It is believed that the classification framework suggested by this paper provides
contributions to both academics and practitioners. In terms of academics, this
framework helps IS researchers, particularly the younger one, understand what
alternatives are available while initiating analysis and discussion strategies on the
alignment results. Although the dimension level approach (Perspective I and III) for
analyzing alignment results explores the synergy between constructs into a greater
level, the overall level approach (Perspective II and IV) does have more convergent
implications for readers. Selecting one which is pertinent to their research project, is
critical. In order to generate useful outcomes, researchers need to consider the
purposes of their research projects and interests of the target audiences when selecting
an appropriate analysis perspective.
Several research questions are posed relating to this framework. Firstly, is there
any interrelationship between the four perspectives? As discussed earlier, the
qualitative discussion of alignment is advantageous when studying the alignment
constructs which involve a new notion. Therefore, does one who is exploring a new
notion tend to adopt the Perspective I (Qualitative Dimension Level) or Perspective II
(Qualitative Overall Level)? And what perspective should be adopted in the next
exploration? Secondly, what are the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of each
perspective? Thirdly, can this framework explain the reasons which cause different
views on the meaning of alignment? Can different definitions and views on the
meaning of alignment fit into this framework? These questions offer opportunities to
conducting a series of future research projects, and also help us advance our
understanding of the way to discuss IS alignment results.
In terms of practical circumstances, as top management becomes more directly
involved in the organization’s information systems, problems with the information
flow around the organization receive more strategic focus. The opportunity arising to
improve the alignment of the organization’s information systems with strategic
organizational goals has become critical to both IS and business functions (Hasan &
Lampitsi, 1995). Management, therefore, must decide who should be responsible for
the content and delivery of computer based information for strategic control and
decision-making. If IS applications are not providing appropriate information to
support business strategies, such as if there is a misalignment between IS and business
strategies, both IS and business functions need to figure out the solutions to bring back
alignment (Ragu-Nathan, Ragu-Nathan, & Shi, 2001). Those problematic situations
encourage business functions to gain managerial and skillful knowledge about IS
alignment. The suggested classification framework serves as a roadmap for business
functions, particularly the senior management, to examine whether the perspective of
result discussion employed by an IS alignment study is matched with what they
expected to learn. Moreover, the framework also helps them initiate an appropriate
research project on IS alignment to reconcile their managerial conflicts.
6. SUMMARY
This paper proposed a classification framework to help those who are initiating or
planning to develop IS alignment research to select an appropriate perspective to
discuss their alignment results, and to help those who are reading IS alignment
research understand how research results for IS alignment were discussed. In a review
of prior classification frameworks on IS alignment research, several frameworks and
dimensions are identified. However, these are only useful for explaining the nature of
alignment constructs and are not effective for developing a plan for discussing
alignment results. The proposed classification framework rectifies this shortfall by
posing two considerations to researchers: whether the discussion of alignment is based
on a qualitative or quantitative approach; and whether the discussion of alignment is on
the dimension or overall level. In line with these two considerations, four perspectives
are identified: qualitative discussion on dimension, qualitative discussion on overall,
quantitative discussion on dimension, and quantitative discussion on overall levels.
How alignment results should be discussed when each perspective is adopted has been
explained. The contributions, implications, and future research derived from the
suggested classification framework are also provided. This paper concludes that this
classification framework provides contributions to both academics and practitioners.
REFERENCES
1. Atkins, M. H. (1994). Information technology and information systems perspectives on business strategies. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 3(2), 123-135.
2. Baets, W. (1992). Aligning information systems with business strategy. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 1(4), 205-213.
3. Bauer, C. (2001). Strategic alignment for electronic commerce. In R. Papp (Ed.), Strategic Information Technology: Opportunities for Competitive Advantage (pp.
259-272). London: Idea Group Publishing.
4. Ball, N. L., Adams, C. R., & Xia, W. (2003). Overcoming the elusive problem of IS/IT alignment: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Paper presented at the Ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Tampa, USA.
5. Bauer, C. (2001). Strategic alignment for electronic commerce. In R. Papp (Ed.), Strategic information technology: Opportunities for competitive advantage (pp.
259-272). London: Idea Group Publishing.
6. Bergeron, F., Raymond, L., & Rivard, S. (2001). Fit in strategic information technology management research: An empirical comparison of perspectives.
Omega, 29(2), 125-142.
7. Boulianne, E. (2007). Revisiting fit between AIS design and performance with the analyzer strategic-type. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 8(1), 1-16.
8. Broadbent, M., & Weill, P. (1991). Developing business and information strategy alignment: A study in the bank industry. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Information Systems, New York.
9. Burn, J. M., & Szeto, C. (2000). A comparison of the views of business and IT management on success factors for strategic alignment. Information and Management, 37(4), 197-216.
10. Celuch, K., Murphy, G. B., & Callaway, S. K. (2007). More bang for your buck:
Small firms and the importance of aligned information technology capabilities and strategic flexibility. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 17(2), 187-197.
11. Chan, Y. E. (2002). Why haven't we mastered alignment? The importance of the informal organization structure. MIS Quarterly Executive, 1(2), 97-112.
12. Chan, Y. E., & Huff, S. L. (1992). Strategy: An information systems research perspective. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 1(4), 191-204.
13. Chan, Y. E., Huff, S. L., & Copeland, D. G. (1998). Assessing realized information systems strategy. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 6(4), 273-298.
14. Chan, Y. E. & Reich, B. H. (2007). IT alignment: What have we learned? Journal of Information Technology, 22(4), 297-315.
15. Chiang, M. H. (2007) A methodological classification in ES implementation research, Journal of American Academy of Business 11(1), 197-203.
16. Chorn, N. H. (1991). The "alignment" theory: Creating strategic fit. Management Decision, 29(1), 20-24.
17. Cowherd, D. M., & Luchs, R. H. (1988). Linking organization structures and processes to business strategy. Long Range Planning, 21(5), 47-53.
18. Cragg, P., King, M., & Hussin, H. (2002). IT alignment and firm performance in small manufacturing firms. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(2), 109-132.
19. Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1196-1250.
20. Dowlatshahi, S., & Cao, Q. (2006). The relationships among virtual enterprise, information technology, and business performance in agile manufacturing: An industry perspective. European Journal of Operational Research, 174(2), 835-860.
21. Hasan, H., & Lampitsi, S. (1995). Executive access to information systems in Australian public organizations. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 4(3), 213-223.
22. Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 4-16.
23. Henderson, J. C., Venkatraman, N., & Oldach, S. (1996). Aligning business and IT strategies. In Jerry N. Luftman (Ed.) Competing in the information age:
Strategic alignment in practice (pp. 21-42). New York: Oxford.
24. Ho, C. F. (1996). Information technology implementation strategies for manufacturing organizations: A strategic alignment approach. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 16(7), 77-100.
25. Insinga, R. C., & Werle, M. J. (2000). Linking outsourcing to business strategy.
Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 58-70.
26. Itami, H., & Numagami, T. (1992). Dynamic interaction between strategy and technology. Strategic Management Journal, 13(Special Issue), 119-135.
27. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy.
California Management Review, 39(1), 53-79.
28. Karimi, J., Gupta, Y. P., & Somers, T. M. (1996). The congruence between a firm's competitive strategy and information technology leader's rank and role.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(1), 63-88.
29. Kathuria, R., & Porth, S. J. (2003). Strategy-managerial characteristics alignment and performance: A manufacturing perspective. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23(3-4), 255-276.
30. Kearns, G. S., & Lederer, A. L. (2000). The effect of strategic alignment on the use of IS-based resources for competitive advantage. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(4), 265-293.
31. Kerr, J. L., & Jackofsky, E. F. (1989). Aligning managers with strategies:
Management development versus selection. Strategic Management Journal, 10(Special Issue), 157-170.
32. Lederer, A. L., & Mendelow, A. L. (1989). Coordination of information systems plans with business plans. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6(2), 5-19.
33. Lee, J. N. (2006). Outsourcing alignment with business strategy and firm performance. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 17(Article 49), 1124-1146.
34. Luftman, J. N. (2000). Assessing business-IT alignment maturity.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(Article 14), 11-50.
35. Luftman, J. N., Lewis, P. R., & Oldach, S. H. (1993). Transforming the enterprise: The alignment of business and information technology strategies. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 198-221.
36. Luftman, J. N., Papp, R., & Brier, T. (1999). Enablers and inhibitors of business-IT alignment. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 1(Article 11), 11-33.
37. Luo, Y. D., & Park, S. H. (2001). Strategic alignment and performance of market-seeking MNCs in China. Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 141-155.
38. Macdonald, K. H. (1994). Organizational transformation and alignment:
Misalignment as an impediment to progress in organizational development.
Information Management and Computer Security, 2(4), 16-29.
39. McFarlan, F. W., Mckenney, J. L., & Pyburn, P. (1983). The information archipelago: Plotting a course. Harvard Business Review, 61(1), 145-156.
40. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw Hill.
41. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1994). Fit, failure and the hall of fame: How companies succeed or fail. New York: Free Press.
42. Nakayama, M. (2001). Aligning IT resources for e-commerce. In R. Papp (Ed.), Strategic information technology: Opportunities for competitive advantage (pp.
185-199). London: Idea Group Publishing.
43. Nickerson, R. C., Eng, J., & Ho, L. C. (2001). An exploratory study of strategic alignment and global information system implementation success in Fortune 500 companies. Paper presented at the Ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Tampa, USA.
44. Papp, R. (1998). Alignment of business and Information Technology strategy:
How and why? Information Management, 11(3/4), 6-11.
45. Papp, R. (2001). Introduction to strategic alignment. In R. Papp (Ed.), Strategic information technology: Opportunities for competitive advantage (pp. 1-24).
London: Idea Group Publishing.
46. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: The Free Press.
50. Reich, B. H., & Benbasat, I. (1996). Measuring the linkage between business and information technology objectives. MIS Quarterly, 20(1), 55-81.
51. Sabherwal, R., & Chan, Y. E. (2001). Alignment between business and IS strategies: A study of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders. Information Systems Research, 12(1), 11-33.
52. Sabherwal, R., Hirschheim, R., & Goles, T. (2001). The dynamics of alignment:
Insights from a punctuated equilibrium model. Organization Science, 12(2), 179-197.
53. Sabherwal, R., & Kirs, P. (1994). The alignment between organizational critical success factors and information technology capability in academic institutions.
Decision Sciences, 25(2), 301-330.
54. Scharl, A., Gebauer, J., & Bauer, C. (2001). Matching process requirements with information technology to access the efficiency of Web information systems.
Information Technology and Management, 2(2), 193-210.
55. Schneider, B., Godfrey, E. G., Hayes, S. C., Huang, M., Lim, B. C., Nishii, L. H., et al. (2003). The human side of strategy: Employee experiences of strategic alignment in a service organization. Organizational Dynamics, 32(2), 122-141.
56. Segars, A. H., Grover, V., & Kettinger, W. J. (1995). Strategic users of information technology: A longitudinal analysis of organizational strategy and performance. Long Range Planning, 28(4), 128.
57. Sethi, V., & King, W. R. (1994). Development of measures to assess the extent to which an information technology application provides competitive advantage.
Management Science, 40(12), 1601-1627.
58. Shank, J. K., Niblock, E. G., & Sandalls, W. T. (1973). Balance creativity and practicality in formal planning. Harvard Business Review, 51(1), 87-94.
59. Tan, F. B. (1994). Linking information technology to business strategy: An empirical study. Working paper, Auckland, New Zealand: The University of Auckland. Document Number)
60. Tan, F. B. (1999). Using cognitive mapping to explore strategy-IT alignment and shared understanding: A research-in-progress. Working paper, Auckland, New Zealand: The University of Auckland. Document Number)
61. Tan, F. B. (2001). Research into business-IT alignment: Toward a Cognitive perspective. Working paper, Auckland, New Zealand: The University of Auckland. Document Number)
62. Tavakolian, H. (1989). Linking the information technology structure with organizational competitive strategy: A survey. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 309-317.
63. Teo, T. S. H., & Ang, J. S. K. (1999). Critical success factors in the alignment of IS plans with business plans. International Journal of Information Management, 19(2), 173-185.
64. Teo, T. S. H., & King, W. R. (1996). Assessing the impact of integrating business planning and IS planning. Information and Management, 30(6), 309-321.
65. Thomas, J. B., & Dewitt, R. (1996). Strategic alignment research and practice: A review and research agenda. In J. Luftman (Ed.), Competing in the information age: Strategic alignment in practice (pp. 385-403). New York: Oxford University Press.
66. Van de Ven, A. H. (1979). Review of Aldrich's (1979) book - Organizations and environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 320-326.
67. Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct, dimensionality, and measurement. Management Science, 35(8), 942-962.
68. Venkatraman, N., & Camillus, J. C. (1984). Exploring the concept of ''fit'' in strategic management. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 513-525.
69. Venkatraman, N., Henderson, J. C., & Oldach, S. (1993). Continuous strategic alignment: Exploiting information technology capabilities for competitive success. European Management Journal, 11(2), 139-148.
70. Ward, J. M. (1987). Integrating information systems into business strategies.
Long Range Planning, 20(3), 19-29.
71. Weill, P., & Broadbent, M. (1998). Rethinking technology investments: The information technology portfolio. In leveraging the new infrastructure: How market leaders capitalize on information technology (pp. 23-45). Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
72. Woolfe, R. (1993). The path to strategic alignment. Information Strategy, 9(2), 13-23.
73. Zahra, S. A., Sisodia, R. S., & Das, S. R. (1994). Technological choices within competitive strategy types: A conceptual integration. International Journal of Technology Management, 9(2), 172-195.
TABLES AND FIGURES
Dimensions Authors/Analogue terms or meanings included
Cause Luftman, Papp, and Brier (1999)/Factor; Reich and Benbasat (1996)/Cause; Thomas and Dewitt (1996)/Explanation; Tan (1999) and Venkatraman and Camillus
(1984)/Process.
Effect Reich and Benbasat (1996)/Effect; Sethi and King (1994) and Venkatraman (1989)/Outcome; Tan (1999)/Content.
Social Lederer and Mendelow (1989)/ Personnel linkage; Reich and Benbasat (1996)/Social.
Intellectual Ball, Adams, and Xia (2003)/Subjective alignment; Reich and Benbasat
(1996)/Intellectual; Shank, Niblock, and Sandalls (1973)/Organizational linkage.
Behavioral Ball, Adams, and Xia (2003)/Objective alignment; Shank, Niblock, and Sandalls (1973)/Content linkage; Tan (1999)/Behavioral.
Description Tan (1999)/Conceptual; Thomas and Dewitt (1996)/Description (both concept building and testing).
Cognitive Tan (1999)/Cognitive
Current Itami and Numagami (1992)/Current; Nakayama (2001)/Current
Future Itami and Numagami (1992)/Future; Nakayama (2001)/Can be; Thomas and Dewitt (1996)/Prediction
Table 1: Alignment dimensions and analogue terms or meanings
Organizational
Functional Divisional Mixed project and
functional matrix Planning process Plan, Act, Evaluate Act, Evaluate, Plan Evaluate, Act, Plan
Table 2: Ideal profile for matching organizational characteristics with business typologies (Adapted from Miles and Snow (1994))
Figure 1: The proposed framework
Dr. Wei-Hsi Hung is an Assistant Professor of Information Management at National
Chung Cheng University, Taiwan. He received his Ph.D. and Master degree (1st Class
Hons) from the Department of Management Systems at the University of Waikato,
New Zealand. His research interests are in the areas of IS alignment, organizational
critical activities, interpretive case studies, and supply chain management.
Dimension level Overall level
Qualitative Perspective I:
e.g. Idea profile
Perspective II:
e.g. Alignment model, and alignment levels
Quantitative Perspective III:
e.g. Degrees
Perspective IV:
e.g. Degrees and levels