Phd Research Proposal in Strategic Project Management by oep58458

VIEWS: 348 PAGES: 35

More Info
									     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: V9V10  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: V9V10  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:    V9V10  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?

								
To top