21%
P9 Insufficient user involvement 13% 5%
R1 Verylarge planningteamrequired 12% 21%
P6 Methodology ignorescompetitive environment 12% 19%
03 Nonewprojectsidentified in final plans 12% 13%
02 Outputfails to designatenewsteering committees 11% 18%
P13 Rigidity of planningprocedure 9% 17%
P2 Noassessment of currentapplicationsportfolio 9% 16%
P14 Lackof top management involvement 9% 13%
P1 Ignoresorganizationalgoalsandstrategies 8% 10%
R12 Inappropriateplanninghorizon 6% 7%
RIO Inadequate consultantsupport 5% 11%
R15 Inappropriatesize assumptions 4% 8%
R11 Notheoretical framework 3% 5%

454 MIS Quarterly~September1988


Table6. OverallSatisfaction
Average
The Methodology 3.55
The ResourcesRequired 3.02
TheMethodology’sProcess 3.68
TheMethodology’sOutput 3.38
CarryingOutthe Plan 2.53
At the sametime, organizations had begun
projects whichwerenot part of their SISPplan.
Theseconstitutedabout38% of all projects ini-
tiated after the study. Finally, in organizations
where the SISP had recommended changesin
the IS department,only 50%of these changes
hadbeencarried out.
Thesedata suggestthat the respondents did not
executetheir final plansvery scrupulously.They
raise questionsaboutthe resemblance between
the systemsenvisionedby the planninggroupand
their final implementations.
Onemightalso spec-
ulate that the methodologies
havefailed to gener-
ate useful ideaswhichorganizationscouldthen
translate into implementablecomputersystems.
Giventheir great expense andtime consumption,
suchfindingsseriouslychallengetheutility of the
planning methodologiesrepresented in this
study.
However, the findingsare not necessarilysurpris-
ing. Theyconfirm the workof Runge(1985)who
studiedsuccessfullyimplemented strategic infor-
mationsystems.In 80%of his cases,existing
SISPprocedureswere either purposelycircum-
ventedor ignored.Runge attributed the success-
ful implementation of thesesystems,not to SISP
methodologies, but largely to "productchampi-
ons," i.e., top generalbusinessexecutiveswho
securedthe necessaryresources,overcamere-
sistance to approval and development,and
actively promoted the systems during
implementation.
Potential causalfactors affecting
extent of problems
Table7 identifies the previouslydiscussed organi-
zational andmanagerial factors potentially re-
lated to the severity of the SISPproblems.It
showsthe mean ratings of the problems from the
resources,process,andoutputcategoriesandfor
all 49(i.e., overall) problems. For example, the
2.38 in row 1, column1 refers to the average
severity of the 15 resourceproblems (in Table3)
for subjectswhostatedthat their businessplan-
StrategicPlanning
Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied
54% 23% 23%
38% 24% 38%
48% 17% 25%
55% 17% 28%
32% 15% 53%
ningwasfinancial/tactical rather thanstrategic.
Analysisof variancetestedthe differencein the
meanscoresunderalternatives for eachfactor.
Thus,Table7 showsthe levelsof statistical signif-
icancefor the alternativewith moresevereprob-
lems.(Therelatively lowmean scoresreflect that
someof the problemsare considerably less
severethanothers.)
Thefollowing subsectionsdiscuss the problem
factors. Theheadings reflect the study’sfindings
basedstrictly on the alternative with the lower
meanscore. Thesubsequentdiscussionfurther
considersthe strengthof the findings;cautiousin-
terpretationof the non-significantdifferencesis
suggested.
Factor1: Organizationswith less sophistica-
tion in businessplanninghadmore
severe problems than moresophis-
ticated organizations,
Organizations that characterizedtheir business
planningas financial or tactical hadsignificantly
moresevereproblemsthan organizations that
characterizedtheir businessplanningas strate-
gic. Theeffectwassignificantfor ratingsin all four
categories.It is not surprisingthat a generalso-
phisticationin settinggoalsandobjectivesperme-
ates the SlSPactivities. In suchsophisticated
organizations,IS executiveshaveless trouble
justifying resources,carryingout the process,and
analyzingthe output.
Factor2: Organizations with less participa-
tion by the IS department in busi-
ness planning had more severe
problemsthan organizationswith
greaterparticipation.
Although thedifferenceswerenot statistically sig-
nificantin anycategory,
this effectheldin all four.
Thedirection of the effect suggeststhe impor-
tanceof suchparticipation.Participationin strat-
egy formulation enablesthe IS departmentto
better understandtop management’s objectives
andthus, to ensurethat the SISPoutputssupport
their goals.
MIS Quarterly/September 1988 455
StrategicPlanning

Factor3: Organizationswherethe top IS ex- of the top information executivessurveyedre-

ecutivereportedto a controllerhad
moresevereproblemsthan organi-
zations wherethe top iS executive
reported to a president or vice
president,
Thiseffect wasstatistically significantfor all four
categories.It parallelsthefindingsof Benjamin, et
al. (1985)whoobserved that chief informationoffi-
cers in leading-edge companies frequentlyreport
to anareaother thanfinance.Morehighly placed
IS executives canmoreeasily initiate, carry out,
andanalyzeSISPexercises.Also,the primarilyfi-
nancial orientation of the controller maynot en-
hancethe IS Department’s position or contribute
to its SISPskills. Thereportingrelationshipmight
merelyreflect morearchaicorganizations.
Thisresult is particularlyimportantbecause
top IS
executives
frequentlyreportto a controller.Arthur
AndersenandCo. (1986)recently foundthat 32%
portedto a senior-level
financialofficer.
Factor 4: Organizationswheretop manage-
mentinitiated the study hadmore
severe problemsthan organiza-
tions where IS management
initiatedit.
This finding wassurprising. Althoughdifferences
in ratingswerenotstatistically significant,theef-
fect wasuniformacrossall four categories.The
finding suggeststhat althoughIS executivesseek
top management involvement, they still prefer to
maintaincontrol. Topmanagement-initiated SISP
studiesmaylikely bethe result of displeasure with
the performanceof IS management. IS manage-
ment-initiated SISPstudies probablypermit IS
management to exercisemoreinfluence over the
SISPstudy. However, the finding mightsimplybe
attributable to the fact that the respondentswere
IS executives. :

Table7. FactorsRelatedto $1SPProblems

MeanSeverity of Problems
Category Resources Process ~ Output Overall
1. OrganizationalUnit’s Degreeof
Sophisticationin BusinessPlanning
Financial/Tactical 2.38** 2.13"** 2.46*** 2.34***
Strategic 1.87 1.55 1.91 1.80
2. Participation by IS Department
in BusinessPlanning
DoesNot Participate 2.38 2.13 2.45 2.34
Participates 2.26 1.98 2.30 2.20
3. To Whom Doesthe Top IS
ExecutiveReport
Controller 2.69*** 2.55*** 2.66** 2.59**
President/VP 2.10 1.82 2.28 2.14
4. Initiator of the SISPStudy
Top Management 2.33 2.16 2.39 2.31
IS/Other Management 2.27 1.95 2.32 2.20
5, Scopeof the SISPStudy
Division/Function 2.43* 2.04 2.33 2.28
Enterprise 2.09 1.94 2.35 2:16
6. Consideration of Specific Planning
HorizonBy the SISPStudy
NoPlanningHorizon 2.58* 2.29 2.53 2.47*
HorizonSpecified 2.20 1.94 2.28 2.16
7. Organization Ownership
Publicly Owned 2.39 2.20 2.40 2.31
Privately Owned 2.08 1.87 2.21 2.07
* Refersto the .10level of significance. *** Refersto the .01level of significance.
** Refersto the .05level of significance.

456 MIS Quarterly~September

1988

Factor5: SISPstudieswitha divisionor func-
tion as their scopehadmoresevere
problems than studieswith the en-
tire enterpriseastheir scope.
Again,the finding, althoughveryweak,is surpris-
ing. Studiesof divisionsandfunctionshadsignifi-
cantly moresevere resource problemsthan
studiesof entire enterprises.Thesame effect, al-
thoughnotstatistically significant,wastruefor the
processandoverall categories.For the output
category,the ratings werenearly equal(although
in the oppositedirectionas theothers).Theimpli-
cationof this finding is that the broadandgeneral
recommendations of the methodologiesmight
simplybebettersuitedto the definitionof dataar-
chitecturesof broaderscopes.
Factor6: When the SlSPstudyfailed to spec-
ify a planninghorizon, problems
weremoresevere than whenit did
specifya planninghorizon.
Theeffect of this findingwasconsistent acrossall
four categoriesandwassignificant for the re-
sourcesandoverall categories.Its implicationis
fairly straightforward-- a planninghorizonis a
control mechanism. It demandsthat a schedule
be drawnup andfollowed.It forcesplanningpar-
ticipants to confrontandresolveproblems in order
to meettheir milestones.This finding suggests
that the importance of a planninghorizonhasnot
diminishedeventhoughincreasing environmen-
tal volatility hasmade its usemoredifficult (Led-
erer and Mendelow, 1986c;Sullivan, 1987).
Factor 7: Publicly-ownedorganizationshad
moresevere problemsthan pri-
vately-ownedorganizations.
Although the effect wasconsistent
for all four cat-
egories,noneof the differencesweresignificant,
Still, the implicationmightbethat publicly-owned
firms are generally morebureaucraticandmore
subjectto externalpressuresthanprivately-held
organizations,possibly because it is easier to
controlplanningin a privately-heldfirm. Thus,IS
departments in public companies wouldfind more
difficulty in obtainingresources,executingthe
process,andanalyzingthe output.
The problemsof specific SISP
methodologies
Thetop ten problemsof the four mostfrequently
usedS~SPmethodologies appearin Table8. De-
spite the commonbelief that oneof BSP’smajor
strengthsis its detailed documentation
(Bowman,
StrategicPlanning
et al., 1983;Zachman, 1982), BSP’stop problem
is that its documentation doesnot adequately de-
scribe the stepsto follow. Thetop problem of SSP
andIE is the difficulty of obtainingtop manage-
mentcommitment for implementing the plan, per-
haps becausethese methodologies(and their
vendors)are less well-knownto top management
thanIBM.It mayalso be dueto their morerecent
origin. Themajorproblemof in-house-developed
methodologies is their lack of sufficient computer
support;this is not surprisingwhenoneconsiders
the expenseof developingsuchsupportandthe
likelihoodthat a firm woulddoso.
Table8 also showssomeother potential differ-
encesamong the methodologies.Lackof a train-
ing planandthe lengthydurationof the planning
exerciseare two problemsin SSP’sandIE’stop
ten that are not in BSP’s
top ten. Inadequate
docu-
mentation,lack of computer support, anddepen-
denceon a teamleader are three problemsin
BSP’stop ten that are not in SSP’sandIE’s top
ten.
Among the top ten problemsof the four method-
ologies, three are common to all four. Thesein-
cludethe difficulty in obtainingtop management
commitment for implementingthe outputs,the re-
quirement for substantialfurther analysis,andthe
difficulty findinga goodteamleader.In fact, most
of the top ten problems of eachmethodology are
related to carryingout the plan andthe planning
team;this finding accents the underlyingsimilari-
ties among the methodologies.
Thesesimilarities and differences might offer
somepreliminaryguidanceto firms selecting or
developingan SISPmethodology.However,due
to smallsample sizes(17, 11, 12, and11, respec-
tively, for thefour methodologies in Table8), cau-
tiousinterpretationof this table is suggested.
Summaryand Conclusion
Improved SISPis a majorchallengefacing IS ex-
ecutivestoday.Effectiveplanningis essentialto
therealizationof the potentialstrategicimpactof
computer-based informationsystems.This article
hasexamined the difficulties of implementing a
methodology to performSISP.
Theresults suggestthat IS planners are not
particularly satisfied with their methodologies.
Planningrequires too manyresources.Topman-
agementcommitmentis not easily obtained.
When the SISPexerciseis complete,further anal-
ysis is requiredbeforethe executionof the plan
MIS Quarterly~September1988 457
StrategicPlanning

Table8. Extentof Problems

of Different Methodologies
Problem AbbreviatedProblemStatement Extreme Minor
Code or Major Problem
Problem
BSP
R8 Documentation is inadequate 58% 16%
O17 Difficult to securetop management commitment 53% 32%
R4 Successdependenton teamleader 53% 26%
O16 Requires further analysis 53% 21%
R9 Methodology lacks sufficient computersupport 47% 26%
06 Nopriorities for developing databases 47% 26%¯
P7 Ignoresplan implementation issues 44% 17%
R2 Difficult to find teamleadermeeting criteria 42% 26%
R7 Very expensive 37% 32%
P5 Noanalysisof technologicalenvironment 37% 21%
IE
O17 Difficult to securetop management commitment 60% 10%
R2 Difficult to find teamleadermeeting criteria 46% 9%
O16 Requires further analysis 44% 11%
Oll Notraining plan for IS department 40% 10%
08 Nohardwareplan 36% 27%
P12 Too muchuser involvement 36% 27%
R6 Planningexercisetakeslong time 36% 18%
Pll Heavytop management involvement 36% 18%
O7 Nodata administrationneedaddressed 36% 9%
O13 NopermanentIS planninggroup 30% 20%
SSP
O17 Difficult to securetop management commitment 67% 8%
Oll Notraining plan for IS department 58% 17%
O16 Requires further analysis 46% 39%
R13 Difficult to obtain top management approval 46% 39%
P3 Noanalysis of IS departmentstrengths/weaknesses 46% 27%
R3 Difficult to find teammembers meeting criteria 46% 15%
R6 Planningexercisetakeslong time 42% 25%
O12 Nofinancial planfor IS department 42% 25%
O18 Experiences not sufficiently transferable 42% 8%
R2 Difficult to find teamleadermeeting criteria 38% 31%
In-House
R9 Methodology lacks sufficient computer support 55% 18%
O16 Requires further analysis 50% 30%
R4 Successdependenton teamleader 46% 36%
R3 Difficult to find teammembers meeting criteria 46% 36%
O17 Difficult to securetop management commitment 40% 20%
R8 Documentation is inadequate 36% 46%
P10 Questions difficult for managers to answer 36% 18%
R2 ¯ Difficult to find teamleadermeeting criteria 36% 9%
O18 Experiences not sufficiently transferable 33% 11%
R13 Difficult to obtain top management approval 30% 20%

can take place. Consequently,

carrying out the
planis oftennot veryextensive.
Thefinal plan might be a goodplan. However,
management commitmentto the plan might be
missingor the means of controlling its execution
mightbe ineffective.
Therefore,if the objectiveof the SISPexerciseis
to alignIS objectiveswithbusinessgoals(as is the
primaryobjective of mostof the methodologies
usedby participantsin this study),thendetailed,
lengthy and complexSISPmaybe of limited
value. Alternatively,the objectiveof an SISPex-
ercise can be to useinformation technologyto

458 MIS Quarterly~September1988


impacta businessstrategy; however,
the method-
ologiesin this studymaynot generatethe useful
ideasto fulfill that purpose.
Impfications for practitioners
Thisarticle providespractitionerswith a compre-
hensivelist of the potential problems of imple-
mentingan SISPmethodology. Practitioners can
examinethe problemsand attemptto anticipate
themwithin their ownorganizations.Practitioners
can developstrategies for circumventingthe
problems.Table3 can serveas a comprehensive
checklistfor discussion
anddebate.Table5 incor-
poratesevidenceaboutthe relative concernsof
the variousproblemsin other organizations.
Practitionersmightalso considerthe managerial
andorganizational issuesinvestigatedin this arti-
cle andtheir potentialeffectonSISPin their firms.
Thetwo mostsignificant issuesare the top IS ex-
ecutive’sreportingrelationshipandthe organiza-
tion’s businessplanning sophistication. The
findingsrelatingto the first issueaddstrengthto
the positionof anyIS directorswhoare attempting
to convincemanagement that they shouldreport
to a presidentrather thana controller. Thefind-
ings relating to the second issuesuggest that the
needfor effectiveIS planningmightpossiblystim-
ulate the needfor effective businessplanning;
such a notion was proposed in Lederer and
Mendelow (1986b).
Practitionersmightalsopayparticularattentionto
methods of attenuatingthe potential, detrimental
effects of some of the unavoidablefactors (such
as public ownership or top management initiation
of the study). Specialconsiderationcouldbe di-
rected to the IS management’s use of rewards
andsanctions to controlthe executionof the final
plans.
Thusthe practitioner mightask: Howin mycom-
panywill I securegenuinetop management com-
mitment? Howwill I developa plan that doesnot
requireextensivefurtheranalysis?Howwill I iden-
tify a teamleaderwith excellentbusinessskills
andsufficient IS savvy?WhatcanI offer to man-
agement to convincethemto authorizesufficient
SISPresources?
Howwill I avoiddeveloping a thick anddetailed
planthat ultimatelysits on myshelf andcollects
dust?
Implications for researchers
Researchers
needto recognizethe importance of
SISPandinvestigateit. It hasreached
the top of
StrategicPlanning
several practitioner surveysandtherefore de-
servesthe attentionof IS researchers. Thisstudy
lays thefoundationfor furtherworkin the area.
This article has examined a numberof critical
problems of SISPandhasidentified the mostim-
portant ones. In doing so, it haspreparedre-
searchersto studythe relationshipsbetween the
problems. For example, under what circum-
stancesmightspecific resourceproblems lead to
specific processproblems?Likewise,howmight
specific resourceproblemsand processprob-
lemsberelated to specific outputproblems?
Theinvestigationof a smallnumber of factorspo-
tentially associatedwith the problemsof SISP
methodology implementation wasreportedin this
article. Theresultssuggestthat it mightbefruitful
to developa comprehensive modeland test a
widervarietyof suchfactors.Usingthis model,re-
searchersmight ask: Underwhatcircumstances
woulda firm best chooseonemethodology or an-
other?How woulda firm cull featuresfromthe var-
ious techniquesin order to assembleits own
in-house methodology?
Thearticle promptsonefinal researchquestion:
Whatare the alternatives to the methodologies
describedin this study?Perhapsthese method-
ologiesrequiretoo muchdetail in their business
analysisanddatabase design.It maybe too much
to expectthat a committee chargedwith detailed
businessanalysis and databasedesign could
generatestrategicvisions aboutsystems for cre-
ating a competitiveadvantage. It maybetoo much
to expectthat the combination of the strategicap-
plication identification phase andthe dataarchi-
tecture development activity, without product
champions for each, can producevaluable re-
sults. Perhapsbecausethey use extensivere-
sources, provide limited results, and raise
expectationsfor projects that might neverbe
implemented,the methodologiesare actually
hazardousto their users’ health. Perhapsre-
searchersshouldsearchfor completelynewand
innovativealternativesfor performing SISP.
Acknowledgement
Theauthors acknowledge their appreciation to
Premkumar Gopalaswamy and T.N. Menon,who
contributedto the early phasesof this research.
References
Arthur Andersenand Co. Method/l: An Informa-
tion SystemsMethodology, Subject File
AA4665,Item 57, 1982.
MIS Quarterly/September 1988 459
 StrategicPlanning
Arthur Andersenand Co. Executive Guide to
Strategic InformationPlanning,booklet #85-
6129,1985.
Arthur Andersenand Co. TheChangingShapeof
MIS, #86-6230,1986.
Benjamin,R.I., Dickinson,C., Jr. andRockart,
J.F. ~’TheChanging Roleof the Corporate Infor-
mationSystems Officer," MISQuarterly(9:3),
September 1985,pp. 177-188.
Bowman, B., Davis, G. and Wetherbe,J. "Three
StageModelof MISPlanning,"Informationand
Management (6:1), August1983,pp. 11- 25.
Boynton,A. C. and Zmud,R. W. "An Assessment
of Critical SuccessFactors," SloanManage-
mentReview(25:4), Summer 1984, pp. 17-27~
Brancheau, J.C. andWetherbe,J.C. "KeyIssues
in Information SystemsManagement,"MIS
Quarterly(11:1), March1987,pp. 23-45.
Carlson, W. M. "BusinessInformation Analysis
andIntegration Technique (BIAIT): A NewHori-
. zon," DataBase,Spring1979,pp. 3-9.
Clemons, E.K. "Information Systems for Sustain-
able CompetitiveAdvantage,"Informationand
Management (11:3), October1986, pp. 131-
136,
Gill, S. "Information Systems Planning: A Case
Review,"Information and Management (4:5),
December 1981, pp. 233-238.
Hartog,C. andHerbert, M. "1985OpinionSurvey
of MISManagers:KeyIssues," MISQuarterly
(10:4), December 1986,pp. 350-361.
HollandSystems Corporation.Strategic Systems
Planning, document#M0154-04861986, Ann
Arbor, MI, 1986.
IBMCorporation. BusinessSystemsPlanning-
InformationSystems PlanningGuide,publica-
tion #GE20-0527-4, 1975.
Index Systems,Inc. "PRISM:Information Sys-
tems Planningin the Contemporary Environ-
ment: Final Report," Cambridge, MA,
December1986.
Ives, BoandLearmonth, G. "TheInformationSys-
tem as a Competitive Weapon,"Communica-
tions of the ACM (27:12), December 1984,pp.
1193-1201.
Johnson,J. R. "Enterprise Analysis," Datama-
tion, December 15, 1984,pp. 97-103.
Kay,R.M.,Szypenski, N., Horing,K. andBartz, G.
"Strategic Planningof InformationSystems at
the CorporateLevel," Information and Man-
agement(3:5), December 1980,pp. 175-186.
Kerner,D. V. "BusinessInformationCharacteri-
zation Study,"DataBase,Spring1979,pp. 10-
17.
King, W. R. "Strategic Planningfor Management
Information Systems,"MISQuarterly (2:1),
March1978,pp. 27-37.
460 MIS Quarterly~September1988
King, W.R. "Evaluatingan InformationSystems
Planning Process;" Working Paper #592,
GraduateSchool of Business,University of
Pittsburgh,1984.
Lederer,A. L. andMendelow, A. L. "Issuesin In-
formationSystems Planning," Informationand
Management (10:~0), May1986a, pp. 245-
254.
Lederer,A. L. andMendelow, A. L. "Paradoxes of
Information SystemsPlanning," Proceedings
of the SeventhInternationalConference on In-
formation Systems,December 15-17, 1986b,
SanDiego,CA,pp..255- 264.
Lederer,A. L. andMendelow, A. L. "TheImpactof
the Environment on the Management of Infor-
mationSystems:A Theoretical Model," Work-
ing Paper Series; Graduate School of
Business,Universityof Pittsburgh,1986c.
Lederer,A. L. andMendelow, A. L. "Information
Resource Planning:Overcoming Difficulties in
Identifying Top Management’s Objectives,"
MISQuarterly (11:3), September1987, pp.
389-400.
Lederer,A. L. andPutnam,A. "ConnectingSys-
tems Objectives to BusinessStrategy with
BSP,"Information Strategy: TheExecutives’
Journal(2:2), Winter1986,pp. 12-18.
Martin, J. Strategic Data.PlanningMethodolo-
gies, Prentice-HallInc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1982.
McFarlan,F.W."Problemsin Planningthe Infor-
mation System," Harvard Business Review
(49:2), March-April 1971,pp. 75-89.
McFarlan,F.W."Portfolio Approach to Informa-
tion Systems," Harvard Business Review
(59:5), September~October 1981,pp. 142-150.
McFarlan, F.W. "Information Technology
Changesthe WayYou Compete," Harvard
BusinessReview(62:3), May-June1984, pp.
98-103.
McLean, E. R. andSoden,J. VoStrategic Plan-
ning for MIS, JohnWiley and Sons,Inc., New
York, 1977.
Moskowitz, R. "Strategic Systems PlanningShifts
to Data-OrientedApproach,"Computerworld,
May12, 1986,pp. 109-119.
Osborn,A.F. Applied Imagination, Scribners,
NewYork, 1957.
Parsons,G.L. "Information Technology:A New
Competitive Weapon," Sloan Management
Review (25:1), Fall 1983,pp. 3-14.
Porter, M.E. CompetitiveAdvantage:Creating
and Sustaining Superior Performance,Free
Press,NewYork, ~1985.
Rackoff,N., Wiseman, C. andUllrich, W.A."Infor-
mation Systemsfor Competitive Advantage:
Implementationof a PlanningProcess," MIS
Quarterly(9:4), December 1985,pp. 285-294.

Rockart,J. F. "ChiefExecutives DefineTheirOwn
Data Needs," Harvard Business Review,
March-April1979,pp. 215-229.
Rockart,J. F. andCrescenzi,A.D. "Engaging Top
Management in Information Technology,"
Sloan Management Review(25:4), May1984,
pp. 3-16.
Runge, D.A. Using Telecommunicationsfor
CompetitiveAdvantage,unpublisheddoctoral
dissertation,Universityof Oxford,Oxford,Eng-
land, 1985.
Schwartz, M.H. "MIS Planning," Datamation,
September 1, 1970,pp. 18-31.
Sinclair, S.W."TheThreeDomains of Information
Systems Planning,"Journalof lnformationSys-
temsManagement (3:2), Spring 1986, pp.
16.
Sullivan,C. H., Jr. "SystemsPlanningin theInfor-
mation Age," Sloan ManagementReview
(26:2), Winter1985,pp. 3-13.
Sullivan, C. H., Jr. "AnEvolutionaryNewLogic
Redefines Strategic Systems Planning,"Infor-
mationStrategy:TheExecutive’sJournal(3:2),
Winter1987,pp. 13-19.
Vacca,J. R. "BSP:HowIs It Working,"Computer-
world, March1983.
Vacca,J. R. "IBM’sInformationQualityAnalysis,"
Computerworld,December 10, 1984.
Vitale, M.R.,Ives, B. andBeath,C.M."LinkingIn-
formation Technology and CorporateStrategy:
AnOrganizationalView," Proceedingsof the
SeventhInternational Conference on Informa-
tion Systems,SanDiego, CA, December 15-
17, 1986,pp. 265-276.
Wetherbe, J. C. andDavis,G. B. "StrategicPlan-
ning ThroughEnds/Means Analysis," MISRe-
searchCenter, WorkingPaper,University of
Minnesota,1982.
Wiseman, C. Strategy and Computers:Informa-
tion Systemsas Competitive Weapons,Dow
Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1985.
StrategicPlanning
Yadav,S. B. "Determiningan Organization’sIn-
formationRequirements:
A Stateof the Art Sur-
vey," DataBase,Spring1983,pp. 3-20.
Zachman, J. A. "BusinessSystemsPlanningand
BusinessInformation Control Study: A Com-
parison," IBMSystemsJournal(21:1), 1982,
pp. 31-53.
About the Authors
Albert L. Ledereris anassistantprofessorat the
JosephM. Katz GraduateSchoolof Businessat
the Universityof Pittsburgh.Heearned his M.S.in
computerand informationscienceand his Ph.D.
in industrial andsystems engineering at the Ohio
StateUniversity.Dr. Ledererspentoverten years
in industryin the MISfield. His articles haveap-
pearedin the MISQuarterly, SloanManagement
Review,Information and Management, Journal
of SystemsManagement, Business Horizons,
andseveralotherjournals. Heis the consulting
editor for a newjournal, Computers in Personnel.
His researchinterests include the planningand
implementation of management information
systems.
Vijay Sethiis anassistantprofessorat the School
of Management at the State University of New
Yorkat Buffalo. Heearnedhis M.B.A.fromOhio
University.Heis currentlycompleting his doctoral
dissertation at the JosephM. Katz Graduate
Schoolof Business at the Universityof Pittsburgh
on the measurement of the extentto whichan in-
formation technologyapplication providescom-
petitive advantage. His articles haveappearedor
are forthcomingin INFOR, Interfaces,Information
ManagementReview, and DATABASE. His
other researchinterests are informationsystems
planning, decision support systems,end-user
computing,and expertsystems.
MISQuarterly~September1988 461