business-it alignment: a practical research approach

Journal of High Technology Management Research 25 (2014) 132–147

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of High Technology Management Research

Business-IT Alignment: A practical research approach

Suwatana Charoensuk a,⁎, Winai Wongsurawat b, Do Ba Khang c

a School of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailandb College of Management, Mahidol University, 69 Vipawadee Rangsit Road Samsennai, Phayathai District, Bangkok 10400, Thailandc Faculty of Economics and Commerce, Hoa Sen University, 8 Nguyen Van Trang, D.1, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author at: 53/138, Moo 1, BanklanE-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Charoe

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2014.07.0021047-8310/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Available online xxxx
The purpose of this study is to empirically investigate the impact of Business-Information Technol-ogyAlignment, or BIA, on organizations and to revisit the BIA antecedents by using data fromhotelsector of the service industry.The researchmodel was developed based on the literature and inputs from the hotel industry andIT experts, using the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique in data analysis, and datafrom phone interviews that were conducted with both business and IT personnel from 3 to 5star hotels in Thailand.We found that Business-IT Alignment does have a positive relationship with organizational per-formance. Shared domain knowledge was found to have the highest relationship with Business-ITAlignmentwhile ITmanagement sophistication had the least impact, but in a negative direction,while organizational sizewas found to be amoderator. Other BIA antecedentswere effective com-munication, IT operational and implementation success, and planning sophistication.This study developed amodel that integrates the alignment between the strategic and operationallevels which offers a holistic view of BIA, different from previous studies that considered only oneor the other level. Secondly, we cross verify the antecedents from the literature and actual practiceby interviewing experts in the industry. Finally, we revisited measurements and relationshipsamong the constructs so that the model is up-to-date and applicable to the current businessenvironment.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Business-Information Technology AlignmentStrategic alignmentHotel managementInformation technology managementStrategic managementStructural Equation Modeling

1. Introduction

Business-Information Technology Alignment or BIA has been proven by many researchers to help organizations in a variety ofways, such as by maximizing the return on Information Technology (IT) investment (Avison, Jones, Powell, & Wilson, 2004;Kashanchi & Toland, 2006); helping to identify the true value of IT (Byrd, Lewis, & Bryan, 2006; Kohli & Devaraj, 2004; Tallon,2007–8; Tallon & Kraemer, 2007); and helping to improve IT usage (Beimborn, Franke, Wagner, & Weitzel, 2007; Wagner,Beimborn, Franke, & Weitzel, 2006). BIA was also found to moderate the relationship between IT investment and firm performance(Byrd et al., 2006) which suggests that firms can increase their performance without necessarily increasing their IT investment butby instead increasing the alignment between business and IT.

It is possible to assess the degree or level of alignment in order tomake itmore tangible. For example, Luftman (2000) assessed thealignment processes in organizations and proposed an alignment maturity scale composed of these five levels: the initial/ad hoc

g, Muang, Pathumthani 12000, Thailand. Tel.: +66 81 843 2344; fax: +66 2 95 95 365.nsuk), [email protected] (W. Wongsurawat), [email protected] (D.B. Khang).

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.hitech.2014.07.002&domain=pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2014.07.002

mailto:[email protected]



Unlabelled image

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2014.07.002

Unlabelled image

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10478310

133S. Charoensuk et al. / Journal of High Technology Management Research 25 (2014) 132–147

process; the committed process; the established focused process; the improved/managed process; and the optimized process. Weissand Anderson (2004) adapted Daft's (2001) model to an alignment value matrix that considered two axes: the level of integrationbetween business and IT, which represent the organizational management aspect; and the value that IT contributes to business,which represents the system's complexity aspect. These two axes can reflect the alignment profile of an organization, which consistsof the operational resource profile, the strategic resource profile, and the strategic weapon profile.

These two examples attempt to identify the level of BIA to show organizations what they should do to improve their alignment(Luftman, 2000, p. 20) so as to obtain the optimal benefits from BIA. Once the actual BIA level, or stage, has been identified, organiza-tions can then decide whether to remain at the same alignment level or try to achieve a better alignment.

2. Problem statements and research objectives

To increase the alignment level, an organization must be able to first identify, and then understand, the BIA enablers or anteced-ents. Only then will it be able to focus on the most critical items that can dramatically improve the BIA. An ability to recognize whatcauses BIA can reduce the risk of alignment management failure, which is mostly caused by an inefficient management of theorganization's resources (Weiss & Anderson, 2004) and which in turn, wastes precious time and money from effort to resolve IT-related problems (Chan, 2002).

This research study aims to clarify theoretical conflicts in the literature and update the findings regarding recent technology. Thekey question thatwe aim answer is “What are the antecedents of BIA as of today?” This question is not new to this research area. How-ever, the answer can change over time due to the continuous development of new technology and changes in the business environ-ment. We revisited past findings on BIA antecedents, as well as gathered new information from actual business practices so as toformulate an appropriate model. To be sustainable, organizations need to be adaptable enough to respond to their current environ-ment (Weiss & Anderson, 2004, p. 9). This is why a study on BIA antecedents can become a continuous study.

Based on the problem statement, we developed three research objectives. The first onewas to revisit the impact of BIA on organi-zational performance but consider it in the context of its current environment. The second objectivewas to identify the antecedents ofBIA, and then, the last one, was to verify the different impacts the antecedents had on BIA.

3. What's new in Business-IT Alignment research

Business-IT Alignment, or BIA, can be defined as “applying information technology (IT) in an appropriate and timely way, in har-mony with business strategies, goals and needs” (Luftman, 2000, p. 3; Luftman, Papp, & Brier, 1999, p. 3). Alternately, it can also beexplained in terms of “linkages between business and IT at the strategic or planning level, which is the degree towhich the ITmission,objectives, and plans support, and are supported by, the businessmission, objectives, and plan.” (Chan& Reich, 2007; Chung, Rainer, &Lewis, 2003; Reich & Benbasat, 1996, p. 56; Reich & Benbasat, 2000, p. 82; Tan & Gallupe, 2006).

Despite the above definitions, BIA research varies in terms of focus and context. For example, alignment has been studied at thestrategic level (Cragg, King, & Hussin, 2002; Kefi & Kalika, 2005; Luftman, 2000; Silva, Figueroa, & Gonzalez-Reinhart, 2007); at theoperational level (Beimborn, Schlosser, & Weitzel, 2009); at the IT project level (Jenkin & Chan, 2010); and by comparing the align-ment between organizational structure and IT structure (Chan, 2002; Croteau, Solomon, Raymond, & Bergeron, 2001; Gordon &Gordon, 2000).

Early studies on Business-IT Alignment tended to focus on the alignment between business strategies and IT strategies (Beimbornet al., 2007). The reasons for going in this direction could come from the assumption that once the strategies were aligned, the struc-turewould then follow. In addition, some case studies found that alignment at the strategic levelwas consideredmore important thanat the operational one because the management was expecting a greater return from the strategic level than from the operationallevel (Chan, 2002).

For this study, Business-IT Alignment refers to an alignment between thewhole business entity and IT entity from the strategic tothe operational levels. This BIA study focuses on how business and IT can be partnered in managerial practice throughout anorganization's operation. It shows how well people working in organizations can learn and share knowledge with each other, aswell as, be able to use it strategically. The synchronization between the strategic and operation levels does matter to an organization.Bergeron, Raymond, and Rivard (2004) found that the organization that had no conflict in the alignment among business strategies, ITstrategies, business operations and IT operations achieved a better performance. Once the strategic level is set well, the organizationalso needs to follow this up at the operational level too. The strategy cannot be effective if it is not able to transform it into a real op-eration (Feurer, Chaharbaghi, Weber, & Wargin, 2000). Therefore, the ability to execute the strategies at the operational level shouldbe recognized as equal important. As a consequence, the evaluation of Business-IT Alignment in an organization should also containboth strategic and operational levels.

This study, then, considers the alignment between business and IT strategies together in the so-called “Strategic Business-IT Align-ment”, or “Strategic BIA”, together with the alignment between business and IT infrastructure and processes, or the so-called “Oper-ational Business-IT Alignment”, or “Operational BIA”. There have been claims that research containing both levels does not yet exist(Beimborn et al., 2007). This gap led to our research objective to develop amodel that could include both Strategic BIA andOperationalBIA to represent the overall BIA of an organization and that could also identify the antecedents of BIA in order to demonstrate theirimpact on an organization.

134 S. Charoensuk et al. / Journal of High Technology Management Research 25 (2014) 132–147

4. Study approach

Our research used an empirical study approach. The service industry was selected as a target group for the study because its coreservice requires a combination of both skilled personnel and effective technology in order to run a successful business. It therefore hasa good combination of human and technology resources, unlike themanufacturing industry which uses technology to replace humanskills in core processes. In the service industry, the role of IT systems is to increase service performance and operational efficiency.

The hotel sector, as part of the service industry, was selected as a focus because IT iswidely used in hotel operations andmarketing.For example, hotel customers use IT to reserve rooms from the internet, which allows customers to make bookings for their trip fromwherever they are. IT also helps the hotel keep track of customer information which enables staff to impress their customers with in-dividualized attention and service, when the customer returns. IT is also used in the back office supply chainmanagement, frompoint-of-sales to inventory control, allowing hotel staff to manage their food supplies once the customer places an order in a restaurant, forexample. That order, is then sent to the kitchen, and is then used to update an inventory stock list and finally, a purchase order is gen-erated once the stock reaches a minimum level.

In the hotel business, IT (in terms of investment value) was found to improve organizational performance, in suchways as, for ex-ample, improving operational efficiency, service quality, customer satisfaction, and market expansion (Chathoth, 2007; Daghfous &Barkhi, 2009; Ham, Kim, & Joeong, 2005; Lam, Cho, & Qu, 2007; O'Connor & Murphy, 2004; Sahadev & Islam, 2005; Sigala, 2003;Sigala, Airey, Jones, & Lockwood, 2004; Sirirak, Islam, & Khang, 2011). The alignment of IT with business strategies and operationsis recommended to provide optimal value to business (Sigala et al., 2004). The attempt to show why BIA is so important to thehotel business is relatively new. Organizations will learn how they can obtain additional benefits from the current IT environmentwithout further investing in IT, as well as, learning how they can apply the key factors to improve alignment in their organizations.

5. Research approach and results from literature review

Themodelwas developed in 3 stages: literature review, interviewswith experts, and amodel formulation. In the literature review,we summarized itemswhichwere proposed as BIA antecedents. Then, we conducted interviewswith experts in hotel business and ITduring themodel development. The objectives of these interviewswere to obtain a better understanding of the business operation, tounderstand how IT is applied in business, and to select the items that were relevant to the current environment. Finally, by consoli-dating information from these two sources, a research model was formulated.

Expert interviews targeted three groups of people: the business staff in operational units, IT staff, and IT solution providers. Re-spondents had to meet several criteria. First, they had to have been working in the hotel industry for at least 5 years (not necessaryat the same organization). Then they had to have worked at their current organization for at least 2 years and hold at least a

Table 1A summary of BIA antecedents from literature and interviews.

No. Antecedents from literature Antecedents from expertinterviews

Related literature

1. Shared domain knowledge Ability of people to understandthe other business unit

Reich and Benbasat (2000), Chan et al. (2006)

2. Communication between business and IT Communication Reich and Benbasat (2000)3. Strategic planning processes or planning sophistication – Chan et al. (2006), Reich and Benbasat (2000),

Kearns and Sabherwal (2006–7)4. IT management sophistication (managerial aspects),

IT governance tools– Sabherwal and Kirs (1994) (This study found that this

item is related to BIA.);Hussin et al. (2002)(This study found that this item is not related to BIA.);Beimborn et al. (2009) (The study found that thisitem is related to Strategic BIA.)

5. IT management sophistication (technical aspects) – Hussin et al. (2002)6. IT Service Management (ITSM) Service mindedness of IT Kashanchi and Toland (2006)7. IT infrastructure flexibility (connectivity) – Chung et al. (2003)8. IT infrastructure flexibility (modularity) – Chung et al. (2003)9. IT infrastructure flexibility

(IT personal competency)– Chung et al. (2003)

10. IT success (prior IT success, successful IT history,past implementation success, IT track record)

Learning from past implementation,Current IT solution

Chan et al. (2006), Reich and Benbasat (2000)

11. Business direction Management direction Reich and Benbasat (2000)12. Management support on IT

(This item is considered as part of IT managementsophistication for our study)

Management leadership Hussin et al. (2002) (The study found that this item isnot related to Strategic BIA.); Beimborn et al. (2009)

13. Organization size – Chan et al. (2006)14. Organizational structure – Croteau et al. (2001)15. Technological structure – Croteau et al. (2001)16. – Personal connection17. External environment uncertainty – Sabherwal and Kirs (1994), Chan et al. (2006)


supervisory position or higher management job. The respondents also had to be involved in either strategic planning or the ITplanning of the organization. From a total of twelve interviews and a BIA literature review, we can summarize the findings of BIAantecedents in Table 1.

6. Model development

We examined each antecedent carefully based on discussions from the literature and expert interviews. Then, we narrowed downthe focus to only the ones that occurred within the organization (or internal factors), which made them applicable to theorganization's management. So the antecedent named “external environment uncertainty” was excluded from our consideration.Six itemswere selected; three of themwere common items cited in both expert interviews and the literature: shared domain knowl-edge, communication, and IT success. The other three were taken from the literature with conflicting findings: planning sophistica-tion; organization size; and IT management sophistication.

To formulate the model, we reviewed each item's relationship with BIA from past studies and considered how they should betreated in an organization. We also considered structural models from the literature that were applicable to our study. We followedthe Chan, Sabherwal, and Thatcher (2006) approach that included organizational performance as an end result of BIA. Finally, theproposed model can be drawn as shown in Fig. 1.

Our researchmodel is unique for several reasons. First, we integrated the strategic level alignmentwith the operational level align-ment, by incorporating analignment framework byHenderson andVenkatraman (1993).Most prior research studies have consideredalignment from either the strategic or the operational point of view, but not from both at the same time. Secondly, we examined theBIA antecedents that were found in the literature and then tested theory against practice by interviewing expert respondents aboutthem. Thirdly, we revised the relationships between those antecedentswith BIA, aswell as their constructs, with theoretical evidenceto support the changes resulting to our proposed model. This helped us explain why findings in the past sometimes had different re-sults, and were sometimes different from our findings.

The rest of this article is organized into four more sections: the next section describes each construct in the research model andincludes their relationships with BIA and their measurement items. The BIA is defined, including how to construct it and quantifyit. The refinement of the constructs is explained next,which includes the empirical data collectionmethodology. Analysis of the resultsfollows, both the structural model and the measurement model, together with additional analysis of the constructs that includesmoderating effects. Finally, a summary discussion of the findings is presented.

7. Construct details

Shared domain knowledge between the business and IT units can be simply explained as occurringwhen both units are learning tounderstand each other, from each other. As a result, the business people know how to adopt the IT knowledge and vice versa. Nelsonand Cooprider (1996) defined shared domain knowledge as “an understanding and appreciation among IS and line managers for thetechnology and processes that affect their mutual performance”.

Field surveys by Nath (1989), Teo and Ang (1999), and Luftman et al. (1999) found that shared domain knowledgewas among thetop five enablers for Business-IT Alignment. In addition, its relationship with BIA was also consistently proven in most studies,

Shared DomainKnowledge

IT Success

OrganizationSize

Business-ITAlignment

IT ManagementSophistication

Performance

Planning Sophistication

Communication H2

H1

H3

H7

H4

H5

H6

Fig. 1. Structural diagram of proposed model.Based on the model by Chan et al. (2006).

image of Fig.�1


e.g., Reich and Benbasat (2000) and Chan et al. (2006). The challenge for this study was to find out if it was still a BIA factor. And if so,was it still an important one or not?

The evaluation of this construct reflects theway IT understands the business side, theway business understands the IT side, how ITappreciates the business's contribution to IT, how business appreciates the IT's contribution to business, how business participates inkey IT activities, and how IT participates in business activities.

H1. Shared domain knowledge is directly related to Business-IT Alignment.

Communication between business and ITwas discussed in case studies by Reich and Benbasat (2000), as being one of the factors ofBusiness-IT Alignment. This was also consistent with this study's results from interviews with both business and IT personnel, whomentioned it was a key driver of Business-IT Alignment. This in turn, corroborated the results from Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi, andMohammed (2007), whose study focused on the success factors of knowledge sharing, in which communication was cited as havinga positive relationship with knowledge sharing in an organization. Therefore, communication was proposed to have an indirectrelationship with Business-IT Alignment via the shared domain knowledge.

We further investigated how communication was evaluated in past studies and found that it was considered in terms of the com-munication channels available in anorganization (Reich& Benbasat, 2000). However, even ifmultiple channels are available, this doesnot necessarily guarantee that communication conveyed across units will be effective or of high quality. So we, then, considered com-munication in terms of the quality of communication between the business and IT units, which should include how communication isprocessed when it is sent out and how it should be followed up.

We adapted a communication-quality framework proposed by Vos (2009), as a guideline, which highlighted six key aspects ofcommunication: communication policy, which must be clearly defined; transparency of the message, which is acknowledged by allstaff; accessibility of the message in the organization, which means anyone can have access to such a message; publicity of the mes-sage across the organization, or at least among related units; responsiveness of the message owner, who monitors the results oncecommunicated; interactive policy to involve staff to develop the communication policy; and, the last one was both effectivenessand efficiency of the communication.

H2. Communication is indirectly related to Business-IT Alignment via shared domain knowledge.

Success of IT: The past achievement of IT implementation was clearly found to have a relationship with BIA (Chan et al., 2006;Reich & Benbasat, 2000; Teo & Ang, 1999). However, we revised this item because any past success is not meaningful if it does notalso include the organization's present IT achievement. This means IT should consistently and continuously maintain its credibility,from the past and into the present. The criteria used to evaluate IT success were adapted from a study by Thomas and Fernández(2008) that identified the success factors of IT projects by looking at three aspects: the projectmanagement aspect, which is an abilitytomanage IT projectswithin a budget and timeline; the technical aspect,which is an ability to deliver high qualitywork thatmeet userrequirements; and the business aspect, which is an ability to meet the business requirements.

H3. IT success is directly related to Business-IT Alignment.

Organization size refers to how large the organization is, which reflects the complexity of management in the organization. Therehave however, been conflicting findings, as Chan et al. (2006) foundwhen they discovered that organization size is related to BIA in abusiness organization, but not in an academic, or institutional, organization. Gutierrez, Orozco, and Serrano (2009) did not find anydifferences in terms of ranking of the factors for BIA between SMEs and large organizations.

In the literature on IT that includes an analysis on firm performance, organization size was generally treated as a control var-iable rather than direct independent variable (Bhatt & Grover, 2005; Chadee & Pang, 2008; Ravichandran & Lertwongsatien,2005; Zhang, 2005). Based on this evidence, the organization size could have a different implication, for example, it can be treat-ed as a moderator rather than a direct independent variable. To clarify the impact of organization size on BIA, we investigated itby looking at it in two different ways: as an antecedent of BIA and as a moderator to the BIA. We formulated two hypotheses asfollows:

H 4.1. Organization size is directly related to Business-IT Alignment.

H 4.2. Organization size moderates the relationship between other antecedents and Business-IT Alignment.

Organization size is generally defined in terms of the number of employees in the organization. However, in the hotel business,which is the sample for this study, an additional factor that also indicates the size of the organization, is the number of rooms thereare in a particular hotel (Sahadev & Islam, 2005).

IT sophistication has two implications in the IT research area. It can be applied to either or both managerial and technical sophis-tication (Hussin, King, & Cragg, 2002; Paréa & Sicotteb, 2001; Raymond, Pare, & Bergeron, 1995; Sabherwal & Kirs, 1994; Suraweera,Cragg, &Mills, 2005). For this study, we emphasized only themanagerial aspect because this focus considers the ability to improve themanagerial side by applying current technology.

Apart from revising the scope of IT sophistication, we also reconsidered how it should be evaluated. Among studies on IT manage-ment sophistication, such as the work of Gupta, Karimi, and Somers (1997), Karimi, Somers, and Gupta (2001), and Suraweera et al.(2005), a study by Suraweera et al. (2005)was particularly suited to the context of this study because it confirmed three componentsas key factors of IT management sophistication. They are: IT planning, such as the validity of the IT plan; the thoroughness and


competitiveness of the IT plan; the control or monitoring over the IT project, such as a control over IT direction, operation and re-sources; and finally, the leadership qualities of the IT leader, such as the ability to resolve issues and to inspire IT staff to achieve ITobjectives.

H5. IT management sophistication is directly related to Business-IT Alignment.

Planning sophistication can be defined as the strategic planning processes of the organization, which includes the sophisticationrequired to synchronize the business planwith the IT plan. It can be referred to as awell-defined and comprehensive planning processbetween the business and IT units (Chan et al., 2006). Planning sophisticationwas found to be related to BIA in differentways in stud-ies by Reich and Benbasat (2000), Chan et al. (2006), and Kearns and Sabherwal (2006–7).

We revised this item after a careful comparisonwith previous research in this area and found that the thoroughness and directionthat resulted from aligned planning between the business and IT units that involved both business and IT people during the develop-ment phase, was indeed a success factor for IT management (Lee-Partridge, Teo, & Lim, 2000; Yang, 1996). Based on this finding, weconcluded that planning sophistication should be related to BIA through IT management sophistication, instead of through shareddomain knowledge, as previously defined.

Thewhole planning process in this case can be said to have three key characteristics. The first is timing, in the sense that both plansshould develop simultaneously. Secondly, the same group of people should participate in both areas of development. Thirdly, thecontent of both plans should correspond with each other.

H6. Planning sophistication is indirectly related to Business-IT Alignment via IT management sophistication.

The performance of an organization generally refers to its revenue. However, we learned from the interviewswith experts, that theimpact of IT, including BIA, on an organization, tends to be indirect, as opposed to direct. Respondents recognized IT's non-financialbenefits to the organization, for example, by improving work effectiveness, cost savings, competitiveness, and shortening customerwaiting time. This study, therefore, considered organizational performance in terms of these non-financial aspects by applying fourmeasurements from Reijers and Mansar (2005) which are part of what is known as the Devils's Quadrangle. They measure time,cost, quality, and flexibility which can also be substituted for one another once operational decisions are required. For example,high quality service incurred high costs, and fast service (the high speed of service delivery), sometimes reduced flexibility.

H7. Business-IT Alignment is related to operational performance.

8. Business-IT Alignment

The construct of Business-IT Alignment was formulated based on the alignment framework proposed by Henderson andVenkatraman (1993). BIA in this study contains two measurements: Strategic BIA and Operational BIA. Strategic BIA is an alignmentat the strategic level, derived from analignment between business strategies and IT strategies, and the same approach is applied to theOperational BIA. Details of the business strategies, IT strategies, business operations, and IT systems supporting the operations are ex-plained as follows.

Business strategies of an organization consist of six dimensions (or attributes) based on the classification by Venkatraman (1989),which is known as the “Strategic Orientation of Business Enterprises”. Each dimension represents characteristics of an organization:aggressiveness, analysis, defensiveness, futurity, pro-activeness, and riskiness. However, each organization may have different de-grees of emphasis for each dimension.

An organization's IT strategies should consist of four dimensions according to Sabherwal and Chan's (2001) framework: operation-al support systems; inter-organizational systems; market information systems; and strategic decision support systems.

Each business and IT strategic dimension contained a set of questions which were based on work by Sabherwal and Chan (2001)and was adapted to suit the service industry. However, measurements from other related studies by Venkatraman (1989), Morganand Strong (2003), Chan, Huff, Barclay, and Copeland (1997), and Byrd et al. (2006) were also reviewed. For example, a verificationof business strategy on the futurity dimension involved a long-term budget plan and long-term business effectiveness. A verificationof IT strategy on a system's decision support system involved the ability to facilitate a strategic business plan, the ability tomodel pos-sible future outcomes, and an ability to forecast business performance indicators. A more detailed look at themeasurement items canbe found in the Appendix A section at the end of this article.

The business operation units in this study are specific to the hotel business, and can be classified into front and back office oper-ations. The front office operation units consist of the front desk and reservations; food & beverage services; conference andbanqueting; leisure operations; marketing and sales; and guest accommodation. The back office operation units are food & beverageproduction; housekeeping; human resourcemanagement; accounting and financial control. Themeasurement of each business oper-ation unit is based on the critical factors for each unit as identified by Brotherton and Shaw (1996). In order to come upwithmeasure-ments that suit the hotel business environment in Thailand, the success factors of each business unit were verified with businesspeople during the pilot survey and one factor was selected.

As a result, an IT system that supports business operations must be able to fulfill the success factors of the business operations todemonstrate its alignment. For example, a key success factor for front office operation is an ability to operate accurately and effective-ly, so the associated IT support systemsmust be able to help the business operate accurately and effectively accordingly. All questionsfor each business operation unit and the associated IT operational support can be found in the Appendix A section.


9. Alignment method

The moderationmethodwas used to evaluate the degree of Strategic BIA and Operational BIA. Themoderation method quantifiesthe alignment of two items from the interaction between the two. Themoderation score is, then, calculated from the cross product, orbymultiplying the score of each item. In this case the total score for the business strategies and the total score for the IT strategiesweremultiplied to obtain themoderation score for the Strategic BIA. The same techniquewas applied to quantify the Operational BIA score.

10. Construct refinement

A pilot survey was conducted to ensure that the constructs and their measurements were valid and reliable for this study. In ad-dition, another objectivewas to select the preferredmeasurements, whichwould be the ones that havemore than one choice, such as,critical success factors of the business operations. Further, wording and terminology were also refined to ensure that the words andterminology used for the study would sound natural to the people in the hotel business.

The pilot survey involved face-to-face interviews based on a questionnaire that was designed for the final survey. Apart from an-swering the scripted questions, interviewees were asked to give opinions on the validity of the measurements, appropriate words tobe used, and to offer suggestions for a preferred measurement for use in the current business setting. Two people were interviewedfrom each hotel, one from the business side and the other one from IT. Eight hotels were targeted in the pilot survey, which produced16 interviews. Results from this pilot survey were also included in the data analysis.

11. Data collection

The study's target group was hotels located anywhere in Thailand. The list of hotels was obtained from the Tourism Authority ofThailand's (TAT) website (www.tourismthailand.org) and was downloaded in March 2011. To obtain reliable responses, the hotelsthat intensively used IT systems in their operations were the target population. Sahadev and Islam (2005) found that factors of tech-nology adoption in the hotel business included the following: hotel class; scope of hotel activities; size of the market where hotel islocated; and percentage of customers from high internet penetration countries.

This study applied the hotel class factor to identify the target group. The four- and five-star hotels which are in the group of highclass hotels are the most likely to rely on intensive use of IT systems in their operations. For three-star hotels, it is more difficult todetermine IT capability, since this group is ranked in between the high-end and low-end hotels. Additional criteria were then appliedto act as a filter to identify the three-star hotels. Firstly, all three-star chain hotels, regardless of sizes, are included in the target groupbecause there is a tendency for these hotels to invest in IT systems to support their operations, since thereweremultiple locations. As aresult, they gained bargaining power with their IT suppliers.

Secondly, any three-star hotels with more than 100 rooms were included in the target group. Even though the size of the hotel(based on number of rooms) was not found to have a significant relationship with IT adoption in the hotel business, it was a wayto eliminate the low potential for IT adoption from the target group.

The datawas collected by conducting an interview via telephone. Thismethod is a better approach thanmailing a survey question-naire because it does not take asmuch time for the respondent to answer the questions, the quality of response is better, and it is easierand more efficient to reach the targeted, and therefore, qualified respondents.

The questions were classified into two sets based on the content, which was either IT related or business related. The IT relatedquestions were for interviews with IT people while the business related questions were for the business people. All intervieweeshad to hold at least a supervisory position, or be a part of higher management.

12. Data analysis

The final survey was conducted between July and September 2011. Each hotel in the target groupwas contacted through a phonecall and asked to participate in a survey. Any hotel that did not pick up the phone after three attempts (on different days)was exclud-ed. Any hotel that declined to participate after three attempts (i.e. after asking different people) was also excluded. Once the surveyteam had received all responses, theywere verified to identify any conflicting responses andmissing data. For the questionnaires thatcontained incomplete answers, respondents were re-interviewed between January and February 2012. Both pilot and final surveyswere conducted in the Thai language. From a total population of 833 hotels, 312 usable responses were obtained which is equal toa response rate of 37%.

13. Model verification

The verification of themodel with the sampling data consists of two parts: the structural model and themeasurementmodel. Theobjective of verifying the structural model was to prove that the data set fit well with the proposedmodel. For this study, a StructuralEquation Modeling approach that applied a maximum likelihood estimation method was used to examine those fits. The measure-ment model was verified to prove the reliability and validity.

In addition, the structural model was verified in two steps: the typical model fit; and themoderation effect of the control variable,or organization size.

http://www.tourismthailand.org

0.866*

0.659*

0.590*

0.872*

0.057**

-0.354*

0.376*

Shared Domain Knowledge

IT Success

OrganizationSize



Performance


Communication

Numbers shown are standardized estimation * p-value <0.001 ** p-value= 0.094

Strategic BIA

OperationalBIA

0.975* 0.588*

Fig. 2. Analysis results of structural model.


14. Fitting of the structural model

Once the proposedmodelwas runwith the sample data, the results from the analysis satisfied themodel fitting criteria. The resultsof the absolute fit indices – CMIN/df (2.371), SRMR (0.1898), GFI (0.670), AGFI (0.645), and CFI (0.867) – indicate an acceptable fit. Allparsimony fit indices were greater than 0.60 which indicate a good fit. A conflicting result was found with the RMSEA index. WhileRMSEA index value is 0.066 which means we can possibly accept the model, its p-value is less than 0.05 which contradicts to theRMSEA (to accept the value of RMSEA, its p-value should be greater than 0.05). Kline (2005) explained that a contradictory result be-tween a RMSEA index and its p-value can happenwhen the data comes from a small sample size. However, from the overall results ofthe fit indices, it can be concluded as an acceptable fit.

15. Path analysis of structural model

Regarding the results of the path analysis of the structuralmodel (Fig. 2), we expected that each relationship would be statisticallysignificant (p-value b 0.001) and that its standardized regression weight would have to be more than 0.500 to demonstrate a strongrelationship (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). The results from our analysis found that the relationship between orga-nizational size and BIA was insignificant (p-value = 0.121) and the relationship was very weak (standardized regression weight =0.057) so hypothesis 4.1 was not supported. The remaining paths had significant relationships with BIA which means that H1–H3and H5–H7 were supported.

16. Moderating effect from organization size

The next step was to investigate the moderation effect from organization size on BIA (hypothesis 4.2). One way to conduct thisanalysis is to use a multiple group analysis technique in SEM. To test the organization size as amoderator or control variable, the con-struct organization size would be removed from the analysis model and the data would be categorized into groups. In this case thedatawas divided into two groups: small-to-mediumhotels and large hotels. Then themodel was run twicewith a different parameterconstraint setting, firstly as an “unconstrained model” and secondly as a “fully constrained model”. Then a chi-square test was con-ducted to test the differences between the two. The results showed that the differences between two groups were statistically signif-icant (see Table 2), meaning that the moderating effect from organization size caused the difference between the “unconstrainedmodel” and the “constrained model”. Hence, hypothesis 4.2 was supported.

Table 2Difference test at a model level.

Difference test at a model level Chi-square Degrees of freedom p-Value Results at 90% confidence

Unconstrained model 6654.558 3395Fully constrained model 6768.555 3456Difference with unconstrained model 113.997 61 0.000 Significant difference

image of Fig.�2

Shared DomainKnowledge

IT Success



OrganizationSize

Performance


Communication

Fig. 3. Resulting model.


Once we examined the difference between the “unconstrained model” and the “path constrained model” in which we set aconstraint one part at a time, we found that organization size moderated two paths: the relationship between “planning sophis-tication” and “IT management sophistication”; and the relationship between “IT management sophistication” and “Business-ITAlignment”.

17. Conclusion for the structural model

Results from the model's analysis show that five items were confirmed as BIA antecedents: shared domain knowledge; com-munication; planning sophistication; IT success; and IT management sophistication. Shared domain knowledge had the stron-gest relationship with BIA. The relationship between “planning sophistication” and “IT management sophistication”; and therelationship between “IT management sophistication” and BIA were moderated by organization size. The resulting model isshown in Fig. 3.

18. Measurement model

A verification of the convergent validity was conducted to ensure a high correlation for themeasurement. Results in Table 3 dem-onstrated that all the average variance extract (AVE) values of all constructs were greater than 0.50 and all construct reliability (CR)values were greater than 0.60 which satisfied the convergent validity (Hair et al., 2006). The result of discriminant validity in Table 4showed that three variables did not satisfy the requirement: IT Success, Communication, and Business-IT Alignment. This means thatsome measurements from those variables were similar. Attempts to resolve this issue were explored, such as by eliminating somemeasurements that had a low factor loading from the Exploratory Factor Analysis; then, by regrouping some measurements toform a second-order factor; and then again by narrowing down the sample to a particular subgroup, and finally, by removing the out-lier observations. The best approach that we found was to form the second-order factors for IT Success and Communication. In this

Table 3Construct reliability (CR) and average variance extract (AVE) of the proposed model.

CR AVE MSV ASV

Business-IT Alignment 0.742 0.610 0.726 0.388Planning sophistication 0.980 0.941 0.424 0.211Organization size 0.963 0.928 0.057 0.047IT success 0.927 0.718 0.826 0.494Shared domain knowledge 0.950 0.905 0.826 0.476IT management sophistication 0.981 0.944 0.740 0.392Performance 0.966 0.876 0.726 0.221Communication 0.952 0.740 0.794 0.457

image of Fig.�3

Table 4Discriminant validity of proposed model.

Bu

sin

ess

-IT

ali

gn

me

nt

Pla

nn

ing

so

ph

isti

cati

on

Org

an

iza

tio

n s

ize

IT s

ucc

ess

Sh

are

d d

om

ain

kn

ow

led

ge

IT m

an

ag

em

en

t so

ph

isti

cati

on

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

Co

mm

un

ica

tio

n

Business-IT alignment 0.781

Planning sophistication 0.322 0.970

Organization size 0.226 0.178 0.963

IT success 0.736 0.542 0.235 0.847

Shared domain knowledge 0.812 0.497 0.218 0.909 0.952

IT management sophistication 0.480 0.651 0.219 0.835 0.740 0.972

Performance 0.852 0.207 0.193 0.500 0.528 0.239 0.936

Communication 0.633 0.576 0.238 0.891 0.851 0.860 0.391 0.860

Remarks:The diagonal cells are the value of the square root of variance extracted from eachconstruct.The off-diagonal cells are the absolute value of correlation between each pair of constructs.


way, the original intention for the development of the constructs can bemaintained. The results of discriminant validity after formingsecond order factors showed an overall improvement.

19. Discussion

19.1. Summary of findings

The key research objective is to update the BIA antecedents for the current business and technology environment. We thennarrowed the scope down to 3 specific objectives: (1) to identify the antecedents of BIA from the strategic to the operational levelsin an organization; (2) to determine the different impacts that each antecedent has on BIA; and (3) to determine the impact thatBIA has on a firm's operational performance.We developed a theoretical model based on a combination of past studies and additionalupdates from industry experts. What makes our research unique is that it considers alignment in an organization from a higher level(Strategic BIA) to a lower level (Operational BIA). The resultantmodel (Fig. 2) will be used in the following discussion to show it fulfillall three objectives.

For the first and the second objectives, our empirical data confirmed three direct factors that affected BIA, sequencing them fromthe highest to lowest impact as follows: shared domain knowledge between business and IT (standardized regression weight =0.590); success of IT operation from past to present (standardized regression weight = 0.376); and IT management sophistication(standardized regression weight = −0.354).

The finding that shared domain knowledge had the highest impact on BIA is consistent with past studies. In addition, we foundthat communication effectiveness strongly promotes shared domain knowledge (standardized regression weight= 0.866). This sug-gested that the relationship between communication and shared domain knowledge affects BIA, and it can be implied that when theshared domain knowledge between the IT and business units is supported by effective communication, the degree of alignment in anorganization will be enhanced.

The second direct factor that affects alignment is the success of the IT operation from the past to the present. While previousfindings considered only the past success of IT, our study extended it to include its current success. This result still confirmedthat both past and present successes of IT promote the alignment. This finding suggests that when the results of IT operationssatisfy the business needs consistently from past to present, trust and confidence in IT will increase the alignment in anorganization.

The third direct factor that affects alignment is the IT management's abilities, in terms of planning, leadership, andcontrolling/monitoring of the IT unit. Our finding showed that this factor had a negative impact, which could spark debateamong some researchers. We revisited the model, constructs, data, and related literature, then, reran the model all over againto ensure the surprising results were correct. The construct was developed carefully from the literature, with a specific focuson IT management. We emphasized the importance of distinguishing between IT sophistication at the managerial levelfrom the technical side, while previous researchers had not made a distinction between the two. In terms of measurement,we explored the literature specific to IT management sophistication. Among the 5–6 common components found in most of


the literature, we used the three key components that had been empirically proven as components of IT management. Weare confident that this finding makes a significant and unique contribution to this research area. The negative relationshipbetween IT management and BIA can be explained by recognizing that if IT management is dominant in an organization, itwill decrease the alignment between business and IT. This is because it could decrease flexibility within the businessoperation.

IT management is influenced by the degree of planning sophistication between the business and IT units (standardized regressionweight = 0.659). Previous studies on BIA modeled planning sophistication as a factor that affected shared domain knowledge (Chanet al., 2006). We did try to replicate this approach with our data, but the non-significant results indicated themodel was not an idealfit.

We also found that organization size acted as a moderating factor in the model instead of as a BIA antecedent. Originallywe proposed it as one of the BIA antecedents. However, when the results showed a weak relationship value (standardizedregression weight is 0.057), we further examined it as a moderator, as suggested from the result of previous studies in theliterature (as explained in the Construct details section). Organization size has a moderating effect on two paths: first,between planning sophistication and IT management; and then, between IT management and BIA. The size of the organizationcan determine how an organization conducts the overall planning between the business and IT plan, and when managing theIT unit.

For the third research objective, our finding is consistent with past studies that showed that Business-IT Alignment does have apositive impact on organizational performance (with standardized regressionweight equal to 0.857). However, there could be an ar-gument against our study for applying a qualitative measurement to performance, since personal judgments of a performance couldlead to biased responses. We, then, also explored performance quantitatively by using the occupancy rate (or room utilization) andincluded this question in our interviews with respondents. The value of the occupancy rate was used as a percentage so that itcould be compared across different sizes of hotels. The results confirmed similar findings to those that came from themodel thatmea-sured performance qualitatively.

Finally, apart from the above three objectives, oncewe considered the differences between different levels of alignment, we foundthat the alignment at the strategic level dominated alignment in the organization, even though we had already taken an OperationalBIA into our consideration. It can be seen that the BIA constructs contain the Strategic BIAwith a standardized regressionweight 0.975and the Operational BIA with a standardized regression weight 0.588. It can be implied that the Strategic BIA represents the overallalignment of an organization.

20. Practical implications

Our research results confirm that the BIA continues to improve organizational performance from past to present. Thefindings from our study should prompt practitioners to recognize that there is an alignment from the strategic to the operationallevels and that both these alignments form the organizational alignment. The strategic alignment dominates the overallalignment, and this is useful to the practitioner, since it suggests that an organization should initiate the alignment from thestrategic level.

To overcome the challenges to achieving a high degree of alignment, our research results suggest that the factor that has thehighest impact on alignment is shared domain knowledge.

This means that an organization should emphasize the importance of knowledge sharing between business and IT units to pro-mote alignment. The results further suggest that effective communication increases the level of knowledge sharing andunderstandingacross units.

The secondkey factor that affects alignment is the outcome of the IT operation frompast to present in terms of serving thebusinessobjectives, meeting user requirements, delivering good quality work, and managing timelines and budgets. This finding is consistentwith past studies, however, we further emphasize that it is not only the past record of IT success that increases the alignment but alsothe present outcome. In practice, organizations should ensure that the IT unit consistently delivers results that satisfy the businessneeds.

The last two findings that call attention to researchers are the results that show that strong IT management can decrease thelevel of alignment. This means that the IT management should not be granted the power to dominate the business unit.Organizations must aim for a good balance between the business domain and the IT domain. While business people concentrateon managing the business and use IT as a tool to achieve their business goals, the IT unit needs to ensure that it serves businessneeds, as well as, manages the IT unit. The domination of business could make IT lose an opportunity to demonstrate its abilitywhile the domination of IT could limit business flexibility. The ability to balance both domains to support each other helps theorganization improve its performance in both financial and non-financial aspects. In addition, the success of the IT unit'smanagement depends on how well business and IT arrange their organizational plans or the degree of their planning sophistication.For practitioners, this means that organizations should develop both business and IT plans together to ensure that both plans supporteach other.

Finally, our findings showed that the size of the organization does matter when applying the alignmentmodel in practice. The de-gree of the alignment relationship is higher in larger organizationswhen compared to the smaller ones. In practice, thismeans that themanagement of large organizations needs to devote more effort and resources to pursue the alignment due to the size of theirorganizations.


21. Research limitations

The limitation of this research is that, firstly, the research model was developed specifically for the hotel sector. Generaliza-tions from the results and themodel are therefore specific to the hotel business. The two constructs that are unique to this sectorare the dimensions of business operations and performance in operational aspects. Before our model can be applied to other in-dustries, the measurements must be revised to suit other industries. Secondly, we considered only internal factors of BIA so thatan organization can manage. Although some external factors (e.g. changes in the economic environment) may affect organiza-tional strategies and BIA accordingly, this was not the focus of our study. Finally, our study was based on organizations with sin-gle IT units that supported the whole organization. Organizations that allowed each business unit to manage its own IT systemwere not included in this study.

22. Implication for future research

Our study has filled a gap left open fromprevious researches by considering the alignment at both strategic and operational levels,and by filling this gap, we have offered amore comprehensive alignmentmodel.We have empirically proven the questions regardingthe factors that affect alignment and the alignment impact. Future research could further explore the followingquestions raised by ourresearch results and limitations.

Firstly, a comparison study is recommended. For example, the simplest approach with the least modification to our researchmodel would be to apply it to the same industry but compare results across countries or regions. On the other hand, a compar-ison study across industries would require modifications to some measurements to suit those industries. A comparison groupshould have different business environments or technology environments, such as, by comparing industries that employtechnically skilled people (such as, people working for telecommunications providers, mobile phone providers) and traditionalbusinesses (retail, services, finance, etc.). Alternately, since our findings show that organizational size is a moderator of align-ment, a comparison study among different sizes of firms would be another simple approach that could expand upon the resultsfrom our study.

Secondly, a study on BIA in an organization that has a different form of IT governance, especially in the distribution of IT manage-ment/governance, may very well differ depending on the specific business and technical contexts of a particular industry. Differencesin IT governance, a continual evolution of technology over time, and the ability of people to adapt to constantly changing environ-ments could pose an intriguing challenge for further exploration.

Thirdly, our findings on the negative relationship between IT management sophistication and alignment may inspiresome debates among researchers. While this result may be unexpected in theory, it is indeed a very real possibility inpractice. Since we re-examined the model and data many times prior to presenting this paper, we are confident in this result.Researchers are welcome to verify this with a different data set or to remodel the IT management in a new uni-dimensionalconstruct. Our study was not able to do it because this requires an additional survey apart from the data that we currentlyhave.

Finally, a case study approach that observed the development of alignment in an organization over time in consecutive yearswould be able to show the emergence of the alignment of an organization and organizational behavior.

23. Conclusion

This study examined Business-IT Alignment by identifying what is required to bring about alignment, and looking at theeffect of these causes of alignment in the hotel industry. This study makes two key contributions. Firstly, in terms of atheoretical contribution, it recognizes the value of a Business-IT Alignment at both strategic and operational levels. Italso covered all four components of Henderson and Venkatraman's (1993) Strategic Alignment Model, which is usuallyonly partially applied to studies in this area (Hussin et al., 2002). The intention of this approach is to emphasize howpractitioners can use the alignment at the strategic level to affect the operational level so as to obtain optimum benefits.The findings support our hypothesis that the full scope of Business-IT Alignment has a positive impact on operationalperformance.

Secondly, from a practical perspective, this study offers much more than just helping organizations realize and appreci-ate the benefits of BIA. The ultimate goal is to increase the IT value by applying the BIA appropriately, to obtain optimalbenefits as soon as possible. Since the value of BIA is intangible, it is not immediately obvious. This study has proventhat there are benefits and BIA's antecedents can be managed by an organization. When an organization achieves a goodalignment, it will not only be able to gain benefits from the IT system and improve performance, but it will also be betterable to manage people in business and IT to make sure staff in both units are ready for new technology that will arise in thefuture.

Acknowledgment

Wewould like to extend a sincere thank you to Prof. Y.E. Chan, at Queen's University, in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, for kindly pro-viding valuable suggestions for this research study.


Appendix A. Constructs and their measurements

No. MeasurementShared domain knowledge - IT sharing with business

1. IT staff understand the nature of business and their needs.2. IT staff are informed about key business operational issues or activities.3. IT staff participate in key business operational issues or activities.4. IT staff appreciate the value that business provided to IT.

Shared domain knowledge - Business sharing with IT5. Business managers understand the nature of IT and IT staff needs.6. Business staff understand the nature of IT and IT staff needs.7. Business staff are informed about or participated in key IT operational issues or activities related to business.8a. Business staff appreciate the IT contribution to business in terms of increasing the productivity/efficiency of day-to-day operations.

8b. Business managers appreciate the IT contribution to business in terms of increasing managerial efficiency.Communication

9. Communication policy: communication between business and IT is clearly defined in organization.10. Transparency: staff acknowledge the policy and are able to apply them at work.11. Accessibility: communication messages can be accessed by, or can reach the intended people.12. Publicity: communication messages are shared across organizational units or at least related units.13. Responsiveness: communication is regularly monitored and followed up on for progress.14. Interactive policy: staff are involved in communication policy.15. Effectiveness and efficiency of communication: organization ensures the effectiveness of communication by providing, for example, the

communication plan, advice, and training to staff, facilitate open meetings, etc.IT operation and implementation success

16. Project is finished on-time.17. Project can be managed within the budget according to plan.18. System delivery meets requirements of users.19. A good quality system is delivered.21. Results of IT projects meet business objectives.

Planning sophistication27. Contents: both business plan and IT plans are connected to each other (business plan also reflects IT plan, IT plan also reflects business plan).28. Timing of plan development: business plan and IT plans develop together at the same time.29. People involved: business executives and IT executives participate in each other's planning sessions.

IT management sophistication - IT planning30. The validity of IT plan.31. The currency of IT plan.32. The ability to serve the business objectives of IT plan.33. The latest technology applied in IT plan.34. The recognition of IT plan from business side.35. Detailed IT plan.36. The thoroughness of IT plan.37. The competitive advantage to business from IT plan.

IT management sophistication - IT leadership38. Top management shows leadership on IT issues.39. Top management takes leading role in addressing IT as a critical success.40. The leadership of IT management.41. The leadership to achieve IT objectives by creating the vision for IT staff.42. The leadership to achieve IT objectives by inspiring IT staff.43. The leadership to achieve IT objectives by guiding and directing IT staff.44. The leadership on IT training.

IT management sophistication - IT control/monitoring45. The control of IT projects and activities.46. The control of IT systems.47. The control of IT resources.48. The control of IT security and access.49. The control of IT direction and development.50. The control of IT operations.51. The control of IT procurement.

Organization size52. Number of rooms.53. Number of staff.

Performance54. Occupancy rate by percentage (or room utilization).

Performance - Cost performance aspect55. Human resource costs.56. Inventory costs.57. Operational costs.

Performance - Quality of products/services aspect58. Service quality.59. Information quality.

60. Quality of facilities.Performance - Flexibility of operational aspect

61. Product and service combination flexibility.62. Volume flexibility.63. Functional flexibility.

Performance - Response times of operations/services aspect64. Speed of response to customer.65. Operational time (process end-to-end time).66. Overall responses.

Business strategic dimensions - Defensiveness67. Developing strong relationships with suppliers/business partners.68. Developing strong relationships with customers.69. Optimizing coordination across departments and/or product line.70. Constantly driving to improve operational efficiency.

Business strategic dimensions - Analysis71. Being number-oriented and analytical in operations.72. Requiring detailed, factual information to support day-to-day analysis.73. Developing comprehensive analyses of each business opportunity or challenges.

Business strategic dimensions - Risk aversion74. Decisions generally follow “tried and true” approach.75. Conservatively-oriented.76. Mode of operation is less risky than that of competitors.

Business strategic dimensions - Proactiveness77. Increase organizational capacity (i.e. prepared to handle a greater volume of business) before competitors.78. Quick to introduce various products and/or services to the market.79. Adopt innovations early.

Business strategic dimensions - Futurity80. Target long-term business effectiveness.81. Long-term budget plan.

Business strategic dimensions - Aggressiveness82. Sacrifice profitability to gain market share.83. Seek market share position at the expense of cash flow.84. Cutting prices to increase market share.

IT strategies - Strategic decision support systems85. The IT systems facilitate strategic business planning.86. The IT systems help to model possible future outcomes of alternative courses of action.87. The IT systems can be used to forecast key indicators of business performance.

IT strategies - Operational support systems88. The IT systems are able to improve the day-to-day business operation.89. The IT systems can support coordination across functions.90. The IT systems are able to support day-to-day decision making.91. The IT systems enable business to analyze present business situation.92. The IT systems provide sufficiently detailed information to support prudent decision making.93. The IT systems can support detailed analysis for major business decisions.

IT strategies - Inter-organizational systems94. The IT systems enable organization to develop stronger links with suppliers.95. The IT systems enhance the ability to negotiate with suppliers.96. The IT systems enhance the ability to negotiate with customers.97. The IT systems enable organization to develop stronger links with customers.

IT strategies - Marketing information systems98. The IT systems assist in setting prices relative to the competition.99. The IT systems help to introduce new products and/or services in the markets.100. The IT systems help to monitor changes in our market share.101. The IT systems can facilitate rapid price adjustment.

Business operation units102. The business unit can operate accurate and efficient reservation system.103. The business unit provides a high quality food and beverage services to customers.104. The business unit can present customer with competitive price based on the services, facilities, package, and flexibility.105. The business unit provides high quality facilities and services to customers, such as, equipment for sport and fitness, spa, and business center.106. The business unit applies effective market intelligence and has up-to-date customer database.107. The business unit provides consistent accommodation quality to satisfy customer requirements, such as, room facilities, quality of items provided to

room, and cleanliness108. The business unit produces a consistent quality of food from kitchen management to supplier management.109. The business unit operates clearly planned maintenance program.110. The business unit operates effective recruitment and selection procedure.111. The business unit applies effective revenue control procedures.

IT supporting business operation units112. The IT systems assist the business to operate an accurate and efficient reservation system.113. The IT systems make it easier for staff to be efficient, such as, mobile order taking and tracking food orders114. The IT systems give tools to business to offer customers products or services at competitive price.115. IT systems create access to quality tools to help business serve customers, such as, IT facility in business center, booking scheduling for spa, and IT

network connection services (WiFi) around the hotel116. The IT systems provide the technological tools that marketing and sales need to operate efficiently.117. The IT systems provide tools to business to manage their facilities, track room maintenance, evaluate customer satisfaction, etc.


118. The IT systems support production operations from end-to-end, such as, from placing orders to the kitchen to what ingredients are needed to produceeach order, automatic stock update.

119. The IT systems help to schedule the cleaning status of room after guests check out.120. The IT systems support the business with tools to manage the recruitment processes.121. The IT systems support the business to perform effective revenue control.

Verification122. The validity of business strategies.123. Internal alignment between business strategies and business operations.124. The validity of IT strategies.125. IT operates to serve business objectives.


References

Al-Alawi, A. I., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., &Mohammed, Y. F. (2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: Critical success factors. Journal of KnowledgeManagement,11(2), 22–42.

Avison, D., Jones, J., Powell, P., & Wilson, D. (2004). Using and validating the strategic alignment model. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(3), 223–246.Beimborn, D., Franke, J., Wagner, H., & Weitzel, T. (2007). The influence of alignment on the post-implementation success of a core banking information system: An

embedded case study. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07), Waikoloa, Hawaii.Beimborn, D., Schlosser, F., &Weitzel, T. (2009). Proposing a theoretical model for IT governance and IT business alignment. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2009), Waikoloa, Hawaii.Bergeron, F., Raymond, L., & Rivard, S. (2004). Ideal patterns of strategic alignment and business performance. Information & Management, 41(8), 1003–1020.Bhatt, G. D., & Grover, V. (2005). Types of information technology capabilities and their role in competitive advantage: An empirical study. Journal of Management

Information Systems, 22(2), 253–277.Brotherton, B., & Shaw, J. (1996). Towards an identification and classification of critical success factors in UK hotels Plc. International Journal of Hospitality Management,

15(2), 113–135.Byrd, T. A., Lewis, B. R., & Bryan, R. W. (2006). The leveraging influence of strategic alignment on IT investment: An empirical examinations. Information &Management,

43(3), 308–321.Chadee, D., & Pang, B. (2008). Technology strategy and performance: A study of information technology service providers from selected Asian countries. Service

Business, 2, 109–126.Chan, Y. E. (2002). Why haven't we mastered alignment? The importance of the informal organization structure. MIS Quarterly Executive, 1(2), 97–112.Chan, Y. E., Huff, S. L., Barclay, D. W., & Copeland, D.G. (1997). Business strategic orientation, information systems strategic orientation, and strategic alignment.

Information Systems Research, 8(2), 125–150.Chan, Y. E., & Reich (2007). IT alignment: What have we learned? Journal of Information Technology, 22(4), 297–315.Chan, Y. E., Sabherwal, R., & Thatcher, J. B. (2006). Antecedents and outcomes of strategic IS alignment: An empirical investigation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management, 53(1), 27–47.Chathoth, P. K. (2007). The impact of information technology on hotel operations, service management and transaction costs: A conceptual framework for full-service

hotel firms. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(2), 395–408.Chung, S. H., Rainer, R. K., Jr., & Lewis, B. R. (2003). The impact of information technology infrastructure flexibility on strategic alignment and applications

implementations. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 11(11), 191–206.Cragg, P., King, M., & Hussin, H. (2002). IT alignment and firm performance in small manufacturing firms. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(2), 109–132.Croteau, A., Solomon, S., Raymond, L., & Bergeron, F. (2001). Organizational and technological infrastructures alignment. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34). 8. (pp. 8049) (Maui, Hawaii).Daft, R. (2001). Organization theory and design (7th ed.). Cincinnati, Ohio: Thompson Learning.Daghfous, A., & Barkhi, R. (2009). The strategic management of information technology in UAE hotels: An exploratory study of TQM, SCM, and CRM implementations.

Technovation, 29(9), 588–595.Feurer, R., Chaharbaghi, K., Weber, M., & Wargin, J. (2000). Aligning strategies, processes, and IT: A case study. Information Systems Management, 17(1), 23–34.Gordon, J. R., & Gordon, S. R. (2000). Structuring the interaction between IT and business units: Prototypes for service delivery. Information SystemsManagement, 17(1),

7–16.Gupta, Y., Karimi, J., & Somers, T. M. (1997). Alignment of a firm's competitive strategy and information technologymanagement sophistication: The missing link. IEEE

Transactions on Engineering Management, 44(4), 393–413.Gutierrez, A., Orozco, J., & Serrano, A. (2009). Factors affecting IT and business alignment a comparative study in SMEs and large organizations. Journal of Enterprise

Information Management, 22(1/2), 197–211.Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.Ham, S., Kim, W. G., & Joeong, S. (2005). Effect of information technology on performance in upscale hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24(2),

281–294.Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 4–16.Hussin, H., King, M., & Cragg, P. (2002). IT alignment in small firms. European Journal of Information Systems, 1(2), 108–127.Jenkin, T. A., & Chan, Y. E. (2010). IS project alignment — A process perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 25, 35–55.Karimi, J., Somers, T. M., & Gupta, Y. P. (2001). Impact of information technology management practices on customer services. Journal of Management Information

Systems, 17(4), 125–158.Kashanchi, R., & Toland, J. (2006). Can ITIL contribute to IT/business alignment? An initial investigation. Wirtschaftsinformatic, 48(5), 340–348.Kearns, G., & Sabherwal, R. (2006–7). Strategic alignment between business and information technology: A knowledge-based view of behaviors, outcome, and con-

sequences. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(3), 129–162.Kefi, H., & Kalika, M. (2005). Survey of strategic alignment impacts on organizational performance in international European companies. Proceedings of the 38th Annual

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'05) (pp. 230c) (Track 8, Big Island, Hawaii).Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Kohli, R., & Devaraj, S. (2004). Realizing the business value of Information technology investments: An organizational process. MIS Quarterly Executive, 3(1), 53–68.Lam, T. P., Cho, V., & Qu, H. (2007). A study of hotel employee behavioral intentions towards adoption of information technology. International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 26(1), 49–65.Lee-Partridge, J. E., Teo, T. S. H., & Lim, V. K. G. (2000). Information technology management: The case of the Port of Singapore Authority. The Journal of Strategic

Information Systems, 9(1), 85–99.Luftman, J. (2000). Assessing business-IT alignment maturity. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4 (Article 14).Luftman, J., Papp, R., & Brier, T. (1999). Enablers and inhibitors of business-IT alignment. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 1 (Article 11).Morgan, R. E., & Strong, C. A. (2003). Business performance and dimensions of strategic orientation. Journal of Business Research, 56(3), 163–176.Nath, R. (1989). Aligning MIS with the business goals. Information & Management, 16(2), 71–79.Nelson, K. M., & Cooprider, J. G. (1996). The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Quarterly, 20(4), 409–432.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1047-8310(14)00012-1/rf0005
































































O'Connor, P., & Murphy, J. (2004). Research on information technology in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(5), 473–484.Paréa, G., & Sicotteb, C. (2001). IT sophistication in hospitals: A field study in Quebec. In V. Patel (Eds.), MEDINFO 2001 (pp. 1185–1189). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Ravichandran, T., & Lertwongsatien, C. (2005). Effect of information systems resources and capabilities on firm performance: A resource-based perspective. Journal of

Management Information Systems, 21(4), 237–276.Raymond, L., Pare, G., & Bergeron, F. (1995). Matching information technology and organizational structure: An empirical study with implications for performance.

European Journal of Information Systems, 4(1), 3–16.Reich, B. H., & Benbasat, I. (1996). Measuring the linkage between business and information technology objectives. Information and Management, 30(6), 309–321.Reich, B. H., & Benbasat, I. (2000). Factors that influence the social dimension of alignment between business and information technology objectives. MIS Quarterly,

24(1), 81–113.Reijers, H. A., &Mansar, S. L. (2005). Best practices in business process redesign: An overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics.Omega, 33(4),

283–306.Sabherwal, R., & Chan, Y. E. (2001). Alignment between business and IS strategies: A study of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders. Information Systems Research,

12(1), 11–33.Sabherwal, R., & Kirs, P. (1994). The alignment between organizational critical success factors and information technology capability in academic Institutions. Decision

Science, 25(2), 301–330.Sahadev, S., & Islam, N. (2005). Why hotels adopt ICTs: A study on the ICT adoption propensity of hotels in Thailand. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

Management, 17(5), 391–401.Sigala, M. (2003). The information and communication technologies productivity impact on the UK hotel sector. International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, 23(10), 1224–1245.Sigala, M., Airey, D., Jones, P., & Lockwood, A. (2004). ICT paradox lost? A stepwise DEA methodology to evaluate technology investment in tourism settings. Journal of

Travel Research, 43, 180–192.Silva, L., Figueroa, E., & Gonzalez-Reinhart, J. (2007). Interpreting IS alignment: A multiple case study in professional organizations. Information and Organization, 17,

232–265.Sirirak, S., Islam, N., & Khang, D. B. (2011). Does ICT adoption enhance hotel performance? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 2(1), 34–49.Suraweera, T., Cragg, P., &Mills, A. (2005). Measuring ITmanagement in small firms. Proceedings socialising IT: Thinking about the people, 16th Australasian Conference on

Information Systems (ACIS 2005), Sydney.Tallon, P. (2007–8). A process-oriented perspective on the alignment of information technology and business strategy. Journal of Management Information Systems,

24(3), 227–268.Tallon, P., & Kraemer, K. (2007). Fact or fiction? A sense making perspective on the reality behind executives' perceptions of IT business value. Journal of Management

Information Systems, 24(1), 13–54.Tan, F. B., & Gallupe, R. B. (2006). Aligning business and information systems thinking: A cognitive approach. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(2),

223–237.Teo, T. S. H., & Ang, J. S. K. (1999). Critical success factors in the alignment of IS plans with business plans. International Journal of Information Management, 19(2),

173–185.Thomas, G., & Fernández, W. (2008). Success in IT projects: A matter of definition? International Journal of Project Management, 26(7), 733–742.Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct, dimensionality, and measurement. Management Science, 35(8), 942–962.Vos, M. (2009). Communication quality and added value: A measurement instrument for municipalities. Journal of Communication Management, 13(4), 362–377.Wagner, H., Beimborn,D., Franke, J., &Weitzel, T. (2006). ITbusiness alignment and IT usage in operational processes: A retail banking case. Proceedings of the Proceedings of

the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06), Koloa, Kauai.Weiss, J. W., & Anderson, D. (2004). Aligning technology and business strategy: Issues & frameworks, a field study of 15 companies. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences — Track 8, Hawaii (pp. 80220c).Yang, H. (1996). Key information management issues in Taiwan and the US. Information and Management, 30(5), 251–267.Zhang, M. (2005). Information systems, strategic flexibility and firm performance: An empirical investigation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,

22(3), 163–184.

Suwatana Charoensuk is a doctoral student at the School of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in AppliedStatistics, a Master of Science degree in Information Technology, and a Master of Science degree in Management. She has worked as a consultant for an internationalconsulting company that specialized in systems implementation and ITmaster plan development. The inspiration to pursue this research came directly from her expe-rience as an IT consultant, when the alignment between business and IT was often raised as an issue with her clients in Thailand's public and private sectors.

WinaiWongsurawat is an assistant professor at the College ofManagement,Mahidol University, Thailand. He holds a Bachelor of Arts and Science degree in EconomicsandMathematical & Computational Sciences from Stanford University, USA, and a Ph.D. inManagerial Economics and Strategy from the Kellogg School ofManagement,Northwestern University, USA. He has published many articles on economics and education in major journals. He has also worked as a consultant at NERA EconomicConsulting (New York, USA), and as an assistant professor at the School of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand.

Do Ba Khang is currently Dean of the Faculty of Economics and Commerce, Hoa Sen University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and a visiting faculty at the School of Man-agement, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand. He holds aMaster of Science degree inMathematics, another in Industrial Engineering andManagement, and aPh.D. in Industrial Engineering and Management. His research interests include quantitative methods, service operations and project management. Over the last 20years, he has taught at postgraduate and executive levels. He also provides consulting services in capacity building for various multinational and national companies,government agencies, and international and nongovernmental organizations.













































business-it alignment: a practical research approach

Documents