Alan Thorogood

Information systems strategy as practice

The ‘‘rigor versus relevance’’ debate and the questioning of the practical relevance of much contemporary research are recurring themes not just in the field of Information Systems (IS) (Straub and Ang, 2011; Klein and Rowe, 2008; Roseman and Vessey, 2008) but in the wider field of management (c.f. Kieser and Leiner, 2009; Knights and Scarbrough, 2010; Mohrman et al., 2001; Nicolai and Seidl, 2010; Moisander and Stenfors, 2009; Shrivastava, 1987). In IS in particular, this has led to some scholars questioning the practical value of much of the published research (cf. Benbasat and Zmud, 1999; Desouza et al., 2006; Keen, 1991; Lyytinen, 1999; Senn, 1998). A central premise of the arguments these protagonists present is that much research draws on methods that are inappropriate to the applied nature of the discipline (Breu and Peppard, 2003; Galliers and Land, 1987, 1988). The foundation of this argument reflects the social sciences ‘practice turn’ that sees all knowledge as existing within the fields of practice (Schatzki et al., 2001). In philosophy, the turn to pragmatism similarly values knowledge through practitioners’ eyes and places the practitioner at the center of theory development (Putnam, 1995; Rorty, 1998). This movement toward practical relevance prefers concrete micro actions rather than abstract macro analysis. People and knowledge that make a difference in practice are thus, or at least should be, central to research endeavours. In line with these arguments, the Strategic Management field has seen the emergence of a body of research that focuses on strategizing or the ‘doing of strategy’ (Jarzabkowski, 2004; Jarzabkowski and Spee, 2009; Jarzabkowski et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2003a,b, 2007; Whittington, 1996, 2002a,b, 2006). Often referred to as the ‘‘Strategy as Practice’’ school, it emphasizes the actual day-to-day activities, contexts, processes and content that relate to strategic outcomes. This move towards a more micro perspective is in response to growing frustrations with contemporary strategy literature regarding its relevance to practitioners. Part of the problem is that there has been a dominant macro focus in strategic management research that is remote from practice, particularly the normative models resulting from it. Research in the Strategy as Practice genre emphasizes how people engage in the ‘real work’ of developing a strategy and strategizing. In addressing strategy as practice, the focus of research is on strategy praxis, strategy practitioners and strategy practices (e.g., Jarzabkowski et al., 2007; Whittington, 2002a) – the work, workers and tools of strategy in other words. In line with this movement, this Special Issue of The Journal of Strategic Information Systems explores information systems strategy and strategizing from a practice perspective. Reflecting the arguments for research relevance, the call for papers echoed Lee’s (2010: 346) recent comment that ‘‘the starting point of IS research need not be the existing theory (primarily epistêmê) located in the IS discipline’s own (or any other) research literature; rather, the starting point could be the technê

THREE IT-BUSINESS ALIGNMENT PROFILES: TECHNICAL RESOURCE, BUSINESS ENABLER, AND STRATEGIC WEAPON

There is a growing recognition among alignment researchers and IT professionals that “one size does not fit all.” In this article, we provide an important extension of alignment research that shows three profiles linking IT to different business objectives. We address the need to identify the appropriate types of IT alignment by using a multi-method study including interviews and cases. Two dimensions define the three alignment profiles: internal IT-business integration and external market engagement. The technical resource profile calls for low levels of IT-business integration and IT-market engagement. The business enabler profile deploys IT in some business processes and begins engaging IT with customers and suppliers. The strategic weapon profile uses IT to mobilize and extend the enterprise, which requires extensive IT deployment, both internally and externally. Each profile differs in strategies, criteria, capabilities, and mental models. Importantly, IT decision-makers should not adopt stage-model thinking which assumes that technical resource profiles naturally progress up the chain. Rather, successful use of IT requires specifying the requisite alignment profile as an initial design decision so that appropriate levels of resource allocation and management involvement occur.

Information Technology (IT)/Business Alignment as a Strategic Weapon: A Diagnostic Tool

Abstract: This article presents a diagnostic for identifying a strategic profile for Business/IT alignments. Based on consulting and research over the past decade, we have observed executives who are dissatisfied with their IT program and project alignment strategies. Technical and process engineering projects rather than strategic IT-business alignments were favored. Not all IT initiatives can or should be dedicated to projects and programs that affect enterprise-wide change; however, prominent IT experts argue that CIOs are receiving pressure to align IT for strategic purposes due to competitive market forces. Two case studies illustrate the processes and benefits of aligning IT-based business outcomes at the project and program levels using the strategic diagnostic proposed here.

Raise your glasses – the water's magic! Strategic IT at SA Water: a case study in alignment, outsourcing and governance

The South Australian Water case study illustrates the management challenges in aligning Information Technology with business objectives in a publicly owned corporation. To achieve the alignment, the new CIO begins by refreshing the IT infrastructure to support the required business applications. When the Government establishes ‘Improved water quality’ as a major corporate goal, the CIO seeks to add value to the business by developing a quality reporting system that leverages the existing technology. At the same time, he demonstrates to the corporation the IT functions capability to deliver business value through the management of multiple outsourcing vendors.

A contingency view of organizational infrastructure requirements engineering

Delivery of IT projects in todays rapidly changing business environment is a challenge. Conventional investment approaches result in lumpy capital allocations, which encourage managers to include many potential future business requirements in each capital request. This locks in the delivery of future requirements despite high market uncertainty. The resulting projects are large and complex from both a technical and management perspective. In the management literature, new frameworks are emerging that draw on Real Options valuations to justify early infrastructure investment and provide fine-grained control over business initiatives in an uncertain world. Business managers can then build on the infrastructure by selecting business initiatives to maximise option value. However, this requires engineering approaches that separates infrastructure and business requirements and minimises their dependencies. This paper explores a contingency approach to Requirements Engineering (RE) to minimise initial requirements and maximise future strategic options, challenging the research communitys dominant paradigm of completeness, correctness and consistency.

Celebrating IT Projects Success: A Multi-domain Analysis

This paper proposes a multi-domain framework for defining information technology (IT) project success. There has been much discussion in the literature on the definition of project success but no consensus is emerging. A key problem is the multiplicity of expectations and perceptions of project performance. A reference framework for IT project success would support development of the discipline by providing a common language for communication and comparison as well as focusing on what stakeholders perceive as important. The framework builds on and extends criteria in the literature that relate to stakeholder interests. The framework contains five domains of success: process, project management, product, business and strategic. The domains are orthogonal and not for composing greater degrees of success. Assessing success in any one domain is independent of performance in other domains. Case examples illustrate application of the framework.

24 × 7 @ full speed: accelerated time to market

Abstract‘Its only a web site. What could be so difficult about that?’ This quote is from the cafeteria of a start-up business funded by a North American retailer, after the disastrous ‘Black Friday’ of 2000, during which its web site experienced systemic failure. This case describes the dynamics, complexities and consequences of fast tracking an e-business start-up. This consumer electronics retailer created one of the most visited retail web sites, from concept to operation in 6 months. Market analysts were predicting a major increase in online sales while consumers were adopting the Internet at a rate faster than any previous technology. Meeting the multi-channel demands of the dynamic and competitive environment required operational balance, stability, innovative flexibility, organizational fit and the alignment of resource capabilities with technology. This case challenges the reader to comment on how a large company positioned itself and integrated the necessary competencies to compete successfully in a developing market by establishing a spin-off operation, separate from the main company.