Some Tips to Achieve IS Success!

In order to achieve IS Success, there are a few factors which must be considered. It is very important to make sure that any IS project at hand has been planned and will be managed properly. In a paper by Mirza [1], he gives the example of an organisation who were undertaking an IS project. His main advice throughout the article is that he feels in order for an IS project to be a success they should not be jumped into without carefully weighing all benefits and risks. He suggests that sometimes organisations can easily recognise the value of IT/IS but fail in determining exactly what the company’s needs are. This is important to do” before setting out in pursuit of a silver bullet solution” that they believe would solve all their system needs. It is also very important to ensure that an achievable estimate of the actual systems needs is clearly defined.

Huessin et al [1] points out how important organisational factors are in determining a successful outcome of IS. They pose the following framework in figure .1 which outlines the six organisational factors they believe should be considered in achieving IS Success.

Three of the six organisational factors are linked with Management. This links in with a blog by ‘ronnoc90’ who has previously written on the whether management support is a key factor in IS Success. It is vital that managers are “well trained and equipped with IT knowledge and strategy, top management are involved in all activities pertaining to IT/IS use and implementation organisation wide, resources such as time, money and manpower are sufficiently and properly allocated” [2]. Business Drivers [1] are also an important factor to consider as it important to know what exactly the expected outcome should be from the IS system. When attempting to determine IS Success, IS Strategy and business objectives should definitely be aligned.

These are just some easy steps which should be outlined and defined at the very beginning of an IS project. The overall key is proper planning and management. If these two are evident it may help to see rewards for an organisation with IS.

References:

[1] Huessin,R., Mohamed, N., Karim, N. and Ahlan, A. (2007) ‘The Influence of Organisational Factors on Information Systems Success in E-Government Agencies in Malaysia’. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries. 29, 1-17.

[2] Mirza, A. (2010) ‘Failure and Success Factors of an Information System Development in a Charitable Organization’. Global Journal of Management and Business Research. 10(3), 79-83.

[3] ronnoc90 (2013)  https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/top-management-support-a-key-factor-in-is-project-success/

“Gaps” That Exist in DeLone and McLean IS Success Model

Although the DeLone and McLean Model seems to be the main model which IS Success Models are based there are some flaws which can be seen. Gable suggests that within this model “Gaps” do exist. Although the DeLone and McLean model has been a huge impact on measuring IS Success. Gable suggests a few main points which he believes are missing from the Success Models.

Mutual exclusivity and additively of success measures: This shows the divide of opinions which exist of the IS Success Model, some agree with the categories that are represented in the IS Success Model while others are under the impression that instead they “represent distinct dimensions of a complex, higher-order”. Gable instead argues that the dimensions in his model can be combined to prevent an overarching measure of success. The proposed model focuses on the satisfaction. To make sure that each measure is connected with IS Success but does not overlap with any other measures in the model.

Model completeness:  This point outlines that “the completeness of the model becomes critical as adding good and bad, high and low, positive and negative, or hot and cold effects may otherwise mask, neutralize, or distort results.”

Choice of IS Success Dimensions:  In the DeLone and McLean Model it highlights the need to “develop a comprehensive measurement model/instrument for a particular context, the constructs and measures should be systematically selected considering contingency variables”. Gable has commented that most studies in this area do not include any rationale on any choices of success dimensions and any success measures employed.  As previously stated above model completeness is an important factor, it connects in with how the aim is “to gain a full, overarching view of success, it is critical that the complete set of success dimensions be employed, not a selected subset”.

Theoretical basis for causal/process paths: The taxonomy in the DeLone and McLean model is highlighted “without sufficient explanation of its underlying theory and epistemology”. This only emphasises the “causal/process nature of the model”. The fact that there is a “weak explanation for causality and mixed results from empirical studies, raises concerns about the causality of the Delone and McLean model and the utility of the suggested relationships”.

Excessive emphasis on quantitative (financial) measures: Traditional financial measures on their own may not be enough to highlight evidence for IS payoffs.

The nature of the contemporary IS environment:  This is the transformation of indirect oriented use of IS to more direct use. Due to modern technologies IS has changed how organisations produce and manage information. Due to modern times new measures and evaluation models are required to measure success with contemporary IS. This is not always the case and surprisingly most research on IS success is still using outdated measures to try to determine success in IS.

Multiple stakeholder perspectives: In IS evaluation “respondents perspective on measurement is another important design consideration in IS evaluation”. It is very important to have a clear picture of IS Success in all levels of the company. In contrast with how important it is to know all levels of success the focus is usually on the quantify any impacts (benefits and drawbacks) of IS by analysing data collected mostly at senior levels in a company only [1].

These six points outlined by Gable highlight some improvements which can be made in measuring IS Success and what areas are important to focus on.

[1] Gable, Guy G. and Sedera, Darshana and Chan, Taizan (2003) Enterprise systems success: a measurement model. Eds. Proceedings Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, pages pp. 576-591, Seattle, USA.

Using User Information Satisfaction (UIS) to Evaluate IS Success!

The User Information Satisfaction (UIS) is another method which can be used to measure IS Success. This is an independent variable which is linked in with the DeLone and McLean’s Model [1]. Although it is seen as being an effective method it has received some degree of criticism as “it measures success only indirectly, by assessing the quality of the IS product and related services” [2]. Some people feel this method is to narrow in assessing how to measure IS Success effectively. This is why Saarinen suggests including other aspects in this method of measuring IS Success. He outlines that the development process and how IS effects the company, should also be included. With these included he believes that it will allow for a “comprehensive and direct assessment of the IS development projects that better conforms to the idea of a traditional cost-benefit analysis, relevant to the managers responsible for the IS investments”.  UIS is one of the better known scales of measurement of IS. Many believe that user satisfaction is linked with how the success of IS is measured. By using UIS as “a dependent variable”, it connects in “the assumed causal links between high quality information, better decision making and value of the organization”. This in turn can help to achieve the measurement of IS success.

Main Dimensions of IS Success [2].

The above diagram shows how User Information Satisfaction ties in with evaluating IS Success. It is a link between Process and Product which in turn leads to IS success for a business. UIS as it stands alone is not entirely sufficient in measuring IT investments to help figure out IS success, but it is considered a valuable tool to develop in order to see what level of success exists.

[1] Kurian, D. (2000) ‘Taking Stock: Measuring Information Systems Success’. Information and Management Journal, 31(2), 103-118.

[2] Saarinen, T. (1996) ‘An expanded instrument for evaluating information system success’. Available: http://luxor.acadiau.ca/library/ASAC/v21/ASAC/IS1/gallupe1.pdf

IS Success: Factors to Consider to avoid Failures

With IS success there is no way to predict if your chosen project will be a success or failure. In today’s world the rate of failures of “computer based information systems have proved to be of significant concern in this modern technological era” [1]. According to Dr. Paul Dorsey there are contributing factors which seem to result in failures of IS. He argues that in order to have a successful system the following points must be considered:

“1. Don’t cut corners, methodologically. In the long run, this results in system failure or an inadequate system that doesn’t meet the users’ needs.

2. Audit each major deliverable and step along the way for accuracy and correctness.

3. Carefully monitor top management support for the project. Make sure that managers are aware of the progress of the team.

4. Secure the correct technical lead for the project”.

[2] (Taken directly from source)

He feels that if the above are followed then it will help to achieve success. The article outlines four interdependent factors which also impact on success. Them being as follows:

1. Cost

2. Quality

3. Speed

4. Risk

He highlights how it is close to impossible to have “the best of all four” but states that it is usually possible to have the best of two and have a good management over two. If close to 30% to 40% of software projects are failing then maybe if more emphasis was put on these factors it may help to cut back on failures [1].

Mukherjee (2008) [1] discusses three different frameworks which are used to evaluate IS failures.  Firstly he states that Functionalism is connected with “logical positivism”. It covers how important it is to have the “presence or absence of specific factors for enhancing the success of information systems”. Rockart first came up with “CSFs or Critical Success Factors which can be applied here. In contrast with this Flower then came up with the idea of CFFs or Cricital Failure Factors which is linked in with the DeLone and McLean Model as previously mentioned in my last blog [3]. Secondly the article proposes the Interpretivism factor. This outlines the “problem of dichotomy between social and technical worlds by considering the knowledge of reality as a socially constructed one by the associated human actors”. Finally the factor of Critical School is introduced. Within this researchers pose that “power and politics are the inescapable features of every organisation”.

These factors should be consider when calculating what is a IS success or failure. As mcoconnell points out sometimes assumptions are made “that systems that are heavily used are because they are successes, while systems that are failures are because they are unsuccessful”. This not always the case. Defining exactly what is an IS success and failure can be difficult.

[1] Mukherjee, I. (2008) ‘Understanding Information System Failures from the Complexity Perspective’.

[2] Dorsey, P. (2000) ‘Top 10 Reasons why Systems Projects Fail’

[3] 04ac (2013)  https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/is-success-putting-delone-and-mcleans-model-to-use/

[4] mcoconnell (2013) https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/seddon-and-dms-model/

IS Success: Putting DeLone and McLean’s Model to Use!

When researching the area of IS Success, DeLone and McLean’s model on how to evaluate how to measure IS success is widely renowned. In the paper by Petter, DeLone, McLean (2008) [1] they mention the importance of using the 2003 version to understand the different dimensions which can arise in IS success. In this paper it outlines 180 examples of where this model has had some impact on how success in IS can be measured. As DeLone and McLean state their model still holds the basis for the IS success model but in today’s rapid changing world of technology it may need some slight adjustments even the revised version needs to adapt with technology which is ever changing. Trkman and Trkman [2] described the model as being a standard IS success model which can and should be used in their case study of ‘A Wiki as Intranet’. They used the framework of the model to “analyse the benefits and challenges of using a wiki as an intranet/content management system in a company”.  In their analysis “other constructs in the DeLone & McLean model (it) could create further insights into the potential benefits of wikis”. They suggests that in their “attempt to measure the benefits (the final construct in the DeLone & Mclean model) could contribute to the better evaluation of the usefulness of such online communities”. The model helped to raise additional problems which may necessary not have been analysed thus helping to achieve IS success.

In the updated version DeLone and McLean [3] they state how important it is to acknowledge that IS success is multidimensional and interdependent so it is important to look at all avenues of the success. In the revised edition of the model the authors propose adding in the aspect of service quality in addition to the other two combining factors of system quality and information quality. They also chose to combine both factors of individual and organisations impacts to one variable of net benefits instead. They believe this is the key to achieving IS success.

This model still does hold a huge impact on IS success, in my future blogs I hope to show more analysis of the model’s evolution and in contrast with the DeLone and McLean’s model what other examples of IS success have been documented.

References:

[1] Petter,S., DeLone,W. & McLean,E. (2008) “Measuring information systems success: models dimensions, measures, and interrelationships”.

[2] Trkman, M., Trkman, P (2009): A Wiki as Intranet – a Critical Analysis Using the DeLone & McLean Model.

[3] DeLone, W. and McLean, E. (2003) “The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update”.

Strategic Alignment: Why even bother??

When choosing whether or not you should introduce Strategic Alignment into your business, you must do your research on the possible outcomes it may bring to your company. It has to be discussed if it is worth implementing the strategies between IT and Business and to consider the benefits it can bring. Blogger ‘d112221671’; https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/possible-arguments-against-strategic-alignment/

highlighted some interesting views on the disadvantages of strategic alignment in their last blog, which may be good in bear in mind when analysing whether or not to align strategies. Blogger “pm1083’ https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/it-and-strategic-alignment/ has also highlighted some good points when they suggest that ‘IT on its own, no matter how revolutionary or state of the art it is. Is not enough to achieve a sustained competitive advantage”. The following is a very useful YouTube clip where Patrick E Slesiner, Director and CIO for Wallem Services Ltd, shares his views on the benefits of IT and Business Alignment.

In this clip Patrick speaks about how important it is for a business strategy to align itself with IT but only if the business can utilize that IT to its advantage. He uses a good analogy of  how you can’t have the tail wagging the dog or the dog wagging the tail, it must be parallel in order to succeed.

This article called ‘Factors influencing IT-Business Strategic Alignment and Sustainable Competitive Advantage: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach’ http://www.ibimapublishing.com/journals/CIBIMA/2011/261315/261315.pdf

highlights how Strategic Alignment has been around since the 1980’s and how it has managed to help businesses realise what benefits they could gain from IT investments; as I previously discussed in my blog: https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/challenges-of-strategic-alignment-is-it-linked-with-a-payoff-from-i-t-investment/

They also mention how Strategic Alignment “enhances business performance through aligning the organisational and technological infrastructures”.  Any business tool which has the ability to enhance business performance is a critical element to a business as I previously covered in ‘The What and The Why of Strategic Alignment’ https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/the-what-and-the-why-of-strategic-alignment/

If something can be described as critical then surely it is worth implementing and the benefits your company will reap from it will only help in your company’s overall goal of succeeding.

Some of the benefits you can expect when strategic alignment is in place are as follows:

• Support from key executives to participate in developing the IT Strategy.
• An understanding of how emerging technologies, applications and trends can or will impact your enterprise and your IT organization.
• Clear expectations of how IT will contribute to reaching the company’s business goals and objectives.
• A defined articulation of IT’s role in, and value to, the enterprise for the strategic horizon.

(Taken directly from source: http://www.infotech.com/optimizeit/business-it-strategic-alignment )

The above points made, show some benefits a business can expect to see and enforce the idea of Strategic Alignment being the ‘fit’ of how organisations can combine their Information Technology and Business Strategy to increase their business performance, a point made in my first blog; https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/91/

If you have thoughts on Strategic Alignment please feel free to comment? Do you think it is worth combining Business and I.T. Strategies??

The Strive to Achieve Strategic Alignment!

I have previously outlined steps which should be considered by an organisation to instil proper Strategic Alignment, by making sure it is incorporated into the core of the business and employees who work there https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/the-what-and-the-why-of-strategic-alignment/ . In covering a blog on Strategic Alignment and competitive advantage, I highlighted the view by Weiss and Anderson of the Four C’s, four common themes which arose when a business had aligned strategies in place; https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/how-strategic-alignment-can-help-a-business-gain-competitive-advantage/

In this blog I am going to expand on the topic of how a company can achieve strategic alignment by treating it as a process. In a paper by Luftman and Brier (1999) they concentrate on known enablers and inhibitors they have come across in their research of alignment.

The Enablers are as follows:

• Senior executive support for IT
• IT involved in strategy development
• IT understands the business
• Business/IT partnership
• Well prioritised IT projects
• IT demonstrates leadership

The Inhibitors are as follows:

• IT/Business lack close relationships
• IT does not prioritize well
• IT fails to meet its commitments
• IT does not understand business
• Senior executives do not support IT
• IT management lacks leadership

It is interesting to note that the each enabler is actually also classed as an inhibitor. They have formulated a process in order to maximise enablers and to minimise inhibitors therefore helping to achieve strategic alignment. The process they have designed involves six steps:

1. Set goals and establish a team.
2. Understand the Business-IT linkage.
3. Analyse and prioritise gaps.
4. Specify the actions (project management).
5. Choose and evaluate and success criteria.
6. Sustain alignment.

All these steps should help to achieve strategic alignment along with the necessity of good communication as previously stated in the above blog links. Strategic Alignment is an on-going process and not one which can be achieved straight away or once achieved left to its own device. As technology and business climates are constantly reinventing themselves it is important to keep the alignment process up to date with these changes. Luftman and Brier describe Strategic Alignment as “a dynamic, complex process that takes time to develop and even more time sustain”. There is no easy process but by following Luftman and Brier steps it may be a move in the right direction on how to firstly achieve Strategic Alignment and secondly more importantly begin to understand how  to sustain it!

Do you think these steps would be beneficial to a company struggling to align their IT and Business Strategies??

Source: http://dis.eafit.edu.co/pos/espsi/macro/session41.pdf

Strategic Alignment: Is it linked with a payoff from I.T. Investment?

In my last blog I covered Misalignment as a challenge of Strategic Alignment; https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/the-challenges-of-strategic-alignment-misalignment/

In this blog I am going to examine the two divided sides of if there is a payoff from I.T. Investment when linked with strategic alignment. The question of  I.T. investment and what returns a company can benefit from it, is one that has many people divided. In this article ‘The leveraging influence of strategic alignment on IT investment: An empirical examination’ written by Byrd, Lewis and Bryan, they discuss the influence strategic alignment can have on the payoff of I.T. investment. They indicate that there are significant links between IT Investment and Performance, Strategic Alignment and Performance and Strategic Alignment and IT investment. This is a framework which has been developed by Lim, Richardson and Roberts (2004).

In this article they state that “the alignment of IS and business strategy should facilitate more rational investments in IT and reduce improvident spending”. I found an interesting book called ‘Creating Business Value with Information Technology: Challenges and Solution’ By Namchul Shin, in the first chapter Tallon and Kraemer analyse the relationship between Strategic Alignment and Business I.T. They outline that previous research has come to the conclusion that I.T. payoffs are a function of strategic alignment, that a deficiency in payoffs from I.T. may be in fact because of a misalignment between business and I.T. strategies.  If this is the case and strategic alignment is such a key factor in gaining I.T. investment then it shows how beneficial it can be for a business.

In contrast with this Jarvenpaa and Ives (1994) argue that increased strategic alignment may weaken a business’s ability to respond to “environmental threats and opportunities”, thus leading to an inflexibility which could lower any returns on investments made in I.T. By making this point the article suggests that this could lead to an “Alignment Paradox” within the company.

Which side would you take? Do you think that such a thing as an “Alignment Paradox” exists?

The Challenge of Strategic Alignment: Misalignment

Misalignment can occur in a business in many different forms. In this article ‘Strategy Misalignment: The Symptoms, Dangers and Treatment ‘ http://www.methodframeworks.com/article/strategy-misalignment-symptoms-dangers-and-treatment/index.html

it talks about some reasons why misalignment can happen and outlines possible solutions to them.  In this article it covers ‘alignment’ in a much broader sense. In this blog I am going to discuss three possible causes of misalignment and apply them to Strategic Alignment, the alignment of Business and IT Strategies. They are as follows:

The Planning Process:

During the planning process misalignment can occur when a strategy is underdeveloped. If either the business or IT strategy are not planned out properly then IS Strategic Alignment will suffer as a result. Strategy alone isn’t enough but it is how the strategy is implemented throughout the company that counts.

Governance:

If plan governance is not stated clearly in a business, then misalignment has the opportunity to affect a company. If a company ‘instils leadership and worker accountability to plan goals’ it should help to avoid misalignment in defining accountability and also empowering employees. If this can exist in both IT strategies and the business strategy it will help to ensure a more coherent IS Strategic Alignment.

Communication:

As previously discussed by blogger ‘cob12’ https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/strategic-alignment-challenges-communication/

communication is a key factor in strategic alignment. Failure to commit communication clearly can result in strategic misalignment in a company. If communication exists between the IT strategy and business strategy it should help to ensure that misalignment will not be a problem.

It is a lengthy process to re-instil strategic alignment  one which cannot be fixed straightaway but instead involves time, work and discipline. This again highlights the importance of getting strategic alignment in place properly the first time round.

Kodak is an example of a company which suffered from misalignment so much so that in early 2012 it filed for bankruptcy. Kodak resisted change and so saw the misalignment between the IT strategy and business strategy. ‘Kodak management’s inability to see digital photography as a disruptive technology, even as its researchers extended the boundaries of the technology’. The following is link to an article detailing the demise of Kodak http://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2012/01/18/how-kodak-failed/3/

In this article it highlights some key mistakes by Kodak which ultimately led to their file of bankruptcy. ‘Kodak management not only presided over the creation technological breakthroughs but was also presented with an accurate market assessment about the risks and opportunities of such capabilities. Yet Kodak failed in making the right strategic choices’. Kodak suffered from strategic misalignment and due to cost, time and discipline they could not manage to re-align their strategies again. This shows how important it is to achieve strategic alignment and to ensure it stays aligned at all times.

Strategic Alignment as a Competitive Advantage

As I previously discussed in my last blog

https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/the-what-and-the-why-of-strategic-alignment/

of the importance of Strategic Alignment, I am now going to discuss how Strategic Alignment can help a business gain a competitive advantage. In an article by Weiss and Anderson (2004) they research how aligning a company’s strategy affected 15 different companies. They make the point of saying that if a business can successfully integrate their strategies it can create significant returns for that business. In the article it suggests that by aligning strategies it can be crucial to a firm’s survival and success.  ‘Research on IT/business strategy alignment has shown positive linkages among competitive strategy, information technology, and performance’.

The bottom line is that if there is alignment between business strategy and technology strategy, the company will benefit from it, giving it a competitive advantage. Balakrishnan’s article concentrates on the idea that in order to be at a competitive advantage the integration of the two has to be a ‘holistic approach, not a thin-sliced individual approach’ (Balakrishnan, 2012). http://sandhill.com/article/three-tips-for-cios-to-align-technology-strategy-with-business-strategy/

This links in with my previous blog, of how important it is for employees of a firm to have a good grasp on the actual strategy being implemented.

In a book  written by Papp (2001), ‘Strategic Information Technology: Opportunities for Competitive Advantage’ , he outlines the competitive potential perspective. Within this he mentions how new emerging technologies can influence and enable new business strategies. He states how it is from these new strategies that competitive advantage is born. The idea of information technology is to ‘add-value’ to a business and to ‘enable new opportunities’. This is one of the reasons why strategic alignment can be so beneficial to a firm. Although new technologies can help a business achieve success it is how they are implemented with the business strategy that counts. Blogger d112221671 https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/good-technology-bad-business-model/

gives an example of this when they speak about the Betamax v’s VHS video standards war.  Although Betamax was seen as more technology advanced company, it was VHS who came out on top because they could achieve strategic alignment within their company, thus giving them the competitive advantage over their rivals. The Strategic Blogger has also given a good example in the case study of Toyota and the process of reengineering it took to get strategic alignment.

https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/the-strategic-alignment-case-study/

Toyota managed to achieve strategic alignment which has helped them to gain the title according to ‘Forbes’ website/ Ranking the brand.com of having the world’s bestselling car. This proves that their strategy works for them and shows how they have gained competitive advantage in their market.

This brings me back to Weiss and Anderson’s paper and what they believe is the best way to achieve strategic alignment giving a firm the competitive advantage. They believe it can be achieved by the ‘Four C’s’ being implemented. The ‘Four C’s’ are being described as four common themes that arose within companies who were aligned at all levels of Business and IT strategy.  The diagram below illustrates the ‘Four C’s’ and the components that come under each theme.

 

Although the ‘Four C’s’ help to keep a company ahead of its competitors in order to stay on top of their game, organisations must constantly reinvent themselves  both strategically and technologically. With new technologies emerging constantly this is now becoming more of challenge for people, organisations must keep up to date with their competitors and by aligning their strategies successfully it can give them an edge over their rivals.

If you have any comments to add to my piece on strategic alignment and competitive advantage, please feel free to do so!