PhD Research Project: An Improved Methodology for IS Planning and Development Based on IS Strategic Planning and Enterprise Architectural Practice David Wilton IIMS, Massey University, Albany, NZ Sequence: • Introduction/motivation • IS Strategic Planning (ISSP) & Enterprise Architectural Practice (EAP) – brief intro • Comparison • Outline of research task • Results of survey • Summary/ way ahead Introduction: Personal background and motivation: • IS strategic planning study and practice in early 1990s • Studied enterprise architecture in 2000-01 in preparation for DSTO Task • Paper comparing approaches in JBT, presented to DIE seminar, both March 2001 • Initial proposal for doctoral thesis agreed by UNSW, 2001. • Enrolled Massey 2004. • Full registration May 2005. Introduction (contd): IT represents a significant investment for most organisations (Australian Defence Organisation: multi- $Bn in sunk investments, $1.3B per annum in operating costs) Key issue: How to manage information and IT assets, and plan investment in an effective, yet affordable, manner? Introduction (contd): • ISSP and EAP are two approaches that have emerged – similarities apparent • Scope of ISSP and EAP depends on individual perception: to meaningfully compare them one must choose specific instances or approaches. • Theoretical comparison (2001 paper & lit review): – ISSP [CCTA - Central Computer & Telecomms Agency of UK Treasury; now called Office of Government Commerce (OGC)] – Enterprise Architectural Practice [ US DoD C4ISR AF (cf Zachman etc)] IS Strategic Planning - Brief Overview: CCTA denotes the following key objectives of IS strategic planning: understanding the aims and objectives of the business establishing the information requirements of the business outlining the systems to provide the information, and determining the role of technology in supporting the information systems agreeing policies and plans to develop and implement the information systems determining the role and use of resources to achieve the information systems required managing, reviewing and evolving the strategy IS Strategic Planning (Contd): The CCTA process is a sequence of actions, grouped into the common-sense phases of: Where are we now? Where do we want to be? How do we get there? The methodology includes definition of an IS vision, and the presentation of costed options, to realise the vision, to senior management Focus of ISSP Methods Methodologies ISSP Research CSF Methods and Approaches: 1979 Galliers (1987) Business Alignment 1979 Lederer & Sethi (1988) Flynn & Goleniwska (1993) Earl (1993) Competitive Segars & Grover (1999) Forces P Min et al (1999) 1980 r Doherty et al (1999) o Levy & Powell (2000) p Salmela & Spil (2002) Value r Chain i 1985 e ISSP Theory and Competitive Advantage t 1984 Assessment: a Chan & Huff (1992) BSP r Lederer & Sethi (1992) 1988 CCTA Doukidis et al (1996) y Lederer & Salmela (1996) 1988 Chan et al (1997b) Dufner et al (2002) Newkirk et al (2003) BPR Info Engin- IT Infrastructure Wang & Tai (2003) 1990 Broadbent & eering 1989 Weill 1999 ISSP Success: CCTA Galliers (1991) Scenarios 1999 Fitzgerald (1993) 1994 Segars & Grover (1998) Post-Net Era Strategy Gupta et al 2004 ISSP for SMEs 2000 Sense-and Automated Support = evolved -respond for ISSP: 1999 Boar Wagner (2004) = influenced 2001 IS Capability = incorporates Peppard & Ward 2004 Evolution of Focus of ISSP ISSP Methods ISSP Methodologies c. 1960 Technology First commercial hierarchical-model DP Era1 DBMS: 1966 BSP Business Alignment CCITT X.25 Packet 1975 c. 1975 Switching (WAN) standard: 1976 CSF 1979 1980 Competitive Forces Competitive Advantage Relational OLTPS 1980 c. 1980 databases: c. 1980 P Desktop PCs: c. 1982 Value r Chain o Micro Era 1985 p IEEE/ISO 802.3 (LAN) r standard: 1985 CCTA i 1988 e CASE tools: c. 1988 t Info Engin- a BPR eering 1989 r 1990 1990 y Internet OSF Linkage Scenarios e-Commerce: Distributed Analysis CCTA 1991 c. 1990 Computing 1991 IT Infrastructure 1999 Environment Broadbent & Network standard: 1990 Sense-and Weill 1999 ISSP for -respond Era Post-Net Era Strategy m-Commerce: c. 2000 Gupta et al 2004 1999 SMEs 2000 IS Capability Boar Peppard & Ward 2004 2001 (1) “Eras” defined by 2010 Nolan (2000) Architectural Practice - Brief Overview: Architecture: The structure of components, their interrelationships, and the principles and guidelines governing their design and evolution over time (a blueprint of the enterprise & its IT) Architectures are developed to portray the evolution of an IT environment over various points in time, beginning with the baseline, or as-is architecture. The architecture envisioned to meet all [future] operational and business requirements is the objective or to-be architecture. May go through a series of intermediate architectures. (US DoD, Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Architecture Framework, Version 2, 1997) Enterprise Architecture Framework Evolution: IS Strategic Planning and Enterprise AP - Similarities: • Basic Intent/Vision: Both are high-level approaches, intended to realise a rational, affordable IT infrastructure which is consistent with business strategy and goals • Both include a baseline summary of existing IT infrastructure (“where are we now?”), and an objective architecture (“where do we want to be?”) • Both establish the information requirements of the business and determine the systems required, to provide and manage the information • Both produce plans/architectures that are dynamic, and need to be reviewed regularly • Both can be used by, or adapted to, any type or size of organisation that uses IT. IS Strategic Planning and Enterprise AP - Differences: IT Strategic Planning EA Practice Scalability Tends to be targeted at Can be adapted to fit a multi-level or multi- a single enterprise entity organisation enterprise (intended to produce nested architectures, or “systems of systems”) Financial base Well defined Stated as a component but not really defined Process Well defined. Not defined Methodical and analytical. Tightly coupled to business strategy and cost effectiveness. Time window for 3-5 years (limited by Not specified objective rapid advances in IT) architecture/ strategy Interoperability Not specifically Inter - and intra-organisational interoperability is focus emphasized a key focus Summary of Process-oriented Product oriented overall approach Theoretical Conclusions: • There are distinct similarities in the objectives and scope of both approaches • The main difference is in the process-orientation of IT strategic planning, compared with the product-orientation of EA practice • Both have been demonstrated in practice to produce valid results, assisting enterprises to optimise their IT infrastructures • The two approaches can be viewed as complementary, rather than mutually exclusive, and there could well be significant benefits in combining elements of both, to produce a new paradigm in IT planning and management. Outline of Research: Intention is to study the problem space with the view to developing an improved approach, or preferably a practical, usable methodology, for IT planning and development Bulluss and Chen (2001) suggest incorporation of other related planning and development approaches into EAP; eg systems analysis, systems engineering, software development methodologies Other IS strategic planning methods, methodologies and architectural frameworks need to be evaluated (eg Zachman, TEAF, TOGAF). Research Questions: RQ 1. From both theoretical and empirical views, what is the relationship between ISSP and EAP? (e.g. unrelated, partially overlapping, synonymous) RQ 2. To what extent are different ISSP and EAP methods used in NZ, how successful are they, and how have the methods used and success levels varied over time? RQ 3. Are the methods used and success obtained related to organisational factors? (e,g. organisation type, size, level of IT maturity, senior management commitment, allocation of adequate resources). RQ 4. Can ISSP and EAP methods be combined to produce an improved IS planning methodology? Research Methodology: 1. Literature reviews of candidate methods, methodologies and approaches including (but not limited to) ISSP and EAP. (Addresses RQ 1, from a theoretical viewpoint.) 2. A survey of existing ISSP and EAP, to identify usage, success rates, “best-of-breed” methods and tools. (Addresses RQ 1 from an empirical viewpoint, also RQ 2 and 3.) 3. Case studies of ISSP and EA in selected organisations, to provide in- depth information on ISSP and EAP, and to explore the feasibility and desirability of an improved methodology. (Addresses research questions 2, 3 and 4.) 4. Investigation of the feasibility of an improved methodology for planning and ongoing management of IT resources in an enterprise. (Addresses research question 4.) It is anticipated that this will be accomplished by considering “best-of-breed” methods from ISSP, EAP and other relevant domains discovered during the study. [This approach to development of an improved planning methodology is supported in the literature, eg (Levy et al., 1999, Levy and Powell, 2000)] 5. Any proposed improved methodology would require validation – initially intended as an action research phase within the project, but advised at ACIS that that would be too large in scope (extra 1-2 years) for a doctoral thesis – to be conducted as subsequent work Progress-to-Date: • Preliminary work in period 2001-2003 (paper published March 2001) • Provisional enrollment PhD Feb 2004 • Initial literature review completed Aug 2004 (25,000 words) • IIMS postgrad seminar Sept 2004 • First draft proposal completed Oct 2004 • ACIS Doctoral Consortium Dec 2004 • Full registration May 2005 • Survey planning, administration S1-2 2005 • Paper presented ACIS 2005 –introduces notion of an IS meta- strategy (a strategy for doing strategies) which could be a possible outcome from the main project • Survey results analysed S1 2006 Survey Overview: First draft survey questionnaire completed Mar 2005 –faculty review, pilot administration (some changes) Stratified sample (defined in collaboration with Barry McDonald): 50 “large” organisations randomly chosen from NZ MIS Top 100 directory 50 “small” or “medium” organisations randomly chosen from Telecom Yellow Pages Sub-stratified into industry groups as per survey [Established contact with three major NZ corporates undertaking ISSP/EAP via NZ Computer Society – using as “real world sanity check”] Survey administered S2 2005 – poor response rate Follow-up and re-administration Feb-March 2006 Research Model – ISSP and EAP Year V1 (Adapted from Turban and Aronson, 1998) Success? (Lederer and Sethi, (Galliers, 1993, V7 1992, Earl 1993, Premkumar ISSP Methods and Gupta, 2004) and King, 1994) Methodologies V5 (Fitzgerald, 1993, Segars and Grover, 1998, Resources V13 Organisation Doherty et al, 1999, Size (small, Newkirk et al, 2003 medium, Wang and Tai, 2003) large) V2 (Levy et al, 1999, Realised Premkumar and IS Strategic Plan V9 Enterprise Info King, 1994) Management Infrastructure V15 Organisation Enterprise Type V3 (Chan et al, Architecture V10 1997b) (Newkirk et al, 2003, Kearns and Lederer, 2004, Management Premkumar and King, 1994) Commitment V14 Enterprise Architecture (Lederer and Sethi, Framework(s) V6 1992, Earl, 1993) Key: IS Maturity Intermediate or final V4 Decision variable Fixed variable outcome variable (Nolan and Gibson, 1974, Galliers, 1991, Certainty Uncertainty Random (risk) variable Cerpa and Verner, 1998) Initial Hypotheses: H1: V9 is influenced by V1, V2, V3, and V4. H2: V10 is influenced by V1, V2, V3, and V4. H3: V7 is influenced by V5, V13 and V14. H4: V7 is influenced by V6, V13 and V14. H5: V15 is influenced by V13, V14 and (V9 and/or V10). H6: V9V10 0. H7: V5 and V6 are influenced by V1 - We also need to measure (V7 V5) and (V7 V6) to determine “best of breed” methods. Survey Results • 50 valid responses (another 8 in pipeline?) • Represents a limitation on this study that must be taken into account when interpreting the results • However: – < 2000 “large” organisations within NZ (MED, 2005) – a sample of 20 represents >1% of the population – ISSP research literature: papers published (eg MISQ) with, e.g., samples of 18, 27, 80 organisations • Another limitation: majority of respondents in large enterprises were IT staff (eg CIO) – over whole sample, majority were business staff Effect of organisational size on existence of ISSP and EA IS Strategic plan 30 Enterprise architecture 30 No No Yes Yes Under development Under development 25 25 20 20 Count Count 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 0 Small or medium (<20) Large Small or medium (<20) Large Small/medium or large organisation Small/medium or large organisation If no ISSP or EA, reasons why not ISSP and EA (identical): 1. Didn’t consider we needed one. 2. Low benefit/cost ratio. 3. Insufficient management commitment. 4. Other options (rated by respondents as of relatively minor importance). ISSP & EA Processes: Max imum Minimum Mean Median "Window " of plan (years) 10.0 3.0 4.4 3.0 Staf f eff ort 36.00 2.00 12.03 9.00 (person-months ) ISSP: Cost of plan ($) $600,000 $0 $75,188 $36,500 Duration of planning 52.0 5.0 21.9 22.0 ex ercise (w eeks ) Maximum Minimum Mean Median "Window" of EA (years) 10.0 2.0 4.2 3.0 Staff effort (person- 420.0 0.5 44.0 12.0 months) EA: Cost of EA ($) $130,000.00 $.00 $29,583.33 $.00 Duration of EA development exercise 52.00 5.00 24.58 21.00 (weeks) Assessed “success” of proceses: (Likert scale: 1 = Totally successful, 4 = neutral, 7 = totally unsuccessful) ISSP: Mean Median Maximum Minimum Averaged success score 3.14 2.80 5.60 1.00 Mean Median Maximum Minimum Avg. success EA: of EA process 3.40 3.20 5.80 2.00 •Both rated successful (on average) •ISSP slightly higher success rating on all measures Perceived resource allocation and management commitment (Likert scale: 1 = Totally satisfactory, 4 = neutral, 7 = totally unsatisfactory) Management commitment Management satisfactory commitment Sufficient resources Sufficient resources during [IS] satisfactory during were available during were available planning process EA process [IS] planning process during EA process Mean 3 4 3 4 Maximum 6 6 6 6 Minimum 1 2 1 2 ISSP rated higher for resource levels & management commitment (neutral, on average, for EA) Techniques used: Count % Critical success factors 12 75.0% SWOT 12 75.0% Proprietary technique 8 50.0% Count % In-house technique 6 37.5% In-house AF or method 9 69.2% Business systems planning 5 31.3% The Open Group AF 3 23.1% Net present value or Zachman AF 2 15.4% EA: other financial modelling 4 25.0% US Federal EAF technique 1 7.7% ISSP: Business process re- engineering 4 25.0% Proprietary AF or method US DoD AF 1 7.7% 0% Porter's value chain 3 18.8% US Treasury EAF 0% Scenarios 3 18.8% Other AF 0% CCTA strategic planning methodology 2 12.5% Boar's strategic planning methodology 0% Info Engineering 0% Other technique 0% Analysis of techniques used: Little useful data re usability & success of techniques Little data pre-Y2000, so no opportunity to study evolution of techniques over time ISSP: most organisations used a combination of tools or methods (few used a comprehensive methodology) EA: majority used in-house technique “Realised” ISSP and/or EA: (“The ISSP/EA has been fully implemented” ISSP: EA: –no IS strategic plan has been fully –only 18.2% of organisations have implemented, shown any level of agreement to the –most organisations (73.3%) are in statement reflecting successful the mid-range between “mildly agree” implementation of their EA (and then and “mildly disagree”. only “mild” agreement). –two organisations (13.3%) strongly –i.e. 81.8% of organisations have disagree, indicating little or no made little or no progress towards progress towards implementing their implementing their EA. plan. Reasons for incomplete realisation: 1. An incremental (phased) approach has been adopted but we expect to get there eventually. 2. Lack of management commitment. 3. Lack of funding. 4. Lack of stakeholder commitment or acceptance of the need. Hypothesis Testing The following hypotheses have been demonstrated : H1b: V9 (the existence of an IS strategic plan) is influenced by V2 (organisational size). H2b: V10 (the existence of an EA) is influenced by V2 (organisational size). H3b: V7 (ISSP success) is influenced by V13 (resource allocation). H3c: V7 (ISSP success) is influenced by V14 (management commitment). H4b: V7 (EA success) is influenced by V13 (resource allocation). H4c: V7 (EA success) is influenced by V14 (management commitment). H5a: V15 (realisation of enterprise information management infrastructure) is influenced by V7 (“successful” ISSP). H6: V9V10 0 (there is a significant overlap between the scope of ISSP and EA). The following hypotheses have not been demonstrated: H1a: V9 (the existence of an IS strategic plan) is influenced by V1 (age of organisation) H1c: V9 is influenced byV3 (organisation type). H1d: V9 is influenced by V4 (level of IS maturity). H2a: V10 (the existence of an EA) is influenced by V1 (age of organisation). H2c: V10 is influenced byV3 (organisation type). H2d: V10 is influenced by V4 (level of IS maturity). H3a: V7 (ISSP success) is influenced by V5 (methodology used). H4a: V7 (EA success) is influenced by V6 (framework used). H5b: V15 (realised IS infrastructure) is influenced by V7 (“successful” EA). Not tested: H7:V5 and V6 are influenced by V1 (the choice of ISSP and/or EA techniques are influenced by the year the exercise was undertaken) Relationship between ISSP and EAP •H6: V9V10 0 (there is a significant overlap between the scope of ISSP and of EA). •Objectives: Key objectives - ISSP Key objectives - EA 1. Align IT with business needs. 1. Align IT with business needs. 2. Forecast IT requirements. 2. Establish technology path and policies. 3. Gain senior management 3. Forecast IT requirements. commitment. 4. Establish technology path and 4. Gain senior management policies. commitment. 5. Seek competitive advantage from 5. Seek competitive advantage IT. from IT. 6. Revamp the IT function. 6. Revamp the IT function. 7. Other reasons 7. Other reasons (Identical, except “establish technology path & policies” promoted in EA) Key findings: There is a strong overlap between the objectives & scope of ISSP and EAP in NZ organisations (within the limitations of the survey) - Organisations may be wasting time & resources developing both (management commitment lower towards EA) - Advantages in combining “best-of-breed approaches to create a comprehensive methodology? NZ SMEs have a very low incidence of ISSP and/or EA (~20%) – SMEs may not be taking advantage of the opportunities that IT affords – Simplified “DIY” methodology? Summary: Low incidence of ISSP &/or EA in SMEs (in NZ) IS strategic planning could be combined with EA Practice to create a new paradigm for planning and management of IT My proposed research task is to realize that paradigm per medium of a methodology which combines the best of all relevant approaches and methods Questions/comments?
Pages to are hidden for
"Phd Research Proposal in Strategic Project Management"Please download to view full document