key issues in information systems management: 1994-1995 ...€¦ · framework was published in the...

SINEMISRC Key Issues Study

Key Issues inInformation SystemsManagement: 1994-95SIM Delphi Results1

By: James C. BrancheauGraduate School of BusinessUniversity of ColoradoCampus Box 419Boulder, CO 80309U.S.A.james.brancheau @ colorado.edu

surveyed its members to determine the mostcritical issues in IS management. Again in1994-95, SlM institutional and board memberswere asked to consider what they felt were themost critical issues facing IS executives overthe next three to five years. Signaling an evolu-tionary shift in IS management, this studyshows that business relationship issues havedeclined in importance compared to technologyinfrastructure issues. For IS executives andgeneral managers, the key issue frameworksuggests some general directions for emphasisand provides a coarse measure for benchmark-ing their own concerns against those of theirpeers. The results Of this study also impacteducational missions in teaching and researchto the extent that they need to be sensitive tothe views of practicing [S executives.

Brian D. JanzFogelman College of Business and

EconomicsUniversity of MemphisMemphis, TN [email protected]

James C. Wetherbe=MIS Research CenterCarlson School of ManagementUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, MN [email protected]

Abstract

Over the past 15 years, the Society forInformation Management (SlM) has periodically

1 Sirkka Jarvenpaa was the accepting senior editor for thispaper.

2 Dr. Wetherbe is also FedEx Professor of Excellence atthe University of Memphis.

IntroductionOver the past 15 years, the Society forInformation Management (SIM), in a joint effortwith the MIS Reseamh Center (MISRC) at theUniversity of Minnesota and others, has peri-odically surveyed its members to determinethe most critical issues in IS management.These surveys are important because profes-sional societies such as SIM, as well as ISvendors, consultants, educators, andreseamhers all need to be aware of IS execu-tives’ key concerns to serve their marketseffectively.

Following the methods developed in earlierstudies, this article reports on a three-roundDelphi survey of senior IS executives and fol-low-up interviews. The results highlight whatthese executives believe are the most impor-tant IS management issues over the three- tofive-year planning horizon ending in 1999.

The survey and interview methods employedin the reseamh are outlined in the next section.Following this, the results of the survey arepresented. Then, some thoughts are offeredabout managing information systems and theevolving nature of the discipline. Appendicescontain additional details about the participantsand the results.

MIS Quarterly~June 1996 225

SlM/MISRC Key Issues Study

Research Methods

One of the noteworthy attributes of this studylies in the strengths obtained by replicating theresearch methods and subject populationsused in previous SIM key issue studies (Balland Harris, 1982; Brancheauand Wetherbe,1987; Dickson, et al., 1984; Niederman, et al.,1991). The Delphi method was. retained for itsvalue in surfacing new issues and movingstudy participants toward consensus (Delbecq,et al., 1975). Essentially, the Delphi methodemploys a series of linked questionnaires.Successive rounds of questionnaires summa-rize subjects’ responses to the precedingquestionnaire and ask respondents to re-eval-uate their opinions based upon the summa-rized results. Questionnaire rounds are contin-ued until a reasonable level of consensus isachieved. As in earlier studies, SIM institution-al and advisory board members served as oursubject population. The timing and nature ofthe SIM key issue surveys are summarized inTable 1.

Development of methods

A brief summary of the development of thestudy’s issues and the. evolution of its methodsis presented in this section. Complete detailscan be found in the article reporting eachstudy. A summary of the methods applied inthis study follows.

The first SIM key issues study by Ball andHarris (1982) employed a single round surveyof the entire SIM membership. This was thefirst survey of the SIM membership published

in a major journal. The primary methodologicalfoundation for the present study, however, waslaid by Dickson, et al. (1984) when theyapplied the Delphi method and constrainedtheir sample to the SIM institutional member-ship. Institutional members represent organi-zational memberships within SIM. These mem-berships are usually represented by the high-est ranking IT officer within the organization.Utilizing institutional members as a researchsample offers the advantage of having onehighly placed individual within each organiza-tion respond on behalf of the organization andeliminates biases from having multiple peoplerespond from a single organization.

Dickson and his colleagues began with anopen-ended survey asking SIM institutionalmembers to identify and briefly describe five to10 of what they considered to be the major ISmanagement issues over the next five to 10years. His research team consolidated thesequalitative data into a combined list of issuesand rationales. The resulting information wassent back to respondents in a second roundsurvey for further ranking and comment. Thisiteration of ranking and comment was contin-ued for two additional rounds until a reason-able consensus was achieved. The resultingframework was published in the MIS Quarterlyand became the starting point for the 1986study.

The 1986 study opened by soliciting revisionsto the 1983 issues and rationale in its first sur-vey round. Numerous new issues and ratio-nale were contributed. Existing language wasmodified as recommended by participating ISexecutives. Following incorporation of the newqualitative material, two additional rounds of

Table 1. SIM Key Issue Surveys

Data Date Citation Participants Rounds

1980 Ball & Harris, 1982 417 SIM members 11983 Dickson, et al., 1984 .102 SIM institutional members 41986 Brancheau & Wetherbe, 1987 90 StM institutional members 31990 Niederman, et al., 1991 175 SIM institutional members 3

1994-95 (present study) 108 SIM institutional members 3

226 MIS Quarterly~June 1996


survey ranking were used to achieve a reason-able consensus on the most important issuesfacing IS executives. The 1990 study used asimilar approach but asked respondents torate instead of rank the issues. This simplifiedthe complex task of ordinal ranking of 20-25different issues. To maintain continuity with itspredecessors, the 1994-95 study followed asimilar approach with minor enhancements.

A strength of this approach is its maintenanceof a series of data about a single professionalorgani~zatie~i spanning 15 years. The continuityof method and .issue framework facilitate longi-tudinal comparison of data. An additionalstrength is. that the issues and their rationalehave been created and revised almost exclu-sively by the respondents themselves.Unfortunately, the approach has weaknessesas well. The two most important are the lack ofclarity of: some issues and the conceptualoverlap of other issues in the framework.

Round one

The 1994-95 study began in March 1994 witha list of the top 21 IS management issuesderived from the 1990 study. These issues,along with a. brief rationale describing eachissue were listed in random order and mailedto 217 SlM institutional and board members.To reduce any bias inherent in a particular ran-domized sequence, four different randomizedversions of the survey were distributed.Participants were asked to consider what theyfelt were the most critical issues facing ISexecutives over the next three to five years(i.e., through 1997-99). They were asked torate each issue on a 10-point scale, where 10indicated their highest priority issue(s) and indicated their lowest priority issue(s).Participants were also encouraged to com-ment on the list of issues and associated ratio-nale as well as write in issues they felt mayhave emerged since the 1990 study. Of the217 mailed .surveys in round one, useableresponses were received from 78 respon-dents, yielding a response rate of 36 percent.

Roundtwo

In June 1994, all 217 SIM institutional andboard members were sent feedback summa-rizing the results of the first round. Those SIMmembers that responded to the first round sur-vey were also provided with their personalresponses as a baseline for comparison.Issues were listed in rank order of importancefrom highest to lowest mean rating. Threeissues with markedly lower ratings weredropped. These were security and control, dis-aster recovery, and CASE technology. Basedon first-round feedback, five new issues wereadded. These were business processredesign, collaborative support, outsourcing,object-oriented technologies, and multimediaapplications. The new issues were formed byclustering related issues and rationale submit-ted by first-round respondents in the "open"section of the survey instrument. All write-inissues submitted by four or more respondentswere included. Respondents were asked torate each of the 23 second-round issues on a10-point scale. This instrument used a closedform with no space provided to write in addi-tional issues. Useable responses werereceived from 87 respondents, yielding aresponse rate of 40 percent.

Round three

In September 1994, respondents from the pre-vious two rounds (108 individuals) were sentfeedback from the second round survey on thetop 20 issues. The three lowest-ranked issueswere dropped from the survey. These weredecision and executive support systems,object-oriented technologies, and multimediaapplications. Respondents were asked to ratethe issues one last time. Similar to the secondround survey, issues were listed in rank orderand personal ratings were provided from thelast survey that the respondent had returned.Useable responses were received from 83respondents, yielding a response rate of 76percent for. the final round and 38 percent ofthe institutional membership.

MIS Quarterly/June 1996 227


The three rounds of the survey provided oneround for revising issues and rationale and tworounds to increase the level of consensus onthe importance of those issues. Overall, 108 ofthe 217 SIM institutional and board members(50 percent) participated in the study. In thefollowing discussion, data are from the finalround of the survey unless otherwise indicat-ed. Appendix A contains the final-round surveyinstrument.

Interviews

To recap the final survey results for respon-dents and to facilitate our follow-up interviews,a four-page summary of results was mailed toall participants in February 1995. In March andApril, the 10 SIM officers and board memberswho had participated in the survey were invitedto comment on the results and answer ques-tions about the research. Seven individualsmade themselves available for telephone inter-views. In addition to asking for their generalreaction to the results, we asked which forceswere driving the top issues, what made theissues so troublesome, and whether theythought the framework had the right balancebetween management and technology issues.The interviews were recorded, transcribed,and used to help interpret the results of thesurvey.

Survey participants

The profile of survey participants in the 1994-95 study is consistent with previous SIM sur-veys. Consequently, one would not expectmajor shifts in rating due to changes in popula-tion demographics across the studies.However, because the individuals respondingmay be different from one study to the next,one cannot rule out the possibility that ratingshifts are attributable to underlying trendsamong those entering and leaving the field ofIS management. Even if this were true, howev-er, such shifts are likely a reflection of changesin the types of people entering and leaving the

field of information systems management atlarge.

All regions of the United States are represent-ed in the survey, with the majority of partici-pants from the Northeast (40 percent) andMidwest (32 percent); and the minority fromthe South (13 percent) and West (10 percent).A small number of participants are fromCanada (5 percent). This distribution reflectsthe SIM professional population with its strongmembership base in the Northeast andMidwest (Society headquarters are inChicago). In terms of industry representation,the majority of participants are from the com-mercial sectors of manufacturing (48 percent)and services (39 percent), with a minority (13percent) from the non-profit sector. In terms ofpositions held, the majority of participants (67percent) are senior IS executives in theirrespective organizations. Typical job titlesinclude chief information officer, senior vicepresident, vice president, senior director, ordirector with their department most commonlynamed information systems, information ser-vices, or information technology. IS depart-ment managers (22 percent), IS educators percent), and IS consultants (4 percent) makeup the balance of the sample. The high per-centage of senior IS executives is a strength ofthe SIM institutional sample and adds value tothe study’s findings. A list of the organizationsparticipating in the study is included inAppendix B. Statistical analyses revealed fewsignificant differences in rankings,based onposition or industry.

Results

The final-round results are shown in Table 2.In presenting the results, we first discuss thetop 10 issues and then comment on other sub-stantive changes in the framework.

Top 10 issues

Each of the 10 highest-rated issues are dis-cussed briefly to provide insight into the ratio-



Table 2. 1994-95 Key-Issue Framework

Mean StandardKey Issue Rating DeviationRank

123456789

1011A11B131415161718192O

Building a Responsive IT InfrastructureFacilitating and Managing Business Process RedesignDeveloping and Managing Distributed SystemsDeveloping and Implementing an Information ArchitecturePlanning and Managing Communication NetworksImproving the Effectiveness of Software DevelopmentMaking Effective Use of the Data ResourceRecruiting and Developing IS Human ResourcesAligning the IS Organization Within the EnterpriseImproving IS Strategic PlanningImplementing and Managing Collaborative Support SystemsMeasuring IS Effectiveness and ProductivityIncreasing Understanding of IS Role and ContributionFacilitating Organizational LearningManaging the Existing Portfolio of Legacy ApplicationsFacilitating and Managing End-User ComputingUsing Information Systems for Competitive AdvantagePlanning and Integrating MultiVendor Open SystemsDeveloping and Managing Electronic Data InterchangeOutsourcing Selected Information Services

9.107.797.737.627.587.507.467.317.116.826.596.596.536.486.316.236.186.045.915.40

.O961:191.381.501.401.861.621.702.022.021.912.012.021.872.031.882.121.862.002.03

Note: All data are from the final round of the Delphi survey (N = 83).

nale behind the issue and its relationship toother issues. The figure for each issue tracksits history in the key-issue framework since1980. In these figures, ranks are inverted (sub-tracted from 21) so that higher (more impor-tant) rankings are depicted higher on the verti-cal axis. Issues introduced after the initialstudy in 1980 show no data for the years theywere not included in the key-issue framework.

#1 Building a Responsive IT Infrastructure

2015

1050

Responsive IT Infrastructure

1980 1983 1986 1990 1994

Building a technology infrastructure that sup-ports existing applications while remainii~gresponsive to change is a key to long-termenterprise productivity. This task is made diffi-cult by the continuing rapid changes in infra-structure technology and the increasingbreadth and depth of applications needingsupport. More than any other, this issue cap-tures an important contemporary thrust ofenterprise IS management: providing theprocessor power, network connectivity, andapplication framework required to support corebusiness activities and unknown future ven-tures. This issue was first introduced in the1990 study, For 1994-95 it has the loweststandard deviation (s.d. = 0.96)-of any issue,indicating strong agreement on its importance.Due to its general nature, it is closely related toseveral other top issues such as distributedsystems (#3), information architecture (#4),and communication networks (#5). In a broadsense, these three issues can be viewed as


SIM/MISRC Key Issues Study

relating to three of the components of an ITinfrastructure: applications, data, and net-works. One of the participating IS executiveshad this to say:

The number one issue says it all. My numberone issue is building and maintaining a reli-able and responsive infrastructure.Companies today are built on IT infrastruc-tures-e-mail, LANs, etc. As a result, theinfrastructure on which all of this technologydepends must be solid. Ten years ago welived in an easy world---one big box in oneplace. Today things are very complicated.Therefore, we must be able to depend on theinfrastructure.

of an enabler of change. One of the IS execu-tives offered these comments: ’ "

I think the reason that you see this trend isthat if you look at the last five years, therehas been so much downsizing~ Okay, let’scall it redistribution. And with the miniaturiza-tion of technology itself, companies havegone away from mainframes and moved tonetworks of PCs, super servers, or whateveryou want to call them. Clearly we didn’t havethe infrastructure to do that five years ago.Issues like #1 through #5 all relate to the ISfunction having to respond to change in theorganization.

#2 Facilitating and Managing BusinessProcess Redesign

#3 Developing and Managing DistributedSystems

Business Process Redesign

20.

1980 1983 1986 1990 1994

2O

15105

01980

Distributed Systems ¯ .

1983 1986 990 1994

In response to market pressures, many organi-zations are radically changing the way they dobusiness. IT plays an important role in thischange process by enabling the innovativeredesign of core business processes. Havingbeen popularized just after the 1990 keyissues study (e.g., Hammer 1990), businessprocess redesign (BPR) is new to the key-issue framework in the United States. In relat-ed studies worldwide, however, it has been atop issue among IS managers and executivesfor several years (Watson, et al., 1996). Theimportance of this issue is attributable to theneed for major changes in internal processesto adjust to the ongoing massive changes inthe external environment. Interviews withexecutive participants suggest that this issue isone of the major drivers for infrastructure-relat-ed issues such as responsive infrastructure(#1), distributed systems (#3), and communi-cation networks (#5). Without a responsiveinfrastructure, IS becomes a constraint instead

Client-server applications may Offer an effec-tive alternative to centralized applications. Thedemand for graphical user interfaces com-bined with the economics of making better useof the installed base of desktop computers andlocal area networks make client server a usefulapproach for distributing applications across aheterogeneous environment, Unfortunately,they present many challenges including main-taining consistent software versions, maintain-ing consistent data, controlling joint develop-ment projects with users, and administeringlarge-scale distributed applications. First intro-duced in 1990, the importance of this issuehas risen dramatically. This issue is closelyrelated to the other infrastructure issues aswell as to software development (#6) and driven by business issues such as decentral-ization and BPR. One of the executives offeredthis thought about the link between decentral-ization and distributed systems:



The issue is that companies are distributingthemselves. They are putting more people andmore management responsibility at the lineclose to the customer. And these people wantaccess to their own systems and their owndata and everything is moving toward that. Somanaging distributed systems requires veryhigh-capability, client-server systems.

#4 Developing and Implementing anInformation Architecture

Information Architecture200! ~1980 1983 1986 1990 1994

A corporate/global information architecture isused to identify the major information cate-gories used within an enterprise and their rela’-tionships to business processes. It is essentialfor guiding applications development and facili-tating the integration and sharing of data. Firstintroduced in the 1986 study, this issueremains highly ranked. Information architec-ture is related to the other infrastructure issuesas well as software development (#6) and dataresource (#7). An infrastructure cannot responsive if data are scattered throughout thenetwork without a plan. Similarly, softwarecannot integrate across functions nor distributeacross networks without a clear plan for doingso. An information architecture provides a wayto coordinate these activities.

Using technology to support organizationalinformation processing depends upon accessto appropriate internal and external communi-cation networks. Network access is complicat-ed by rapid advances in underlying technologyand ongoing structural changes in the businessenvironment. These forces result in a lack of defacto standards and weakening vendor support.Although not written into the issue rationale onthe survey, business use of the Internet sur-faced dudng interviews as an additional factordriving the importance of this issue. This issuehas a history dating back to the first SiM surveyin 1980. It has long been critical for managinginformation systems. Communication networksare closely related to the other infrastructureissues as well as to software development (#6)through its impact on network-capable softwaredesign. One of the IS executives offered thesecomments about the lack of network standardsand vendor support:

IBM in the past and Microsoft to a certainextent on the PC today are de facto industrystandards. So everybody makes componentswork in accordance with that industry stan-dard. Well, that is all well and good when itcomes to the PC world, but when you are inthe network world, that doesn’t apply any-more. The mainframes and PCs are justpieces on the network. And the big vendorsare not as nearly as effective a tool in com-bating the problems that come about becauseof all the interface requirements that exist.

#6 Improving the Effectiveness of SoftwareDevelopment ’

#5 Planning and Managing CommunicationNetworks

Communication Networks

1980 1983 1986 1990 1994

Software Development

2O

105

01980 1983 1986 1990 1994

The continuous stream of new technologyplatforms and strong demand for new soft-

MIS Quarferly/June 1996 231


ware keeps application developers on a steeplearning curve. Application developmentbacklogs often remain at high levels. Evenwith CASE tools, development methods cantake too long. Centralized implementationplatforms may not meet business require-ments, yet networked approaches such asclient server have not fully matured. Despitethese problems, businesses must respond totheir markets, and this often means develop-ing new software and integrating diverse sys-tems. As a core issue for managing IS, soft-ware development has varied in importancesince the first study in 1980, always stayingnear the top. This issue is closely related todistributed systems (#3), information architec-ture (#4), communication networks (#5), human resources (#8). One of the participat-ing executives offered this thought about thedifficulties of developing software in a net-work environment:

For many individuals who are in companiesthat are not at our stage, they are more in anexecution mode and they are faced with arevolution, maybe that’s too strong a word, anevolution to client server and a whole newnetwork topology. So as they try to respond towhat they know are clearly defined objectives,they are running into all the problems ofputting in place the platforms, architecting thenetwork, trying to develop the internal skills tobe able to manage the projects.

#7 Making Effective Use of the DataResource

Data Resource

20

1080

1980 1983 1986 1990 1994

The organization’s data resource is :growing insize, complexity, and value. Recent researchon "data mining" (e.g., Matheus, 1993) hasemphasized the notion that organizational data

are still largely unrecognized, inaccessible,and underutilized. IS must develop a climatewithin its department and throughout the orga-nization that values data as a corporate asset.This issue has been in the framework since1980 and continues to hold an important posi-tion. It is closely related to information archi-tecture (#4). While information architecturerepresents the harder (more quantitative)aspects of strategic data modeling and enter-prise database design, this issue representsthe softer (more qualitative) aspects of helpingthe organization develop a discipline for man-aging data.

#8 Recruiting and Developing IS HumanResources

IS Human Resources

20

1980 1983 1986 1990 1994

Current and future shortages of qualified ISpersonnel threaten many organizations’ abilityto make effective use of information technolo-gy. Continuing emphasis needs to be put ondeveloping business skills such as teamworkand leadership. Yet IS personnel must alsostay current with emerging technologies suchas distributed systems, communication net-works, object-based development, and multi-media interfaces. The need to stay on top ofrapid changes in both business and technolo-gy conspire to keep human resources rankedamong the top issues as it has been since thefirst study in 1980. One executive offered thiscomment:

Organizations have people in them who aremired in the technology of the 80s.and early90s instead of what they now are faced withimplementing. So it has become a suddenconcern about how do I get the right horses tomake this application successful.



#9 Aligning the IS Organization Within theEnterprise

IS Organization Alignment

t810

1980 1983 1986 1990 1994

An IS organization’s effectiveness in support-ing enterprise needs is dependent on its orga-nizational location within the enterprise.Appropriate alignment changes over time andrequires a combination of centralized anddecentralized structures. Too often the ISorganization is not located and structuredappropriately, causing this issue to remainimportant among IS executives. Even after thestructural problems are solved with appropriatereporting, cultural and social issues mayremain. One of the original issues introducedin 1980, it is closely related to strategic plan-ning (#10) and has consistently remainedimportant over the past 15 years. For 1994-95,this issue tied for the highest standard devia-tion of any top issue (s.d. = 2.02), indicatingsome disagreement over its relative impor-tance. The following quote captures the con-sensus view:

In 1988 we spent a lot of time trying to alignthe IS organization with the rest of the busi-ness. Once our strategic IS plan was accept-ed by the organization, we turned our effortsfrom planning to implementation. In addition,we are moving away from a centrally con-trolled IS organization to one that’s more dis-tributed. This again maps to the changesoccurring in business; moving away fromheadquarters control to more autonomousbusiness units.

#10 Improving IS Strategic Planning

The importance of aligning long-range IS planswith strategic business plans has always beenhigh. Rapidly changing business environ-

Strategic Planning

1980 1983 1986 1990 1994

ments, increased involvement of end users,and accelerated technology change make thisdifficult. Shorter planning cycles require agreat deal of flexibility in any plan. This issue isclosely related to organization alignment (#9)and was ranked #1 for many years (1980,1983, and 1986). Interviews suggest that itsdrop in rank may be due more to the currentfocus on implementation and execution ratherthan to having "solved" the problems relatingto this issue. Its relatively high standard devia-tion (s.d. = 2.02) indicates some disagreementcompared to the other top issues. The follow-ing quote sums up the majority view:

Our challenge in the 1980s was trying to helpthe overall organization see where IT fit in thebig picture. We had to elevate the priority ofIT. Today, I would say that we’ve been quitesuccessful in doing this, as most companiescould not function without IT. For example, Iwork for the chairman of the Board. My job isto provide the infrastructure so that the orga-nization can run.

Other issues

In addition to the 10 issues above, there areother major changes in the key issue frame-work. Collaborative support (#11A) is intro-duced into the framework as an important newapplication area. Despite a long history ofresearch in academe (e.g., Dennis andGallupe, 1993), this issue appears for the firsttime in the framework. The high ranking mayreflect the rising popularity of commercial"groupware" products such as Lotus Notes.After declining steadily over the previous fourstudies, IS effectiveness measurement (#11B)increased in importance by five ranks. Thismay be due to the long-standing need for ISexecutives to justify new investment and to be



accountable for their resources. The recentescalation of academic research on the "pro-ductivity paradox" appears to be timely (e.g.,Brynjolfsson, 1993). The third straight declinein the rank of competitive advantage (#17,down from #8 in 1990) reinforces the beliefthat achieving competitive advantage is moreof an ongoing process that is achieved byfocusing on a wide range of issues as opposedto focusing on a single application. Other note-worthy results include the introduction of out-sourcing (#20) as a new issue and a largedecline in the ranking of organizational learn-ing (#14, down from #5). Appendices C and provide additional data including results byround and comparisons with 1990 data.

Bonferroni analyses are used to determinewhether the mean ratings of the top issues aresignificantly different from one another. In gen-eral, the tests confirm that the top issues as agroup are significantly more important than thebottom issues. For example, they indicate thatresponsive infrastructure (#1)stands alone being significantly more important to SIM exec-utives than all of the other issues #2 through#20 (p < 0.05). They also indicate that businessprocess redesign (#2) and distributed systems(#3) are significantly more important thanissues #11 through #20 (p < 0.05). For anygiven issue, the Bonferreni tests show whichother issues are significantly different (more orless important) according to the mean impor-tance ratings from the final round of the survey.Appendix E provides details of the analysis.

Observations andConclusionsIt is important to note that this study is notintended to capture the entire range of per-spectives on important issues in informationsystems. The views expressed here are heavi-ly influenced by the research sample, which,based on SIM’s mission, is corporate IS centricin nature. Thus, the study does not necessarilyrepresent emerging roles for IS in other busi-ness functions such as marketing, finance, andoperations, where using information technolo-

gy to expand markets, to open channels, or toenrich products and services may be of impor-tance. Similarly, the study does not representthe small business or entrepreneurial views ofinformation systems.

Among the corporate IS executives represent-ed by SIM, however, it is clear that the risingimportance of technology infrastructure issuesnoted in the 1990 study (Niederman, et al.,1991) continues as a strong trend. The infra-structure issues (e.g., responsive infrastruc-ture, distributed systems, information amhitec-ture, and communication networks) havegained in importance in each of the past twostudies. It was apparent from our interviewsthat building a technology infrastructure torespond to rapid changes in the competitiveenvironment is a major theme for many ISexecutives as they enter the late 1990s. Inranking technology infrastructure so highly,these executives are trading off the importanceof business relationship issues. Many of thebusiness relationship issues (e.g., IS organiza-tional alignment, strategic planning, IS role andcontribution, and competitive advantage) havedeclined in importance over the past two stud-ies. This does not imply that these issues arenot important, but only that the executives par-ticipating in the study are focused on "imple-mentation and delivery" more than.on =plan-ning and alignment."

Turbulent periods of change such as the late1990s demand both fast response and carefulpositioning for the future. For the first time inits 15-year history, the key issue frameworkhas taken on a technical flavor. Based on ourfollow-up interviews, this does not mean thatIS managers are reverting back to their daysas technicians in the 1960s and 1970s.Instead, business requirements for speed, flex-ibility, and responsiveness are driving theimportance of the top issues. The focus ontechnology infrastructure in this study hasimportant implications for organization struc-ture, human resource development, invest-ment justification, application integration, andthe future of electronic commeme. As always,balance in managing the many dimensions ofthe key-issue framework will prove to be thebest course of action.



Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the SIM, the MISRCat the University of Minnesota, and theUniversity of Colorado for their support of theresearch.

References

Ball, L. and Harris, R. "SMIS Members: AMembership Analysis," MIS Quarterly (6:1),March 1982, pp. 19-38.

Brancheau, J.C. and Wetherbe, J.C. "KeyIssues in Information SystemsManagement," MIS Quarterly (11:1), March1987, pp. 23-45.

Brynjolfsson,E. "The Productivity Paradox ofInformationTechnology," Communications ofthe ACM (35), December 1993, p. 66-77.

Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H., andGustafson, D.H. Group Techniques forProgram Planning: A Guide to NominalGroup and Delphi Processes, Scott-Foresman, Glenview, IL, 1975.

Dennis, A.R. and Gallupe, R.B. "A History ofGroup Support Systems Empirical Research:Lessons Learned and Future Directions," inL.M. Jessup and J.S. Valacich (eds.), GroupSupport Systems: New Perspectives,Macmillan Publishing Company, New York,1993, pp. 59-77.

Dickson, G.W., Leitheiser, R.L., Wetherbe, J.C.,and Nechis, M. "Key Information SystemsIssues for the 1980’s," MIS Quarterly (8:3),September 1984, pp. 135-159.

Hammer, M. "Reengineering Work: Don’tAutomate, Obliterate," Harvard BusinessReview, July-August 1990, pp. 104-112.

Matheus, C.J., Chan, P.K., and Piatetsky-Shapiro, G. "Systems for KnowledgeDiscovery in Databases," IEEE Transactionson Knowledge and Data Engineering (5:6),December 1993.

Niederman, F., Brancheau, J.C., and Wetherbe,J.C. "Information Systems ManagementIssues in the 1990s," MIS Quarterly (15:4),December 1991, pp. 474-499.

Watson, R.T., Kelly, G.G., Galliers, R.D., andBrancheau, J.C. "Key Issues in InformationSystems Management: An International

Perspective," under revision for Journal ofManagement Information Systems, 1996.

About the Authors

James C. Brancheau is associate professor ofinformation systems at the University ofColorado, Boulder. He holds a Ph.D. in MIS fromthe University of Minnesota and has 20 years ofexperience in the information systems field. Dr.Brancheau has held a wide range of technical,managerial,and consultative positions and haspublished in leading journals such as/nformationSystems Research, MI$ Quarter~y, and ACMComputing Surveys. He conducts reseamh onthe management of information systems and theimplementation of new information technologies.He is currently on sabbatical leave from the uni-versity working with industry partners on severalprojects aimed at demonstrating the potential forusing networked hypermedia technology toadvance the state of business education andreseamh.

Brian D. Janz is an assistant professor of MISat the Fogelman College of Business andEconomics at The University of Memphis wherehe teaches in the undergraduate, MBA, andExecutive MBA programs. In addition, he is aproject manager and team member of theFedEx Center for Cycle Time Research at theUniversity of Memphis. Prior to receiving hisPh.D. in management information systems fromthe Carlson School of Management at theUniversity of Minnesota in 1995, Dr. Janz spent12 years in the information systems field workingfor Fortune 100 companies. Dr. Janz’s researchinterests focus on how information technologieseffect organizational strategy, design, andknowledge worker behavior. Specifically, he isinterested in the effects that self-direction, coop-eration, and organizational learning have onteams of IS systems development professionals,development cycle time, and systems quality.

James C. Wetherbe is professor and director ofthe Management Information Systems ResearchCenter at the Carlson School of Management,University of Minnesota and FedEx professorand director of the Center for Cycle TimeResearch at the Fogelman College of Business,

MIS Quarter/y/June 1996 235


University of Memphis. Dr. Wetherbe is theauthor of 17 highly regarded books and is exec-utive editor of the MIS Quarterl7 and editor ofCycle Time Research, Quoted often in leading

business and information systems journals,Dr. Wetherbe has also authored over 200 arti-cles, writes regular columns, and serves as aconsulting editor for publishing companies.

Appendix A

Sample Survey Instrument

Key Information Systems Management Issues - Round 3 Survey

The following issues have been listed in descending order from most important to least importantbased on the average rating received by second round respondents.

For your convenience, your personal ratings from the second-round survey are listed next to eachissue. Given the averaged ratings of you and your peers in other organizations, please re-rate theseissues by writing your new rating in the space provided. As before, rate each issue on a scale from 1 to10, where 10 indicates your most important issue(s) and 1 indicates your least important issue(s).

You will notice that many of the average ratings of the issues are relatively close together. Please try todistribute your rating scores across as much of the rating scale as you feel is appropriate. Thank youfor your time.

Least Important Moderately Important Most Important1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(Please fill in your rating in the spaces provided)

Your YourNew Avg. LastRating Rating Rating

8.65 Building a Responsive IT Infrastructure

Building a technology infrastructure that will support existing applications while remaining responsive tochange is a key to long-term enterprise productivity. This task is frustrated by the continuing rapidchanges in infrastructure technology and the increasing breadth and depth of applications which needto be supported.

7.94 Facilitating and Managing Business Process Redesign

To remain competitive, many organizations are radically changing the way they do business. IT playsan increasingly important role in this change process by enabling the innovative redesign of core busi-

236 MIS Quarterly/June 1996


ness processes. Much has been learned about IT implementation in general which can help facilitateand manage BPR projects¯

7.67 Developing and Managing Distributed Systems*

Client-server applications promise to offer a cost-effective alternative to centralized applications.Unfortunately, they present many challenges including: maintaining consistent software versions; main-taining consistent data; controlling joint development projects with users; and administering large-scaledistributed applications. (*Edited to recognize client-server technology as a popular implementation ofdistributed systems today.)

7.62 Developing & Implementing an Information Architecture

A corporate/global information architecture is needed to identify the major information categories usedwithin an enterprise and their relationships to business processes¯ It is essential for guiding applica-tions development and facilitating the integration and sharing of data.

7.57 Pla, nning and Managing Communication Networks

Communication is the lifeblood of the organization¯ Using IS for competitiveadvantage depends heavi-ly on access to appropriate internal and external communication networks. This task is complicated byrapid advances in underlying technology and major structural changes in the communications industry.

7¯43 Improving the Effectiveness of Software Development

The application development backlog remains at unacceptably high levels. Traditional developmentmethods and platforms are no longer satisfactory. New methods and platforms have not yet proventhemselves. Sophisticated users are getting impatient. Improved effectiveness will be essential fornext-generation applications.

7.32 Making Effective Use of the Data Resource

The organization’s data resource is growing in size, complexity, and value. Despite this, it remainslargely unrecognized, inaccessible, and underutilized. IS must develop a climate within its departmentand throughout the organization which values the data resource as a corporate asset.

7.26 Aligning the IS Organization within the Enterprise

The IS organization’s effectiveness in supporting the enterprise’s needs is dependent on its organiza-tional location within the enterprise¯ Appropriate alignment may require a combination of centralizedand decentralized structures. Too often IS is not located and structured appropriately.

7.13 Recruiting and Developing IS Human Resources*

Current and future shortages of qualified IS personnel threaten the organization’s ability to make effec-tive use of information technology¯ More emphasis needs to be put on developing business skills suchas teamwork and leadership and staying current with new technology such as object-oriented and mul-timedia applications. (*Edited to reflect specific business skills and technologies¯)

6.99 Managing the Existing Portfolio of Legacy Applications

Most organizations have a large investment in their existing applications portfolio. Some "legacy" appli-cations may need to be retired quickly. Others may need to be leveraged for many years before they

MIS Quarterly/June 1996 237


are replaced. Integrating new technologies and migrating to new operating environments can be diffi-cult. Too little is known about managing these problems.

6.96 Improving IS Strategic Planning

It has always been important to align long-range IS plans with strategic business plans. Rapidly chang-ing business environments, increased involvement of end users, and accelerated technological changeunderscore the need to continue improving strategic planning skills.

6.73 Measuring IS Effectiveness and Productivity

Understanding how IT use impacts the bottom-line is crucial for justifying new investment. In addition,measuring the IS organization’s performance is necessary for effective management. Measurement isbecoming more important as companies attempt to reduce operating expenses to meet the competition.

6.61 Increasing Understanding of IS Role and Contribution

IS is often viewed as an operational activity with little recognition for its strategic contribution to theorganization. This can result in executive management viewing IS strictly as an overhead expense.Funding can be cut resulting in missed opportunities for using IT to solve important business problems.

6.53 Implementing and Managing Collaborative Support Systems

New software is needed to support the reengineered, flat, team-based organizat!on of the future.Appropriate IT support can help teams share information and lead to faster decision making andimproved team effectiveness. Such support will become even more important in a distributed ubiqui-tous computing environment. ,

6.48 Facilitating Organizational Learning

Organizations that prosper will need to make appropriate use of information technologies across theirentire enterprise. Business practices and organizational structures will need to be modified in manycases. IS also must demonstrate its own ability to learn and use new technology.

6.43 Using Information Systems for Competitive Advantage

In many businesses, long-term survival is dependent on using information systems to gain competitiveadvantage. Competitive advantage results from recognition of opportunities through creativity and inno-vation, followed by rapid implementation. These are historical weaknesses of the IS organization.

6.36 Planning and Integrating MultiVendor Open Systems Technologies*

Many companies are moving away from single-vendor proprietary operating environments to vendor-neutral environments based on industry and de facto standards. Due to large investments in legacysystems, carefully planned migration paths are critical. This task is complicated by a still-maturing tech-nology and unstable standards. (*Edited to reflect the open systems nature of multivendor environ-ments.)

6.34 Facilitating and Managing End-User Computing

The proliferation of end-user computing through personal computers offers the promise of improved pro-ductivity but also the dangers of inadequate management control. Information systems managementmust balance control against the need for slack. Clarification of IS and end-user roles is a necessity.

5.94 Outsourcing Selected Information Services

238 MIS Quarterly/June 1996

SINEMISRC Key Issues Study

The internal information systems organization no longer has a monopoly. Outside contractors may beable to provide some services more effectively. What services should be outsourced? How should Con-tractor relationships be managed? Fair and objective evaluation techniques are needed which assessboth costs and benefits as well as potential risks from loss of control.

5.93 Developing and Managing Electronic Data Interchange

Electronic communication with customers and suppliers may offer competitive advantage to a company orit may be a requirement for staying in business. IS executives must develop (or adapt to) standard transac-tion formats, keep current on technology developments, and learn to manage interorganizational projects.

Appendix BOrganizations Participating in the Research

A. T. Kearney Inc.ActmediaAetna Life & CasualtyAgency Rent-a-CarAir Products & ChemicalsAmerican Management SystemsAmeriDataAmoco CorporationARCO Chemical CompanyArmstrong World IndustriesBank of AmericaBose CorporationCanada Mortgage & Housing Corp.Carrier CorporationCGI SystemsChurch of Latter-day SaintsCommunity Mutual Insurance Co.Computer Strategies Inc.Conoco Inc.Coming IncorporatedDept. of Labor and IndustriesDigital Equipment CorporationDonaldson CompanyDr. Pepper/Seven Up CompaniesEastman ChemicalEastman Kodak CompanyElf Atochem North AmericaG. D. Searle & CompanyGas Research InstituteGeneral MillsGTE Service CorporationIndependence Blue CrossInformation Technology ConsultantsISP Management Company Inc.ITT HartfordJ. M. Huber CorporationJames Martin & Company.Johnson & JohnsonKemper National Insurance Co.KOCH IndustriesKraft General FoodsLeviton Manufacturing Company

Lomas Information SystemsMcCaw Cellular CommunicationsMedtronicMichigan State UniversityMilliken & CompanyMIT Sloan SchoolMTA New York City TransitN.V. Koninklijke KNP BTNalco ChemicalNew York TimesOregon State UniversityOuellette & Associates ConsultingPacific BellPepsiCoPHH CorporationPositive Support ReviewPPG IndustriesPremark InternationalProcter & GambleRice UniversityRockwell International Corporation,Ryder Systems, Inc.SC Johnson WaxSimpson Timber CompanySouthern New England TelephoneStephen P. Teale Data CenterSummit Information SystemsSundstrand AerospaceTe~ Aviv UniversityTexas Tech UniversityThe Coca-Cola CompanyThe Prudential Insurance CompanyTowers PerrinUCLAUnitech Systems, Inc.University of MiamiUniversity of TorontoUS Committee for UNICEFUSAIRWashington UniversityWestinghouse Electric Corporation


SIMAVIISRC Key Issues Study

Appendix C

Results by Delphi Round

Issue

Round One Round Two Round ThreeAvg. Std. Avg. Std. Avg. Std.

Rank Score Dev. Rank Score Dev. Rank Score Dev.

Responsive IT Infrastructure 1Business Process Redesign ’Distributed Systems 5Information Architecture 6Communication Networks 3Software Development 2Data Resource 7IS Human Resources 9IS Organization Alignment 4IS Strategic Planning 8Collaborative SupportIS Effectiveness Measurement12IS Role & Contribution 10Organizational Leaming 11Legacy Applications 19End-User Computing 14Competitive Advantage 13MultiVendor Systems 16Electronic Data Interchange 15OutsourcingDecision & Executive Support 17Object-Oriented TechnologiesMultimedia ApplicationsSecurity & Control 18Disaster Recovery 20CASE Technology 21

8.68 1.22 1 8.70 1.31 1 " 9,10 0.96new 2 8.00 1.41 2 7.79 1.197.46 2,10 3 7.68 1.49 3 7.73 1.387.45 1.84 4 7.62 1.58 4 7.62 1.497.64 1.70 5 7.57 1.56 5 7.58 1.407.66 1.63 6 7.42 1.67 6 7.5 1.867.36 1.93 ̄ 7 7.36 1.90 7 7.46 1.627.25 1.86 9 7.17 2.00 8 7.31 1.707,56 2.36 8 7.28 2.22 9 7.11 2.027.35 1.89 10 7.02 1.96 10 6.82 2.02new 14 6,52 2.07 11A 6.59 1.916.92 2.00 12 6.79 1.73 11B 6.59 2.017.15 2.18 13 6,66 2.24 13 6.53 2.027.01 1.90 15 6,49 1.75 14 6.48 1.875.77 2.04 11 6.99 1.97 15 6.31 2.036.69 2.03 17 6.34 1.93 16 6.23 1.886.76 2.15 16 6.38 2.04 17 6.18 2.126.27 1.98 18 6.34 1.67 18 6.04 1.866.50 1.99 19 5.95 1.98 19 5.91 2.00new 20 5.94 2.16 20 5.40 2.036.20 2.14 21 5.78 1.96 dropnew 22 5.72 2.09 dropnew 23 4.56 1.97 drop5.78 1.9 drop drop5.21 2.14 drop drop4.49 1.81 drop drop



Appendix D

1990 vs. 1994 Comparison of Key. Issues

1994 1990 4-Year Issue ClassificationKey Issue Rank Rank Change M/T P/C I/E Group

Responsive IT InfrastructureBusiness Process RedesignDistributed SystemsInformation ArchitectureCommunication NetworksSoftware DevelopmentData ResourceIS Human ResourcesIS Organization AlignmentIS Strategic PlanningCollaborative SystemsIS Effectiveness MeasurementIS Role & ContributionOrganizational LearningLegacy ApplicationsEnd-User ComputingCompetitive .~,dvantageMultiVendor Open SystemsElectronic Data InterchangeOutsourcingCASE TechnologyDecision & Executive SupportSecurity & ControlDisaster Recovery

1 6 +52 -- new3 12 +94 1 -35 10 +56 9 +37 2 -58 4 -49 7 -2

10 3 -711’ -- new11 16 +513 11 -214 5 -915 15 016 18 +217 8 -918 12 -719 12 -720 -- new

T C I TIM C E BRT C E TIT P I TIT C E TIT C I IEM C E BRM C I IEM C E BRM P E BRT C E TAM C I IEM P E BRM C E BRT C I IEM C E TAM P E BRT C I TIT C E TIM C E IET ,C I TAM C E TAT C I IET C I IE

12171920

Notes: M/T indicates management (M) or technology (T); P/C indicates planning (P) or control (C); indicates internal (I) to IS or external (E).Group indicates technology infrastructure (TI), business relationship (BR), internal effectiveness (IE),or technology application (TA).


SlMAVIISRC Key Issues Study

Appendix E

Bonferroni Analysis for Statistically Significant Differences

Modified LSD (Bonferroni) test with significance level .05:

MeanRating Issue#5.4000 Iss205.9074 Issl 96.0370 Issl 86.1813 Iss176.2313 Iss166.3125 Iss156.4815 Iss14 *6.5313 Iss13 *6.5926 IssllB *6.5938 Iss11A *6.8250 Issl0 *7.1111 Iss09 * * *7.3086 Iss08 .....7.4563 Iss07 * . .....7.5000 Iss06 ......7.5813 Iss05 ........

7.6250 Iss04 ........7.7313 Iss03 ..........7.7875 Iss02 * * * ’ .......

9.0988 Iss01 ...................

Issue#I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Is s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s ss s s S s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 1 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B A

Notes:The difference between two means is significant ifMEAN(J)-MEAN(I) >= 1.2791 * RANGE * SQRT(1/N(I) + 1/N(J)) where RANGE The asterisk ’*’ denotes that the two issues on the axes are significantly different at p=.05.


key issues in information systems management: 1994-1995 ...€¦ · framework was published in the...

Documents