Research
Implementation predictors of strategic information systems plans
Petter Gottschalk
1Department of Technology Management, Norwegian School of Management, Box 580, 1301, Sandvika, Norway
Received 11 February 1998; revised 19 August 1998; accepted 21 January 1999
Abstract
This research complements the existing knowledge on implementation by addressing previous research from three sources: (i) empirical evaluation of the plan implementation link in the theory of strategic information systems planning; (ii) integration of research literature on organisational practices in¯uencing the implementation; and (iii) application of validated instruments to measure potential predictors of the implementation. A survey was conducted in Norway. When exploratory factor analysis was applied to ten potential predictors, two factors were identi®ed. Five predictors had signi®cant loadings on each factor. The resource factor was signi®cant in the testing of hypotheses, including descriptions of responsibility and of user involvement.
#1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:Implementation; Predictors of implementation; Information systems plans; Information technology strategy; Survey research; Exploratory factor analysis
1. Introduction
The need for improved implementation of strategic IS plans has been emphasised in both, empirical [13, 33, 35, 36, 49] and prescriptive studies [18, 34, 37]. These studies show that implementation is important for four reasons. Firstly, the failure to carry out the strategic IS plan can cause lost opportunities, dupli-cated efforts, incompatible systems, and wasted resources [34]. Secondly, the extent to which strategic IS planning meets its objectives is largely determined by implementation [13, 37]. Further, the lack of implementation leaves ®rms dissatis®ed with, and reluctant to continue their strategic IS planning [18, 35, 36, 49]. Finally, the lack of implementation creates
problems establishing and maintaining priorities in future strategic IS planning [33].
This paper adds to the body of empirical imple-mentation research by evaluating the plan implemen-tation link suggested by Lederer and Salmela [34]. The research question is presented in the next section, followed by review of research literature on imple-mentation problems and impleimple-mentation de®nitions, the research model, and the research method. Signi®-cant implementation predictors and factors leading to implementation are identi®ed and discussed.
2. Research question
The theory of strategic information systems plan-ning (SISP) by Lederer and Salmela [34] contains a link between plan and implementation which suggests that a more useful IS plan produces greater plan
Information & Management 36 (1999) 77±91
1Tel.: +47-67-55-73-38; fax: +47-67-55-76-78; e-mail:
[email protected]; http://www.bi.no/people/fgl98023.htm
implementation. This link inspired the following research question: What content characteristics of formal IT strategy predict the extent of plan imple-mentation? IT strategy is de®ned as a plan comprised of projects for application of information technology to assist an organisation in realising its goals. The term plan refers to a written document. In this research, the terms strategic IS plan [37] and IT strategy [17] are treated as synonyms. The research question was initi-ally based on the following two observations:
(a) Organisations engage in strategic IS planning. Galliers [18], Finnegan et al. [15] and Kearney [30] found that 75 percent, 76 percent and 80 percent, respectively, of those surveyed had a strategic IS plan. However, as discussed later in this article, the survey in this research was conducted in Norway where organisations are generally smaller than those in previous studies, leading to an initial expectation that there would be a lower percentage of organisations with a formal IT strategy. This expectation was given weight by an Australian survey, where the number of respondent organisa-tions that claimed to undertake strategic IS planning ranged from 58 percent in large organisations to 29 percent in medium-sized organisations and 19 per-cent in small organisations [14].
(b) Strategic IS plans are not implemented very extensively. Lederer and Sethi [35] found that, after more than two years into the implementation hor-izon, only 24 percent of the projects in the strategic IS plans surveyed had been initiated. In a study of four Norwegian organisations, 42 percent of the projects in the formal IT strategy had been imple-mented after ®ve years [23]. Ward and Grif®ths ([63], p. 97) state that ``despite a belief in its importance, in the past decade many organisations have developed perfectly sound IS strategies that have been left to gather dust, or have been imple-mented in a half-hearted manner''. Taylor ([60], p. 336), too, found that ``all too often strategies remain `on the page' and are not implemented.'' Content characteristics of formal IT strategy as implementation predictors is an important research topic for two main reasons. Firstly, there is a lack of empirical work on content [34]. Empirical research focusing speci®cally on the implementation of strate-gic information systems plans is relatively sparse.
Previous empirical research has included implemen-tation as only one of several issues in strategic IS planning research [37]. Secondly, the strategic infor-mation systems plan is one of the main concerns of IS practitioners today [65]. In a survey conducted by Stephens et al. [58], 80 percent of the chief informa-tion of®cers (CIOs) reported that they had responsi-bility for IT strategy. Nevertheless, the documentation process is challenging for CIOs. Writing the IT strat-egy document takes time [23], and content of the plan as written by the CIO may itself in¯uence the extent of plan implementation [34].
3. Research literature on implementation problems
The literature containing references to implementa-tion problems for SIS plans is steadily growing. In Table 1, research related to the implementation of SIS plans is listed. For each study in the table, four characteristics were chosen to de®ne the study: the research problem stated, implementation issues dis-cussed, ®ndings on implementation problems and the research methodology used. `Research problem' lists the main topic of each study. It can be seen that none has as its main focus the implementation of IT strat-egy. Those studies which represent research on imple-mentation tend to be primarily concerned with either the implementation of planning, such as strategic IS planning, or the implementation of IT directly, without mention of plans. Those studies discussing planning are only secondarily concerned with the implementation of the SIS plan. `Implementation issue' on the chart refers to the implementation-related subject discussed in each study. `Implementation ®nding' lists the main implementation-related issue in each study, whereas `Research methodology' notes the research technique used in each study. Column four, `Implementation ®nding', is the most signi®cant for this research as it lists important determinants for implementation.
Table 1
Research studies related to the implementation of SIS plans
Study Research problem Implementation issue Implementation finding Research method
[1]* implementation of decision support implementation success user-situational variables meta-analysis of studies
[6]* system implementation user involvement perceived user control field study
[7]* IT use in large organisations IT management practice managerial IT knowledge sample survey
[11]* re-engineering failures functionality and political risks strategies-in-use over strategy espoused case studies
[13] IS planning performance planning method performance management involvement case studies
[18] strategic IS planning guidelines for implementation difficulty of recruiting sample survey
[19]0 IS planning performance executive workshops project champion case studies
[20]* expert systems implementation systems adoption job design sample survey
[22]* MIS implementation factor analysis of implementation commitment to the project sample survey
[26]* BPR implementation implementation problems need for change not recognised sample survey
[27]0 IS planning steering committees steering committees' control sample survey
[29]* IT implementation users' resistance to change process to assess change proposed theory
[32]* IT innovation implementation middle managers' contribution use of support functions field studies [33]' IS planning performance shifting priorities over time duration of systems development field study
[34] theory of SISP effect of plan on implementation more useful plan proposed theory
[36] IS planning implementation root causes of problems commitment for implementation sample survey
[37] prescriptions for SISP planning completion plan fit to organisation sample survey
[40]* IT implementation human threats politics of implementation case study
[49] IS planning performance quality of implementation organisational characteristics sample survey
[51]' IS planning model fulfilment of planning objectives enhancing management sample survey
[52]* management practice of strategic IS implementation of strategic IS management action program case studies and survey
[55]0 IS planning in turbulent environment planning methodology SISP better than emergent ISP sample survey
[59]* IT implementation predictors of success manage momentum of project case studies
[61]0 business and IS planning integration practices for problems management commitment sample survey
Note: Studies marked with an asterisk (*) and a prime (0) are excluded from further review.
P
.
Gottsc
halk
/Information
&
Manageme
nt
36
(1999)
77±91
on SISP. These studies, marked with an asterisk (*), are excluded from further review. Furthermore, some of the SISP studies, marked with an apostrophe ('), primarily treat issues related to SIS planning. These studies are also excluded from further review. As such, six studies out of the original 24 remain for further analysis.
Since this literature review is concerned with the implementation of SIS plans, practices in¯uencing implementation are of key importance for this research. From the six remaining research studies, practices in¯uencing implementation are identi®ed and listed in Table 2. The thirty-®ve practices derived from the six research studies analysed constitute a comprehensive list of practices for the implementation of IT strategy. The work of Lederer accounts for three of the studies. The main reason for this selection is the gestalt view. While the substantial body of literature on IS/IT implementation is concerned with single systems or single projects, the gestalt view represents the implementation of plan philosophy, attitudes, intentions, and ambitions associated with IT use in the organisation and is a particularly helpful view for this study.
Lederer and Salmela [34] have developed a theory of strategic information systems planning. The theory consists of an input±process±output model, seven constructs, six causal relationships and six hypotheses. The input±process±output model provides the initial bases for the theory. The seven constructs are (i) the external environment, (ii) the internal environment, (iii) planning resources, (iv) the planning process, (v) the strategic information systems plan, (vi) the imple-mentation of the strategic information systems plan, and (vii) the alignment of the strategic information systems plan with the organisation's business plan. Lederer and Salmela demonstrate that the seven con-structs exhibit causal relationships among each other. For this research on the implementation of strategic IS plans, the most important relationship in the theory is the effect of the plan on its implementation.
4. Research literature on definition of implementation
There is a need in this research to de®ne imple-mentation and dimensions thereof. According to
Mon-tealegre [46], the term implementation is given a variety of meanings in the literature. According to Nutt [47], implementation is a procedure directed by a manager to install planned change in an organisation.
Table 2
Practices influencing IT strategy implementation
[13]:Implementation problems
E1 Resources were not made available E2 Management was hesitant E3 Technological constraints arose E4 Organisational resistance emerged
[18]:Implementation barriers G1 Difficulty of recruiting G2 Nature of business G3 Measuring benefits G4 User education resources G5 Existing IT investments G6 Political conflicts
G7 Middle management attitudes G8 Senior management attitudes G9 Telecommunications issues G10 Technology lagging behind needs G11 Doubts about benefits
[34]:Effect of plan on implementation S1 Contents of the plan
S2 Relevance of proposed projects in the plan to organisational goals
S3 Sections of the plan
S4 Clarity and analysis of presentation of the plan
[36]:Implementation problems
L1 Difficult to secure top management commitment L2 Final planning output documentation not very useful L3 Planning methodology fails to consider implementation L4 Implementing the projects requires more analysis L5 Planning methodology requires too much top management
involvement
L6 Output of planning is not in accordance with management expectations
[37]:Prescriptions for SISP X1 Prepare migration plan X2 Identify actions to adopt plan X3 Identify resources for new tools X4 Avoid/dampen resistance X5 Specify actions for architecture X6 Identify bases of resistance
[49]:Implementation mechanisms
P1 Monitoring system to review implementation and provide feedback
P2 Resource mobilisation for implementation P3 User involvement in implementation
According to Klein and Sorra [31], implementation is the process of gaining targeted organisational mem-bers' appropriate and committed use of an innovation. In Table 3, the reviewed research literature on imple-mentation is listed according to their particular de®ni-tion of implementade®ni-tion. The ®rst references in the table represent de®nitions, where implementation is completed at an early stage, while those that follow represent de®nitions where implementation is com-pleted at a later stage. The numbers may, therefore, represent a scale of stages at which authors place their de®nition of implementation. Some authors ®nd implementation to be completed when change is occurring, while others ®nd it continues until intended bene®ts have been realised.
The purpose of using the stages in Table 3 is not to defend a certain rank order of the authors along the axis of implementation completion; the purpose is rather to indicate that the authors have different opi-nions about when implementation is considered com-pleted. The dimensions of IT strategy implementation may be summarised as illustrated in Table 4. The purpose of the table is to develop alternative measures of IT strategy implementation.
In Table 4, there are two dimensions of IT strategy implementation: the time dimension and the detail dimension. The time dimension is the implementation
stage derived from Table 3, where the two extreme stages of implemented are `installed' and `bene®ts', while the middle stage is `completed'. Bene®ts may be considered as the effect of the changes; that is, the difference between the current and proposed way that work is done [64]. The detail dimension refers to the implementation content which may be the whole plan, one or more projects in the plan, or one or more systems in one project. Implementation content thus refers to a plan consisting of one or several projects [10, 14], and a project consisting of one or several systems. The term project is de®ned as the means by which the organisation's technological, organisa-tional, and external assets are mobilised and trans-formed ([66], p. 36): ``Projects, or initiatives as termed in this study, then, are the vehicles through which an organization's competitive and technology strategies are operationalized into organizational outputs.'' For, according to Gupta and Raghunathan ([27], p. 786), ``the ultimate success of systems planning depends on the success of the individual projects covered by the plan.'' Both the time dimension and the detail sion may certainly be challenged. The detail dimen-sion, for example, may in an organisation be such that a large system is broken down into several projects, and a project may itself consist of several phases or stages. The main purpose of Table 4, however, is to develop a de®nition and measures of implementation suitable for this research. As such, IT strategy imple-mentation is here de®ned asthe process of completing the projects for application of information technology to assist an organisation in realising its goals. As such, the column `completed' is essential for this research.
Implementation is measured in four different ways in this research based on the two dimensions of time and detail discussed above. The ®rst plan implemen-tation measurement (#1 in Table 4) is concerned with completion of projects in the plan which were to be completed to date. The second plan implementation
Table 3
Stages of implementation completion
Stage Implementation completed when: Reference
1 system is installed [41]
2 system is put to use [9]
3 programmes are adopted [5]
4 organisation acts on new priorities [16]
5 changes are installed [47]
6 not abandoned or expensively overhauled [43]
7 adoption has occurred [42]
8 innovation is adopted and used [39] 9 systems are installed and used [57]
10 change is accepted [6]
11 systems are accepted [21]
12 innovation is accepted and used [2]
13 systems are accepted and used [8]
14 control rests with users [3]
15 change process completed [29]
16 committed use occurs [31]
17 post-application phase is consolidated [53] 18 satisfaction with system is achieved [25] 19 intended benefits are realised [1]
Table 4
Dimensions of IT strategy implementation
Installed [13] Completed [34] Benefits [49]
Plan 3 4
Project 2 1
System
measurement (#2 in Table 4) is concerned with com-pletion of projects in the plan which are expected to be completed, or at least installed, by the end of the implementation horizon. The third implementation measurement (#3) measures completion of the whole plan, while the fourth IT strategy implementation measurement (#4) is concerned with improved orga-nisational performance from plan implementation. According to Ward and Grif®ths ([63], p. 102), the impact of an IT strategy implementation is not instan-taneous; ``it may, in fact take some time ± two or more years ± between embarking on strategic IS/IT planning for the ®rst time and demonstrating any consequent impact on business practices and results.'' The oper-ationalisation of these alternative measurements of the dependent variable implementation is listed in Table 5.
5. Research model
Thirty-®ve organisational practices of importance for SIS plan implementation were identi®ed in the research literature as listed in Table 2. Ten predictor constructs were derived from these practices using [24]. These are illustrated in the research model in
Fig. 1 and listed in Table 6 in the ®rst column. For each of the ten predictors, one hypothesis was for-mulated stating that the greater the extent of descrip-tion of the content characteristic, the greater the extent of plan implementation.
6. Research method
This research is concerned with prediction. Research and theory as described above are suf®-ciently advanced to allow the construction of a survey [48, 50]. Furthermore, this research is concerned with generalisability of research results which suggests a large sample size, subjected to rigorous statistical analysis. Given the researcher's own experience in the area, both as a CIO and a CEO [23], which provided some additional context in the form of ad hoc historical data to aid the research, a survey approach was selected for this research.
Four related issues must be addressed regarding the population sample studied. First, unit of analysis is the organisation. Second, the population of cases had to be determined. Given the context of the research and its focus on IT strategy implementation, organisations
Table 5
Four potential measurements of the implementation
Construct Measurement of construct
1 Implementation rate to date [35] divide projects actually implemented to date by projects scheduled to be implemented to date
2 Implementation rate to end [35] divide projects actually implemented to date by projects in the IT strategy and divide by percent of expired time horizon
3 Implementation extent ([10, 22, 55, 64, 66]) IT strategy has been implemented as planned
IT strategy implementation has been completed on time IT strategy implementation has been completed within budget IT strategy implementation has been completed as expected IT strategy implementation has achieved the desired results deviations from the IT strategy have occurred during implementation you are satisfied with the IT strategy implementation
4 Contribution to organisational performance contribute to improved organisational performance (Scale adopted from [61], p. 121,0.87; contribute to increased Return on Investment (ROI) one item added from [56], p. 154) contribute to increased market share of products/services
contribute to improved internal efficiency of operations contribute to increased annual sales revenue
Fig. 1. Conceptual research model.
Table 6
Items for measurement of implementation predictor constructs
Construct Measurement of construct
Resources needed for the implementation[38],0.68 financial resources needed for implementation 0.87 technical abilities needed for implementation
human resources needed for implementation project team time needed for implementation external consultants needed for implementation (new) a `project champion' needed for the implementation (new)
User involvement during implementation[12],0.82 degree of systems-related training received by information systems users
0.86
users' understanding of systems' functional and technical features users' participation in systems projects
users' involvement in the operation of information systems participation in the ongoing development of information systems users' support for the implementation (new)
Analyses of the organisation[56],0.86 information needs of organisational sub-units 0.87 how the organisation actually operates
a `blueprint' which structures organisational processes changing organisational procedures
new ideas to reengineer business processes through IT dispersion of data and applications throughout the firm organisation of the IT function (new)
Anticipated changes in the external environment anticipated changes in competitors' behaviour 0.83
[56],0.82 anticipated changes in suppliers' behaviour
anticipated changes in customers' behaviour anticipated changes in information technology anticipated changes in government regulations (new) anticipated changes in the economy (new)
with experience in IT strategy in Norway were iden-ti®ed as suitable target population for this research. Third, a sample of these organisations, consisting of corporate members of the Norwegian Computing Society which has been active in the area of strategic information technology planning for many years, was studied. Fourth, a ®nal important issue to be addressed is the selection of informants in the organisations. The decision to use the CIOs as informants in this research
®nds support in previous research conducted by Ste-phens et al. [58], Earl [13], Sabherwal and King [54], and Teo and King [62]. In a survey conducted by Stephens et al. [58], 80 percent of the CIOs said that they had responsibility for IT strategy. Earl [13] interviewed stakeholders in his survey. The IS director or IS strategic planner was interviewed ®rst, followed by the CEO or general manager, and ®nally a senior line or user manager. His research results show no
Table 6 (Continued)
Construct Measurement of construct
Solutions to potential resistance during the solutions to resistance caused by job security 0.93 implementation [38],0.64 solutions to resistance caused by change in position
solutions to potential resistance caused by new skills requirements solutions to potential resistance caused by scepticism of results solutions to potential resistance caused by a unit's interests solutions to potential resistance caused by our customers
Information technology to be implemented(New) hardware to be implemented 0.89
communications technology to be implemented databases to be implemented
applications software to be implemented operating systems to be implemented a data architecture for the organisation
Projects'relevance to the business plan(New) projects in accordance with the expectations of management 0.88 organisational goals for the projects
benefits of the projects to the organisation
projects that contribute to new business opportunities competitive advantage from IT
strategic applications of IT
Responsibility for the implementation(New) responsibility for the implementation on time 0.91 responsibility for the implementation within budget
responsibility for the implementation with intended benefits responsibility for the stepwise implementation of large projects responsibility for the implementation of high priority projects responsibility for short-term benefits from initial projects personnel rewards from successful implementation
Management support for the implementation(New) management expectations of the implementation 0.93 management participation in the implementation
management monitoring of the implementation management knowledge about the implementation management time needed for the implementation management enthusiasm for the implementation
Clear presentation of implementation issues(New) evaluation of progress clearly 0.83 change management clearly
a list of projects clearly
a schedule for the implementation clearly
signi®cant differences between stakeholder sets. Sab-herwal and King [54] decided to use the CIOs as informants because of their ability to answer questions related to IT strategy. According to Teo and King [62], the use of a single key informant avoids the problem of potential perceptual differences between key infor-mants.
7. Significant implementation predictors
In all, 1108 questionnaires were mailed to CIOs of member organisations of the Norwegian Computing Society. 471 questionnaires were returned, providing a satisfactory response rate of 43%. Out of 471 subjects, 190 (40%) con®rmed that they had a written IT strategy and provided information on content charac-teristics. Ten content characteristics of formal infor-mation technology strategy were measured in the questionnaire through sixty-two items as listed in Table 6.
Formal IT strategy was de®ned as `a written plan comprising projects for application of information technology to assist an organisation in realising its goals', while IT strategy implementation was de®ned as `the process of completing the projects'. The implementation extent scale (#3 in Table 4) was found to be the most suitable measure for this construct based on statistical, methodological and theoretical considerations [24]. Based on the collected survey data, all ten hypotheses were tested in this research.
Cronbachs for all multiple item scales were between 0.73 and 0.93 as listed in Table 6. The starting point for hypothesis testing is a null hypothesis of no relationship between the two variables being exam-ined. The hypothesis testing was carried out using multiple regression analysis [28].
All observations with missing values were excluded, reducing the sample from 190 to 151 valid cases, to make research results obtained using multiple regression comparable with research results obtained using structural equation modelling [24]. Table 7 lists the results of multiple regression analysis between the ten independent variables and the dependent-variable implementation.
The full multiple regression equation with all ten independent variables explains 19% of the variation in implementation, that is, the adjustedR-square is 0.19. The F-value of 4.505 is signi®cant at p< 0.001, indicating that the null hypothesis is rejected and that there is a signi®cant overall relationship between content characteristics and IT strategy implementa-tion. However, none of the content characteristics are individually signi®cant implementation predictors.
Stepwise multiple regression is a method of select-ing variables for inclusion in the regression model that starts by selecting the best predictor of the dependent variable. It is an objective method for selecting vari-ables that maximises the prediction with the smallest number of variables employed. When stepwise regres-sion was applied, two of the 10 predictors have sig-ni®cant coef®cients in the multiple regression
Table 7
Multiple regression analysis between implementation and predictors
Content characteristics as implementation predictors
Full regression
Full regression t-test
Stepwise regression
Stepwise regressiont-test
Resources 0.078 0.766
Users 0.158 1.665 0.233 2.892**b
Analyses 0.019 0.170
Changes 0.138 1.407
Resistance ÿ0.065 ÿ0.628
IT 0.015 0.173
Relevance 0.048 0.449
Responsibility 0.189 1.672 0.298 3.692**b
Management ÿ0.071 ÿ0.599
Issues 0.145 1.408
aThe statistical signi®cance of thet-values forp< 0.05. bThe statistical signi®cance of thet-values forp< 0.01.
equation. Firstly, thedescription of responsibility for the implementation was associated with the highest explanatory power since it achieved the highest -coef®cient. Next, thedescription of user involvement during the implementation proved to be the other signi®cant predictor. The adjusted R-square of the stepwise model is 0.19. None of the remaining eight potential predictors is signi®cant.
`Responsibility' was the ®rst hypothesis to be sup-ported in this research: the greater the extent of description of responsibility for the implementation, the greater the extent of plan implementation. Imple-mentation participants must accept responsibility [44], responsibility is a positive duty, and tasks should be assigned to speci®c individuals. Responsibility was measured by responsibility for implementation on time, responsibility for implementation within budget, responsibility for implementation with intended ben-e®ts [64], responsibility for stepwise implementation of large projects, responsibility for implementation of high priority projects [23], responsibility for short-term bene®ts from initial projects, and personnel rewards from successful implementation.
`User involvement' was the second hypothesis to be supported in this research: the greater the extent of description of user involvement during the implemen-tation, the greater the extent of plan implementation. User involvement during the implementation is the engagement of people who will employ the technol-ogy and the systems after the implementation. User involvement was measured by a multiple item scale adopted from Chan [12].
8. Significant implementation factor
The presence of so many signi®cant correlations between the variables as listed in Table 8 suggested that an exploratory analysis would be useful. Speci-®cally, exploratory factor analysis was performed to identify common dimensions of predictors [28].
Varimax rotation was used to identify factors. The result of the exploratory factor analysis is exhibited in Table 9. Each factor represents the underlying dimen-sion that summarises or accounts for the original set of independent variables.
Two factors were identi®ed. Five of the independent variables load heavily on the ®rst factor, while the
other ®ve independent variables load on the second factor. The ®rst factor consists of analyses of the organisation, anticipated changes in the environment, solutions to potential resistance, management support and documentation issues. The second factor consists of resources for the implementation, user involvement during the implementation, IT needed for the imple-mentation, relevance of the projects and responsibility for the implementation. All these factor loadings are signi®cant since they are higher than the requirement of 0.45 at a sample size of 152 [28]. An interpretation of these two factors is possible. The ®rst factor represents general organisational issues which have to be resolved in order to facilitate implementation. The factor covers soft (qualitative) issues which may represent constraints for the implementation. There are both, the organisational and general management issues in this factor. The second factor represents speci®c implementation issues which are required to perform the implementation itself. The factor cov-ers hard (quantitative) issues which may represent requirements for the implementation. There are both, IT management and resource issues in this factor. The reliability of the factors is measured by Cronbach `'. The two factors have satisfactorys of 0.85 and 0.78. These two factors require naming. Variables with the highest loadings on the ®rst factor are solutions to resistance (0.81 in Table 9), anticipated changes in the environment (0.77) and analyses of the organisation (0.75). An interpretation of these variables is the general, strategic nature of these variables. Hence, the ®rst factor was labelled `implementation strategy'. Variables with the highest loadings on the second factor are information technology needed for the implementation (0.80 in Table 9), relevance of pro-jects (0.74) and resources for the implementation (0.66). The word `implementation resources' may be used to cover also information technology needed. Hence, the second factor was labelled `implementa-tion resources'.
Two research hypotheses were developed based on the exploratory factor analysis described in the pre-vious section. For each of the factors, one hypothesis ± A and B, respectively ± were formulated.
Table 8
Correlation matrix for predictor variables
Resources Users Analysis Changes Resistance IT Relevance Responsibility Management Issues
Resources 0.531**b 0.386**b 0.359**b 0.403**b 0.333**b 0.454**b 0.564**b 0.505**b 0.470**b
Users 0.413**b 0.265**b 0.356**b 0.283**b 0.414**b 0.400**b 0.510**b 0.423**b
Analyses 0.544**b 0.560**b 0.234**b 0.517**b 0.380*a 0.631**b 0.529**b
Changes 0.588**b 0.230**b 0.350**b 0.333*a 0.502**b 0.386**b
Resistance 0.251**b 0.319**b 0.474**b 0.598**b 0.434**b
IT 0.411**b 0.293**b 0.282**b 0.160*a
Relevance 0.588**b 0.518**b 0.505**b
Responsibility 0.630**b 0.560**b
Management 0.621**b
Issues
aThe statistical signi®cance of the correlation coef®cient forp< 0.050. bThe statistical signi®cance of the correlation coef®cient forp< 0.01.
P
.
Gottsc
halk
/Information
&
Manageme
nt
36
(1999)
77±91
The ®rst factor represents general organisational issues which have to be resolved in order to facilitate implementation. The factor covers soft (qualitative) issues which may represent constraints for the imple-mentation. There are both organisational and general management issues in this factor. The ®rst factor consists of analyses of the organisation, anticipated changes in the environment, solutions to potential resistance, management support and documentation issues [36, 37, 56].
Hypothesis B: The greater the extent of description of implementation resources,the greater the extent of plan implementation.
The second factor represents speci®c implementa-tion issues which are required to perform the imple-mentation itself. The factor covers hard (quantitative) issues which may represent requirements for the implementation. There are both IT, management and resource issues in this factor. The second factor consists of resources for the implementation, user involvement during the implementation, IT needed for the implementation, relevance of the projects and responsibility for the implementation [13, 18, 49].
Research hypotheses were tested using multiple regression analysis. Table 10 exhibits the results of multiple regression between the two factors and the dependent variable implementation.
The multiple regression equation with both factors explains 20% of the variation in the implementation, that is, the adjustedR-square is 0.20. TheF-value of 20.301 is signi®cant atp< 0.001, indicating that the null hypothesis is rejected and the theory hypothesis
supported. One of the two factors has a signi®cant coef®cient in the multiple regression equation, that is,
description of implementation resources.
9. Discussion
Though there exists an extensive range of literature on strategic information systems planning e.g., [33, 35] and on information systems implementation (e.g. [1, 20]), speci®c literature on plan implementation has been relatively sparse. While the literature on strategic information systems planning treats implementation only as one of many phases, the literature on informa-tion systems implementainforma-tion lacks the gestalt perspec-tive which is needed when plan implementation is to be studied. Furthermore, much of the reviewed research literature is in the main theoretical, often lacking empirical evidence. It was nevertheless pos-sible to apply ideas from the existing literature to the speci®c issue in question: what content characteristics of formal IT strategy predict the extent of plan imple-mentation? Research revealed that description of responsibility for the implementation and description of user involvement during the implementation are the content characteristics of formal IT strategy of sig-ni®cance as implementation predictors. As the IT management literature seems to have no de®nition of implementation at all, and the implementation management literature seems to disagree on the de®-nition without actually discussing it, one of the major contributions of this research may prove to be the `implementation extent' de®nition based on the gestalt view developed and measured by a multiple item scale.
As expected, further exploration of the database revealed additional insights into the link between plan and implementation. Exploratory factor analysis and multiple regression analysis were used to identify the
Table 9
Exploratory factor analysis of predictor scales
Factor 1 Factor 2
Resources 0.39 0.66
Users 0.41 0.53
Analyses 0.75 0.27
Changes 0.77 0.12
Resistance 0.81 0.14
IT ÿ0.05 0.80
Relevance 0.35 0.74
Responsibility 0.48 0.61
Management 0.74 0.41
Issues 0.66 0.38
Table 10
Multiple regression between implementation and factors
Factor t-test
Strategy 0.161 1.627
Resources 0.338 3.425**b
signi®cance of the resource factor. The resource factor includes both descriptions of responsibility and user involvement, thereby suggesting consistency between signi®cant predictors and signi®cant factor results.
The most surprising result of this study, both from a theoretical and practical perspective, is the relative lack of importance of management support. All the leading research studies on which this research is based [13, 18, 34, 36, 37, 50] as well as all the general business literature (e.g. [4]) seem to share a strong belief in the importance of management support for the implementation of IT strategy. It is interesting that management support, as re¯ected in management expectations, participation, monitoring, knowledge, time and enthusiasm, is of no signi®cant importance in this study. Several explanations, however, may be offered. Firstly, there is the distinction between plan-ning and implementing to be considered. Some argue that management is primarily involved in strategy-making, not in plan implementation [45]. Secondly, as long as responsibility for the implementation is de®ned, management support becomes less important [23]. Since responsibility is, relatively speaking, the most important predictor in this research, the latter explanation may well carry weight. Next, the role of management is often to take on responsibility [4], suggesting that management is important through responsibility. Furthermore, the top management tur-bulence in recent years in Norway may also represent some explanatory power for the relative non-impor-tance of management support for the IT strategy implementation [23]. Finally, the existence of a plan may serve to reduce the importance of management support [34].
The evidence presented in this paper leads to the belief that there is a relationship between plan and implementation, as suggested by Lederer and Salmela [34] in their theory of strategic information systems planning. However, all of the statistical models devel-oped and tested in this research provide limited expla-nation of the variation in implementation. The multiple regression analysis resulted in an adjusted
R-square of 0.19 which implies that 81 percent of the variation in the implementation is unexplained by the theory. Hence, there must be other ± possibly more important ± in¯uences on plan implementation.
The three main suggestions for future research are concerned with weaknesses of the presented research.
Firstly, the research model suggested a connection between implementation of an IT strategy and the content of the strategy. Previous research has identi-®ed, as Table 2 indicates, that much more complicated causal relationships might exist. Secondly, the impor-tance of various implementation predictors may vary depending on contingency issues such as organisation size, implementation horizon and environmental tur-bulence [55]. Finally, future research may widen the focus by including both, factors and processes in the planning phase as well as in the implementation phase. An important practical contribution can be derived from the conducted research. In practice, the CIO is often responsible for the IT strategy process, as well as the IT strategy topics and the IT strategy plan [23, 58]. When the CIO sits down to produce the formal IT strategy, this research provides clear priority on what to include in the plan document to increase the like-lihood of its implementation. Description of respon-sibility for the implementation is important. Description of responsibility should include respon-sibility for implementation on time, within budget, intended bene®ts, stepwise implementation of large projects, high priority projects and short-term bene®ts from initial projects. Description of user involvement during the implementation is the other important factor. User involvement description should include user training, understanding, participation, operation, development and support.
References
[1] M. Alavi, E.A. Joachimsthaier, Revisiting DSS implementa-tion research: a meta-analysis of the literature and sugges-tions for researchers, MIS Quarterly 16(1), 1992, pp. 95±116. [2] M. Alavi, J.C. Henderson, An evolutionary strategy for implementing a decision support system, Management Science 27(11), 1981, pp. 1309±1323.
[3] S. Alter, M. Ginzberg, Managing uncertainty in MIS implementation, Sloan Management Review 20(1), 1978, pp. 23±31.
[4] L.M. Applegate, F.W. Mcfarlan, J.L. Mckenney, 1996. Corporate Information Systems Management, Irwin, Chica-go, USA.
[5] V.E. Baier, J.G. March, H. Saetren, Implementation and Ambiguity, Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies, May, 1986, pp. 197±212.
[7] A.C. Boynton, R.W. Zmud, G.C. Jacobs, The in¯uence of IT management practice on IT use in large organizations, MIS Quarterly 18(3), 1994, pp. 299±318.
[8] J.H. Bradley, R.D. Hauser, A framework for expert system implementation, Expert Systems with Applications 8(1), 1995, pp. 157±167.
[9] J.C. Brancheau, L. Schuster, S.T. March, Building and implementing an information architecture. DATA BASE, Summer, 1989, pp. 9±17.
[10] J.M. Bryson, P. Bromiley, Critical factors affecting the planning and implementation of major projects, Strategic Management Journal 14(5), 1993, pp. 319±337.
[11] E.K. Clemons, M.E. Thatcher, M.C. Row, Identifying sources of reengineering failures: a study of behavioral factors contributing to reengineering risks, Journal of Management Information Systems 12(2), 1995, pp. 9±36. [12] Y.E. Chan, Business strategy, information systems strategy,
and strategic ®t: measurement and performance impacts, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Western Ontario, Canada, 1992.
[13] M.J. Earl, Experiences in strategic information planning, MIS Quarterly 17(1), 1993, pp. 1±24.
[14] D.J. Falconer, R.A. Hodgett, Participation in information systems planning and development in Australian companies. Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Information Systems, 19±21 June, Ireland: Cork, vol. I, 1997, pp. 14±41. [15] P. Finnegan, R. Galliers, P. Powell, Investigating inter-organisational information systems planning practices in Ireland and the UK. Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Information Systems, 19±21 June, Cork, Ireland, 1997, pp. 281±294.
[16] S.W. Floyd, B. Wooldridge, Managing strategic consensus: the foundation of effective implementation, Academy of Management Executive 6(4), 1992, pp. 27±39.
[17] R.D. Galliers, IT strategies: beyond competitive advantage, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 2(4), 1993, pp. 283±291.
[18] R.D. Galliers, Strategic information systems planning: myths, reality and guidelines for successful implementation, in: R.D. Galliers, B.S.H. Baker (Eds.), Strategic Information Management, Butterworth±Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 1994, pp 129±147.
[19] R.D. Galliers, E.M. Pattison, T. Reponen, Strategic informa-tion systems planning workshops: lessons from three cases, International Journal of Information Management 14(1), 1994, pp. 51±66.
[20] T.G. Gill, Expert systems usage: task change and intrinsic motivation, MIS Quarterly 20(3), 1996, pp. 301±329. [21] M.J. Ginzberg, An organizational contingencies view of
accounting and information systems implementation, Ac-counting, Organizations and Society 5(4), 1980, pp. 369± 382.
[22] M.J. Ginzberg, Early diagnosis of MIS implementation failure: promising results and unanswered questions, Man-agement Science 27(4), 1981, pp. 459±478.
[23] P. Gottschalk, Technology Management (in Norwegian: Teknologiledelse), Fagbokforlaget, Bergen, Norway, 1995.
[24] P. Gottschalk, Content Characteristics of Formal Information Technology Strategy as Implementation Predictors, Tano Aschehaug publishing, Norway, 1998.
[25] T.L. Grif®th, G.B. Northcraft, Cognitive elements in the implementation of new technology: can less information provide more bene®ts? MIS Quarterly 20(1) (1996) 99±110. [26] V. Grover, S.R. Jeong, W.J. Kettinger, J.T.C. Teng, The implementation of business process reengineering, Journal of Management Information Systems 12(1), 1995, pp. 109±144. [27] Y.P. Gupta, T.S. Raghunathan, Impact of information systems (IS) steering committees on IS planning, Decision Sciences 20(4), 1989, pp. 777±793.
[28] J.F. Hair, R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, W.C. Black, Multi-variate Data Analysis, ®fth edn., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, USA, 1998.
[29] K. Joshi, A model of users' perspective on change: the case of information systems technology implementation, MIS Quarterly 15(2), 1991, pp. 229±242.
[30] A.T. Kearney, Breaking the barriers ± IT effectiveness in Great Britain and Ireland. Report by A.T. Kearney for The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, A.T. Kearney Limited, London, UK, 1990.
[31] K.J. Klein, J.S. Sorra, The challenge of innovation implementation, Academy of Management Review 21(4), 1996, pp. 1055±1088.
[32] T.J. Larsen, Middle managers' contribution to implemented information technology innovation, Journal of Management Information Systems 10(2), 1993, pp. 155±176.
[33] A.L. Lederer, A.L. Mendelow, Information systems planning and the challenge of shifting priorities, Information and Management 24(6), 1993, pp. 319±328.
[34] A.L. Lederer, H. Salmela, Toward a theory of strategic information systems planning, Journal of Strategic Informa-tion Systems 5(3), 1996, pp. 237±253.
[35] A.L. Lederer, V. Sethi, The implementation of strategic information systems planning methodologies, MIS Quarterly 12(3), 1988, pp. 445±461.
[36] A.L. Lederer, V. Sethi, Root causes of strategic information systems planning implementation problems, Journal of Management Information Systems 9(1), 1992, pp. 25±45. [37] A.L. Lederer, V. Sethi, Key prescriptions for strategic
informa-tion systems planning, Journal of MIS 13(1), 1996, pp. 35±62. [38] J. Lee, An exploratory study of organizational/managerial factors in¯uencing business process reengineering imple-mentation: An empirical study of critical success factors and resistance management, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Nebraska, USA, 1995.
[39] D. Leonard-Barton, I. Deschamps, Managerial in¯uence in the implementation of new technology, Management Science 34(10), 1988, pp. 1252±1265.
[40] H.G. Levine, D. Rossmore, Diagnosing the human threats to information technology implementation: a missing factor in systems analysis illustrated in a case study, Journal of Management Information Systems 10(2), 1993, pp. 55±73. [41] H.C. Lucas, Implementation ± the Key to Successful
[42] H.C. Lucas, E.J. Walton, M.J. Ginzberg, Implementing packaged software, MIS Quarterly 12(4), 1988, pp. 537±549. [43] M.L. Markus, Power, politics and MIS implementation,
Communications of the ACM 26(6), 1983, pp. 430±444. [44] M.L. Markus, R.I. Benjamin, Change agentry - the next IS
frontier, MIS Quarterly 20(4), 1996, pp. 385±407. [45] H. Mintzberg, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning,
Prentice Hall, New York, USA, 1994.
[46] R. Montealegre, Management's role in the implementation of information technology in an agroindustrial organization of a less-developed country, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, USA, 1994.
[47] P.C. Nutt, Tactics of implementation, Academy of Manage-ment Journal 29(2), 1986, pp. 230±261.
[48] A. Pinsonneault, K.L. Kraemer, Survey research methodol-ogy in management information systems: an assessment, Journal of Management Information Systems 10(2), 1993, pp. 75±105.
[49] G. Premkumar, W.R. King, Organizational characteristics and information systems planning: an empirical study, Information Systems Research 5(2) (1994a) 75±109. [50] G. Premkumar, W.R. King, The evaluation of strategic
information system planning, Information and Management 26(6) (1994b) 327±340.
[51] B. Raghunathan, T.S. Raghunathan, Adaption of a planning system success model to information systems planning, Information Systems Research 5(3), 1994, pp. 326±341. [52] D. Remenyi, Strategic information systems, current practice
and guidelines, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Henley Management College, UK, 1990.
[53] E. Rhodes, D. Wield, Implementing new technologies, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 1985.
[54] R. Sabherwal, W.R. King, An empirical taxonomy of the decision-making processes concerning strategic applications of information systems, Journal of Management Information Systems 11(4), 1995, pp. 177±214.
[55] H. Salmela, The Requirements for Information Systems Planning in a Turbulent Environment, Doctoral Dissertation, Publication of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Series A-1:1996, Turku, Finland, 1996. [56] A.H. Segars, Strategic information systems planning: the
coalignment of planning system design, its relationships with organizational context, and implications for planning system
success, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Carolina, USA, 1994.
[57] A. Srinivasan, J.G. Davis, A reassessment of implementation process models, Interfaces 17(3), 1987, pp. 64±71. [58] C.S. Stephens, A. Mitra, F.N. Ford, W.N. Ledbetter, The
CIO's dilemma: participating in strategic planning, Informa-tion Strategy, Spring, 1995, pp. 13±17.
[59] J.J. Sviokla, Knowledge workers and radically new technol-ogy, Sloan Management Review 37(4), 1996, pp. 25±40. [60] B. Taylor, The return of strategic planning ± once more with
feeling, Long Range Planning 30(3), 1997, pp. 334±344. [61] T.S.H. Teo, Integration between business planning and
information systems planning: evolutionary-contingency perspectives, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, USA, 1994.
[62] T.S.H. Teo, W.R. King, An assessment of perceptual differences between informants in information systems research, Omega 25(5), 1997, pp. 557±566.
[63] J. Ward, P. Grif®ths, Strategic planning for information systems. Wiley Series in Information Systems, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 1996.
[64] J. Ward, P. Taylor, P. Bond, Evaluation and realisation of IS/ IT bene®ts: an empirical study of current practice, European Journal of Information Systems 4(4), 1996, pp. 214±225. [65] R.T. Watson, G.G. Kelly, R.D. Galliers, J.C. Brancheau, Key
issues in information systems management: an international perspective, Journal of Management Information Systems 13(4), 1997, pp. 91±115.
[66] K.L. Williams, An investigation of how organizations manage information technology initiatives, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Florida State University, USA, 1992.
Petter Gottschalkis an Associate Pro-fessor in Information Management at the Norwegian School of Management. He has been the CEO of ABB Datacables and the CEO of the Norwegian Comput-ing Center.
