Download - LCGA Alignment Report 2015
Assessing IT/Business Alignment
within
Local City Government Agencies
(LCGAs) — Report 2015
Assessing IT/Business Alignment within LCGAs–Report 2015
2
1. Executive Summary When city executive management, department heads, and leaders of local city government
agencies (LCGAs) were asked how well their IT and business strategies were aligned, they
provided an illuminating snapshot and baseline of their experience. One might think that their
responses would be inconsistent, but that was not the case. This study revealed a significant
agreement in perspectives to the overall maturity alignment level of LCGAs and the maturity
alignment levels in communication, competency/value, governance, partnership, technology
scope, and skills.
An online link to the survey was sent to approximately 800 participants from 81 different
randomly selected cities/towns in the Southwestern part of the United States. There were 80
participants who attempted the survey with 48 participants completing the survey. Only
completed survey responses were chosen for this study.
This study shows how well IT and business strategies are aligned in LCGAs based on the five
maturity alignment levels below:
1.1 Findings: Misalignment can cause problems in IT/business strategic planning, budgeting, investment
decisions, prioritization, and support (Chen, 2010). The findings are as follows:
LCGAs Maturity Alignment Level
Cities/Towns Full-Time Employees (FTEs) Participants Maturity Alignment Level
Small < 400 20 2.59
Medium 400 < 1,000 20 2.34
Large > 1,000 8 2.61
Overall -- 48 2.51
The Lows: Small cities had their lowest maturity alignment level in skills (2.33) while
both medium (2.05) and large (2.25) cities had their lowest maturity alignment levels in
competency/value
The Highs: Small cities are best at communications (2.91), medium cities are best at both
communication & partnership (2.58), and large cities are best at communication (3.21)
1.2 Recommendations/Conclusion: Misalignment hurts LCGAs in many ways. We must do everything in our power to correct
misalignment. It is recommended that LCGAs of all sizes work towards a maturity alignment of
Level 3. Each LCGA must improve alignment by using this study as a benchmark, they must
take the time to understand their strengths and weaknesses, and they must set target improvement
goals for the future.
Level 1:
Initial/Ad hocBeginning
Level 2:
CommittedRepeatable
Level 3:
EstablishedFormalized
Level 4:
ImprovedQuantifiable
Level 5:
OptimizedContinuous
Improvement
Assessing IT/Business Alignment within LCGAs–Report 2015
3
Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Findings: ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Recommendations/Conclusion: ............................................................................................ 2
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 The Problem Statement ......................................................................................................... 4
2.2 The Purpose Statement ......................................................................................................... 4
2.3 The Survey Approach ........................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Keyword Terms .................................................................................................................... 5
3. LCGAs Maturity Alignment Level ............................................................................................. 6
3.1 Overall SAMM Level ........................................................................................................... 6
3.2 LCGAs SAMM FTEsize Level ............................................................................................ 6
3.3 LCGAs SAMM Criteria Level .............................................................................................. 7
3.4 The Lows .............................................................................................................................. 8
3.5 The Highs .............................................................................................................................. 8
4. Recommendations and Conclusion ........................................................................................... 10
4.1 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 10
4.2 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 11
Appendix A: Survey Respondents Profiles ................................................................................... 12
Appendix B: Maturity Alignment Steps ....................................................................................... 13
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 14
References ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Assessing IT/Business Alignment within LCGAs–Report 2015
4
2. Introduction There is a new normal in local city government agencies (LCGAs) that consist of less support
from federal and state agencies while experiencing an increase in demand for local services from
citizens (Abels, 2014). Maximizing on limited resources and eliminating waste is a must if
LCGAs are going to have a balanced budget and meet the rising demands of their citizens. One
way to maximize on limited resources and eliminate waste is through proper IT/business
strategic alignment. Misalignment will lead to catastrophic failures, failed/redundant projects,
disconnect of business needs, dissatisfaction, and higher payouts (Chen, 2010).
Every top executive, department head, and/or leader must recognize misalignment, identify the
level of misalignment, and work towards maturing alignment to maximize on limited time,
resources, and cost.
Have you ever seen this example or a similar case in your organization before? Department A
needs a way to track all their request and incidences. They decide that they need a $50k software
application. They get approval for it and they have it all to themselves. Department B has
decided to use Excel to track all incoming request and a few incidences. Department C depends
on Employee A and B to track all incoming request and incidences. Everyone lives happily-ever-
after, right? Wrong! Redundant projects are an example of misalignment. We need to start
thinking about alignment as an organization and not as individual pieces.
2.1 The Problem Statement The problem is that there is limited information regarding LCGAs IT/business maturity
alignment level compared with its full-time employment size (FTEsize).
2.2 The Purpose Statement The purpose of this quantitative survey study was to assess LCGAs IT/business strategic
alignment within the Southwestern part of the United States to determine the level of maturity
alignment.
2.3 The Survey Approach A quantitative web-based survey method was used to assess LCGAs in the Southwestern part of
the United States. SurveyMonkey was the conduit to distribute the survey and act as an
instrument to collect data. Informed consent acknowledgment information was provided at the
beginning of each survey. The survey was anonymous and did not identify or obtain the
organization or participant information. At the end of the survey, participants were given one
final chance to decide if they wanted to have their responses added to this study before
submission.
An online link to the survey was sent to approximately 800 participants from 81 different
randomly selected cities/towns in the Southwestern part of the United States. The survey was
available between Aug 30th – Sep 18th, 2015. There were 80 participants who attempted the
survey with 48 participants completing the survey. Only completed survey responses were
chosen for this study. After finalizing data collection, SurveyMonkey provided an exportable
Assessing IT/Business Alignment within LCGAs–Report 2015
5
SPSS data file using Illume software with case numbers attached (no other identifiers). The data
file was then analyze using SPSS version 21 software.
The instrument used to assess LCGAs is Luftman’s strategic alignment maturity model (SAMM)
instrument. This instrument has been used for over 14 years in the private industry. This study is
the first study to use this instrument in LCGAs. Luftman’s SAMM survey consisted of 41
questions. These questions were grouped into seven sections as follows:
Demographics
Communication
Competency/value measurement
Governance
Technology scope
Skills
2.4 Keyword Terms
Communications (COMM): “The effectiveness of leveraging information for mutual
understanding and knowledge sharing” (Chen, 2010)
Competency/Value Measurement (COMP): “The management decisions and strategic
choices that an organization makes when determining the value and contribution of IT to
the firm” (Chen, 2010)
Business strategy: is the overall organizational strategy of LCGAs
FTEsize: Full-time employment size is the independent variable grouped into three
categories; small, medium, and large cities/towns
Governance (GOV): According to Palczewska, Fu, Trundle, and Yang (2013),
governance is a collection of strategies and processes that formally manages problems.
Maturity Alignment: The maturity alignment levels consist of five levels: initial,
committed, established, improved, and optimized. It identifies how well an organization
configures itself with the business needs
LCGAs: Local city government agencies consist of towns and cities ranging in size
greater than 400 and less than 1,000 full-time employees
Partnership (PART): “Pertains to how IT and the business perceive each other’s
contribution” (Chen, 2010)
Skills (SKILLS): “The organization’s cultural climate towards change and innovation”
(Chen, 2010)
Strategic Alignment Maturity Model (SAMM): An assessment instrument that included
six maturity criteria such as communication, competency, governance, partnership,
technology scope, and skills (Luftman, 2000). It links IT strategies with business
strategies
Technology Scope (SCOPE): “The management decisions and strategic choices an
organization makes when allocating resources toward its IT infrastructure” (Chen, 2010)
Assessing IT/Business Alignment within LCGAs–Report 2015
6
3. LCGAs Maturity Alignment Level This section focuses on the main findings of this study. You will be able to see a snapshot of the
overall LCGAs maturity alignment level, the SAMM FTEsize level, and the SAMM criteria
levels. Each chart depicts the most current and only data available today.
3.1 Overall SAMM Level The overall maturity alignment level for all LCGAs in 2015 was 2.51. According to Luftman,
Ben-Zvi, Dwivedi, and Rigoni (2010), the overall maturity alignment level for private enterprises
in 2010 was 2.84. Comparatively, LCGAs need to do a better job of establishing and formalizing
their processes rather than being committed to repeatable processes. Figure 1 portrays a general
comparison between LCGAs and the private enterprise.
Figure 1: LCGAs vs. Private Enterprise
3.2 LCGAs SAMM FTEsize Level This study then looked at the maturity alignment level in terms of its full-time employment size
(FTEsize). Small size LCGAs were identified as having less than 400 FTE. Medium size LCGAs
were identified as having 400 and more but less than 1,000 FTE. Large size LCGAs were
identified as having 1,000 or more FTE. Figure 2 shows the current state of each LCGAs
FTEsize. Figure 2 should make you ask the question how can our LCGA move from a
committed/repeatable level to an established/formalized level?
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
LCGAs2.51
Private Enterprise2.84
SAM
M L
EVEL
Overall SAMM Level
LCGAs Private Enterprises
Assessing IT/Business Alignment within LCGAs–Report 2015
7
Figure 2: Current Snapshot of Each LCGA Size
3.3 LCGAs SAMM Criteria Level Further analysis was done to understand the current snapshot of each LCGA. Six different areas
were assessed; communication, competency/value, governance, partnership, technology scope,
and skills. Figure 3 provides more granular trends based on the LCGAs FTEsize. Note how all
responses, except one, are within the same level. Responses were similar across each criteria.
Figure 3: FTEsize Trend-Lines
0
1
2
3
4
5
Small Cities<400 Medium Cities
400<1,000 Large Cities>1,000
2.592.34 2.61
SAM
M L
evel
Full-Time Employment Size (FTEsize)
LCGAs SAMM FTEsize Level
0
1
2
3
4
5
Comm Comp Gov Part Scope Skills
Small 2.91 2.46 2.58 2.77 2.55 2.33
Medium 2.58 2.05 2.38 2.58 2.47 2.14
Large 3.21 2.25 2.43 2.75 2.70 2.52
SAM
M L
evel
SAMM Criteria
LCGAs SAMM Criteria Level
How well does
your organization
align?
Assessing IT/Business Alignment within LCGAs–Report 2015
8
3.4 The Lows It is important to focus on the lows of maturity alignment to prioritize focus in critical areas of
improvement. The low for small LCGAs is in the area of skills. Both medium and large LCGAs
experience lows in competency/value.
Small cities will need to move from clashing across departments to an emerging value service
provider. They need to also have balance in hiring technical and business applicants within IT.
Medium and large cities will need to move from measuring functional cost efficiency to
measuring cost-effectiveness throughout the organization. They also need to be able to develop
relevant dashboards.
Note: Lows are identified in red. They must be addressed first.
Figure 4: The Lows of LCGAs
3.5 The Highs It is also important to acknowledge the highs of LCGAs. The highs for small, medium, and large
LCGAs are all in the areas of communications. Medium cities also experience highs in
partnership.
Although LCGAs experience their greatest successes primarily in communication, there is still
work to be done. They can improve by moving from a limited business/IT understanding to
precise understanding and easy evolving communication. Medium LCGAs can also work on
moving from IT emerging as an asset, process enabler, to IT is as an asset, process driver. They
can also see conflict as an opportunity to become more creative.
Note: Highs are identified in green. Improvement must be done in these areas as well.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Comm Comp Gov Part Scope Skills
Small 2.91 2.46 2.58 2.77 2.55 2.33
Medium 2.58 2.05 2.38 2.58 2.47 2.14
Large 3.21 2.25 2.43 2.75 2.70 2.52
SAM
M L
evel
SAMM Criteria
LCGAs SAMM Criteria Level
Assessing IT/Business Alignment within LCGAs–Report 2015
9
Figure 5: The Highs of LCGAs
0
1
2
3
4
5
Comm Comp Gov Part Scope Skills
Small 2.91 2.46 2.58 2.77 2.55 2.33
Medium 2.58 2.05 2.38 2.58 2.47 2.14
Large 3.21 2.25 2.43 2.75 2.70 2.52
SAM
M L
evel
SAMM Criteria
LCGA SAMM Criteria Level
Assessing IT/Business Alignment within LCGAs–Report 2015
10
4. Recommendations and Conclusion The recommendations and the conclusion of this study are based on the results gathered from the
online survey responses. Results of this study identified areas in which LCGAs can improve
alignment between information technology and their overall business strategy. Designated areas
of recommendations are in communication, competency, governance, partnership, technology
scope, and skills. Ultimately, LCGAs must work to eliminate misalignment.
4.1 Recommendations It is recommended that small, medium, and large LCGAs work towards better alignment by
moving from a committed level to an established level of maturity. To move from a maturity
level of 2 to a level of 3, LCGAs must transition as follows:
1. Communication: Each LCGA will need to move from a limited business/IT
understanding to a proper formal understanding and developing evolving
communication
2. Competency: Each LCGA will need to move from measuring functional cost
efficiency to measuring cost-effectiveness and be able to develop relevant dashboards
3. Governance: Each LCGA will need to move from being strategic at the functional
level, occasionally responsive, to having formalized processes across the organization
4. Partnership: Each LCGA will need to move from IT emerging as an asset, process
enabler, to IT is as an asset, process driver, and conflict seen as the opportunity to
become creative
5. Scope: Each LCGA will need to move from being transactional to integrated across
the organization
6. Skills: Each LCGA will need to move from clashing across departments to an
emerging value service provider and balanced in hiring technical and business
applicants within IT
Assessing IT/Business Alignment within LCGAs–Report 2015
11
4.2 Conclusion Top executives, directors, and leaders within LCGAs must take a look at this study, understand
why alignment is necessary, and compare their city/town to these benchmark results to see if
improvements are needed. Leadership must think in terms of maturity alignment and ask what
level of maturity are we at? Are we at Level 1 (Initial/Ad hoc), Level 2 (Committed/Repeatable),
Level 3 (Established/Formal), Level 4 (Managed/Quantifiable), or Level 5
(Optimized/Continuous Improvements)? Each LCGA should solidify their strengths and improve
upon their weaknesses. Misalignment causes chaos and confusion. Proper alignment saves on
precious time, money, and resources.
Please take the time to recognize misalignment, assess your LCGA, and improve areas of
deficiencies. How we perceive ourselves to be aligned is a direct reflection of how well our
organization is aligned. We must start looking at our processes and at the way we manage time,
money, and resources in terms of maturity alignment. We must ask what level are we at and what
can be done to improve? Appendix B provides all the different level steps for improvement.
There is a new normal for LCGAs. We must align our precious time, money, and resources to do
more with less. How can you improve alignment in your LCGA?
Established
Comm: Good
understanding; emerging relaxed
Comp: Some cost
effectiveness; dashboard established
Gov: Relevant process
across the organization
Part: IT seen as an asset;
process driver
Scope: Integrated across the
organization
Skills: Emerging value
service provider
Level 3Committed
Comm: Limited
business/IT understanding
Comp: Functional
cost efficiency
Gov: Tactical at
functional level; occasional responsive
Part: IT emerging as
an asset; process enabler
Scope: Transaction
Skills: Different
across functional organizations
Level 2
Level 1:
Initial/Ad hocBeginning
Level 2:
CommittedRepeatable
Level 3:
EstablishedFormalized
Level 4:
ImprovedQuantifiable
Level 5:
OptimizedContinuous
Improvement
Assessing IT/Business Alignment within LCGAs–Report 2015
12
Appendix A: Survey Respondents Profiles What position do you hold?
Answered: 48 Skipped: 0
Q1: Leader (IT Subject Matter Expert, Supervisor, Manager, or similar)
Q1: Department Director (Department Head, Director, CIO, CFO, or similar)
Q1: Top Management (Deputy City Manager, City Manager, Council Member, Mayor)
How large is the city/town in which you work in (based on full-time employees FTEs)?
Answered: 48 Skipped: 0
Q2: Small City/Town - less than 400 FTEs
Q2: Medium City/Town - 400 or more FTEs but less than 1,000 FTEs
Q2: Large City/Town - greater than 1,000 FTEs
Assessing IT/Business Alignment within LCGAs–Report 2015
13
Appendix B: Maturity Alignment Steps Steps to improve alignment (Luftman, 2000, pg.11)
Optimized
Comm: Informal, pervasive
Comp: Extended
to external partners
Gov: Integrated
across the org & partners
Part: IT/Business
co-adaptive
Scope: Evolve
with partners
Skills: Education/career/re
wards across the organization
Level 5
Improved
Comm: Bonding
unified
Comp: Cost
effective; dashboard managed
Gov: Managed
across the organization
Part: IT
enables/drives business strategy
Scope: Integrated
with partners
Skills: Shared
risk & awards
Level 4
Established
Comm: Good
understanding; emerging relaxed
Comp: Some cost
effectiveness; dashboard established
Gov: Relevant
process across the organization
Part: IT seen as an
asset; process driver
Scope: Integrated
across the organization
Skills: Emerging
value service provider
Level 3
Committed
Comm: Limited
business/IT understanding
Comp: Functional cost efficiency
Gov: Tactical at
functional level; occasional responsive
Part: IT emerging
as an asset; process enabler
Scope: Transaction
Skills: Different
across functional organizations
Level 2
Initial/Ad hoc
Comm: Lack
understanding
Comp: Some
tech measurements
Gov: No
repeatable processes, cost center, reactive
Part: Conflict
Scope: Traditional
Skills: IT taskes
risk, little reward, technical training
Level 1
Assessing IT/Business Alignment within LCGAs–Report 2015
14
List of Figures Figure 1: LCGAs vs. Private Enterprise ......................................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Current Snapshot of Each LCGA Size ............................................................................ 7
Figure 3: FTEsize Trend-Lines ....................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: The Lows of LCGAs ....................................................................................................... 8
Figure 5: The Highs of LCGAs ...................................................................................................... 9
Assessing IT/Business Alignment within LCGAs–Report 2015
15
References Abels, M. (2014). Strategic alignment for the new normal collaboration, sustainability, and
deliberation in local government across boundaries. State and Local Government Review,
46(3), 11-218. doi:10.1177/0160323X14551179
Chen, L. (2010). Business–IT alignment maturity of companies in China. Information &
management, 47(1), 9-16. doi:10.1016/j.im.2009.09.003
D'Anjou, L. M. (2016). Assessing information technology and business alignment in local city
government agencies (Order No. 3746556). Available from Dissertations & Theses @
Walden University. (1756771029). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1756771029?accountid=14872
Luftman, J. (2000). Addressing business-IT alignment maturity. Communications of AIS, 4(14),
1-50. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/
Luftman, J., Ben-Zvi, T., Dwivedi, R., & Rigoni, E. (2010). IT governance: an alignment
maturity perspective. International Journal on IT/Business Alignment and Governance,
1(2), 13-25. doi:10.4018/jitbag.2010040102
Magnusson, J., & Bygstad, B. (2013). Why I act differently: Studying patterns of legitimation
among CIOs through motive talk. Information Technology & People, 26(3), 265-282.
doi:10.1108/ITP-10-2012-0117
Palczewska, A., Fu, X., Trundle, P., Yang, L., Neagu, D., Ridley, M., & Travis, K. (2013).
Towards model governance in predictive toxicology. International Journal of Information
Management. 33(3), 567-582. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.02.005
Assessing IT/Business Alignment within LCGAs–Report 2015
16
Dr. D’Anjou, Leslie
LCGAs Alignment
© 2016 Dr. Leslie D’Anjou. All rights reserved.