Profiles of strategic information systems planning

• 成果类型: Review
• 署名作者: Segars, AH; Grover, V
• 署名单位: University of North Carolina; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill; University of South Carolina System; University of South Carolina Columbia
• 刊物名称: INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH
• ISSN/ISSBN: 1047-7047
• DOI: 10.1287/isre.10.3.199
• 发表日期: 1999
• 页码: 199-232
• 关键词: confirmatory factor-analysis; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELS; decision-processes; PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS; logical incrementalism; making processes; ORGANIZATION; TECHNOLOGY; CONSTRUCT; environment

摘要

Improving strategic planning within the realm of information technology management is consistently identified by top corporate executives as a critical competitive issue. While relevant Literature in the area is replete with descriptions of planning tools and methodologies, investigations that examine this activity from the perspective of process-based characteristics, or profiles, are still in the formative stages. Through multivariate analysis of data gathered from 253 organizations, the findings of this study suggest that five distinct profiles of strategic planning can be identified based on dimensions of comprehensiveness (extent of solution search), formalization (existence of rules and procedures), focus (extent of innovation versus integration), flow (top-down, bottom-up), participation (number and variety of planners), and consistency (frequency of planning). While each profile exhibits strength across particular measures of planning effectiveness, the profile associated with all measures of planning effectiveness seems to incorporate elements of rationality thigh comprehensiveness, high formalization, control focus, top-down flow) and adaptation thigh participation, high consistency). Postsurvey field study of selected firms suggests that the five approaches may represent distinct schools of thought that are reflective of deep-seated beliefs and attitudes about strategic planning. These schools (design, planning, positioning, learning, and political) are founded on very different assumptions and provide substantive interpretation for the empirical findings.