key issues in information systems management: a shift toward
TRANSCRIPT
1
December, 1995
Key Issues in Information Systems Management:
A Shift Toward Technology Infrastructure
James C. BrancheauAssociate Professor, Information Systems
University of Colorado at Boulder
Brian D. JanzAssistant Professor, Information Systems
University of Memphis
James C. WetherbeProfessor, Management Information Systems,
Director, Fedex Cycle Time Research Center, University of Memphisand Director, MIS Research Center, University of Minnesota
under review by MIS Quarterly
University of ColoradoGraduate School of Business
Campus Box 419Boulder, Colorado 80309
(303) [email protected]
© 1996 by Brancheau, Janz, and WetherbePlease do not cite or circulate without permission.
Address all comments to James C. Brancheau at the address above.
2
Key Issues in Information Systems Management:
A Shift Toward Technology Infrastructure
Abstract
Over the past 15 years, the Society for Information Management (SIM) has periodically
surveyed its members to determine the most critical issues in IS management. Again in 1994-
95, SIM institutional and board members were asked to consider what they felt were the most
critical issues facing IS executives over the next three to five years. Signaling an evolutionary
shift in IS management, the top issues are focused on technology infrastructure. Surprisingly,
business relationship issues have declined in importance compared to technology
infrastructure issues. Internal effectiveness issues, however, have remained relatively stable
over time. When viewed in the context of previous SIM surveys, our results show how the
information systems discipline has evolved over the past two decades. We discuss the major
trends in business, technology, and applications, as they relate to the key issue framework and
point to further evolutionary changes in the IS function. For IS executives and general
managers, the key issue framework suggests some general directions for emphasis and
provides a coarse measure for benchmarking their own concerns against those of their peers.
The views expressed in this study also impact educational missions in teaching and research.
Current developments imply an explosion of information availability and an unprecedented
business demand for innovative application of information. The resulting challenges for IS
executives and educators over the next decade may well dwarf those of the past 20 years.
1
Introduction
Several years into the future when we can look back on the decade from the vantage point of
the 21st century, “speed” may be the one word that stands above other possible descriptors for
the 1990s. Speed, as in the rate at which new ideas are transmitted to every corner of the
globe. Speed, as in the rapidity with which market niches are created and abandoned. Speed,
as in the ever shortening product to market cycles. Speed, as in the roll-out of new business
ventures. And speed, as in the accelerating rate of technological change.
Speed is also the one word which best describes the key business drivers influencing the
management of information systems. Speed in business demands flexibility in management
and technology to respond to rapidly changing market conditions. Speed. Flexibility.
Responsiveness. We heard these words over and over from senior information systems (IS)
executives. IS executives are typically charged with responsibility for helping their organization
make effective use of information technology.
Over the past 15 years, the Society for Information Management (SIM), in a joint effort with the
MIS Research Center (MISRC) at the University of Minnesota and others, has periodically
surveyed its members to determine the most critical issues in IS management. These surveys
are important because professional societies such as SIM, as well as IS vendors, consultants,
educators, and researchers all need to be aware of IS executives' key concerns to serve their
markets effectively. In addition, the ongoing study of a single professional group over a 15
year period provides valuable insight into the evolution of the discipline and its professional
work.
Following the methods developed in earlier studies, this article reports on the results of a three-
round Delphi survey of senior IS executives and follow-up interviews. The results highlight the
most important IS management issues over the three to five year planning horizon ending in
1999. A historical analysis of prior research is combined with the results of this and prior SIM
surveys to shed light on the changes which have transformed the practice of IS management
over the past two decades.
The survey and interview methods employed in the research are outlined in the next section.
Following this, the findings of the survey are presented. Next, the findings are interpreted in
2
terms of major shifts over time, the historical context in which they are situated, and their future
directions and implications. Finally, conclusions are drawn about managing information
systems and the evolving nature of the discipline.
Research Methods
One of the most noteworthy attributes of this study lies in the power that is obtained by
replicating the research methods and subject populations used in previous SIM key issue
studies (Ball & Harris 1982, Dickson et al. 1984, Brancheau & Wetherbe 1987, Niederman et
al. 1991). The Delphi method was retained for its value in surfacing new issues and moving
study participants toward consensus (Delbecq et al. 1975). Essentially, the Delphi method
employs a series of linked questionnaires. Successive rounds of questionnaires summarize
subjects’ responses to the preceding questionnaire and ask respondents to reevaluate their
opinions based upon the summarized results. Questionnaire rounds are continued until a
reasonable level of consensus is achieved. As in earlier studies, SIM institutional and advisory
board members served as our subject population. The timing and nature of the five surveys is
summarized in Table 1. Details about the development of issues and evolution of methods can
be found in the individual articles. A summary of the methods applied in this study follow.
Table 1. SIM Key Issue Surveys
Data Date Citation Participants Rounds
1980 Ball et al. 1982 SIM members 1
1983 Dickson et al. 1984 102 SIM institutional members 4
1986 Brancheau & Wetherbe 1987 90 SIM institutional members 3
1990 Niederman et al. 1991 175 SIM institutional members 3
1994 (present study) 108 SIM institutional members 3
Round One
The 1994-95 study began in March 1994 with a list of 21 IS management issues derived from
the 1990 study. These issues, along with a brief rationale describing each issue were listed in
random order and mailed to 217 SIM members. To reduce any bias inherent in a particular
randomized sequence, four different randomized versions of the survey were distributed.
Participants were asked to consider what they felt were the most critical issues facing IS
executives over the next three to five years (i.e., through 1997-99). They were asked to rate
3
each issue on a 10-point scale, where 10 indicated their highest priority issue(s) and 1
indicated their lowest priority issue(s). Participants were also invited to comment on the list of
issues and associated rationale as well write in issues they felt may have emerged since the
1990 study. Of the 217 mailed surveys in round one, useable responses were received from
78 respondents, yielding a response rate of 36%.
Round Two
In June 1994, all 217 SIM institutional and board members were sent feedback showing the
results of the first round survey. Those SIM members that responded to the first round survey
were also provided with their individual responses as a baseline for comparison. Issues were
listed in rank order of importance from highest to lowest mean rating. Three issues with
markedly lower ratings were dropped (leaving 18 remaining issues). Five new issues were
added to the second round survey resulting in a total of 23 issues. The new issues were
formed by clustering related issues and rationale submitted by first round respondents. All
write-in issues submitted by four or more respondents were included. Respondents were
again asked to rate issues on a 10-point scale. In the second round, useable responses were
received from 87 respondents, yielding a response rate of 40%.
Round Three
In September 1994, respondents from the previous two rounds (108 individuals) were sent
feedback from the second round survey on all 23 issues. They were asked to rate the issues
one last time. Like the second round survey, issues were listed in rank order and personal
ratings were provided from the last survey that the respondent had returned. Useable
responses were received from 83 respondents, yielding a response rate of 76%.
The three rounds of the survey provided one round for revising and generating issues and two
rounds to increase the level of consensus on the importance of those issues. Overall, 108 of
the 217 SIM institutional and board members participated in the study. In the following
discussion, data are from the final round of the survey unless otherwise indicated. Appendix A
contains the final round survey instrument used in the current study.
4
Interviews
A four page summary of results was mailed to respondents in February 1995. In March and
April, the 10 SIM officers and board members who had participated in the survey were invited
to comment on the results and answer questions about the research. Seven individuals made
themselves available for interviews. In addition to asking for their general reaction to the
results, we asked what forces were driving the top issues, what made the issues so
troublesome, and whether they thought the framework had the right balance between
management and technology issues. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and used to
help interpret the results of the survey.
The Participants
The profile of survey participants in the 1994 study is quite consistent with previous SIM
surveys. Consequently, one would not expect major shifts in rating due to changes in
population demographics across the studies. However, because the individuals responding
may be different, one cannot rule out the possibility that rating shifts could be attributable to
underlying trends among those entering and leaving the field of IS management.
All regions of the United States are represented in the survey, with the majority of the
participants coming from the Northeast (40%) and Midwest (32%), and the minority from the
South (13%), West (10%), and Canada (5%). In terms of industry representation, the majority
came from the commercial sectors of manufacturing (48%) and services (39%), with a minority
(13%) from the non-profit sector. In terms of positions held, the majority of participants (67%)
were senior IS executives (e.g., CIO or VP) of their respective organizations. IS department
managers (22%), IS educators (7%), and IS consultants (4%) made up the balance of the
sample. The high percentage of senior IS executives is a major strength of the SIM
institutional sample and adds value to the study's findings. Statistical analyses revealed few
substantive differences in rankings based on position or industry. Although these respondents
are not predominately from any particular region or industry, caution should be exercised in
generalizing from this sample. Any systematic differences between SIM members and the
greater population of IS executives in the United States limit the generality of the findings.
5
Results
The final round results are shown in Table 2. In presenting the results of the study, we first
discuss the top ten issues and then comment on other significant changes in the framework.
Top Ten Issues
Each of the ten highest ranked issues are discussed briefly to provide insight into the rationale
behind the issue and its relationship to other issues. The figure for each issue tracks its history
in the key issue framework since 1980.
Table 2. 1994 Key Issues Framework
Rank Key IssueMeanRating
StandardDeviation
1 Building a Responsive IT Infrastructure 9.10 .096
2 Facilitating and Managing Business Process Redesign 7.79 1.19
3 Developing and Managing Distributed Systems 7.73 1.38
4 Developing and Implementing an Information Architecture 7.62 1.50
5 Planning and Managing Communication Networks 7.58 1.40
6 Improving the Effectiveness of Software Development 7.50 1.86
7 Making Effective Use of the Data Resource 7.46 1.62
8 Recruiting and Developing IS Human Resources 7.31 1.70
9 Aligning the IS Organization within the Enterprise 7.11 2.02
10 Improving IS Strategic Planning 6.82 2.02
11 Implementing and Managing Collaborative Support Systems 6.59 1.91
11 Measuring IS Effectiveness and Productivity 6.59 2.01
13 Increasing Understanding of IS Role and Contribution 6.53 2.02
14 Facilitating Organizational Learning 6.48 1.87
15 Managing the Existing Portfolio of Legacy Applications 6.31 2.03
16 Facilitating and Managing End-User Computing 6.23 1.88
17 Using Information Systems for Competitive Advantage 6.18 2.12
18 Planning and Integrating MultiVendor Open Systems 6.04 1.86
19 Developing and Managing Electronic Data Interchange 5.91 2.00
20 Outsourcing Selected Information Services 5.40 2.03
-- Implementing Decision and Executive Support Systems dropped --
-- Improving Information Security and Control dropped --
-- Developing and Implementing Object-Oriented Technology dropped --
-- Improving Disaster Recovery Capabilities dropped --
-- Developing and Implementing Multimedia Applications dropped --
-- Implementing and Integrating CASE Technology
Note: All data are from the final round of the Delphi survey (N = 83).
dropped --
6
#1 Building a Responsive IT Infrastructure
Building a technology infrastructure that will
support existing applications while remaining
responsive to change is a key to long-term
enterprise productivity. This task is made difficult
by the continuing rapid changes in infrastructure
technology and the increasing breadth and depth
of applications which need to be supported.
More than any other, this issue captures an important new thrust of IS management: providing
the processor power, network connectivity, and application framework required to support core
business activities as well as unknown future ventures. This issue was first introduced in the
1990 study. Due to its general nature, it is closely related to several other top issues such as
distributed systems (#3), information architecture (#4), and communication networks (#5). In a
broad sense, these three issues can be viewed as relating to three of the components of an IT
infrastructure: applications, data, and networks.
#2 Facilitating and Managing Business Process Redesign
In response to market pressures, many
organizations are radically changing the way they
do business. IT plays an increasingly important
role in this change process by enabling the
innovative redesign of core business processes.
Having been popularized just after the 1990 key
issues study (e.g. Hammer 1990), business
process redesign (BPR) is new to the key issue framework in the United States. In related
studies worldwide, however, it has been a top issue among IS managers and executives for
several years (Watson et al. 1996). The importance of this issue is attributable to the need for
major changes in internal processes to adjust to the ongoing massive changes in the external
environment. Interviews with executive participants suggest that this issue is one of the major
drivers for infrastructure-related issues such as responsive infrastructure (#1), distributed
Responsive IT Infrastructure
05
101520
1980 1983 1986 1990 1994
Business Process Redesign
05
101520
1980 1983 1986 1990 1994
7
systems (#3), and communication networks (#5). Without a responsive infrastructure, IS
becomes a constraint instead of an enabler of change.
#3 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, maintaining consistent data, controlling
joint development projects with users, and
administering large-scale distributed applications.
The demand for graphical user interfaces combined with the economics of making better use of
the installed base of desktop computers and local area networks make client server a useful
approach for distributing applications across a heterogeneous environment. First introduced in
1990, the importance of the issue has risen dramatically. This issue is closely related to the
other infrastructure issues as well as software development (#6).
#4 Developing & Implementing an Information Architecture
A corporate/global information architecture is
used to identify the major information categories
used within an enterprise and their relationships
to business processes. It is essential for guiding
applications development and facilitating the
integration and sharing of data. First introduced
in the 1986 study, this issue remains highly
ranked. Information architecture is related to the other infrastructure issues as well as software
development (#6) and data resource (#7). An infrastructure cannot be responsive if data is
scattered throughout the network without a plan. Similarly, software cannot integrate across
functions nor distribute across networks without a clear plan for doing so. An information
architecture provides a way to coordinate these activities.
Distributed Systems
05
101520
1980 1983 1986 1990 1994
Information Architecture
05
101520
1980 1983 1986 1990 1994
8
#5 Planning and Managing Communication Networks
Perhaps as much as anything else, organizations
are information processing systems. Using
technology to process information and
communicate depends heavily on access to
appropriate internal and external communication
networks. Network access is complicated by
rapid advances in underlying technology and
major structural changes in the business environment. Although not written into the issue
rationale on the survey, business use of the Internet surfaced during interviews as one factor
driving the importance of this issue. This issue has a history dating back to the first SIM survey
in 1980. Communication networks are closely related to the other infrastructure issues as well
as to software development (#6). This issue has long been critical for managing information
systems.
#6 Improving the Effectiveness of Software Development
After more than a decade of end-user computing,
the application development backlog remains at
high levels. Traditional development methods
take too long. Centralized platforms are no
longer satisfactory. New approaches such as
client server have not fully matured. The never
ending stream of new technologies keeps
developers on a steep learning curve. Yet businesses must respond to their markets. As a
core issue for managing IS, software development has varied in importance since the first
study in 1980, always staying near the top. This issue is closely related to distributed systems
(#3), information architecture (#4), communication networks (#5), and human resources (#8).
Improved effectiveness is essential for next-generation applications which promise to be
collaborative, multimedia, and object based.
Communication Netw orks
05
101520
1980 1983 1986 1990 1994
Softw are Development
05
101520
1980 1983 1986 1990 1994
9
#7 Making Effective Use of the Data Resource
The organization's data resource is growing in
size, complexity, and value. Recent research on
“data mining” (e.g. Matheus 1993) have
emphasized the notion that organizational data
are still largely unrecognized, inaccessible, and
underutilized. IS must develop a climate within
its department and throughout the organization
which values data as a corporate asset. This issue has been in the framework since 1980 and
continues to hold an important position. It is closely related to (#4) information architecture.
While information architecture represents the harder (more quantitative) aspects of strategic
data modeling and enterprise database design, this issue represents the softer (more
qualitative) aspects of helping the organization develop a discipline for managing data.
#8 Recruiting and Developing IS Human Resources
Current and future shortages of qualified IS
personnel threaten many organizations’ ability to
make effective use information technology.
Continuing emphasis needs to be put on
developing business skills such as teamwork and
leadership. Yet IS personnel must also stay
current with emerging technologies such as
distributed systems, communication networks, object-based development, and multimedia
interfaces. The need to stay on top of rapid changes in both business and technology conspire
to keep human resources ranked among the top issues as it has been since the first study in
1980.
Data Resource
05
101520
1980 1983 1986 1990 1994
IS Human Resources
05
101520
1980 1983 1986 1990 1994
10
#9 Aligning the IS Organization within the Enterprise
An IS organization's effectiveness in supporting
enterprise needs is dependent on its
organizational location within the enterprise.
Appropriate alignment changes over time and
requires a combination of centralized and
decentralized structures. Too often IS is not
located and structured appropriately causing this
issue to remain important among IS executives. Even after the structural problems are solved
with appropriate reporting, cultural and social issues may remain. One of the original issues
introduced in 1980, this issue is closely related to strategic planning (#10). It has consistently
remained important over the past 15 years. For 1994, this issue tied for the highest standard
deviation of any top issue (s.d. = 2.02) indicating some disagreement over its relative
importance.
#10 Improving IS Strategic Planning
It has always been important to align long-range
IS plans with strategic business plans. Rapidly
changing business environments, increased
involvement of end users, and accelerated
technological change make this difficult. Shorter
planning cycles require a great deal of flexibility in
any plan. This issue is closely related to
organization alignment (#9) and was ranked #1 for many years (1980, 1983, and 1986).
Interviews suggested that its drop in rank may be more due the current focus on
implementation and execution rather than to having “solved” the problems relating to this issue.
Its relatively high standard deviation (s.d. = 2.02) indicates some disagreement compared to
the other top issues.
IS Organization Alignment
05
101520
1980 1983 1986 1990 1994
Strategic Planning
05
101520
1980 1983 1986 1990 1994
11
Other Issues
In addition to the ten critical issues above, there are other major changes in the key issue
framework. Collaborative support (#11) is introduced as an important new application area.
Despite a long history of research in academe (see Dennis & Gallupe 1993), this is the first
time it has appeared in the framework. After declining steadily over the previous four studies,
IS effectiveness measurement (#11) increased in importance by 5 ranks. This may be due to
the long-standing need for IS executives to justify new investment and be accountable for their
resources. The recent escalation in research on the “productivity paradox” appears to be
timely (see Brynjolfsson 1993, Hitt & Brynjolfsson 1994). The third straight decline in the rank
of competitive advantage (#17, down from #8 in 1990) reinforces the belief that achieving
competitive advantage is more of an ongoing process which is achieved by focusing on a wide
range of issues as opposed to focusing on a single application. Other noteworthy results
include the introduction of outsourcing (#20) as a new issue and a large decline in the ranking
of organizational learning (#14, down from #5). Appendices B, C, D, and E provide more detail
including results by round, by industry, by position, and comparisons with 1990 data. ANOVA
and Sheffe analyses showed that the services sector rated responsive infrastructure (p < 0.10),
software development (p < 0.05), and legacy applications (p < 0.10) as significantly more
important than the manufacturing sector (see Appendix C).
Discussion
Our discussion of results is organized into several sections. First, we examine the
interrelationships among different issues in the framework, next we look at major trends in the
framework, then we analyze the evolution of IS management to situate the framework in a
historical context, and finally we explore the implications of the study.
Issue Relationships
Many of the top issues are interrelated. This is a direct result of the methods used to generate
and revise issue titles and rationale (see previous studies for details). This is both a strength
and a weakness of the key issues framework. It is a strength because each issue maps
directly to an important problem faced by leading IS executives. The wording for each issue is
suggested and refined by executives, thus it is easy for practitioners to relate the results to
12
their work. Another strength is that a consistent issue framework and issue generation/revision
method has been employed since 1983. Changes since that time have been intentionally
evolutionary. This approach facilitates longitudinal comparison over time and reduces
researcher subjectivity in interpreting trends. Unfortunately, these interrelationships also result
in fuzzy boundaries for each issue and in concepts with partially overlapping content. This
makes it difficult to assure the reliability and validity of the results.
Interrelationships among the top issues can be clarified by examining an influence diagram.
Figure 1 depicts our understanding of interrelationships for many of the top issues. Depicted
outside the circle (speed, globalization, digital convergence, etc.) are the major environmental
forces (or drivers) believed to be shaping the top issues in the 1994 framework. Four of our
executive participants offered these comments about external drivers:
Business Pocess Redesign (#2)
Responsive IT Infrastructure (#1)
InformationArchitecture (#4)
CommunicationNetworks (#5)
DistributedSystems (#3)
Systems Development (#6)
Human Resources (#8)
Speed
Competition Globalization
TecnnicalAdvances
Decentralization
DigitalConvergence
ScarceResources
Figure 1. Influence Diagram for Seven Key Issues
13
One central theme is driving all the issues: the rapidity of change in the marketplace. This includesthings like shortened product cycles, thinning margins, and business performance going drasticallyup and down. Examples are everywhere... the big 3 automakers, IBM, Japan.
It is very evident that the pace of technology introduction is much quicker than it has been. Thecycle time on new micro-processor introduction is down to about 18 months and all of us are facedwith the fact that we can not react that quickly. We can't do it. We are going to start skippingtechnology cycles.
We are dealing with new business potentials or new technologies, new things that are happening.I think every business is in a similar situation where number one, your ability to create newproducts and put them out in the marketplace, and number two, to service and enhance and keepgood customer service around those products, those two things have become the predominantdrivers of American business. It is no longer good enough just to keep your costs down.
No, in fact I don't see a single one that is not driven by business change. When the business wasslow, IT could be slow. Today, IT has got to be fast. [Infrastructure] provides a businessfoundation, not a technology foundation. I see this as being similar to the business issue ofdeveloping a good human resources function or developing a good financial function.
Seven of the top issues are shown inside the circle with arrows depicting the major
relationships. For example, our interview results strongly suggest that changes in the business
are a response to external forces in the competitive environment. These changes drive a need
for business process redesign (among other changes) and this in turn triggers a need for
distributed systems (to support decentralization), communication networks (to support
globalization), and a responsive IT infrastructure (to tie it all together). Similarly, a responsive
IT infrastructure can be viewed as consisting of three important components: distributed
systems, information architecture, and communication networks. Another SIM board member
offered the following:
I think the reason that you see this trend is that if you look at the last five years, there has been somuch downsizing. Okay, let's call it redistribution. And with the miniaturization of technology ofitself, companies have gone away from mainframes and moved to networks of PCs, super servers,or whatever you want to call them. Clearly we didn't have the infrastructure to do that five yearsago. Issues like #1 through #5, all relate to the IS function having to respond to change in theorganization.
Needed changes in these infrastructure areas are driving new software development
approaches including the application of client server and object technologies. The combination
of business and technology changes in systems development and infrastructure drive the
continuing importance of human resources. To keep the diagram intelligible, selected issues,
indirect influences, and bi-directional influences are not shown. The major point here is that
the key issues framework can and should be understood as a whole beyond its individual
components.
14
Major Shifts in the Framework
Using the classification scheme developed by Niederman et al. (1991), the top issues are
analyzed by group. Figures 2(a) through 2(d) show the four groups of issues and their periodic
ranking through all five SIM surveys dating from 1980.
The rising
importance of
infrastructure issues
noted in the 1990
study continues as a
strong trend. All four
of the technology
infrastructure issues
have risen in importance in each of the past two studies. As discussed in more detail later,
building a technology infrastructure to respond to rapid changes in the competitive environment
is the major theme for many IS executives as they enter the late 1990s.
The number one issue says it all. My number one issue is building and maintaining a reliable andresponsive infrastructure. Companies today are built on IT infrastructures -- e-mail, LANs, etc. Asa result, the infrastructure on which all of this technology depends must be solid. Ten years agowe lived in an easy world -- one big box in one place. Today things are very complicated.Therefore we must be able to depend on the infrastructure.
In expressing their
opinion about the
importance of
technology
infrastructure, IS
executives are
trading off the
importance of
business relationship issues. Figure 2(b) shows that many business relationship issues have
declined in importance in direct relation to the technology infrastructure issues. This does not
imply these issues are not important, but only that the executives in the study are focused on
“implementation and delivery” more than on “planning and alignment.” This is a major shift for
Figure 2(a). Technology Infrastructure Issues
0
5
10
15
20
1980 1983 1986 1990 1994
IT Infrastructure
Distributed Systems
Information Architecture
Communication Netw orks
Figure 2(b). Business Relationship Issues
0
5
10
15
20
1980 1983 1986 1990 1994
Data Resource
IS Organization Alignment
Strategic Planning
IS Role & ContributionOrganizational Learning
Competitive Advantage
Business Process Redesign
15
IS managers since the mid to late 1980s when IS planning, organizational alignment, and
competitive advantage ranked high in the framework. Two of our executive participants offered
the following insights:
Our challenge in the 1980's was trying to help the overall organization see where IT fit in the bigpicture... we had to elevate the priority of IT. Today, I would say that we've been quite successfulin doing this as most companies could not function without IT. For example, I work for theChairman of the Board. My job is to provide the infrastructure so that the organization can run.
In 1988 we spent a lot of time trying to align the IS organization with the rest of the business.Once our strategic IS plan was accepted by the organization, we turned our efforts from planningto implementation. In addition, we are moving away from a centrally controlled IS organization toone that's more distributed. This again maps to the changes occurring in business; moving awayfrom headquarters control to more autonomous business units.
Even as the key
issue framework has
shifted from
business relationship
to technology
infrastructure, the
internal effectiveness
issues (shown in
Figure 2(c)) have remained relatively stable over time. Software development, human
resources, effectiveness measurement, and legacy applications are core features of managing
information systems. They are an integral part of making effective organizational use of
information technology. These issues show the least variance across the 15 year period.
Technology
application issues,
however, continue
their historical
decline in
importance. Case
Technology (#12 in
1990), for example,
dropped out of the study after the second round. Similarly, object-oriented technology was
Figure 2(c). Internal Effectiveness Issues
0
5
10
15
20
1980 1983 1986 1990 1994
Softw are Development
IS Human Resources
IS Effectiveness Measures
Legacy Applications
Figure 2(d). Technology Application Issues
0
5
10
15
20
1980 1983 1986 1990 1994
End-User Computing
CASE Technology
Executive/Decision Support
Office Automation
Collaborative Support
16
introduced in the first round, but did not survive the cut to the third round. The one new
technology application issue is collaborative support (#11). A reasonable interpretation of the
trend for the technology application group is that these issues are still important, but they have
been delegated down in the organization. Amidst their broadening responsibilities, IS
executives simply no longer have time to devote to relatively narrow application areas such as
those listed in this group.
Historical Analysis
The information systems discipline has evolved considerably over the 15 years spanned by the
SIM surveys. This section discusses some of the major trends in business, technology, and
applications, as they relate to the key issue framework.
The 1970s: Mainframe and Back-Office Computing
The 1970s was a decade in which the emerging field of management information systems
(MIS) took important steps toward strengthening its newborn position within organizations. The
seeds had been planted for thinking about managing information as a resource parallel to land,
labor, and capital (Dickson 1968). But “data processing” was still practiced as a technical
specialty by most “EDP” managers and calls were made for involving business managers in
the development of new computer applications (Adams 1972). IS managers were under attack
in leading business journals with titles such as “MIS is a Mirage” (Dearden 1972) and facing
record high turnover rates as reported in “Plight of the EDP Manager” (Nolan 1973).
In business, the decline of the US auto industry vividly demonstrated the serious impacts of
globalized markets and competitive threats. US companies, however, were still building
economies of scale along relatively discrete product lines and within what appeared to be
relatively undifferentiated and stable markets. At this point, sophisticated analytical tools were
not widely understood or deployed in marketing. And even if market fragmentation had been
better understood, it seems unlikely that the large companies of the era would have been able
to respond economically to niche markets. In operations, statistical process control and
continuous improvement were key tools for improving quality in response to the competition.
17
First generation database, data communications, and real-time online systems were the new
technologies of era. Keeping current with these new technologies was deemed critical for
controlling IS operations so that systems did not come crashing down (Buss 1981). In
software, timesharing report generation tools laid the foundation for the later emergence of
end-user computing. The narrowly focused accounting applications of the 1960s were being
replaced by “functionally integrated” applications such as financial management (with
payables, receivables, general ledger), material requisition planning (with bill of materials,
purchasing, production scheduling), and human resources management (with payroll, benefits,
career tracking). Cross functional systems were still a decade away.
Large companies typically organized their new MIS department as a centralized function with
attention focused on the problems of managing this new activity. Gibson and Nolan (1974)
offered the “Four Stages of EDP Growth” as a way of understanding the changes that were
taking place and the need to adopt varying management disciplines (differing in degree of
control and slack) to smooth the transition to a mature stage. The EDP budget was viewed as
a surrogate for an underlying organizational learning curve. Latter stages of growth were seen
as a period of data resource management where strategy and planning dominate IS
management activity (Nolan 1979). Another view suggested the need for varying management
approaches (organic or mechanistic) contingent on the developmental or operational nature of
the subunit (Wetherbe & Whitehead 1977). Still others recommended that an effective IS
manager’s orientation needed to evolve from “systems” during the early stages of growth to a
balance between systems and “user” orientation in the mature stage (Taggart & Sibley 1979).
New methods for dealing with the difficult problem of linking IS planning and business strategy
were offered (King 1978, Rockart 1979). By the close of the decade, the first SIM key issues
study in 1980 identified IS strategic planning (#1) as the most important issue for IS managers
(Ball & Harris 1982). Other representative issues included measuring effectiveness (#2),
decision support (#5), and office automation (#6).
The Early 1980s: PCs and End-User Computing
At the beginning of the 1980s, a detailed observation of six IS managers found them “more
manager than technician” but still focused mostly on their internal organization with 60% of
their contacts directed at 2nd-line subordinates and infrequent contacts with superiors (Ives &
18
Olson 1981). Long range forecasts suggested that IS managers needed to prepare for a tidal
wave of technology change by the 1990s (Benjamin 1982). Others suggested that the growing
EDP budget represented only the tip of the “information iceberg” reminding businesses that
managing information systems extends far beyond the management of technology (Edelman
1981). Executive steering committees were promoted as one way for IS managers to align
their strategy with that of the organization amidst the decentralizing forces of miniaturization
(Nolan 1982). The IS management literature also recommended sophisticated organization
designs responding to technology specialization (Shore 1983) and decentralization in business
organization (Zmud 1984).
A SIM sponsored study identified key changes in business, technology, and user knowledge as
driving the need for IS managers to decrease their direct line responsibilities and increase their
“staff orientation” (Rockart et al. 1982). IS managers were also urged to focus on service,
communication, human resources, and alignment (Rockart 1982). In short, they were urged to
make the transition from functional manager to general business manager. Later empirical
tests found that IS managers were indeed moving in the expected direction (Benjamin et al.
1985). The top issues from 1983 captured these themes with the high ranking of strategic
planning (#1), organization learning (#6), organization alignment (#7), and human resources
(#8).
A dominant influence on IS management during the early 1980s was the rapid adoption of
personal computers (PCs) in organizations. “Facilitating the management of end user
computing” had rose to a #2 ranking in 1983 and held a #6 ranking in 1986. There were many
technical challenges associated with configuring, installing, and supporting personal computers
(Benson 1983). PCs also fueled a series of innovations in user interface design which would
eventually make graphical user interfaces a defacto standard by the end of the decade.
Subsecond response time, autonomy of access, and usable interfaces forever raised the
standards by which a “friendly” application would be judged. The slow evolution away from
code-based “mainframe mentality” interfaces had begun.
End-user computing (EUC) was clearly understood as a managerial and organizational
evolution not just as a technology deployment (Henderson & Treacy 1986). The dawn of EUC
finally broke the IS organization’s monopoly on information services. Users made
19
unprecedented gains in knowledge and control over their computing activities. As software
development rose to the #4 ranking in the 1983 study, software packages, rapid prototyping,
and user development were offered as solutions for “breaking the systems development
bottleneck” (Gremilion & Pyburn 1983). Foreshadowing today’s client server development
environment, IS managers were urged to develop a strategy for managing the “shared
environment” in which IS and users were required to cooperate in systems development
(Rockart & Flannery 1983). Information Centers were created to offer training, consulting, and
technical support to “help users help themselves” (Brancheau et al. 1985). The managerial
challenges ranged from dealing with user demand for investment, to providing controlled
access to mainframe databases, to controlling or certifying the development of applications by
end users. IS managers struggled with ways to assimilate yet another new activity into their
organization. Technology integration (ranked #10 in 1986) was defined as bringing the
“islands” of data processing, office automation, factory automation, and telecommunications
under unified management (e.g. McKenney & McFarlan 1982)
The Late 1980s: LANs and Departmental Computing
Taking their new strategic role in organizations in earnest, IS managers ranked “using IT for
competitive advantage” as their #2 issue in 1986. A strong staff orientation was evident in the
1986 SIM survey results with strategic planning (#1), competitive advantage (#2),
organizational learning (#3), IS role & contribution (#4), and organization alignment (#5) the
highest ranking issues. Porter’s (1980, 1985, Porter & Millar 1985) seminal works on
competitive strategy and the value chain gained popularity and were quickly applied to IS
management (McFarlan 1984, Cash & Konsynski 1985, Clemons & McFarlan 1986). Others
reminded the field that sustainable advantage involved an entire organization not any single
component (Ghemawat 1986). Examples of clear competitive wins in industries such as
airlines (Copeland & McKenney 1988), distribution (Clemons & Row 1988), finance (Clemons
& Weber 1990), and healthcare (Kim & Michelman 1990) raised the profile of information
technology in many organizations. Effective application of IT also figured prominently in the
literature on “competing in time” and “developing fast-cycle capabilities” (Hammer & Mangurian
1987, Bouer & Hout 1988). There was a recognition that competitive advantage often required
20
interorganizational systems (Johnson & Vitale 1988) and a concerted effort to overcome high
level resistance and neglect (Lederer & Mendelow 1988, Davenport et al. 1989).
During this period, information technology also played a key role in corporate downsizing
efforts targeted at cutting overhead and regaining competitiveness (Applegate et al. 1988).
The flattening of organizations predicted by Leavitt and Whistler’s (1958) “Management in the
1980’s” had begun to take place. The new technologies of the day were predicted to have
even greater organizational impact in the future (Straub & Wetherbe 1989). Amidst these
events, IT appeared to have finally achieved a measure of CEO recognition as a critical
organization resource (Jarvenpaa & Ives 1990). By the close of the decade, IS manager
concerns about “increasing understanding of the role and contribution of IS” had dropped from
#4 in 1986 to #12 in 1990.
An influential technology theme running through the late 1980s was a serious effort to leverage
the installed base of PCs for organizational purposes through deployment of local area
networks (LANs). Early LANs focused on economies from sharing hardware resources such
as large disk drives and laser printers. Later, the emphasis turned toward sharing software
and databases. The interconnection of PCs with LANs enabled increases in the scope of PC
applications (Bullen 1986) and fueled the rise of more complex computing architectures (Huff et
al. 1988). This further increased the autonomy of departments and workgroups (Pyburn 1986-
87). With the introduction of new platforms and the weakening of centralized control over data,
IS managers struggled with the need to rationalize the management of data. Developing and
implementing an information architecture (#1) and making effective use of the data resource
(#2) were the highest ranking issues in the 1990 study. These results and the calls of others
(Dixon & John 1989) foreshadowed an increasing focus on technology infrastructure issues
through the 1990s.
The Early 1990s: Client Server and Enterprise Systems
Empirical evidence collected at the end of the decade suggested that leading IS executives
had indeed evolved over the previous decade from that of “functional manager to general
business executive;” becoming an active participant in corporate strategy and external affairs
(Stephens et al. 1992). Two way communication with the CEO was found to reduce IS
21
executives’ difficulty with strategic planning (Watson 1990). During this period, many new IS
executives were coming from a hybrid background which included both business and
technology experience (Applegate & Elam 1992). This despite evidence that excellent
CEO/CIO relationships could be found where both the CEO and CIO shared a “vision to
transform the business” regardless of the CIOs background (Feeney et al. 1992). Business
relationship issues such as strategic planning (#3), organizational learning (#5), and
organization alignment (#7) still held a dominant position in the 1990 key issues framework.
Yet the 1990 study also signaled the shift toward recognizing the critical importance of
technology infrastructure.
The 1980's were stable compared to today. We had time to get into some of the soft issues. Inthe 1990's we talk speed, flexibility, and operating in an ambiguous environment. Long-rangestrategic planning doesn't fit with this. We don't have time for it, and I'm not sure there's muchvalue in doing it today. It is critical to have a plan however; a looser notion of the old strategictechnology plan. One that maintains the flexibility.
In business, earlier emphasis on downsizing led naturally to a search for even more radical
improvements in performance. Decades of cumulative changes in the competitive environment
had led to the need for radically reengineering business processes instead of simply
automating them (Hammer 1990). “The Tomorrow Organization” (Datamation 1990) and “The
Horizontal Organization” (Business Week 1993) captured the key business themes of the
1990s: flatter, team-based, customer-driven organizations focusing on business processes
with expanded end-to-end links with customers and suppliers. Whereas marketing in the early
1980s took a “shotgun” approach due to limited analytical tools, marketing in the 1990s began
to take a “rifle” approach. Databases of consumer purchase history contained extensive
information about demographics and buying behavior. Customer history databases were seen
as new corporate assets (Matheus 1993).
Building on the large installed base of PCs and the widespread deployment of LANs, a major
technical influence of the 1990s was the development of client server computing architectures.
Mirroring changes in business organization, client server combined centralized data and
network services with decentralized applications. Thus desktop personal computers were
linked to departmental servers via LANs, with the LANs linked to corporate mainframes via
wide-area networks. Although development of client server applications was estimated to be
22
more costly than development of time-shared mainframe applications in 1990, client server
costs were projected to fall well below mainframe costs by 1994 (Sinha 1992).
A study of senior IS executives found that open systems and application integration were
taking on a major role (Clark 1992). As a result, the size of the central IS organization was
shrinking. There was a move toward managing infrastructure in some companies. As control
over infrastructure was centralized, the development of applications was decentralized to
business units. By this period, most companies were making extensive use of software
packages and external contractors (Attewell 1992). Some organizations began to dismantle
their information centers or at least merge them into a comprehensive support center (Robey &
Zmud 1990) and IS executives no longer clearly distinguished end-user computing from
organizational computing (McLean & Kappelman 1993, Brancheau & Brown 1993). Industry
and vendor alliances became important for managing risk. New forms of proprietary-open
architectures were also seen as a key to success in the global computer and communications
industry (Morris & Ferguson 1993). One of our executive participants suggested:
[Another] issue is that the players are changing rapidly. We are seeing some people fade fromview and it may not be evident to the general public but companies that haven't taken the rightarchitecture path or created the right alliances just aren't going to be there in the future.
These events are reflected in the 1994 key issues framework with its emphasis on responsive
infrastructure (#1), distributed systems (#3), and communication networks (#5). As one of our
executive participants commented:
The issue is that companies are distributing themselves. They are putting more people and moremanagement responsibility at the line close to the customer. And people want access to their ownsystems and their own data and everything is moving toward that. So managing distributedsystems requires very high capability, client server systems.
Future Directions
The next major era in information management might well prove to be public networked
computing or what Rockart (1988) long ago called the wired society.
The Late 1990s: The Internet and Electronic Commerce
Speed looms as a major theme as we look ahead to the late 1990s and the dawn of the 21st
century. In technology, the rapid commercial acceptance of the Internet and WorldWide Web
23
(Berners-Lee et al. 1994) and the growth of electronic document management (Sprague 1995)
will further increase the scope of IS management responsibility. In business, the prospects
include competing in niche markets with a size approaching one and competing against
dynamic virtual organizations which are able to react
quickly to almost any consumer need.
These trends point to further evolutionary changes in
the IS function. As shown in Figure 3, one can make
the argument that these business and technology
events build on the foundation of the previous two
decades and are a natural extension of the ever
widening scope and impact of information systems.
For example, well prepared IS executives may find
that their newly developed client server interfaces to their legacy back office systems provide
them with the experience needed to manage this new transition in infrastructure.
Unfortunately, developments in the field are rarely so orderly. The rapid acceptance of the
Internet as a medium of commerce, for example, may prove to be a two-edged sword. Even
as the Internet or its broadband successor provides part of the solution for increasing the
interconnectivity, portability, and interoperability of the infrastructure; connection to these
networks offers the potential of opening up an organization to accelerating change. These
changes will in turn drive modifications in the infrastructure needed to respond to new business
initiatives. In a twisted spiral of cause and effect, business needs drive technology application
just as technological advance enables new forms of competition. These events are interpreted
by managers who make further changes to the business (see Orlikowski 1992 for the
structurational model of this phenomenon).
Figure 3. Building Infrastructure on the Past
Mainframe/BackOffice(1970s)
PCs/End-User(early 1980s)
LANs/Departmental(late 1980s)
Client Server/Enterprise(early 1990s)
Internet/Commerce(late 1990s)
24
As shown in Figure 4, the
business and technology
transformation spiral can be
expected to continue well
past the current planning
horizon. The factors shown in
the figure are speculative but
they serve to illustrate the
types of interactions we can
expect to see in the future.
For companies that master
both their physical value
chain and their “virtual value chain,” increases in the scope of operation may help redefine the
very business the organization is in (Venkatraman 1994, Rayport & Sviokla 1995). IS
executives may thus find, as their predecessors did, that the infrastructure built during the
1980s and early 1990s simply cannot deliver the function and performance required to support
large scale, complex, integrated, hypermedia, information processing capability. They may find
that they will need to innovate new ways of developing and managing the infrastructure
required to feed the insatiable information appetite of their evolving and dynamic organizations.
Technology implementation is often cited as the most challenging aspect of business process
redesign (Maglitta 1995). If this is true now, it promises become even more so over the current
planning horizon.
All these developments imply an explosion of information availability and unprecedented
business demand for innovative application of that information. The challenges IS executives
face over the next decade may well dwarf those of the past 20 years. Just as many
organizations are evolving toward a more organic structure, IS will need to find a way to evolve
its current mechanistic technology infrastructure into an organic structure that more closely
resembles the customer-driven, open systems, object-oriented ideal that may some day be
possible (Welke 1994).
Figure 4. The Business-Technology Transformation Spiral
Business Change
reinvention of business
extreme contact with market data
market innovation
flexible delivery systems
data mining
improved organization memory
access to external information
Technology Change
virtual reality
natural language interfaces
hyperintelligent network agents
broadband global internetwork
object databases
unstructured document management
Internet connectivity
25
Implications
It is tempting to interpret the
1994 results as implying that
the IS management job is
becoming more technical
(see Figure 5). In fact the
executives we interviewed
were very clear about
interpreting the importance
of infrastructure issues as
being fully driven by changes in their business environment. There was no mention of
technology dominance or technology opportunism. Instead, the following comments are
indicative of their sentiment:
From a management perspective, the overall business is demanding that business operations haveincreased self-control, yet they also want the operations to remain highly integrated -- this presentsa major challenge to IS.
Business issues are still number one, and I think that those top five that you mentioned are notnecessarily an argument for saying that we are moving away from business issues. I think youcould just as easily interpret those top five as that we are staying with the business issues as beingthe predominant driver.
[This] is part of an overall trend towards the recognition by both the information systems peopleand the CEOs or vice-presidents who are the bosses of CIOs, to recognize that business issuesare predominantly the drivers in making information systems an effective tool for their company. Ithink that we have at long last arrived at a point where the tools that make that kind of decisionpossible are out there for us to use.
Looking to the future of IS management, it is important to ask whether these shifts in the
framework are temporary or whether the “pendulum” will shift back to planning and alignment
issues over the next decade. We asked our participants from the SIM board to comment and
they differed in their views. One view is that technology infrastructure will remain critical and
that the present framework is relatively balanced between management and technology issues.
Here is what this group said:
I don't think we're on a pendulum... we will stay focused on the technical issues from now onbecause there's so much to consider from a technical perspective. Think about the Internet,mobile computing, telecommuting, electronic and voice mail... they all drive technology and forceus to be available 24-hours a day, 7-days a week. This is a technical challenge. Strategic issueswill be contained within these technical issues.
Figure 5. Trends in Key Issue Framework
Business Relationship
Technology Infrastructure
Internal Effectiveness
Technology Application
0123456789
10
1980 1983 1986 1990 1994
26
I think this, like the centralization-decentralization issue, represents the big swing of the pendulum.Four years ago we were focusing on architectures, that is, how to do things. Now, we're actuallytrying to deliver on it.
I don't think we'll see the pendulum swing back... we've achieved a balance that is now correct.We now understand the situation we are in, and it will last a long time.
Other board members felt the framework has moved too far toward technology. These
comments are suggestive of their views:
No I think that the technology issues might predominate for another couple of years but it is goingto come back to the business and change management issues as predominating sometime in thedecade, probably toward the latter part of the decade.
When the pendulum swings back, I think we may realize that we've focused so much ontechnology that we've ignored the source of our real competitive advantage -- our people. This isborne out in your results. Four years from now we may find that technology is indeed a commodityand that we need to be more focused on people... we need to be more high touch.
The rapid shift to newer technology brings with it a high level of risk -- this risk is what has causedthe focus on technology to sharpen. Once we bring the risk to manageable levels, I think we willsee more balance between technology and managerial issues.
Indeed, both views can be supported depending on the situation. For companies which are
focused on implementation and delivery, building a responsive IT infrastructure is not a short
term endeavor. The ideal of a trouble-free technology infrastructure where operational and
warehouse databases are well structured and fully integrated might be a decade or more away.
Given the current trends toward convergence of media and industries, the challenges of
building a responsive infrastructure should remain critical for some time to come. For other
companies which have not yet recognized the strategic nature of IS or which are undergoing
major restructuring; planning and alignment issues may need to be resolved before extensive
infrastructure building can take place. As one executive put it:
I still believe that aligning the IS strategy to business strategy has to be the number one priority, itcertainly is with me. Now in part that's because this company has undergone some substantialrestructuring and reorganization and so our focus of the moment is making certain that we havegot the right business drivers identified and the right IS response to those drivers firmly defined anddriving our project development. For many individuals who are in companies that are not at ourstage, they are more in an execution mode and they are faced with a revolution, maybe that’s toostrong a word, an evolution to client server and a whole new network topology. So as they try torespond to what they know are clearly defined objectives, they are running into all the problems ofputting in place the platforms, architecting the network, trying to develop the internal skills to beable to manage the projects.
For IS executives and general managers, the key issue framework suggests some general
directions for emphasis and provides a coarse measure for benchmarking their own concerns
27
against those of their peers. IS faculty should also take careful note of the changes in the key
issues framework. For as long as we hope to retain a strong link with practice, the views
expressed in this study impact our missions in both research and education.
As is common with research, our findings raise more questions than they answer. What new
technology components will be required as different media and industries converge? Which
architectural standards will emerge as the dominate designs of the future? How will electronic
document management systems affect business processes? What are the costs and benefits?
What are the effects of opening up new communication channels on organization structure and
performance? What effects will electronic commerce have on existing market channels? What
new opportunities will be available? What structures will serve the IS organization into the next
century? What problems in strategic planning and organization alignment will resurface in
these new flatter more decentralized organizations? In business, how can we deliver just-in-
time knowledge to employees at their point of need? How can we transfer “best practices” in
one part of the organization to other parts? On campus, how should our curricula change?
How should instructional technology be integrated into our teaching mission? How will it
transform the campus itself? These questions should prove to be fertile ground for a wide
variety of research projects. As one of our executive participants commented:
I don't know if there is a "solution" to any of these key issues. I think it is a process, it is acontinuation of focus on these things, and continuous improvement in the way that we aremanaging the IT infrastructure, managing business process redesign, managing distributivesystems, etc. So I don't think that there is any sort of catch-all solution.
Conclusions
Signaling a major shift in IS management, the top issues of 1994 are focused on technology
infrastructure issues. For the first time in its 15 year history, the key issues framework has
taken on a technical flavor. This does not mean IS managers are reverting back to their days
as technicians in the 1960s or 1970s. Instead, business requirements for speed, flexibility, and
responsiveness are driving the importance of issues such as responsive infrastructure,
business process redesign, distributed systems, information architecture, communication
networks, and software development.
28
This focus on infrastructure has important implications for organization structure, human
resource development, investment justification, application integration, and the future of
electronic commerce. Development of a responsive infrastructure presumes that the IS
executive has achieved a measure of recognition in his or her organization and thus is
influential in or at least knowledgeable about business strategy and direction. Without such
knowledge, IS executives will have a difficult time harnessing information technology to support
new business ventures.
IS executives will need to keep moving in the directions dictated by business, by technology,
and by their rising stature as corporate officers who are contributors in all aspects of the
business. As corporate officers, IS executives must choose carefully how they spend their
time. While specialized technology application issues can be delegated to their subordinates,
turbulent periods of change such as the late 1990s demand both fast response and careful
positioning for the future. As always, balance in managing the technical and managerial
aspects of these issues will prove to be the best course of action. Like the businesses which
they support, IS organizations must achieve speed, flexibility, and responsiveness. These
goals are worthy of a strong effort by senior IS executives.
Acknowledgments
We wish to acknowledge SIM, the MISRC at the University of Minnesota, and the University of
Colorado for their support of the research.
References
Adams, W. “New Role for Top Management in Computer Applications.” Financial Executive, April 1972,pp. 54-64.
Applegate, L.M., and Elam, J.J. “New Information Systems Leaders: A Changing Role in a ChangingWorld,” MIS Quarterly, December 1992, pp. 469-490.
Applegate, L.M., Cash, J.I., Jr., and Mills, D.Q. "Information Technology and Tomorrow's Manager,Harvard Business Review, November-December 1988, pp. 128-136.
Attewell, P. "Technology Diffusion and Organizational Learning: The Case of Business Computing,"Organization Science, Volume 3, Number 1, February 1992, pp. 1-19.
Ball, L., and Harris, R., "SMIS Members: A Membership Analysis," MIS Quarterly, Volume 6, Number1, March 1982, pp. 19-38.
Benjamin, R.I. "Information Technology in the 1990s: A Long Range Planning Scenario," MIS Quarterly,Volume 6, Number 2, 1982, pp. 11-31.
29
Benjamin, R.I., Dickinson, C., and Rockart, J.F. "The Changing Role of the Corporate InformationSystems Officer," MIS Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 3, September 1985, pp. 177-188.
Benson, D.H. "A Field Study of End User Computing: Findings and Issues," MIS Quarterly, Volume 7,Number 4, 1983, pp. 35-45.
Berners-Lee, T., Cailliau, R., Luotonen, A., Nielsen, H.F., Secret, A. “The World-Wide Web,”Communications of the ACM, Volume 37, Number 8, August 1994, pp. 76-82.
Bower, J.L., and Hout, T.M. "Fast-Cycle Capability for Competitive Power," Harvard Business Review,November-December 1988, pp. 110-118.
Brancheau, J.C., and Brown, C.V. "Research on the Management of End-User Computing: CurrentStatus and Future Directions," ACM Computing Surveys, 1993, pp. 437-482.
Brancheau, J.C., and Wetherbe, J.C. "Key Issues in Information Systems Management," MIS Quarterly,Volume 11, Number 1, March 1987, pp. 23-45.
Brancheau, J.C., Vogel, D.R., and Wetherbe, J.C. "An Investigation of the Information Center from theUser's Perspective," Data Base, Volume 17, Number 1, 1985, pp. 4-17.
Brynjolfsson, E. "The Productivity Paradox of Information Technology", Communications of the ACM,1993, volume 35, December, p. 66-77.
Bullen, C.V. "Company Experiences with End-User Computing", Micros, Managers and Mainframes, M.Jarke, Wiley & Sons, 1986, pp. 73-85.
Business Week, “The Horizontal Organization” (cover story), 1993, pp. 76-81.
Cash Jr., J.I. Konsynski, B.R. "IS Redraws Competitive Boundaries," Harvard Business Review,March-April 1985, pp. 134-142.
Clark, T.D., Jr. "Corporate Systems Management: An Overview and Research Perspective,"Communications of the ACM, Volume 35, Number 2, 1986, pp. 61-75.
Clemons, E.K. and Weber, B.W. “London’s Big Bang: A Case Study of Information Technology,Competitive Impact, and Organizational Change, Journal of Management Information Systems,Volume 6, Number 4, Spring 1990, pp. 41-60.
Clemons, E.K., and McFarlan, F.W. "Telecom: Hook Up or Loose Out," Harvard Business Review, July-August 1986, pp. 91-97.
Clemons, E.K., and Row, M. “McKesson Drug Company: A Case Study of Economost -- A StrategicInformation System. Journal of Management Information Systems, Volume 5, Number 1,Summer 1988, pp. 36-50.
Copeland, D.G., and McKenney, J.L. “Airlines Reservations Systems: Lessons from History,” MISQuarterly, September 1988,
Datamation, “The Tomorrow Organization,” (cover story), 1990, pp. 22-29.
Davenport, T.H., Hammer, M., and Metsisto, T.J. “How Executives Can Share their Commune’sInformation Systems, Harvard Business Review, March-April 1989, pp. 130-134.
Dearden, J. "MIS is a Mirage," Harvard Business Review, January-February 1972, pp. 90-99.
Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H., and Gustafson, D.H. Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guideto Nominal Group and Delphi Processes," Scott-Foresman, Glenview IL, 1975.
Dennis, A.R. and Gallupe, R.B. “A history of group support systems empirical research: Lessonslearned and future directions.” In Jessup, L.M. & Valacich, J.S. (eds.), Group Support Systems:New Perspectives, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993. pp. 59-77.
Dickson, G.W. "Management Information-Decision Systems: A New Era Ahead?" Business Horizons,December 1968, pp. 17-26.
30
Dickson, G.W., Leitheiser, R.L., Wetherbe, J.C., and Nechis, M. "Key Information Systems Issues forthe 1980's," MIS Quarterly, Volume 8, Number 3, September 1984, pp. 135-159.
Dixon, P.J., and John, D.A. "Technology Issues Facing Corporate Management in the 1990s," MISQuarterly, September 1989, pp. 247-255.
Edelman, F. "Managers, Computer Systems, and Productivity," MIS Quarterly, September 1981, pp. 1-19.
Feeney, D.F., Edwards, B.R., Simpson, K.M. “”Understanding the CEO/CIO Relationship,” MISQuarterly, December 1992, pp. 435-447.
Ghemawat, P. "Sustainable Advantage," Harvard Business Review, September-October, 1986, pp. 53-58.
Gibson, C.F., and Nolan, R.L. "Managing the Four Stages of EDP Growth," Harvard Business Review,January-February 1974, pp. 76-88.
Gremillion, L.L., and Pyburn, P. “Breaking the Systems Development Bottleneck,” Harvard BusinessReview, March-April 1983, pp. 130-137.
Hammer, M. “Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1990, pp. 104-112.
Hammer, M., and Mangurian, G.E. "The Changing Value of Communications Technology," SloanManagement Review, Winter 1987, pp. 65-70.
Henderson, J.C., and Treacy, M.E. 1986 "Managing End-User Computing for Competitive Advantage,"Sloan Management Review, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 3-14.
Hitt, L. and Brynjolfsson, E. "The Three Faces of IT Value: Theory and Evidence" Proceedings of theFifteenth International Conference on Information Systems, Vancouver, British Columbia,Canada, December 1994, pp. 263-277.
Huff, S.L., Munro, M.C., and Martin, B.H. "Growth Stages of End-User Computing," Communications ofthe ACM, Volume 31, Number 5, May 1988, pp. 542-550.
Ives, B., and Olson, M.H. "Manager or Technician? The Nature of the Information Systems Manager'sJob," MIS Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 4, December 1981, pp. 49-62.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Ives, B. "Information Technology and Corporate Strategy: A View from the Top,"Information Systems Research, Volume 1, Number 4, December 1990, pp. 351-376.
Johnston, H.R. and Vitale, M.R. “Creating Competitive Advantage with Interorganizational Systems,”MIS Quarterly, June 1988.
Johnston, H.R. and Carrico, S.R. "Developing Capabilities to Use Information Strategically," MISQuarterly, March 1988, pp. 36-48.
Kim, K.K., Michelman, J.E. “An Examination of the Factors for the Strategic Use of InformationSystems in the Healthcare Industry,” MIS Quarterly, June 1990, pp. 201-215.
King, W.R. "Strategic Planning for Management Information Systems," MIS Quarterly, March 1978, pp.27-37.
Lederer, A.L. and Mendelow, A.L. “Convincing Top Management of the Strategic Potential ofInformation Systems, MIS Quarterly, December 1988,
Leavitt, H.J., and Whistler, T.L. "Management in the 1980's," Harvard Business Review, November-December 1958, pp. 41-48.
Maglitta, J. “Reengineering the Workplace: Weak Links,” Computerworld, February 6 1995, pp. 94-97.
Matheus, C.J., Chan, P.K., and Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., Systems for Knowledge Discovery in Databases,IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 6, December 1993.
31
McFarlan, F.W. "Information Technology Changes the Way You Compete," Harvard Business Review,May-June 1984, pp. 98-103.
McKenny, J.L. and McFarlan, F.W. “The Information Archipelago -- Maps and Bridges,” HarvardBusiness Review, September-October 1982, pp. 109-119.
McLean, E.R., and Kappelman, L.A. "The Convergence of Organizational and End-User Computing,"Communications of the ACM, December 1993.
McLeod, R., and Bender, D.H. “The Integration of Word Processing Into a Management InformationSystem,” MIS Quarterly, December 1982, pp. 11-29.
Morris, C.R. and Ferguson, C.H. “How Architecture Wins Technology Wars,” Harvard Business Review,March-April 1993, pp. 86-96.
Niederman, F., Brancheau, J.C., and Wetherbe, J.C. "Information Systems Management Issues in the1990s," MIS Quarterly, December 1991, pp. 474-499.
Nolan, R.L. "Managing the Crisis in Data Processing," Harvard Business Review, March-April 1979,pp. 115-126.
Nolan, R.L. "Plight of the EDP Manager," Harvard Business Review, May-June 1973, p. 143.
Nolan, R.L. “Managing Information Systems by Committee,” Harvard Business Review, July-August1982, pp. 72-79.
Porter, M.E., and Millar, V.E. "How Information Gives You a Competitive Advantage," HarvardBusiness Review, July-August 1985, pp. 149-160.
Porter, M.E. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, Free Press,New York NY, 1980.
Porter, M.E. Competitive Advantage, Free Press, New York NY, 1985.
Pyburn, P.J. "Managing Personal Computer Use: The Role of Corporate Management InformationSystems," Journal of Management Information Systems, Volume 3, Number 3, 1986-87, pp. 49-70.
Orlikowski, W.J., and Robey, D. "Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations,"Information Systems Research, Volume 2, Number 2, June 1991.
Rayport, J.F. and Sviokla, J.J. “Exploiting the Virtual Value Chain,” Harvard Business Review,November-December 1995, pp. 75-85.
Robey, D., and Zmud, R. "Research on End-User Computing: Theoretical Perspectives fromOrganizational Theory," Desktop Information Technology, K.M. Kaiser, H.J. Oppelland, NorthHolland, 1990, pp. 15-36.
Rockart J.F. “The Changing Role of the Information Systems Executive: A Critical Success FactorsPerspective,” Sloan Management Review, Fall 1982, pp. 3-13.
Rockart, J.F. “The Line Takes the Leadership -- IS Management in a Wired Society,” Sloan ManagementReview, Summer 1988, pp. 57-64.
Rockart, J.F. "Chief Executives Define Their Own Data Needs," Harvard Business Review, March-April1979, pp. 81-93.
Rockart, J.F., and Flannery, L.S. "The Management of End-User Computing," Communications of theACM, Volume 26, Number 10, 1983, pp. 776-784.
Rockart, J.F., Ball, L., Bullen, C.V. "The Future Role of the Information Systems Executive," MISQuarterly, Volume 6 (special issue), December 1982, pp. 1-14.
Shina, A. “Client-Server Computing,” Communications of the ACM, Volume 35, Number 7, July 1992,pp. 77-98.
Shore, E.B. “Reshaping the IS Organization,” MIS Quarterly, December 1983, pp. 11-17.
32
Sprague, R.H. “Electronic Document Management: Challenges and Opportunities for InformationSystems Managers, MIS Quarterly, March 1995, pp. 29-49.
Stephens, C.S., Ledbetter, W.N., Mitra, A., Ford, F.N. “Executive or Functional Manager? The Nature ofthe IS Executive’s Job,” MIS Quarterly, December 1992, pp. 449-467.
Straub, D.W., and Wetherbe, J.C. "Information Technologies in the 1990s: An Organizational ImpactPerspective," Communications of the ACM, Volume 32, Number 11, 1989 pp. 1328-1339.
Taggart, W.M., and Sibley, V. "A Balanced Orientation for the Information Systems Manager," MISQuarterly, June 1979, pp. 21-33.
Venkatraman, N. “IT-Enabled Business Transformation: From Automation to Business ScopeRedefinition,” Sloan Management Review, Winter 1994, pp. 73-87. .
Watson, R.T., Kelly, G.G., Galliers, R.D., and Brancheau, J.C. "Key Issues in Information SystemsManagement: An International Perspective," under revision for Journal of ManagementInformation Systems, 1996.
Watson, R.T. “Influences on IS Managers Perception of Key Issues: Information Scanning and theRelationship with the CEO,” MIS Quarterly, June 1990, pp. 217-231.
Welke, R.J. “The Shifting Software Development Paradigm,” Database, Vol. 25, No. 4, November 1984,pp. 9-16.
Wetherbe, J.C., and Whitehead, C.J. “A Contingency View of Managing the Data ProcessingOrganization,” MIS Quarterly, March 1977, pp. 19-25.
Zmud, R.W. "Design Alternatives for Organizing Information Systems Activities," MIS Quarterly,Volume 8, Number 2, June 1984, pp. 79-93.
33
Appendix A. Sample Survey Instrument
KEY INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ISSUES - ROUND 3 SURVEYThe following issues have been listed in descending order from most important to least
important based on the average rating received by second round respondents.For your convenience, your personal ratings from the second-round survey are listed
next to each issue. Given the averaged ratings of you and your peers in other organizations,please re-rate these issues by writing your new rating in the space provided. As before, rateeach issue on a scale from 1 to 10, where 10 indicates your most important issue(s) and 1indicates your least important issue(s).
You will notice that many of the average ratings of the issues are relatively closetogether. Please try to distribute your rating scores across as much of the rating scale as youfeel is appropriate. Thank you for your time.
Least Important Moderately Important Most Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Please fill in your rating in the spaces provided)
Your Your New Avg. LastRating Rating Rating
____ 8.65 ____ Building a Responsive IT InfrastructureBuilding 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 rapid changes ininfrastructure technology and the increasing breadth and depth of applications which need to be supported.
____ 7.94 ____ Facilitating and Managing Business Process RedesignTo remain competitive, many organizations are radically changing the way they do business. IT plays anincreasingly important role in this change process by enabling the innovative redesign of core businessprocesses. Much has been learned about IT implementation in general which can help facilitate and manageBPR 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; maintainingconsistent data; controlling joint development projects with users; and administering large-scale distributedapplications. (*Edited to recognize client-server technology as a popular implementation of distributedsystems today.)
____ 7.62 ____ Developing & Implementing an Information ArchitectureA corporate/global information architecture is needed to identify the major information categories used withinan enterprise and their relationships to business processes. It is essential for guiding applications developmentand facilitating the integration and sharing of data.
____ 7.57 ____ Planning and Managing Communication NetworksCommunication is the lifeblood of the organization. Using IS for competitive advantage depends heavily onaccess to appropriate internal and external communication networks. This task is complicated by rapid advancesin underlying technology and major structural changes in the communications industry.
34
Least Important Moderately Important Most Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Please fill in your rating in the spaces provided)
Your Your New Avg. LastRating Rating Rating
____ 7.43 ____ Improving the Effectiveness of Software DevelopmentThe application development backlog remains at unacceptably high levels. Traditional development methodsand platforms are no longer satisfactory. New methods and platforms have not yet proven themselves.Sophisticated users are getting impatient. Improved effectiveness will be essential for next-generationapplications.
____ 7.32 ____ Making Effective Use of the Data ResourceThe organization's data resource is growing in size, complexity, and value. Despite this, it remains largelyunrecognized, inaccessible, and underutilized. IS must develop a climate within its department and throughoutthe organization which values the data resource as a corporate asset.
____ 7.26 ____ Aligning the IS Organization within the EnterpriseThe IS organization's effectiveness in supporting the enterprise's needs is dependent on its organizationallocation within the enterprise. Appropriate alignment may require a combination of centralized anddecentralized 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 effective useinformation technology. More emphasis needs to be put on developing business skills such as teamwork andleadership and staying current with new technology such as object-oriented and multimedia applications.(* Edited to reflect specific business skills and technologies.)
____ 6.99 ____ Managing the Existing Portfolio of Legacy ApplicationsMost organizations have a large investment in their existing applications portfolio. Some "legacy" applicationsmay need to be retired quickly. Others may need to be leveraged for many years before they are replaced.Integrating new technologies and migrating to new operating environments can be difficult. Too little is knownabout managing these problems.
____ 6.96 ____ Improving IS Strategic PlanningIt has always been important to align long-range IS plans with strategic business plans. Rapidly changingbusiness environments, increased involvement of end users, and accelerated technological change underscorethe need to continue improving strategic planning skills.
____ 6.73 ____ Measuring IS Effectiveness and ProductivityUnderstanding 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 is becomingmore important as companies attempt to reduce operating expenses to meet the competition.
35
Least Important Moderately Important Most Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Please fill in your rating in the spaces provided)
Your Your New Avg. LastRating Rating Rating
____ 6.61 ____ Increasing Understanding of IS Role and ContributionIS 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 canbe cut resulting in missed opportunities for using IT to solve important business problems.
____ 6.53 ____ Implementing and Managing Collaborative Support SystemsNew software is needed to support the reengineered, flat, team-based organization of the future. Appropriate ITsupport can help teams share information, lead to faster decision making, and improved team effectiveness.Such support will become even more important in a distributed ubiquitous computing environment.
____ 6.48 ____ Facilitating Organizational LearningOrganizations that prosper will need to make appropriate use of information technologies across their entireenterprise. Business practices and organizational structures will need to be modified in many cases. IS alsomust demonstrate its own ability to learn and use new technology.
____ 6.43 ____ Using Information Systems for Competitive AdvantageIn many businesses, long-term survival is dependent on using information systems to gain competitiveadvantage. Competitive advantage results from recognition of opportunities through creativity and innovation,followed by rapid implementation. These are historical weaknesses of the IS organization.
____ 6.36 ____ Planning and Integrating MultiVendor Open SystemsTechnologies*Many companies are moving away from single-vendor proprietary operating environments to vendor-neutralenvironments based on industry and defacto standards. Due to large investments in legacy systems, carefullyplanned migration paths are critical. This task is complicated by a still-maturing technology and unstablestandards. (* Edited to reflect the open systems nature of multivendor environments.)
____ 6.34 ____ Facilitating and Managing End-User ComputingThe proliferation of end-user computing through personal computers offers the promise of improvedproductivity but also the dangers of inadequate management control. Information systems management mustbalance control against the need for slack. Clarification of IS and end-user roles is a necessity.
____ 5.94 ____ Outsourcing Selected Information ServicesThe internal information systems organization no longer has a monopoly. Outside contractors may be able toprovide some services more effectively. What services should be outsourced? How should contractorrelationships be managed? Fair and objective evaluation techniques are needed which assess both costs andbenefits as well as potential risks from loss of control.
____ 5.93 ____ Developing and Managing Electronic Data InterchangeElectronic communication with customers and suppliers may offer competitive advantage to a company or itmay be a requirement for staying in business. IS executives must develop (or adapt to) standard transactionformats, keep current on technology developments, and learn to manage inter-organizational projects.
36
Appendix B. Results By Delphi Round
Issue Rank, Average Score, and Standard Deviation
Round One Round Two Round Three
Issue RankAvg.
ScoreStd.Dev. Rank
Avg.Score
Std.Dev. Rank
Avg.Score
Std.Dev.
Responsive IT Infrastructure 1 8.68 1.22 1 8.70 1.31 1 9.10 0.96
Business Process Redesign new 2 8.00 1.41 2 7.79 1.19
Distributed Systems 5 7.46 2.10 3 7.68 1.49 3 7.73 1.38
Information Architecture 6 7.45 1.84 4 7.62 1.58 4 7.62 1.49
Communication Networks 3 7.64 1.70 5 7.57 1.56 5 7.58 1.40
Software Development 2 7.66 1.63 6 7.42 1.67 6 7.5 1.86
Data Resource 7 7.36 1.93 7 7.36 1.90 7 7.46 1.62
IS Human Resources 9 7.25 1.86 9 7.17 2.00 8 7.31 1.70
IS Organization Alignment 4 7.56 2.36 8 7.28 2.22 9 7.11 2.02
IS Strategic Planning 8 7.35 1.89 10 7.02 1.96 10 6.82 2.02
IS Effectiveness Measurement 12 6.92 2.00 12 6.79 1.73 11 6.59 2.01
Collaborative Support new 14 6.52 2.07 12 6.59 1.91
IS Role & Contribution 10 7.15 2.18 13 6.66 2.24 13 6.53 2.02
Organizational Learning 11 7.01 1.90 15 6.49 1.75 14 6.48 1.87
Legacy Applications 19 5.77 2.04 11 6.99 1.97 15 6.31 2.03
End-User Computing 14 6.69 2.03 17 6.34 1.93 16 6.23 1.88
Competitive Advantage 13 6.76 2.15 16 6.38 2.04 17 6.18 2.12
MultiVendor Systems 16 6.27 1.98 18 6.34 1.67 18 6.04 1.86
Electronic Data Interchange 15 6.50 1.99 19 5.95 1.98 19 5.91 2.00
Outsourcing new 20 5.94 2.16 20 5.40 2.03
Decision & Executive Support 17 6.20 2.14 21 5.78 1.96 drop
Object-Oriented Technologies new 22 5.72 2.09 drop
Multimedia Applications new 23 4.56 1.97 drop
Security & Control 18 5.78 1.9 drop drop
Disaster Recovery 20 5.21 2.14 drop drop
CASE Technology 21 4.49 1.81 drop drop
37
Appendix C. Results by IndustryManufacturing Organizations (n = 40)
Rank Rating Key Issue 1 9.09 Building a Responsive IT Infrastructure 2 7.81 Facilitating and Managing Business Process Redesign 3 7.74 Developing and Managing Distributed Systems 4 7.64 Developing and Implementing an Information Architecture 5 7.58 Planning and Managing Communication Networks 6 7.47 Improving the Effectiveness of Software Development 7 7.44 Making Effective Use of the Data Resource 8 7.27 Recruiting and Developing IS Human Resources 9 7.13 Aligning the IS Organization within the Enterprise10 6.90 Improving IS Strategic Planning
Services Organizations (n = 32)
Rank Rating Key Issue 1 9.32 Building a Responsive IT Infrastructure * 2 8.07 Improving the Effectiveness of Software Development * 3 8.03 Developing and Managing Distributed Systems 4 7.81 Planning and Managing Communication Networks 5 7.68 Facilitating and Managing Business Process Redesign 6 7.61 Developing and Implementing an Information Architecture 7 7.50 Recruiting and Developing IS Human Resources 8 7.30 Making Effective Use of the Data Resource 9 6.87 Aligning the IS Organization within the Enterprise10 6.73 Improving IS Strategic Planning
Non-Profit Organizations (n = 11)
Rank Rating Key Issue 1 9.00 Building a Responsive IT Infrastructure 2 8.05 Making Effective Use of the Data Resource 3 8.00 Recruiting and Developing IS Human Resources 4 7.91 Improving the Effectiveness of Software Development 5 7.73 Facilitating and Managing Business Process Redesign 6 7.68 Developing and Managing Distributed Systems 7 7.36 Developing and Implementing an Information Architecture 8 7.32 Managing Existing Legacy Applications 9 7.23 Planning and Managing Communication Networks10 7.18 Aligning the IS Organization within the Enterprise
Notes: Excludes IS consultants, * denotes significant difference (p < 0.10)
38
Appendix D. Results by PositionIS Practitioners (n = 74)
Rank Rating Key Issue
1 9.07 Building a Responsive IT Infrastructure
3 7.80 Developing and Managing Distributed Systems
2 7.79 Facilitating and Managing Business Process Redesign
4 7.66 Developing and Implementing an Information Architecture
5 7.60 Planning and Managing Communication Networks
6 7.46 Improving the Effectiveness of Software Development
7 7.44 Making Effective Use of the Data Resource
8 7.25 Recruiting and Developing IS Human Resources
9 7.07 Aligning the IS Organization within the Enterprise
10 6.86 Improving IS Strategic Planning
IS Observers (n = 9)(Educators and Consultants)
Rank Rating Key Issue
1 9.33 Building a Responsive IT Infrastructure
2 7.88 Improving the Effectiveness of Software Development
2 7.88 Recruiting and Developing IS Human Resources
4 7.78 Facilitating and Managing Business Process Redesign
5 7.63 Making Effective Use of the Data Resource
6 7.50 Aligning the IS Organization within the Enterprise
7 7.44 Planning and Managing Communication Networks
8 7.33 Developing and Implementing an Information Architecture
9 7.22 Developing and Managing Distributed Systems
10 6.75 Improving IS Strategic Planning
39
Appendix E. 1990/1994 Comparison of Key Issues
1994 1990 4-Year Issue ClassificationKey Issue Rank Rank Change M/T P/C I/E Group
Responsive IT Infrastructure 1 6 +5 T C I TI
Business Process Redesign 2 -- new M C E BR
Distributed Systems 3 12 +9 T C E TI
Information Architecture 4 1 -3 T P I TI
Communication Networks 5 10 +5 T C E TI
Software Development 6 9 +3 T C I IE
Data Resource 7 2 -5 M C E BR
IS Human Resources 8 4 -4 M C I IE
IS Organization Alignment 9 7 -2 M C E BR
IS Strategic Planning 10 3 -7 M P E BR
Collaborative Systems 11 -- new T C E TA
IS Effectiveness Measurement 11 16 +5 M C I IE
IS Role & Contribution 13 11 -2 M P E BR
Organizational Learning 14 5 -9 M C E BR
Legacy Applications 15 15 0 T C I IE
End-User Computing 16 18 +2 M C E TA
Competitive Advantage 17 8 -9 M P E BR
MultiVendor Open Systems 18 12 -7 T C I TI
Electronic Data Interchange 19 12 -7 T C E TI
Outsourcing 20 -- new M C E IE
CASE Technology -- 12 -- T C I TA
Decision & Executive Support -- 17 -- M C E TA
Security & Control -- 19 -- T C I IE
Disaster Recovery -- 20 -- T C I IE
Notes:
M/T indicates management (M) or technology (T)P/C indicates planning (P) or control (C)
I/E indicates internal (I) to IS or external (E)
Group indicates business relationship (BR), technology infrastructure (TI),internal effectiveness (IE), or technology application (TA)