AN EVALUATION OF SISP PROCESS STAGES IN THE CONTEXT …

Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)UK Academy for Information Systems ConferenceProceedings 2010 UK Academy for Information Systems

Spring 3-23-2010

AN EVALUATION OF SISP PROCESS STAGESIN THE CONTEXT OF DEVELOPINGCOUNTRIES AND THE ROLE OFCOMPETING VALUE OF LEADERSHIPEsam OsmanUniversity of Plymouth, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/ukais2010

This material is brought to you by the UK Academy for Information Systems at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion inUK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings 2010 by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For moreinformation, please contact [email protected].

Recommended CitationOsman, Esam, "AN EVALUATION OF SISP PROCESS STAGES IN THE CONTEXT OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ANDTHE ROLE OF COMPETING VALUE OF LEADERSHIP" (2010). UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings2010. 42.http://aisel.aisnet.org/ukais2010/42

AN EVALUATION OF SISP PROCESS STAGES IN THE CONTEXT OF

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND THE ROLE OF COMPETING VALUE OF

LEADERSHIP

Esam Osman,

University of Plymouth Business School, 504, Cookworth Building, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA,

[email protected],

07828302015

Abstract

The Strategic Information System Planning (SISP) is thought to be the first step toward implementing

information systems. The development and implementation of a highly aligned information systems still a top

concern among academics and professionals, where IT considered as a strategic asset capable of adding value

to overall organisation effectiveness. Based on the contingency theory of information system, this paper tend to

examine the affect of different leadership styles on the SISP process stages of growth, using the competing value

framework (CVF) as a measurement model of leadership orientations, and building on Grover and Segars

(2005) measurement model of SISP process stages of growth and contributing to his model by adding a new

SISP decision process dimension, lapelled “Intuition” as one of the SISP process stages of growth where it can

be seen as the first stage towards the SISP process rationality stage. By linking these two measures one should

be able to identify a pattern in which leadership orientation is most represented in each stage of SISP process

growth. This paper is representing a theoretical base for empirical testing yet to be carried out.

Keywords: Leadership, Planning process, SISP, Planning stages, Developing Countries, MIMIC Model.

1. Introduction

SISP has been defined as the process of identifying opportunities to select and implement IS

applications to support achieving strategic business goals (Grover et al, 2005, Newkirk et al.,

2003). A recent survey carried out by the British Computer Society (BCS) has indicated that

the alignment of IS with overall business strategy is the most confronting issue facing top

management in today business environment (BCS, 2009). Studies surrounding strategic

information system planning in the context of developing countries have been rare (Avgerou

2007). There is argument that universal information system solutions are unlikely to be

successful in multiple locations, considering different social, political, and strategic planning

contexts (Walsham, 2006). Nevertheless, there are some efforts put forward to realize the

potential benefits of SISP in developing countries, however, research tends to ignore the role

of leadership and their value added toward formulating SISP in developing countries. This

paper represents model where leadership orientation viewed as Multiple-Indicators that

influence SISP decision process represented as Multiple-Causes. The aim of this model is to

identify the different affect of leadership orientation on each stage of SISP process.

2. Theoretical Background

1. SISP Process

The SISP process domain has experienced constant evolution since it was first introduced in

the 1970s (Lederer, 1986; Lederer, 1988; Grover, 1991; Earl, 1993; Grover et al, 2005;

Henry et al 2008). The main drives behind such evolution were mixed factors, between the

advancement in the technology (particularly the software and communication technology,

including the Internet), and the awareness of the important role of information technology as

value added and fundamental strategic resources able to contribute to the core competence

and overall organisation effectiveness and efficiency (Grover et al, 2005). The realisation of

information systems as strategic resources can make profound differences in the way

organisations perform and compete (Ifinedo, 2009). Conversely, globalisation and external

environments force firms to aggressively search for new ways to leverage their information,

knowledge, and IT resources in supporting of business strategy and competitiveness (Charlie,

2009). Therefore, SISP has become a challenging task for organisation leaderships who want

to promote effective information systems in their firms as a value-added opportunity via

alignment of the organisation’s strategy and IT resources (Henry et al, 2008).

The evolving SISP domain is evident through its shifting from the rigidity presented in the

fixed methodology, which might not be robust in different organisational situations, to more

flexible approaches that incorporate different organisation factors as stimuli for better SISP

outcomes ( Grover et al, 2005).

SISP Process

Dimension

Description

Comprehensiveness

The extent to which an organization attempts to be exhaustive or inclusive in making and integrating strategic decisions (Comprehensive vs. Limited).

Formalization

The existence of structures, techniques, written procedures and policies which guide the planning process (Formal vs. Informal).

Focus

The balance between creativity and control orientations inherent within the strategic planning system (Creative vs. Control Oriented).

Flow

The locus of authority or devolution of responsibilities for strategic planning; in other words, the roles played by corporate and divisional managers in the initiation of the planning process (Top–down vs. Bottom–up).

Participation

The breadth of involvement in strategic planning (Broad vs. Narrow participation profile).

Consistency

Consistency is concerned with the frequency of planning activities or cycles, and relatedly, the frequency of evaluation/revision of strategic choices (High vs. Low)

Table 1: SISP Processes Dimension (Segars et al., 2005)

Throughout their wide analysis of both the strategic management and SISP sequential

research flow, ( Grover et al, 1998) identified six important SISP process dimensions, and

illustrated that they are “robust in describing SISP design extending far beyond

methodologically-based and less-generalizable descriptions of IS planning while

complementing and further structuring general ‘’approaches’’ based descriptions” (Grover,

2005). The dimensions are labelled as, Comprehensiveness, Flow, Formalization, Focus,

Participation and Consistency (Table 1). The six dimensions of the SISP process exhibit

elements of both rationality (High comprehensiveness, high formalization, top–down flow,

Control focus) and adaptability (wide participation, high consistency) in decision making

process (Grover, 2005). Although these dimensions are more robust in capturing and

measuring the concept of SISP process, however, we would argue that there is still a missing

sequence in terms of measuring the same concept in developing countries.

- +

  Rationality

Figure represents the SISP process stages, the adaptability stage and rationality stage, and illustrates that the

increases in decision making adaptability stage lead to rationality stage and more rationality increase the chance

of success in SISP.

2. Intuition as a new dimension in SISP planning process in developing countries

The Intuition construct primarily emerged in the field of strategic decision management and

organisational science. The basic assumption about strategic planning is that it represents a

systematic process of reviewing alternatives and selecting the best choices that are superior to

those choices coming from intuitive processes of decision making. However, this assumption

has been criticized by (Mintzberg, 1994). In his book, “The rise and fall of strategic

planning”, he described the concept of “Strategic Planning” as an oxymoron concept. He

argues that strategy cannot be planned because planning is about analysis and strategy is

about synthesis. This is why he emphasized that such a planning approach has failed so often

and so considerably (Mintzberg, 1994). Intuition is not the contradictory of rationality, nor is

it a chaotic process of guessing. It is a complicated form of thinking, stimulated by years of

experience in specific jobs involving problem solving skills, which requires a complete

understanding of business details, to the extent of knowing the inside out of business context

logic (Prietula & Simon, 1989). Therefore, intuition is a “synthetic psychological function in

that it apprehends the totality of a given situation” (Vaughan, 1990), the individual based

cognitive decision making process is intuitive when it relays on personal experience in

SIS

P S

ucc

ess

Figure 1: SISP stages

  Adaptability

+

-

making such decisions. The use of intuitive synthesis was found to be positively associated

with organisational performance in an unstable environment, but negatively so in a stable

environment ( Khatri & Ng 2000). In evaluation of the Intuition as strategic decision making

process, Khatri & Ng (2000) Surveyed executives of computer, banking, and utility industry

firms in the USA, they found that intuitive processes of decision making are commonly used

in these industries, thus intuition has been recognized as an important dimension of strategic

decision making process in the management field (Elbanna, 2009). However, few empirical

studies have been conducted on the role of intuition in strategic decision making process and

it is barely embedded on the SISP process.

Dimension Description

Comprehensiveness Extent to which an organization attempts to be exhaustive or inclusive in making and integrating strategic decisions (Comprehensive vs. Limited).

Formalization

The existence of structures, techniques, written procedures and policies which guide the planning process (Formal vs. Informal).

Focus

The balance between creativity and control orientations inherent within the strategic planning system (Creative vs. Control oriented).

Flow

The locus of authority or devolution of responsibilities for strategic planning; in other words, the roles played by corporate and divisional managers in the initiation of the planning process (Top–down vs. Bottom–up).

Participation

The breadth of involvement in strategic planning (Broad vs. Narrow participation profile).

Consistency

The frequency of planning activities or cycles and the frequency of evaluation/revision of strategic choices (High vs. Low).

Intuition

The degree of relying on personal judgment, depending on gut feeling and placing emphasis on past experience (High vs. low).

Table 2: Proposed SISP Process dimension in developing countries as expansion of SISP Processes Dimension (Segars et al., 2005)

Nevertheless, to complete the sequence of SISP process in developing countries, this paper

argues that some firms in developing countries do not have the adequate resources and ability

to tolerate the expenditure of the adopted or rational processes of SISP, such as the

availability of IT resources and flexible organisational structure, the ability to analyse and

formulate clear policies and procedure, the consistency in the decision planning process and

the cost of hiring outsiders. Therefore, executives often base their decisions intuitively and

abandon adopted and rational approaches in decision making. Moreover, this paper argues

that as intuitive decision process becomes more frequent, the realisation of SISP process as

adoptability mechanism is possible over time. The intuition construct as a dimension of

decision making has been measured by (Khatri and Ng, 2000), with a degree of relying on

personal judgment, depending on gut feeling and placing emphasis on past experience. As the

author discussed above, the overall nature of SISP process in this study includes three main

stages (Rational stage, Adoptive stage and Intuition) characterised by the degree of rationality

in decision making that influenced by the organisational context, and SISP process approach

adopted by manager influence planning success of information system. The author argue that

there is a sequence in the decision process mechanism that started with the intuition and

should evolve as organisation evolves to be more adoptive to the environment to reach the

level of rationality in decision making where decision process demonstrate degree of focus to

produce efficient planning as well as demonstrate clearer method of planning based on past

experience and documentation and to be more comprehensive in planning where different

part of organisation can cooperate more effectively, this can be true when the participants in

the planning process demonstrate degree of understanding the organisation need of

information system. SISP Process

Figure represents the SISP process stages of growth, Intuition, adaptability and rationality stages, and illustrates

that the increases in intuitive lead to adaptability decision process and increases in adaptability leads to

rationality decision process and as rationality increase the chance of SISP success is higher.

SIS

P S

ucc

ess

    Intuition

‐  + 

+ 

+ ‐ 

     Rationality

‐ 

  Adaptability

Figure 2: SISP planning stages include intuition as stage in decision making process 

3. Leadership and SISP process

There is a strong body of opinion suggesting that organisational culture can be consciously

designed and manipulated by leadership (Weiling Ke, 2008). Leadership participation and

support has been found to extensively influence IT project performance by means of

importing external and integrating internal knowledge into the decision process mechanism

(Mitchell, 2006). Study of a large sample of companies in Singapore, Teo and Ang (2001)

found that one of the major IS planning problems is the lack of support from senior managers

in the three stages of planning, specifically, launching, development, and implementation.

This view confirms the view held by a number of other scholars (Lederer & Sethi, 1992a,

1992b; Teo & King, 1996). Senior executives should play proactive role in providing

leadership, vision, coordination, and ensuring that the resources are made available, most

importantly, leadership role is to interfere if action plans diverted from their main objectives,

senior managers ought to take immediate remedial action to move the situation forward in the

right direction (Philip, 2007). Many researchers have expressed the view that the support and

participation of senior management in SISP processes are critical factors to the success of

planning (Brown, 1994; Terry Anthony Byrd, 2006; Kearns, 2007). Whether IS considered in

strategic context or not, it is generally accepted that the management efforts surrounding the

technology play a essential role in ensuring its successful use (Booth & Philip, 2005). It is

evident that the most important stakeholder group participating in SISP processes is those of

leadership who hold responsibility at a strategic level of business and IT management,

namely CIOs and CEOs (Huigang, 2007; Kearns, 2007; Newkirk, 2008). On one hand, CEO

support of SISP may depend upon the perceived value of IS asset, and CIO support of SISP

may depend upon understanding of business functionality and overall strategic direction

(Raghunathan B., 1989; Applegate L.M., 1992). Support is more likely to exist when the

CEO and CIO are both aware of the IS as strategic assets (Kearns, 2006).

4. Linking Competing Values Framework of Leadership and SISP process

This study is concerned with the intermediate level of organisational culture to capture the

effect of leadership value on SISP process, therefore the competing values framework of

leadership (CVF) is to be used in this study (Quinn, 2006).

“The study and practice of business strategy is fundamentally based on employing creative

solutions to differentiate a firm from its competitors. Theories used to describe the causes

and consequences of strategic differentiation tend to focus on organization-level

characteristics such as resources, capabilities and structures. However, less is known about

day-to-day processes and practices whereby strategic managers developing creative

solutions is necessary to establish strategic differentiation” (Cameron M. Ford 2008).

Because of its compatibility with the SISP process phenomenon under investigation, the

(CVF) is been selected as measurement model for leadership orientation. The following

seven points demonstrate the advantage of selecting (CVF). (1) It is practical; it captures key

dimensions of culture that have been found to make a difference in organisation’s success. (2)

It is timely; the process of diagnosing and creating a strategy for change can be accomplished

in a reasonable amount of time.(3) It is involving; the steps in the process can include every

member of the organisation, but they especially involve all who have a responsibility to

establish direction, reinforce value, and guide fundamental change.(4) It is both quantitative

and qualitative; the process relies on quantitative measurement of key cultural dimensions as

well as qualitative methods, including stories, incidents, and symbols that represent the

immeasurable ambience of the organisation.(5) It is manageable; the process of diagnosis and

change can be undertaken and implemented by a team within the organisation - usually the

management team - so that outside culture experts or change consultants are not required for

successful implementation. (6) It is valid; the framework on which the process is built is

extensively supported by empirical literature and underlining dimensions that have a verified

scholarly foundation. (7) It makes sense to people as they consider culture assessment of their

own organisation (Cameron & Quinn, 2006, pp. 19-20). Although this paper uses quantitative

methods to assess the leadership orientation, alternatives such as the Organizational Culture

Inventory (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988), and the model of Hofstede (Hofstede et al., 2001) were

viewed and found that they are far more complex in terms of the number of items and its

adequacy in capturing the domain and its dimensions that related to SISP processes. Hence,

the (CVF) focuses on values as core constituents of organisational culture. The (CVF) was

developed initially from research conducted on the major indicator of effective organisation

based on two distinctions dimensions of organisational effectiveness, first is flexibility and

discretion versus stability and control, second is external focus and differentiation versus

internal focus and integration .

Flexibility and Discretion

In the first case, organisational change underlines flexibility, discretion and dynamism, while

organisational stability focuses on control, sustainability, and systematic performance. But

internal focus underlines integration, unity and maintenance of the socio-technical system

(Iivari & Huisman, 2007), whereas external focus emphasizes rivalry and interaction with the

organizational external environment ,together these two dimensions form four clusters, each

representing a distinct set of organisational effectiveness indicators, these indicators as shown

in (Figure 2) represent leadership core values and orientation regarding organisational

performance. The opposite ends of these dimensions impose competing and conflicting

demands on the organization (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). The four types of leadership core

Stability and Control

Extern

al Fo

cu

s and

Differe

ntia

tion

Inte

rnal

Fo

cus

an

d In

teg

rati

on

Orientation: Creative Orientation: Collaborative

Leader type: Innovator, Entrepreneur, Visionary

Leader type: Facilitator, Mentor, Team builder

Value Drivers: Innovative outputs, Transformativeness, Agility

Value Drivers: Commitment, Communication, Development

Theory of effectiveness: Innovativeness, vision and new resources produce effectiveness.

Theory of effectiveness: Human development and participation produce effectiveness.

Orientation: Controlling Orientation: Competing

Leader type: Coordinator, Monitor, Organiser

Leader type: Hard driver, Competitor, Producer

Value Drivers: Efficiency, Timeliness, Consistency and Uniformity

Value Drivers: Market Share, Goal Achievement, Profitability

Theory of effectiveness: Control and efficiency with capable processes produces effectiveness.

Theory of effectiveness: Aggressively competing and customer focus produces effectiveness.

Figure 3: The Competing Value of Leadership, Effectiveness, and Organisational Theory (Quinn, 2006)

value and orientation are as follows. The collaborative leadership orientation (Flexibility and

Discretion vs. Internal Focus and Integration) is primarily concerned with human relations

and flexibility. Commitment, communication, and development are its core value drivers.

Effectiveness criteria include the development of human potential and participation. The

creative leadership orientation (Flexibility and Discretion vs. External Focus and

Differentiation) is entrepreneur transformation and vision value driven. The effectiveness

criteria emphasize growth, resource acquisition, vision, and adaptation to the external

environment. The competing leadership orientation (Stability and Control vs. External Focus

and Differentiation) is hard driver, competitor value driven by goal achievement and

profitability. The effectiveness criteria emphasize aggressive competition and customer

focus. The controlling leadership orientation (Stability and Control vs. Internal Focus and

Integration) is coordinator, monitor and organiser. It emphasizes control, stability and

efficiency through the following of regulations; it is value driven by efficiency, timeliness,

consistency and uniformity. The effectiveness criteria emphasize control and efficiency with

capable processes. The highest performing leaders are those who have developed capabilities

and skills that allow them to succeed in each of the four quadrants shown above (Denison,

1995). They are self-contradictory leaders in the sense that they can be simultaneously hard

and soft, entrepreneurial and controlled. Managerial effectiveness as well as organisational

effectiveness is inherently tied to inconsistent characteristics (Cameron & Quinn, 2006, p.

47). Recognizing the leadership typology, this paper applies (CVF) of leadership to an

organisation’s top management who are responsible for planning Information systems

(mainly CIOs and CEOs), to identify their leadership orientation and its effect on the

behaviour of SISP processes and stages of growth.

3. Methodology

The constructs used in this paper are developed and tested using combination of construct

development methodology in MIS research, referring to Bruce et al (2005) and Stacie et al,

(2007) work on construct development using SEM.

Co

ns

tru

ct

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Figure 4: Construct development methodology in MIS research

Literature review  

Existing scales 

Inst

rum

en

t R

efi

nin

g

Pre-Test

Final Draft Measurement Instrument

Validated Measurement Instrument Confirmatory Assessment

Exploratory Assessment

Sta

tist

ical

Mea

su

rem

en

t

Pilot Test

Item Screening

Specify the theoretical network and 

definitional domain of research 

construct 

Initial Instrument 

Development 

Inst

rum

ent

dev

elo

pm

ent

met

ho

do

log

y

Rationality Collaborate

y1

Figure 5: Conceptual model

1. Model evaluation

In evaluating the research model in this study (Figure 5) we estimate a MIMIC (Multiple-

Indicators, Multiple-Causes) as SEM model (see Joanne & Leas, 2004; Timothy, 2006,

Stacie, 2007). The construct of SISP process is represented as reflective variable (y), which is

determined by formative construct of leadership style that has four “causes or antecedents”

variables presented as (x1−x4); they are the four key leadership styles (Collaborate, Creative,

Controlling, and Competing) that combine to create the necessary conditions for SISP

process stages of growth that measured by y1, y2 and y3, and they are Rationality,

Adaptability and Intuition. A similar method was adopted by Segars and Grover (Segars,

1998) in their strategic IT planning study, and by Sethi and King (Sethi, 1994) in their

strategic IT application study, and by (Terry et al., 2006) in their IS Infrastructure study. In

this analysis, author will be using AMOS (SEM) program as the analytical tool for testing

statistical assumptions and for estimating the confirmatory and structural equation models

developed in this study.

Hypothesis

1) Leadership orientation has a direct affects on SISP process stages of growth.

2) The best leadership orientation(s) is the one that demonstrate rational outcome of SISP process.

x1

Competing

x4

Controlling

x3

Creative

x2

Intuition

y3

Adaptability

y2 SISP

Processes

y

2. Data Collection

This paper is in the process of analysing the data using SEM. The instrument used is

questionnaire survey developed using the methodology represented in the figure above and

circulated to CIOs and CEOs and whom responsible for the information system planning in

public and private organisations in Libya, using mixed mood method of collecting data for

the survey including, online survey, telephone survey and physical distribution. Although

there is no ideal sample size when using SEM (Timothy, 2006), however general consensus

seems to have developed that between 100 and 200 is a "good sample size" (Hoelter, 1983).

In the present study, we aim for a sample size of 150, which falls in the middle of this range.

4. Discussion and limitation

This work is motivated by the contingency theory of Information System where “Leadership

orientation” viewed as a one of contingency variables that affect the SISP processes. We

believe that Investigating the relationship between leadership orientation and SISP processes

stages of growth is significant to the domain of SISP in developing countries, by identifying

which leadership orientation(s) that most influence the SISP processes in each stages we

would be able to determine the leadership orientation that is most likely to inhibit or

encourage SISP success, bearing in mind the proposition which suggested that as rational the

SISP Processes become as successful SISP will be, to complete the picture one should

incorporate the SISP success dimensions in the model to give deeper understanding of the fit

between leadership orientation SISP process and SISP success, however, the current model

should be sufficient to provide an observation on leadership behaviour toward SISP

processes, this is the main objective of this paper, nevertheless, statistical evaluation using

SEM should follow to test the hypothesis suggested in this model.

5. References

Applegate L. M. E. J. (1992). "New information systems leaders: a changing role in a changing world", MIS Quarterly 16(4): pp. 469–90.

Booth, M. & G. Philip (2005). "Information systems management: role of planning, alignment and leadership", Behaviour & Information Technology, Taylor & Francis Ltd., 24, pp. 391-404.

Bruce R, Gary T, and Terry B, (2005) “A methodology for construct development in MIS research” European Journal of Information Systems.14, 388–400

Brews, P. J., & Hunt, M. R. (1999). “Learning to plan and planning to learn: Resolving the planning school/learning school debate”, Strategic Management Journal, 20(10), pp. 889-913.

Brown, S. L. M. (1994). "Alignment of the IS function with the enterprise: toward a model of antecedents", MIS Quarterly 18(4), pp. 371-403.

Cameron M., Ford, M. P. S. A. J. W. D. (2008). "Factors Associated with Creative Strategic Decisions", Creative Strategic Decisions, 17(3).

Charles C, Jacqui H & David F (2009). “Top issues in IT management” Management Forum Strategic Panel, British Computer Society - Delphi Survey 2009.

Charlie C., Chen, C. C. H. L. & Samuel, C. Yang (2009). "Managing ERP Implementation Failure: A Project Management Perspective", IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 56(1), pp. 157-170.

Chrisanthi Avgerou (2007),. “Information Systems in Developing Countries: a Critical Research Review". Journal of Information Technology, 23, 133–146

Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). “Behavioural norms and expectations: A quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture”. Croup and Organization Studies, 13(3), 245-273.

Denison, D., Hooijberg & Quinn, Robert (1995). "Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioural complexity in managerial leadership", Organisational Science, pp. 514-540.

Earl, M. J. (1993). "Experiences in strategic information systems planning", MIS Quarterly, 17(1), pp. 1-21.

Geoff Walsham (2006), “Research on Information Systems in Developing Countries: Current Landscape and Future Prospects”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 12 (1) 7–24.

Goll, I., & Rasheed, A. M. A. (1997). “Rational decision-making and firm performance: The moderating role of environment”, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), pp. 583-591.

Grover (1991). "Issues in corporate IS planning", Information Resources Management Journal, 4(1).

Grover, V. S., Albert, H. (2005). "An empirical evaluation of stages of strategic information systems planning: patterns of process design and effectiveness." Information & Management, 42(5), pp. 761-779.

Hoelter, J.A. (1983). "The Analysis of Covariance Structures: Goodness-of-Fit Indices", Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 1983, pp. 325-344.

Hofstede, G. (2001). “Culture’s consequences” (2nd ed.), Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Huigang, L. S., Nilesh Qing, Hu Yajiong, Xue (2007). "Assimilation of enterprise system: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management", MIS Quarterly, MIS Quarterly & the Society for Information Management, 31, pp. 59-87.

Henry E. Newkirk, Albert L. Lederer and Alice M. Johnson., (2008), “Rapid business and IT change: drivers for strategic information systems planning?” European Journal of Information Systems ,17, 198–218

Ifinedo, P., & Nahar, Nazmun (2009). "Interactions between contingency,. organizational IT factors, and ERP success", Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109, pp. 118-137.

Jarvenpaa, D.S. Staples (2001), “Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of information and expertise”, Journal of Management Information Systems ,18 (1), 151–183.

Joanne & Leas, (2004). “A Beginner’s guide to SEM”, Taylor & Francis (2nd Ed).

Kearns, G. S. (2006). "The effect of top management support of SISP on strategic IS management: insights from the US electric power industry", Omega, 34, pp. 236-253.

Kearns, G. S. (2007). "How the Internal Environment Impacts Information Systems Project Success: An Investigation of Exploitative and Explorative Firms", Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 48 Issue 1, p63-75, 13p.

Khatri & Ng (2000), “The Role of Intuition in Strategic Decision Making” Human Relations, Volume 53 (1).

Khatri, N. &. Ng. A. (2000). "The role of intuition in strategic decision making ", Human relations, 53(1), pp. 57-86.

Lederer, A. L. & Sethi, V. (1992a). Meeting the challenges of IS planning. Long Range Planning, 25 (2), 69–80.

Lederer, A. L. & Sethi, V. (1992b). Root causes of strategic IS planning implementation problems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9 (1), 25–45.

Lederer, A. L. M. (1986). "Issues in information systems planning", Information & Management, 10(5), pp. 245– 254.

Lederer, V. S. (1988). "The implementation of strategic information systems planning methodologies", MIS Quarterly, 12(3), pp. 444–461.

Livari, J. & M. Huisman (2007). "The Relationship between Organizational Culture and the Deployment of Systems Development Methodologies", MIS Quarterly, MIS Quarterly & the Society for Information Management, 31, pp. 35-58.

Miller, C. C., & Cardinal, L. B. (1994). “Strategic planning and firm performance: A synthesis of more than two decades of research”, Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1649-1665.

Mintzberg, (1994). “The rise and fall of strategic planning”. The free press: New York.

Mitchell, V. (2006). “Knowledge Integration and Information Technology Project Performance”, MIS Quarterly (30:4), pp. 919-939.

Newkirk, H. E. L., Albert L. Johnson, Alice M. (2008). "Rapid business and IT change: drivers for strategic information systems planning?" European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), pp. 198-218.

Newkirk, H. E., Ledererb, A.L., Srinivasan, C. (2003), “Strategic information systems planning: too little or too much”, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Volume 12, Issue 3, 201-228.

Philip, G. (2007), "IS Strategic Planning for Operational Efficiency", Information Systems Management, Taylor & Francis Ltd., 24, pp. 247-264.

Prietula & Simon, (1989); “The experts in your midst” Harvard business review.

Quinn, K. S. C. A. R. E. (2006). "Diagnosing and Changing Organisational Culture", the Jossey-Bass Business and Management Series.

Raghunathan, B. R. T. (1989). "Relationship of the rank of information systems executive to the organizational role and planning dimensions of information systems", Journal of Management Information Systems, 6(1), pp. 111–24.

Segar, A., Grover. V & Teng. (1998). "Strategic Information Systems Planning: Planning System Dimensions, Internal Coalignment, and Implications for Planning Effectiveness", Decision Sciences, 29(2), pp. 303-341.

Segars, A.H. & Grover, V. (1998). "Strategic Information Systems Planning Success: An Investigation of the Construct and its 71. Measurement", MIS Quarterly, 22:2, pp. 139-163.

Said Elbanna, R. N. (2009). "How much does performance matter in strategic decision making?" International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58(5): 437 - 459.

Sethi, V. and W.R. King (1994). "Development of Measures to Assess the Extent to Which an Information Technology Application Provides Competitive Advantage", Management Science, 40:12, pp. 1601 -1627.

Stacie P, Detmar S, Arun R (2007) “Specifying formative constructs in information system

research” MIS Quarterly Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 623-656.

Terry Anthony Byrd, B. R. L., Randy V. Bradley (2006). "IS Infrastructure: The Influence of Senior it Leadership and Strategic Information Systems Planning", Journal of Computer Information Systems , 47(1), 101-113.

Thomas, F. (1988). "Can change in organisational culture really be managed", Organisational dynamics, 17, pp. 4-16.

Teo, T. S. H. & Ang, J. S. K. (2001). An examination of major IS problems. International Journal of Information Management, 21 (6), 457–470.

Teo T. S. H. & King, W. (1996). Assessing the impact of integrating business planning and IS planning. Information and Management, 30, 309–321.

Timothy A. Brown, (2006), “Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research”, The Guilford Press.

Vaughan, F.E (1990). “Varieties of intuitive experience. In W.H. Agor (Ed.) Intuition in organisation, pp 40-61.

Weiling Ke , K. K. W. (2008). "Organizational culture and leadership in ERP implementation", Decision Support Systems, 45, pp. 208–218.

Weber, N. Pliskin, (1996) “The effects of information systems integration and organizational culture on a firm's effectiveness”, Information and Management 30 (2), 81.

Appendix (A)

Measurement model Items

Model factors SISP Processes( Adaptability Dimension) Item code

Participation

PPA1 Top management is actively involved in strategic IS planning.

PPA2 A variety of functional area managers participate in the process of IS planning.

PPA3 Our process for strategic IS planning includes numerous participants.

PPA4 Strategic IS planning is a relatively isolated organizational activity.

PPA5 The level of participation in SISP by diverse interests of the organization is high.

Item code

Consistency

PPA6 We constantly evaluate and review conformance to strategic plans.

PPA7 We frequently adjust strategic plans to better adapt them to changing conditions.

PPA8 Strategic IS planning is a continuous process.

PPA9 We frequently schedule face-to-face meetings to discuss strategic planning issues.

PPA10 We formally plan for information systems as the need arises.

SISP Processes (Intuition Dimension) Item code

Intuition Items

PPI1 We rely on personal judgment when planning for Information System.

PPI2 We depend on our gut feeling when planning for Information System.

PPI3 We emphasize past experience when planning for Information System.

Model factors Leadership style dimension Item code

Collaborate Items

LSCC1

Our organization is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves.

LSCC2

Our leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify mentoring, facilitating, or nurturing.

LSCC3

Our management style in the organization is characterized by teamwork, consensus and participation.

LSCC4

The glues that hold our organization together are loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to this organization runs high.

LSCC5

Our organization emphasizes human development. High trust, openness and participation persist.

LSCC6

Our organization defines success on the basis of the development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment and concern for people.

Item code

Creative Items

LSCA1

Our organization is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks.

LSCA2

Our leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify entrepreneurship, innovation or risk taking.

LSCA3

Our management style in the organization is characterized by individual risk taking, innovation, freedom and uniqueness.

LSCA4

The glue that holds our organization together is commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis on being on the cutting edge.

LSCA5

Our organization emphasizes acquiring new resources and creating new challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued.

LSCA6

Our organization defines success on the basis of having the most unique or newest products. It is a product leader and innovator.

Item code

Controlling Items

LSCH1

Our organization is a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally govern what people do.

LSCH2

Our leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify coordinating, organizing or smooth-running efficiency.

LSCH3

Our management style in the organization is characterized by security of employment, conformity, predictability and stability in relationships.

LSCH4

Our organization emphasizes performance and stability. Efficiency, control and smooth operations are important.

LSCH5

Our organization defines success on the basis of efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling and low-cost production are critical.

Item code

Competing Items

LSCM1

Our organization is very results-oriented. A major concern is getting the job done. People are very competitive and very achievement-oriented.

LSCM2

Our leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify a no-nonsense, aggressive, results-oriented focus.

LSCM3

Our management style in the organization is characterized by hard-driving competitiveness, high demands and achievement.

LSCM4

The glue that holds our organization together is the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment.

LSCM5

Our organization emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. Hitting stretch targets and winning in the marketplace are dominant.

LSCM6

Our organization defines success on the basis of winning in the marketplace and outpacing the competition. Competitive market leadership is the key.

Model factors SISP Processes ( Rationality dimension) Item code

Flow

PPR1 Strategic planning for IS is initiated at the highest levels of the organization.

PPR2 The planning flow within our organization can be characterized as “top-down.”

PPR3 Planning for IS is initiated by requests/proposals from operational/functional managers.

PPR4 Those who formulate strategic IS plans are most responsible for their implementation.

PPR5 The primary role of upper management is to endorse rather than formulate IS plans.

Code Comprehensiveness

PPR6 We attempt to be exhaustive in gathering information relevant for IS planning.

PPR7 Before a decision is made, each possible course of action is thoroughly evaluated.

PPR8 We attempt to determine optimal courses of action from identified alternatives.

PPR9 There is little trial and error in our strategic decision process.

PPR10 We will delay decisions until we are sure that all alternatives have been evaluated. PPR6 We attempt to be exhaustive in gathering information relevant for IS planning.

Item code

Focus

PPR11 The primary focus of IS planning is controlling cost through extensive budgeting.

PPR12 In our IS planning process we encourage creativity and idea generation over control.

PPR13 Strategic IS planning is viewed as a means of controlling the growth of technology.

PPR14 Control systems are used to monitor variances between planned actions and outcomes.

PPR15 Our IS planning process is tightly integrated with the firm’s normal financial planning or capital budgeting routine.

Item code

Formalization

PPR16 Policies and procedures greatly influence the process of SISP within our firm.

PPR17 We utilize formalized planning techniques (e.g.. IBM) in our SISP process.

PPR18 Our process for strategic planning is very structured.

PPR19 Written guidelines exist to structure strategic IS planning in our organization.

PPR20 The process and outputs of strategic IS planning are formally documented.