The role of feedback in assessing information systems planning effectiveness

Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1995 4(l) 61-80

The role of feedback in assessing information systems planning effectiveness

Bernadette Baker Information Systems Research Unit, University of Warwick Business School, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK

Research conducted over the past decade into the key issues of information systems management has ranked information systems planning as one of the major concerns. Problems encountered in information systems planning have been experienced by many companies for over 25 years. Although during this period the focus of planning has changed, some of the original problems (eg linkage between information systems strategy and business strategy) still exist. Until now, researchers in this area have tended to focus their attention on the development of information systems planning methods/methodologies. However, there is little evidence to suggest that these methods/methodologies are addressing some of the major issues (eg insufficient resources such as people, funds and computer time, failure in plan implementation) that have plagued information systems planning over the years with a view to improving ISP effectiveness. This paper argues that clarification is needed as to the scope of the information systems planning activity and suggests that a multi-dimensional perspective needs to be taken in order to improve information systems planning. It identifies a major component of information systems planning effectiveness which has had little attention paid to it in the past, namely feedback, and suggests ways in which to investigate whether a relationship exists between the presence/quality of these feedback mechanisms and planning effectiveness.

Keywords: information systems planning, feedback, evaluation, learning organization

From a review of the literature it becomes obvious that there is no clear agreement as to a definition for information systems planning (ISP).’ It is important when embarking on ISP that researchers and practitioners alike are aware of the different terminology that may be used, so that expectations regarding the deliverables resulting from the study may be managed appropriately. It is for this reason that the first section of this paper is devoted to scoping in order to provide a backdrop for the paper as a whole.

‘Similar terms are information systems strategic planning (ISSP), strategic information systems planning (SISP) and information systems strategy (ISS).

Paper received January 1994; revised paper accepted for publication by Professor R D Galliers, August 1994

0963~8687/95/$09.50 0 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved 61

Role of feedback in assessing IS planning: B Baker

One of the earliest definitions for ISP was given by Kriebel (1968) who regarded ISP as involving ‘decision making (by top management) in three areas: establishing computer planning objectives on the basis of corporate goals; determining corporate policy for growth, resource commitment, and the management organisation for computer systems; and appraising the company’s current position (with respect to) computer systems development’.

This definition of ISP was insightful given what we now know following 20 years of ISP research and practice. Some of the research has shown that the very issues that Kriebel’s definition encompasses have been frequently identified as not being addressed in practice, such as problems to do with the linkage between the business/corporate and IS plan (eg Galliers, 1987~) and problems associated with resource commitment (cf Lederer and Sethi, 1988).

The definition of ISP adopted in this paper, whilst based on Kriebel’s, consolidates some of the more generally accepted aspects of ISP in addition. For example, this definition highlights areas for IS application (not necessarily directly relating to the corporate goals) and the need for the planning process not only to consider resourcing but also management of change issues. The revised ISP definition is as follows:

ISP involves the identification of prioritized information systems (IS) that are efficient, effective and/or strategic (cf Sinclair, 1986) in nature together with the necessary resources (human, technical and financial), management of change considerations (cf Galliers, 1991), control procedures and organizational structure needed to implement these IS.

Figure Z provides a high level contextual picture of ISP and its relationship with other major processes within the organization. Whilst being a simplistic model, it seeks to clarify the different planning activities that make up ISP as a whole and how ISP links with other organizational processes. The three planning activities, strategic ISP, management ISP and operational ISP, seek to identify strategic, effective and efficiency IS applications respectively, while tactical planning deals with the practical aspects of the actual plan implementation.

Is ZSP necessary?

Apart from evidence that suggests better congruence between business and IS strategy leads to better organizational performance (White, 1986), McFarlan (1971) identified four major reasons as to why organizations should plan their IS. These are: technology improvements, scarcity of appropriate human resources, scarcity of corporate resources and the trend towards systems integration. His research suggested that IS were more effective in those organizations that planned for them than in those that did not. This has been substantiated by other researchers in the area (cf King, 1983, 1988) who have identified a positive relationship between planning systems and their impact on the organization performance.

However, when McFarlan conducted his study he found that ISP was by no means prevalent in organizations at that time. Some 20 years on, there is evidence to suggest that this is no longer the case (eg Galliers, 1987a; King and Raghunathan, 1987; Wilson, 1989). ISP has become a major concern of IS management as organizations seek to manage their IS/IT investments more efficiently and effectively.

Recent reviews conducted by Price Waterhouse (Grindley, 1992, 1993) reveal that some of the reasons for planning are similar to those highlighted by McFarlan

62 Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1995 Volume 4 Number I


Business Planning

ISP

Str%Yic M~~~~ment operational

ISP

Sh-af systzc “gEEd

Tactical Planning (including implementation planning)

Information S stems Strategy

Project Management

Project Management Development Strategy

I

IS Development

Figure 1 Information systems planning in context

20 years ago. Cost containment of information technology (IT) has been of increasing concern to senior executives, especially over the past few years, due to the recession and to senior management’s concern that IT has sometimes failed to deliver the expected business benefits (Galliers, 1992). Planning for IS can help to address this by aiding the deployment of the company’s resources in an efficient and effective manner.

The integration of IT into the organization is still important and, with the adoption of open systems as against proprietary architecture, is becoming increasingly so. While staff recruitment/retention is no longer viewed to be a major issue for most IS executives, as was the case 20 years ago, due to the slowing down of staff migration and the plentiful supply of skilled workers in this area (Galliers et al, 1994a), organizations still need to address personnel implications (eg training) in the development and implementation of their IS plan.

Other factors making it necessary for organizations to plan their IS/IT activities are highlighted from a variety of studies in ISP spanning the past decade, some of which are given below. Factors influencing the necessity to plan include:

l cost containment (Grindley, 1992, 1993); l the growing awareness of management as to the strategic and competitive

opportunities that IS can provide (McFarlan et al, 1983; Porter, 1985; Venkatraman, 1985/86; Lederer and Mendelow, 1986; Boynton and Zmud, 1987; Atkinson, 1990; Earl, 1990a; Premkumar and King, 1991);

Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1995 Volume 4 Number 1 63


the unstable and increasing competitiveness of the business environment (Ackoff, 1981; Grindley, 1991); the rate of technological change (McFarlan et al, 1983; Pyburn, 1983; Hartog and Herbert, 1986; Venkatraman, 1985186; Brancheau and Wetherbe, 1987; Atkinson, 1990; Grindley, 1991); resource deployment considerations (Venkatraman, 1985/86; Galliers, 1987~; Earl, 1990a) which result in the need to prioritize IS developments (Kay et al, 1980; Gupta and Guimaraes, 1991); the search for a co-ordinated approach to organization-wide IS (eg to enable the development of a common IS architecture) (Kay et al, 1980; Venkatraman, 1985/86; Galliers, 1987~; Atkinson, 1990); the need for more effective IS across functions (Venkatraman, 1985/86; Galliers, 1987~; Atkinson, 1990; Earl, 1990a); the need to facilitate communication between IS personnel and others (Gupta and Guimaraes, 1991); the need to develop a capital budget for the IS function (Gupta and Guimaraes, 1991); the potential impact of IT on business process redesign (Hammer, 1990; Davenport and Short, 1990; Scott Morton, 1991); the need to assist organizational change (Yadav, 1983; Lederer and Mendelow, 1986; Galliers, 1991; Gupta and Guimaraes, 1991); the increasing role of telecommunications and distributed processing in the day-to-day operations of many organizations (Boynton and Zmud, 1987); increased end-user computing (Brancheau and Wetherbe, 1987); scarcity of personnel and other corporate resources (Brancheau and Wetherbe, 1987).

These and other factors have ensured ISP a place high on the IS management agenda of many larger organizations (Niederman et al, 1991; Galliers et aZ, 1994a).

ISP us a research topic

Research carried out during the past few years (eg Dickson et al, 1984; Hartog and Herbert, 1986; Brancheau and Wetherbe, 1987; Niederman et al, 1991; Watson and Brancheau, 1991; Clark, 1992) into the key issues of information systems management has ranked ISP as being one of the most critical issues of the past decade. It is likely that this is due not only to the intrinsic importance of the topic but the problems in undertaking and implementing ISP successfully (Galliers et al, 1994a).

With the relatively recent growth of ISP activity within organizations it is not surprising to find an increase in the number of ISP problems being identified. These problems are well documented in articles spanning the past decade (eg Ball, 1982; Earl, 1983; Galliers, 1987b, 1987c, 1992; Lederer and Sethi, 1988; Wilson, 1989). Some of the problems that have been repeatedly identified by different authors over this period include:

lack of managerial involvement and support; failure to review plans; lack of planning directives (eg absence of or limited linkage to business plan) and procedures; insufficient allocation of resources to planning; insufficient attention paid to strategy implementation.

Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1995 Volume 4 Number I


However, ISP in some organizations is successful. Exactly what constitutes success is debatable (cf Galliers, 1987b; Earl, 1993). Indeed this is likely to vary across different levels of management and from one perspective to another. Notwithstanding, for some companies, ISP satisfies the expectation of the stakeholder groups involved in its formulation and implementation (Galliers, 1987b; Earl, 1993). It is not surprising therefore that ISP has, for a number of years, been the focus of much academic attention due to the successful experiences of some companies and less than successful experiences of others (Sullivan, 1985; Galliers 1987b, 1987~; Lederer and Sethi, 1988; Wilson, 1989; Earl, 1990b).

In order to summarize the types of research conducted to date in the area of IS strategy making, the strategic process research framework of Huff and Reger (1987) will be used. This framework, while derived for the classification of business strategy process research, is equally applicable to the classification of information system strategy process research.

The framework classifies strategic process research according to three dimensions: ( 1) formulation (decision generating) vs implementation (executing the decision); (2) normative (the ideal) vs descriptive (what happens in practice); and finally (3) rationality (which assumes planning can be regarded as a ‘sequentially rational, analytical process’) vs non-rutiorudity (which assumes planning cannot be due to the political environment within which it takes place).

In addition to the eight categories identified in the framework, Huff and Reger (1987) add a ninth category which they name ‘integrative’. Figure 2 shows an adapted version of this framework - a brief description of each semi-quadrant is given below.

Normative formulation. The planning prescriptions semi-quadrant typifies research that attempts to rationalize planning in order to help organizations in their planning endeavours. It covers the identification of general models of planning (eg Earl’s Multiple Methodology, 1989, p 71), specific steps in the planning activity (eg Bowman et al, 1983), specific planning environments (eg Raghunathan and Raghunathan, 1990) and specialized approaches (eg Hardaker and Ward, 1987).

Figure 2 Classification grid for information systems strategic process research



The decision aids semi-quadrant comprises research based on the assumption that planning is not a rational activity but is fundamentally problematic due not only to the limitations of human beings in their ability to analyse and synthese information but also due to the political undercurrents present in organizations, which often makes consensus hard to achieve. These decision aids help decision makers analyse strategic alternatives effectively, and many of these are taken from the field of business strategy (eg Conlin, 1989; Thomas et aE, 1989).

Normative implementation. The evolutionary prescriptions semi-quadrant assumes the non-rational perspective of planning and relies on the idea that strategy should not be predetermined but let to evolve through a series of incremental changes triggered by feedback from the environmental (Earl, 1993). The close link between strategy formulation and implementation that this type of research advocates cannot be over-emphasized.

Mintzberg (1988) posits that strategy may be derived in two ways, through formulation (ie deliberate) or formation (ie emergent). While strategy formulation seeks to separate thought from action, strategy formation regards the two to be inseparable.

Strategy formulation depicts strategy making as a deliberate process by which strategy is first formulated and then implemented. This has been the assumption of much of the research undertaken in the areas of business and IS strategy making. However, Mintzberg (1988) suggests, and indeed has evidence for, strategy formation; that a strategy ‘can form as well as be formulated . . . in response to an evolving situation’ (p 78), that is, the strategy emerges continually in response to previously implemented actions and to changes in the environment.

This knitting together of strategy formulation and implementation (ie strategy formation in Mintzberg’s terms) allows the outcome to be flexible and easily adaptable, and helps the organization to foster a learning environment (cf Senge, 1990). However, while a purely emergent strategy facilitates learning it excludes control. Therefore, Mintzberg (1988) suggests that since learning and control are both desirable, strategic decision making should exhibit both deliberate and emergent properties.

The systematic implementation semi-quadrant comprises research that treats implementation separately from formulation, regarding it as a logical sequential series of steps carried out after the formulation step has been completed (eg Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1984).

Descriptive formulation. The planning practices semi-quadrant contains research that has sought to clarify the types of strategy formulation that is taking place in practice (eg Galliers, 1987a,c). Table 1 provides a summary of some of the major surveys conducted in recent years together with their objectives. From some of this research, recommendations have been made as to how strategy formulation may be improved through the establishment of critical success factors (cf Rockart, 1979), for example, taking the research into the realms of the normative research quadrants.

Planning contingency frameworks have been identified (eg Pyburn, 1983) that link the context of planning to the formulation. These aim to help establish the major factors that influence the form the planning system takes in practice.

The agenda and attention semi-quadrant typifies that research which focuses on the cognitive and political impacts on strategic decision making. This research not only identifies how strategic decision making processes take place within the

66 Journal of Strategic Information Systems I995 Volume 4 Number I

Tab

le

1 Su

mm

ary

of

rece

nt

maj

or

surv

eys

and

thei

r ob

ject

ives

(a

fter

G

allie

rs,

1987

~)

Yea

r R

esea

rche

r(s)

R

esea

rch

met

hods

Si

ze

of s

ampl

e R

ole

of r

espo

nden

ts

Focu

s of

stu

dy

(1)

(2)

(3)

1986

Si

ncla

ir

In-d

epth

in

terv

iew

s 7

X

Mot

ivat

ions

fo

r co

nduc

ting

ISP

(US

) an

d te

chni

ques

us

ed

1987

G

allie

rs

Post

al

surv

ey

209

X

X

X

Ass

essm

ent

of

curr

ent

ISP

(UK

an

d A

ustr

alia

) pr

actic

e

1987

K

ing

and

Rag

huna

than

Q

uest

ionn

aire

an

d 14

0 X

X

E

xten

t of

IS

P an

d sa

tisfa

ctio

n

(US

) in

terv

iew

s (p

aire

d sa

mpl

es)

with

IS

1987

B

lair

Su

rvey

20

0 X

Pl

anni

ng

appr

oach

es

(US

)

1988

L

eder

er

and

Seth

i Po

stal

su

rvey

80

X

Id

entif

icat

ion

of

ISP

prob

lem

s

(US

)

1989

W

ilson

Q

uest

ionn

aire

18

6 X

X

A

sses

smen

t of

ad

optio

n of

(UK

) st

rate

gy

for

IS

deve

lopm

ent

1990

E

arl

In-d

epth

in

terv

iew

s 21

X

X

X

U

nder

stan

ding

th

e na

ture

of

(UK

) (S

)IS

P

1991

Pr

emku

mar

an

d K

ing

Post

al

surv

ey

245

X

Ana

lysi

s of

pl

anni

ng

prac

tices

(US

) an

d ef

fect

of

or

gani

zatio

nal

fact

ors

1992

B

DO

C

onsu

lting

Po

stal

su

rvey

+

27

183

X

X

X

Ana

lyse

d lin

kage

be

twee

n

(UK

) in

-dep

th

inte

rvie

ws

stra

tegi

c an

d IT

pl

anni

ng

(1)

Seni

or

man

agem

ent;

(2)

IS m

anag

emen

t; (3

) us

er

man

agem

ent.

8


organization’s political and bureaucratic structure but also how individuals’ cognitive, perceptual and other psychological traits impact on them.

Descriptive implementation. The contextual influences semi-quadrant comprises research based on the notion that strategic change is a political process (cf Mumford and Pettigrew, 1975).

The research conducted in the structure, systems and outcomes semi-quadrant relates to the descriptive accounts of the relationship that exists between strategy, structure, systems and organizational performance. It is noted by Huff and Reger (1987) that how organizations use information systems to implement strategy and how these systems subsequently affect performance are largely unexplored areas in strategy research.

Integrative. The integrative school of thought aims to bring together ideas from both the rational and non-rational aspects of planning across both normative and descriptive dimensions (eg Wilson, 1989).

Summary of ZSP process research

Applying this framework to classify the ISP process research literature to date, reveals a concentration of ISP research in the planning practices semi-quadrant. Since information systems is such a relatively young subject area, perhaps it is not so surprising to find the majority of ISP research focused in the descriptive area of this framework.

This semi-quadrant, however, has two other characteristics: the underlying assumption of rationality in planning practices, and a focus on the formulation rather than the implementation of planning. Information systems cannot as yet be regarded as a discipline in its own right due to the lack of foundation theory needed to make it so. Much of the theory it does use is ‘borrowed’ from other disciplines; business strategy literature in particular is heavily drawn upon in the study of ISP. ISP research has tended to take the deliberate view to planning rather than the emergent one (cf Mintzberg, 1988) focusing more on the plan’s formulation than its implementation. It is not surprising, therefore, to find much of the ISP research located in the planning practices semi-quadrant.

Much of the previous descriptive research has centred around the identification of the problems of and issues surrounding ISP. This, in some cases, has led to normative recommendations in terms of methods to help organizations in the formulation of their ISP (eg Zachman, 1982; Ives and Learmonth, 1984; Bullen and Rockart, 1981; Porter and Millar, 1985; Hardaker and Ward, 1987). Although these methods have provided the planner with tools and techniques to help them in their IS plans development, they have not provided guarantees as to the plan’s implementation or subsequent success. Reports of IS plans in organizations becoming shelfware (Atkinson, 1992) and implementation of information systems that were not originally identified in the plan at all (Sinha, 1990), are by no means uncommon. This results not only in a waste of resources used during the planning activity itself but also a loss of credibility with regards to formal planning procedures and the way in which IS/IT in general is perceived by management, notwithstanding the emergent strategy arguments.

Given the difficulties still being experienced, ISP is an important topic worthy of research. While future research must seek to take a more integrative perspective to planning research (addressing all three of the dimensions highlighted by strategic process research framework), it appears to be time to refocus attention on



something other than ISP methods, as argued in the following section.

ISP dimensions There is little doubt that methods aid the planning activity. However, there is no evidence to suggest that they, on their own, make the planning activity successful (Sinclair, 1986).

Recent research (Earl, 1990b) suggests the need for researchers to refocus their attention on the ‘multidimensional nature of strategic ISP (SISP)‘, that of method, process and implementation. He also argues that ‘focusing on methods alone is not sufficient’ due to the complex nature of strategy-making. The definition of ISP adopted earlier in this paper incorporates what Earl terms SISP. Lederer and Sethi (1991) have also called for the dimensional aspect of ISP to be investigated.

This multi-dimensional nature of strategic planning in general is corroborated by other researchers (eg Hax and Majluf, 1984; King and Cleland, 1978). From a study of literature in both the business planning and ISP area (eg Learned et al, 1965; Pyburn, 1983; Ramanujam et al, 1986; Galliers, 1987a; Boa1 and Bryson, 1987; Lederer and Sethi, 1988, 1991; Adriaans and Hoogakker, 1989; Hoffer et al, 1989; Waema and Walsham, 1990; Chan and Huff, 1992; Premkumar and King, 1991), seven dimensions are identified.

These dimensions are: context, process, method, inputs, outputs, implementation and outcome. However, it is also evident from the literature that each dimension can be regarded as comprising two types of characteristics: those that are tangible in nature and therefore more readily measurable (which up to now have been the limited view taken by most business planning and therefore most ISP studies) and those aspects that are intangible and therefore less readily measurable.

It is argued by some (eg Pyburn, 1983; Boa1 and Bryson, 1987; Boynton and Zmud, 1987; Waema and Walsham, 1990) that a focus on improving the intangible aspects of planning will result in improving the effectiveness of ISP as a whole. However, these intangibles are seldom, if at all, recognized by organizations (Premkumar and King, 1991) and consequently not managed appropriately. Other researchers too have commented on the many benefits, both tangible and intangible, of planning (cf Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1987, p 688).

A brief description of each of these dimensions with respect to tangible and intangible types of factors is given below:

l Context refers to internal and external environmental factors that may have an affect on the planning process and the resultant plan’s success. The tangible factors may include organizational size, structure, style of management and IS function characteristics (eg maturity) whereas the intangible factors comprise those that refer to the political undercurrents that prevail in an organization.

l Process relates to ‘the sequence of steps, relationship transformations, and interpersonal and intellectual transactions needed to reach an end state or outcome’ (Quinn, 1980). The process is the engine which drives the planning activity from start to finish (ie it converts inputs to outputs). Nutt (1982) regards planning ‘methods’ (methodologies) as comprising two interrelated features: technique (method) and process. It is clear from other planning literature too that the term process is frequently used to describe both process (in terms of the definition given here) and method (in terms of the definition given below). The combination of both process and method is used here to constitute a methodology. This definition allows method to be treated independently from process which may, among other things, improve the flexibility (in terms of

Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1995 Volume 4 Number I 69


reaction to environmental impacts) of the ISP approach. The tangible factors of process address the way in which the planning activity

is carried out (eg interviews, workshops) whereas the intangible factors of process refer to the way in which the process is managed (eg how decisions are made). Schein (1969) discusses in depth this issue of process management and how it can be used as a tool to manage organizational change.

l Method refers to the tools and techniques used during the planning process to develop the plan. These tools can either be hard in nature (ie those that are more appropriate for well-defined problem situations) or soft (ie those that are more appropriate for ill-defined problem situations). Both types of tools will be used during the planning activity as some parts of the problem situation will be more structured than others.

l Inputs refer to the resources allocated to the planning activity. These not only include time, money and human resources (eg who should participate, expertise of the planning team individually and collectively) but intangible inputs such as stakeholder expectations (cf Galliers, 1987b; Ruohonen, 1991).

l Outputs refer to the planning deliverables. The main tangible deliverables from the planning activity are the actions that need to be taken together with the necessary resource commitment. However, there must also exist a conducive environment in order for the actions to be implemented (eg motivation on the part of management to do so).

l Implementation refers to how the planning deliverables are to be executed. The tangible factors of implementation relate to project management considerations whereas the intangible factors relate to management of the organizational change required to support the implementation of the plan.

l Outcome refers to the impact that the planning deliverables have on the organization. The tangible factors address the improvement in business performance an organization experiences whereas the intangible factors refer to the organizational learning that has occurred by way of the planning deliverables and the planning process itself.

The final dimension, that of outcome, is a measure of how well the other six dimensions have been performed. Since outcome is a dependent dimension, we can assume if the other six dimensions and their interactions are managed effectively then it too can be regarded as being effective. Outcome can therefore be regarded as a measure of how successful the other dimensions have been.

The other six dimensions can be regarded as the primary dimensions of ISP. These dimensions were further validated by a review of the general problems and issues identified in previous research, each of which could be categorized under one of these dimensions. Taken together, these six ISP dimensions can be viewed as a general systems model comprising input, process (which in ‘systems terms’ includes method), output and context, with implementation being located on the boundary of the system (cf Figure 3). This view of implementation embraces both the concepts of strategy formation and strategy formulation as it can be regarded to be either inside or outside the ISP system depending on the view one takes of planning.

If one does consider ISP in general systems terms it is evident that an important additional element is missing from the model. This missing element, namely feedback, would help to ensure continuous improvement. In fact if strategy formation is to occur this becomes a necessity since without feedback, strategy evolution cannot take place.

This ISP systems model provides a good basis on which to conduct further

70 Journal of Strategic Information System 1995 Volume 4 Number 1


Feedback OJI System

ISP System

Figure 3 Feedback in information systems planning

research, satisfying the call for multi-dimensionality in ISP research and covering a range of planning issues identified from previous studies. It also satisfies the need for a more integrative view to be taken of planning process research, in particular, it takes into consideration both rational and non-rational aspects of planning.

Dyson and Foster (1983) identified that the organizations in their study of business planning practices simply did not undertake such a review, mainly because the executives interviewed believed the situation appraisal conducted at the beginning of each periodic (normally annual) planning cycle was adequate in monitoring any changes that occurred since the last planning cycle. Some of the organizations believed that the reviews built into the budget structures were enough to monitor the implementation of strategy. With regard to this state of affairs, Dyson and Foster argue:

the value of good monitoring seems to be so clear that it is perhaps surprising that actual practice is not better. A good monitoring system will at the very least ensure that you know what may be your current position and consequently enable an immediate start to be made in the business of coping with any unforeseen problems.

They go on to discuss relationship between monitoring and the laying down of contingency plans. Without monitoring, the point at which a contingency plan should be implemented is unlikely to be recognized.

While both the business planning and ISP literature identify the need for such feedback mechanisms (eg Dyson and Foster, 1983; Karimi, 1988; King, 1988; Hoffer et al, 1989), there is little attention paid to the form such mechanisms might take and what would constitute the type of feedback required to aid continual improvement of ISP. This may be due to one of two reasons. Either no such feedback mechanisms exist in practice (which may account for the continuing concern of IS management with respect to ISP - if there is no feedback of any kind how can improvement occur?), or feedback mechanisms do exist but no-one has identified the form they take and the relationship they have, if any, to effective planning.

From an analysis of the planning literature, two major feedback loops should exist (Figure 3). A feedback loop for the ISP system itself and another associated



with updating the plan during formation/formulation. Changes in an organization’s business and technological environment can render

IS (partially) obsolete (Earl, 1993). This may include IS already implemented, those that are in the process of being implemented or those that are being developed (ie at the project management stage). If there is no review of the plan and current information systems when such environmental changes occur, resources will be wasted on both the ongoing development and maintenance of now obsolete IS.

As new information comes to light, it should be used to update the plans not only through the planning cycle (Dyson and Foster, 1983) but also once the plans have been ‘committed’ to paper (Galliers, 1987~). There should be clear procedures set for plan revision (Singleton et al, 1988) so that the output of the plan can be flexible enough to react quickly to unanticipated changes both within and outside the organization. However, in the same way that the plan needs to be continually updated in order to address new opportunities and risks facing the organization, so does the planning system itself to ensure that the organization approaches its planning in an appropriate way.

Problems in the previous planning cycle should be identified and addressed during the subsequent cycle, similarly assumptions on which the planning system is based may change and therefore need to be reviewed and updated accordingly. This adaptive behaviour of the planning system has been mentioned by several authors (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1987; Galliers, 1987~; King, 1984; Lorange, 1982; Lederer and Sethi, 1988; De Geus, 1988; Earl, 1993) as a key to success.

Improving ISP

This paper argues that the lack of the necessary feedback mechanisms is impeding progress towards ISP success. In order to establish whether or not this is the case the relationship between quality (or indeed presence) of feedback mechanisms (on both the plan and planning system) and the planning system’s ultimate success needs to be investigated.

The evaluation mechanism

Hirschheim and Smithson (1988) propose three frameworks of evaluation which are based on the underlying assumptions of objectivity and subjectivity. These frameworks focus on three possible measures of performance: efficiency, effectiveness and understanding. The assumptions underlying these frameworks range from total objective measurements at one end of the scale (ie the efficiency framework) through a mixture of both subjective and objective measurements (ie the effectiveness framework) to totally subjective measures at the other end (ie the understanding framework). With the frameworks come techniques that are based on these objectivity/subjectivity assumptions and which allow the user to evaluate according to their own system of belief. Although these frameworks were originally suggested for the evaluation of IS per se, they can apply equally to the evaluation of ISP.

The effectiveness framework should be used to evaluate ISP because it attempts to take a balanced view of social reality. King (1988) supports effectiveness as a measurement of performance of ISP and argues that both types of ‘measures’ (ie subjective and objective) should be evaluated by different stakeholders using internal and external criteria (eg objectives of planning system and best practice in



planning respectively). This planning system effectiveness framework should seek to address the

deficiency of past planning system evaluation tools in the field of business planning (eg Ramanujam et al, 1986) in general and IS planning (Premkumar, 1989), in particular, while incorporating the problems and critical success factors identified from the field of ISP, creating a new multidimensional evaluation tool. Such a tool has been developed by the author but is yet to be fully tested for validity. The development of this tool has been in response to calls for better ways of measuring ISP effectiveness (cf Fitzgerald, 1993).

Figure 4 provides an overview of the relationship between IS conception, its development and ultimate delivery. It is argued that measuring the effectiveness of individual IS, once implemented, is not an appropriate measure for ISP system effectiveness. While it is fair to say that individual IS efficiency/effectiveness is influenced by ISP system effectiveness, the other activities between IS conception and its delivery (ie project management and systems development) may cause the resultant IS to be less than successful. IS evaluation therefore should not be used as a measure of ISP system success due to the confounding factors induced by the project management and system development sub-systems which lie outside the direct control of the ISP sub-system.

Investigating the complete ‘Conception to Delivery’ system (as shown in Figure 4) is far too complex an undertaking for one study. Research into the effectiveness of each of the sub-systems should be conducted individually and should take into consideration how each sub-system interacts with the other two.

The ISP (sub)system identifies the IS required to help achieve or to ‘drive’ (eg through the introduction of new products and/or services) the organization’s objectives. If the IS identified do not satisfy these requirements, then the ISP system may be deemed as being responsible. This can happen in one of two ways: either the planning system itself is not adequate in its identification of the appropriate IS to support/drive objectives, or a change in the environment has rendered the implemented IS inappropriate.

Both these contingencies should be addressed when studying feedback. The

systemLevel j Apjmjete Ji?valuation

Figure 4 Information systems ‘Conception to Delivery’ system and the appropriate levels of evaluation



evaluation of the planning system itself addresses the former by identifying problems arising in the approach. If this information is fedback into the ISP system then continual improvement will help to eradicate most if not all of these problems. The latter problem, that of a change in the environment rendering the identified IS inappropriate, is addressed by the feedback loop that should be present on the plan’s formation/formulation. This feedback loop should help to establish the appropriateness of (1) the IS identified but not yet developed (those identified by the current plan); (2) the IS that are in the process of being developed, and (3) the IS currently in use (see Figure 5).

During and after (if planning is periodic) the planning activity itself, procedures must be in place that trigger the plan’s feedback loop. One way of assessing whether or not the IS are still appropriate given a change in the environment is to establish the critical assumptions on which individual IS are based. These must be explicitly documented during the planning stage. If the environment changes, the assumptions on which individual IS are identified and developed may also change. Documenting the assumptions will therefore help to identify those systems that are likely to be affected the most by the change that has occurred.

Whether or not the planning activity is continuous or periodic, incremental changes in the environment should be assessed to see whether the sum of the changes could have affected the assumptions on which individual IS are based. Incremental changes in the internal and external environment may individually have had a minor effect on individual IS but, taken together, may render a particular IS obsolete.

The feedback mechanism

As previously argued, two types of feedback loop should exist: one on the planning system and the other on the plan. While the former addresses problems with the appropriateness of planning activity itself, the latter ensures that changes in the environment have not rendered recommended or implemented IS obsolete.

One would expect that the quality of feedback on the plan to be one of the factors used in the measurement of ISP system effectiveness, as it is part of the

Figure 5 Feedback on plan



system. Beer (1981, p 25), however, goes one step further in suggesting that the feedback loop on the planning system itself is part of the system and, therefore, it too should be included in the measurement of ISP system effectiveness. He says ‘the first principle of control is that the controller is part of the system under control [ie the feedback loop is itself part of the system] . . . The controller moreover grows with the system, and, if we look back through time, we see that the controller evolved with the system too’.

In order for a system to change it must respond to certain stimuli in the internal or external environment. The stimuli must be recorded by a device (called a transducer) and translated into something meaningful for the controller. This can then be used to decide what action must be taken.

Figure 6 (adapted from Beer, 1981, p 31) provides a summary of the feedback mechanism in action with respect to ISP. The ISP monitoring system (comprised of sensors) is triggered by stimuli in the environment, the results of which are checked and any problems identified (sensory plate). A decision process then takes place in which potential solutions are developed (the anastomotic reticulum) and a particular course of action decided upon. These solutions are then translated into actions (motor plate) which are implemented.

In the study of feedback mechanisms, two major issues need to be investigated: (1) does an adequate monitoring system exist? and (2) can the organization respond to the need to change (ie does the organization have both transducer and sensorium?).

While Figure 6 addresses the normative quadrants of Figure 2, further research is needed to investigate the descriptive ones. Whilst the next section provides a starting point for such an investigation, an exploratory study should be conducted in order to provide the empirical basis for these descriptive quadrants.

Organizational context

While context has been identified as one of the dimensions of the ISP system, suggesting a contingency perspective to ISP system effectiveness, there is some initial evidence to suggest that a particular organizational context is more likely to have an effective ISP system than others.

0 M

-- m-w--

Figure 6 The feedback mechanism



Earl (1993) identifies five distinct types of (S)ISP approach which are based on the dimensions of methods, processes and implementation. To these approaches he gave the names Business-led, Method-driven, Administrative, Technological, and Organizational. Earl goes on to compare the effectiveness of each approach against three criteria:

(1) The ability of the approach to identify competitive advantage applications. (2) The number of unsuccessful features, reported by the three stakeholder groups

mentioned above; with respect to the approach adopted by their companies (weighted equally).

(3) The mean success scores of the approach (given once again by the chosen stakeholders in the organization).

Overall, the Organizational Approach was identified as the most effective, ranking best for the first two criteria and second best for the third. This approach is characterized by the development of business themes by teams of multidisciplinary members, from which IS initiatives emerge.

An example of an organizational approach is that of business process redesign (Hammer, 1990; Davenport, 1993), the major theme being to ‘manage the white space on the organisation chart’ (Rummler and Brache, 1990). While the focus of this theme is to make the company more effective and efficient in the delivery of its products and/or services by removing non-value activities and improving communication across the organization, the whole philosophy requires a radical change in the organization’s belief and reward systems. Multi-functional teams work closely together to redesign a process which the whole team is responsible for from beginning to end, fostering a learning environment and providing the sense of partnership. This is the metaphor Earl uses for his Organizational Approach. IS personnel are members of these multi-functional teams facilitating the identification of the necessary IS to enable the process goals to be achieved.

If one takes a closer look at the Organizational Approach, it is possible to see the similarities between it and the concept of the learning organization (Argyris and Schon, 1978; Senge, 1990). Indeed, Earl himself identifies the emphasis of this approach to be one of learning, stressing the necessity of teams in order to generate themes for planning (cf Hardaker and Ward, 1987; Galliers et al, 1994b). A learning organization can be defined as being ‘an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insights’ (Garvin, 1993).

Given this definition of a learning organization and the obvious link betwen feedback and learning, it would seem sensible to suggest that such an organization is more likely to exhibit feedback than a non-learning one. Therefore, the organizational learning literature could be used to help identify the sort of feedback mechanisms that could exist in an organization. This could then be refined by an investigation of organizations that use an organizational planning approach (Earl, 1993).

Conclusion

For many years now, information systems planning (ISP) has been identified as one of the major issues of concern to IS executives. Although much research has been conducted in this topic area over the past few years there is little evidence that ISP is improving in practice as the same types of issues are continually being identified in the information management literature. This paper investigates one way in which



ISP effectiveness could be improved. From a study of previous research conducted in this area, different elements of

the ISP system have been investigated (ie inputs, outputs, process, methods, context and plan implementation). Previous research has tended to focus on one or two elements of the system and factors have been identified that should be adhered to if planning is to have a better chance of succeeding.

However, a major element of the planning system that needs to be present in order for improvement to occur, which has not as yet been investigated in depth, is the feedback mechanism. Feedback mechanisms should be present to monitor and ultimately control the planning system in order to ensure that it is functioning as it should, and to provide the basis for corrective action if it is not. This paper argues that the lack of such fedback mechanisms could be one of the reasons why IS executives have labelled ISP as being problematic for so long, and provides a normative model of feedback for an ISP system.

In order to establish whether or not the lack of feedback mechanisms do indeed affect ISP effectiveness, explanatory research needs to be carried out to establish current feedback practice, and an evaluation tool constructed in order to measure ISP system effectiveness.

Previous research conducted into the area of planning and performance has tended to focus on the rational aspects of planning and has been based on information from one respondent per organization (Huff and Reger, 1987). Future research should address these deficiencies by taking into consideration both rational and non-rational aspects of planning and by seeking to gather information from more than one stakeholder in the organizations being studied. Furthermore, this paper suggests that a multi-dimensional view of ISP system effectiveness should be taken and identifies six potential dimensions (which reflect both rational and non-rational aspects of planning) which could be used.

References Ackoff, R L (1981) Creating the Corporate Future Wiley & Sons, Chichester Adriaans, W and Hoogakker, J T (1989) ‘Planning an IS at Netherland Gas’ Long Range Planning 22,3,

pp 64-74 Argyris, C and Schon, D (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective

Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA Atkinson, R A (1990) ‘The motivations for strategic planning’ Journal of Information Systems

Management Fall, pp 53-56 Atkinson, R A (1992) ‘Keeping IS strategic plans off the shelf’ Information Systems Management

Winter, pp 68-71 Ball, L D (1982) ‘MIS strategic planning: you can be the captain of the ship’ Infosystems May, pp 33-38 BDO Consulting (1992) A Study of Strategic Practice Blair (1987) ‘Not again! The messy business of planning’ Computerworld 21, 48, pp 69-76 Beer, S (1981) The Brain of the Firm: The Managerial Cybernetics of Organisations, Companion Volume

to the Heart of the Enterprise, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester Boal, K B and Bryson, J M (1987) ‘Representation, testing and policy implications of planning process’

Strategic Management Journal 8, pp 211- 231 Bowman, G, Davis, G and Wetherbe, J (1983) ‘Three stage model of MIS planning Information &

Management 6, pp 11-25 Boynton, A C and Zmud, R W (1987) ‘Information technology planning in the 1990s: directions for

practice and research’ MIS Quarterly March, pp 59-71 Brancheau, J C and Wetherbe, J C (1987) ‘Key issues in information systems management’ MIS

Quarterly March Bullen, C V and Rockart, J F (1981) ‘A primer on critical success factors’ Working Paper # 69, Sloan

School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, Jtme Chan, Y E and Huff, S L (1992) Strategy: an information systems research perspective’ Journal of

Strategic Information Systems 1, 4



Clark, T D (1992) ‘Corporate systems management: an overview and research perspective’ Communications of the ACM 35, 2, pp 61-75

Conlin, J (1989) ‘Brainstorming - it’s not as easy as you think’ Successful Meetings September Cooper, K B (1988) ‘Review of management and information system research: a management support

emphasis’ Information & Management 24, 1, pp 73- 102 Davenport, T H (1993) Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology

Harvard Business School Press Davenport, T H and Short, J E (1990) ‘The new industrial engineering: information technology and

business process redesign’ Sloan Management Review Summer, pp 11-27 De Geus, A P (1988) ‘Planning as learning’ Harvard Business Review March-April, pp 70-74 Dickson, G W, Benbasat, I and King, W R (1982) ‘The MIS area: problems, challenges, and

opportunities’ Data Base 14, 1, pp 7-12 Dickson, G W, Leitheiser, R L, Nechis, M and Wetherbe, J C (1984) ‘Key issues for the 1980s’ MIS

Quarterly 8, 3, September Dyson, R G and Foster, M J (1983) ‘Effectiveness in stratetic planning revised’ European Journal of

Operational Research 12, pp 146-158 Earl, M J (1983) ‘Emerging trends in managing new technologies’ Working Paper # 83/4, Oxford

Institute of Information Management, Oxford University Earl, M J (1989) Management Strategies for Information Technology Prentice-Hall Business Technology

Series Earl, M J (1990a) ‘Strategic information systems planning in UK companies: results of a field study’

Working Paper # RDP 90/l, Oxford Institute of Information Management, Oxford University Earl, M J (1990b) ‘Approaches to strategic information systems planning experience in twenty-one

United Kingdom companies’ Paper presented at the 1 lth International Conference of Information Systems Conference Proceedings, Copenhagen

Earl, M J (1993) ‘Experiences in strategic information systems planning’ MIS Quarterly March, pp 1-24 Fahey, L and Christensen, H K (1986) ‘Evaluating the research of strategy content’ Journal of

Management 12, pp 167-183 Fitzgerald, E P (1993) ‘Success measures for information systems strategic planning’ Journal of Strategic

Information Systems 2, 2 Galliers, R D (1987a) Information systems planning in Britain and Australia in the mid-1980s: key

success factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of London Galliers, R D (1987b) ‘Discord at the top’ Business Computing and Communications February, pp 22-25

Galliers, R D (1987~) Information Systems Planning in the UK and Australia - A Comparison of Current Practice Oxford Surveys in Information Technology 4, pp 223-255

Gall&s, R D (1990) ‘Choosing appropriate information systems research approaches: a revised taxonomy’ in Nissen, H-E, Hirschheim, R A and Klein, H K (eds) The Znformafion Systems Research Arena of the 90s Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp 327-345

Galliers, R D (1991) ‘Strategic information systems planning: myths, reality and guidelines for successful implementation’ European Journal of Information Systems 1, 1, pp 55-64

Galliers, R D (1992) ‘Information technology - management’s boon or bane’ Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1, 2, pp 50-56

Galliers, R D, Merali, Y and Spearing, L (1994a) ‘Coping with information technology? Key information systems management issues in the 1990s: viewpoints of British managers’ Journal of Information Technology 9, March, pp 223-238

Galliers, R D, Pattison, E M and Reponen, T (1994b) ‘Strategic information systems planning workshops: lessons from three cases’ international Journal of Information Management 14; 51-66

Garvin. D A (1993) ‘Buildine a learning organization’ Harvard Business Review Julv-August. DD 78-91 Grindley, K ‘(199I) Price Waterhouse Iiformation Technology Review 199119i Prick Waterhouse,

London Grindley, K (1992) Price Waterhouse Information Technology Review 1992193 Price Waterhouse,

London Grindley, K (1993) Price Waterhouse Information Technology Review 1993194 Price Waterhouse,

London Gupta, Y P and Guimaraes, T (1991) ‘Issues in management information systems planning’ Working

Paper, University of Louisville Hammer, M (1990) ‘Re-engineering work: don’t automate, obliterate’ Harvard Business Review

July-August, pp 104-112 Hardaker, M and Ward, B K (1987) ‘How to make a team work’ Harvard Business Review

November-December, 65, 6, pp 112-120 Hartog, C and Herbert, M (1986) ‘1985 opinion survey of MIS managers: key issues’ MIS Quarterly

December, pp 351-361

78 Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1995 Volume 4 Number 1


Hax, A C and Majluf, N S (1984) Strategic Management: An Integrative Approach, Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Hirschheim, R A and Smithson, S C (1988) ‘A critical analysis of information systems evaluation’ in Bjorn-Anderson, N and Davis, G B (eds) Information Systems Assessment: Issues and Challenges North Holland, Amsterdam

Hoffer, J A, Michaele, S J and Carroll, J J (1989) ‘The pitfalls of strategic data and systems planning: a research agenda’ Presented at the 22nd International Conference on System Sciences, Los Alamito

Hrebiniak, L G and Joyce, W F (1984) Implementing Strategy Macmillan Publishing Company, NY Huff, A S and Reger, R K (1987) ‘A review of strategic process research’ Journal of Management 13,2,

pp 211-236 Ireland, R D, Hitt, M A, Bettis, R A and Auld De Porras, D (1987) ‘Strategy formulation processes:

differences in perceptions of strength and weaknesses indicators and environmental uncertainty by managerial level’ Strategic Management Journal 8, pp 469-485

Ives, B and Learmonth, G P (1984) ‘The information system as a competitive weapon’ Communications of the ACM December

Karimi, J (1988) ‘Strategic planning for information systems: requirements and information engineering methods’ Journal of Management Information Systems 4, 4, pp 5-24

Kay, R H, Szyperski, N, Klaus, H and Bartz, G (1980) ‘Strategic planning of information systems at the corporate level’ Information & Management 3

King, W R (1983) ‘Evaluating strategic planning systems’ Strategic Management Journal 4, pp 263-277 King, W R (1984) ‘Evaluating the effectiveness of your planning’ Managerial Planning September-

October, pp 4-8 King, W R (1988) ‘How effective is your ISP?’ Long Range Planning 21, 5, pp 103-112 King, W R and Cleland, D L (1978) Strategic Planning and Policy Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York King, W R and Raghunathan, T S (1987) ‘How strategic is ISP?’ Datamation 15 November, pp 133-137 Kriebel, C H (1968) ‘The strategic dimension of computer systems planning’ Long Range Planning

September Learned, E P, Christensen, C R, Andrews, K R and Guth, W D (1965) Business Policy: Text and Cases

Irwin Lederer, A L and Mendelow, A L (1986) ‘Issues in information systems planning’ Information &

Management 10, pp 245-254

Lederer, A L and Sethi V (1988) ‘The implementation of strategic information systems’ MIS Quarterly September

Lederer, A L and Sethi, V (1991) ‘Critical dimensions of strategic information systems planning’ Decision Sciences 22, 1, pp 104- 119

Lorange, P (1982) Implementation of Strategic Planning, Prentice-Hall McFarlan, F W (1971) ‘Problems in planning for the information system’ Harvard Business Review

March-April, pp 75-89 McFarlan, F W, McKenney, J L and Pyburn, P (1983) ‘Information Archipelago - plotting a course’

Harvard Business Review January/February, pp 145-156 Mintzberg, H (1988) ‘Crafting strategy’ The McKinsey Quarterly Summer, pp 71-90 Mumford, E and Pettigrew, A (1975) Implementing Strategic Decisions Longman, London Niederman, F, Brancheau, J C and Wetherbe, J C (1991) ‘Information systems management issues in

the 1990s’ MIS Quarterly Nutt, P C (1982) ‘Hybrid planning methods’ Academy of Management Review 7, 3, pp 442-454 Porter, M E (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance Free Press,

New York Porter, M E and Millar, V E (1985) ‘How information gives you competitve advantage’ Harvard

Business Review 63, 4, pp 149-161 Premkumar, G (1989) Evaluation of Strategic Information Systems Planning: Empirical Validation of a

Conceptual Model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh Premkumar, G and King, W R (1991) ‘Assessing strategic information systems planning’ Long Range

Planning 24, 5 Pyburn, P J (1983) ‘Linking the MIS plan with corporate strategy’ MIS Quarterly June Quinn, J B (1980) Strategies for Change - Logical Incrementalism Irwin Raghunathan, B and Raghunathan, T S (1990) ‘Planning implications of the information systems

strategic grid: an empirical investigation’ Decision Sciences 21, pp 287-300 Ramanujam, V, Venkatraman, N and Camillus, J C (1986) ‘Multi-objective assessment of effectiveness

of strategic planning: a discriminant analysis approach’ Academy of Management Journal 29, 2, pp 347-372

Rockart, J F (1979) ‘Chief executives define their own data needs’ Harvard Business Review 57, 2, pp 81-93



Rummler, G A and Brache, A P (1990) Zmproving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on the Organization Chart Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA

Ruohonen, M (1991) ‘Stakeholders of strategic information systems planning’ Journal of Strategic Znformation Systems 1, 1

Schein, E H (1969) Process Consultation: Its Role in Organizational Development Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

Scott-Morton, M S (ed) (1991) The Corporation of the 1990s: Information Technology and Oreanisational Transformation Oxford Universitv Press. Oxford

Senge:P (1990) The Fifth Discipline Mackay, Chatham, Kent Sinclair, S W (1986) ‘The three domains of information systems planning’ Journal of Information

Management, Spring Sinha, D K (1990) ‘The contribution of formal planning to decisions’ Strategic Management Journal 11,

pp 479-492 Singleton, J P, Mclean, E R and Altman, E N (1988) ‘Measuring information systems performance:

experience with the management by results system at Security Pacific Bank’ MIS Quarterly June, pp 325-337

Sullivan, C H (1985) ‘Systems planning in the information age’ Sloan Management Review Winter Thomas, J B, McDaniel, RR and Dooris, M J (1989) ‘Strategic issues analysis: nominal group technique

and decision analysis for resolving strategic issues’ The Journal of Applied Behaviour Science 25, 2, pp 189-200

Waema, T M and Walsham, G (1990) ‘Information systems strategy formulation’ Znformation & Management 18, pp 29-39

Watson, R T and Brancheau, J C (1991) ‘Key issues in information systems management: an international perspective Information & Management 20, pp 213-223

White, R E (1986) ‘Generic business strategies, organisational context and performance: an empirical investigation’ Strategic Management Journal 7, pp 217-231

Wilson, T D (1989) ‘The implementation of IS strategies in UK companies: aims and barriers to success’ Znternational Journal of Znformation Management 9

Venkatraman, N (1985186) ‘Research on management information systems planning: some guidelines from strategic planning research’ Journal of Management Information Systems 2, 3, pp 65-77

Venkatraman, N and Ramanujam, V (1987) ‘Planning system success: a conceptualization and an operational model’ Management Science 33, 6

Yadav, S B (1983) ‘Determining an organisation’s information requirements: a state of the art survey’ Data Base 14, 3

Zachman, J A (1982) ‘Business systems planning and business information control study: a comparison’ IBM Systems Journal 21, 1, pp 31-53

80 Journal of Strategic Znformation Systems 1995 Volume 4 Number 1

Date post:	25-Aug-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	bernadette-baker
View:	215 times
Download:	2 times

The role of feedback in assessing information systems planning effectiveness

Documents