Strategic Information Systems Planning: A Review Somendra Pant and Cheng Hsu 1995 Information Resources Management Association

International Conference, May 21-24, Atlanta, Georgia . January 1995 Doctoral Student, School of Management, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180-3590 Associate Professor, Decision Sciences and Engineering Systems Department, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180-3590Abstract Information has emerged as an agent of integration and the enabler of new competitiveness for todays enterprise in the global marketplace. However, has the paradigm of strategic planning changed sufficiently to support the new role of information systems and technology? We reviewed the literature for commonly used or representative information planning methodologies and found that a new approach is needed. There are six methodologies reviewed in this paper. They all tend to regard planning as a separate stage which does not connect structurally and directly to the information systems development. An integration of planning with development and management through enterprise information resources - which capture and characterize the enterprise - will shorten the response cycle and even allow for economic evaluation of information system investment.1 1. Background For a long time relationship between information system functions and corporate strategy was not of much interest to Top Management of firms. Information Systems were thought to be synonymous with corporate data processing and treated as some back-room operation in support of day-to-day mundane tasks (Rockart, 1979). In the 80s and 90s, however, there has been a growing realization of the need to make information systems of strategic importance to an organization. Consequently, strategic information systems planning (SISP) is a critical issue. In many industry surveys, improved SISP is often mentioned as the most serious challenge facing IS managers (Pavri and Ang, 1995, Beath and Orlikowski, 1994; Martin, 1993; Porter and Miller, 1985). Planning for information systems, as for any other system, begins with the identification of needs. In order to be effective, development of any type of computer-based system should be a response to need--whether at the transaction processing level or at the more complex information and support systems levels. Such planning for information systems is much like strategic planning in management. Objectives, priorities, and authorization for information systems projects need to be formalized. The systems development plan should identify specific projects slated for the future, priorities for each project and for resources, general procedures, and constraints for each application area. The plan must be specific enough to enable understanding of each application and to know where it stands in the order of development. Also the plan should be flexible so that priorities can be adjusted if necessary. King (King, 1995) in his recent article has argued that a strategic capability architecture - a flexible and continuously improving infrastructure of organizational capabilities - is the primary basis for a company's sustainable competitive advantage. He has emphasized the need for continuously updating and improving the strategic capabilities architecture. SISP is the analysis of a corporations information and processes using business information models together with the evaluation of risk, current needs and requirements. The result is an action plan showing the desired course of events necessary to align information use and needs with the strategic direction of the company (Battaglia, 1991). The same article emphasizes the need to note that SISP is a management function and not a technical one. This is consistent with the earlier distinction between the older data processing views and the modern strategic importance view of Information Systems. SISP thus is used to identify the best targets for purchasing and installing new management information systems and help an organization maximize the return on its information technology investment. A portfolio of computer-based applications is identified that will assist an organization in executing its business plans and realize its business goals. There is a growing realization that the application of information technology (IT) to a firms strategic activities has been one of the most common and effective ways to improve business performance.2 This paper reviews the existing methodologies for SISP in an attempt to answer the critical

question: how to move ahead and further improve the effectiveness of strategic planning for information-based enterprises? In particular, we examine their capacity for driving the development of corporate information systems ensuing the planning, and their potential to support economic evaluations of information systems investments. 2. The Perspective of Strategic Information Systems Planning In order to put the planning for strategic information systems in perspective, the evolution of information systems according to the three-era model of John Ward, et al.(1990) is pertinent. According to this model there are three distinct, albeit overlapping, eras of information systems, dating back to the 60s. The relationship over time of the three eras of information systems is shown in table 1: ERA CHARACTERISTICS 60s Data Processing (DP) Standalone computers, remote from users, cost reduction function. 70s &80s Management Information Systems (MIS) Distributed process, interconnected, regulated by management service, supporting the business, user driven. 80s &90s Strategic Information Systems (SIS) Networked, integrated systems, available and supportive to users, relate to business strategy, enable the business business driven. Table 1: The Three Era Model of IS [Adapted from Ward (1990) ] Applications in the overall Data Processing (DP), Management Information Systems (MIS) and Strategic Information Systems (SIS) area need to be planned and managed according to their existing and future contribution to the business. Traditional portfolio models consider the relationship of systems to each other and the tasks being performed rather than the relationship with business success. A portfolio model derived from McFarlan (1984) considers the contribution of IS/IT to the business now and in the future based on its industry impact. Based on this model applications are divided into four categories, as shown here: Strategic ( Applications which are critical for future success. Examples: computer-integrated manufacturing, links to suppliers, etc.) Turnaround ( Applications which may be of future strategic importance. Examples: electronic data interchange with wholesalers, electronic mail, etc.)3 Factory ( Applications which are critical to sustaining existing business. Examples: employee database, maintenance scheduling, etc.) Support ( Applications which improve management and performance but are not critical to the business. Examples: time recording, payroll, etc.) Table 2: A Portfolio Model [McFarlan (1984)] Some characteristics of strategic IS planning are: Main task: strategic/competitive advantage, linkage to business strategy. Key objective: pursuing opportunities, integrating IS and business strategies Direction from: executives/senior management and users, coalition of users/management and information systems. Main approach: entrepreneurial (user innovation), multiple (bottom-up development, top down analysis, etc.) at the same time. Strategic Information Systems Planning in the present SIS era is not an easy task because such a process is deeply embedded in business processes. These systems need to cater to the

strategic demands of organizations, i.e., serving the business goals and creating competitive advantage as well as meeting their data processing and MIS needs. The key point here is that organizations have to plan for information systems not merely as tools for cutting costs but as means to adding value. The magnitude of this change in perspective of IS/ITs role in organizations is highlighted in a Business Week article, The Technology Payoff (Business Week, June 14, 1993). According to this article, throughout the 1980s US businesses invested a staggering $1 trillion in the information technology. This huge investment did not result in a commensurate productivity gain overall national productivity rose at a 1% annual rate compared with nearly 5% in Japan. Using the information technology merely to automate routine tasks without altering the business processes is identified as the cause of the above productivity paradox. As IT is used to support breakthrough ideas in business processes, essentially supporting direct value adding activities instead of merely cost saving, it has resulted in major productivity gains. In 1992, productivity rose nearly 3% and the corporate profits went up sharply. According to an MIT study quoted in the above article, the return on investment in information systems averaged 54% for manufacturing and 68% for all businesses surveyed. This impact of information technology on re-defining, re-engineering businesses is likely to continue and it is expected that information technology will play increasingly important roles in future. For example, Pant, et al. (1994) point out that the emerging vision of virtual corporations will become a reality only if it is rooted in new visionary information technology. It is information technology alone which will carve multiple virtual corporations simultaneously out of the same physical resources and adapt them without having to change the actual organizations. Thus, it is obvious that information technology has indeed come a long way in the SIS era, offering unprecedented possibilities, which, if not cashed on, would turn into4 unprecedented risks. As Keen (1993) has morbidly but realistically pointed out that organizations not planning for strategic information systems may fail to spot the business implications of competitors use of information technology until it is too late for them to react. In situations like this, when information technology changes the basics of competition in an industry, 50% of the companies in that industry disappear within ten years. 3. Strategic Information Systems Planning Methodologies The task of strategic information systems planning is difficult and often time organizations do not know how to do it. Strategic information systems planning is a major change for organizations, from planning for information systems based on users demands to those based on business strategy. Also strategic information systems planning changes the planning characteristics in major ways. For example, the time horizon for planning changes from 1 year to 3 years or more and development plans are driven by current and future business needs rather than incremental user needs. Increase in the time horizon is a factor which results in poor response from the top management to the strategic information systems planning process as it is difficult to hold their attention for such a long period. Other questions associated with strategic information systems planning are related to the scope of the planning study, the focus of the planning exercise - corporate organization vs. strategic business unit, number of studies and their sequence, choosing a strategic information systems planning methodology or developing one if none is suitable, targets of planning process and deliverables. Because of the complexity of the strategic information systems planning process and uniqueness of each organization, there is no one best way to tackle it. Vitale, et al. (1986) classify SISP methodologies into two categories: impact and alignment. Impact methodologies help create and justify new uses of IT, while the methodologies in the alignment category align IS objectives with organizational goals. These two views of SISP are shown in figure 1.5 Alignment View Impact View Business Goals Applications Applications Databases Databases Hardware Communic Software Hardware Software -ations and Networks Competitive

Advantage Communic -ations and Networks Figure 1: Two Views of SISP Methodologies A. Impact Methodologies 1. Value Chain Analysis: The concept of value chain is considered at length by Michael Porter (1984). According to him, every firm is a collection of activities that are performed to design, produce, market, deliver, and support its product. All these activities can be represented using a value chain. Porter goes on to explain that information technology is one of the major support activities for the value chain. Information systems technology is particularly pervasive in the value chain, since every value activity creates and uses information. .. The recent, rapid technological change in information systems is having a profound impact on competition and competitive advantage because of the pervasive role of information in the value chain. ..Change in the way office functions can be performed is one of the most important types of technological trends occurring today for many firms, though few are devoting substantial resources to it. .. A firm that can discover a better technology for performing an activity than its competitors thus gains competitive advantage (Porter, 1985). A typical value chain is summarized in the figure 2.6 PRIMARY ACTIVITIES Inbound logistics Operations Outbound logistics Marketing and sales Service $ SUPPORT ACTIVITIES Firm infrastructure Human resources management Technology development Procurement Figure 2: Porters Value Chain (Porter, 1985) Once the value chain is charted, executives can rank order the steps in importance to determine which departments are central to the strategic objectives of the organization. Also, executives can then consider the interfaces between primary functions along the chain of production, and between support activities and all of the primary functions. This helps in identifying critical points of inter-departmental collaboration. Thus, value chain analysis: (a) is a form of business activity analysis which decomposes an enterprise into its parts. Information systems are derived from this analysis. (b) helps in devising information systems which increase the overall profit available to a firm. (c) helps in identifying the potential for mutual business advantages of component businesses, in the same or related industries, available from information interchange. (d) concentrates on value-adding business activities and is independent of organizational structure. Strengths : The main strength of value chain analysis is that it concentrates on direct value adding activities of a firm and thus pitches information systems right into the realm of value adding rather than cost cutting. Weaknesses: Although a very useful and intuitively appealing, value chain analysis suffers from a few weaknesses, namely, (a) it only provides a higher level information model for a firm and fails to address the developmental and implementation issues. (b) because of its focus on internal operations instead of data, it fails to define a data structure for the firm.7 (c) the basic concept of a value chain is difficult to apply to non-manufacturing organizations where the product is not tangible and there are no obvious raw materials. (d) it does not provide an automated support for carrying out analysis. Value chain analysis, therefore, needs to be used in conjunction with some other methodology which addresses the development and implementation issues and defines a data structure. 2. Critical Success Factor Analysis: Critical success factors analysis can be considered to be both an impact as well as an alignment methodology. Critical Success Factors (CSF) in the context of

SISP are used for interpreting more clearly the objectives, tactics, and operational activities in terms of key information needs of an organization and its managers and strengths and weaknesses of the organizations existing systems. Rockart (1979) defines critical success factors as being for any business the limited number of areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive performance for the organization. As shown in figure 3, CSFs can exist at a number of levels. They represent the few key areas where things must go right for the business to flourish. Consequently, critical success factors are areas of activity that should receive constant and careful attention from management. Rockart originally developed the CSF approach as a means to understanding the information needs of CEOs. The approach has subsequently been applied to the enterprise as a whole and has been extended into a broader planning methodology. It has been made the basis of many consulting practices and has achieved major results where it has been used well. CSFs can exist at a number of levels, i.e., industry, organizational, business unit, or managers. CSFs at a lower level are derived from those at the preceding higher level. The CSF approach introduces information technology into the initial stages of the planning process and helps provide a realistic assessment of the ITs contribution to the organization. Industry CSFs Organizational CSFs Business Unit or Function CSFs Manager's CSFs8 Figure 3: Hierarchy of CSFs Strengths: CSF analysis provides a very powerful method for concentrating on key information requirements of an organization, a business unit, or of a manager. This allows the management to concentrate resources on developing information systems around these requirements. Also, CSF analysis is easy to perform and can be carried out with few resources. Weaknesses: (a) although a useful and widely used technique, CSF analysis by itself is not enough to perform comprehensive SISP - it does not define a data architecture or provides automated support for analysis. (b) to be of value, the CSF analysis should be easily and directly related back to the objectives of the business unit under review. It has been the experience of the people using this technique that generally it loses its value when used below the third level in an organizational hierarchy (Ward, 1990, p.164). (c) CSFs focus primarily on management control and thus tend to be internally focused and analytical rather than creative (Ibid.). (d) CSFs partly reflect a particular executives management style. Use of CSFs as an aid in identifying systems, with the associated long lead-times for developing these systems, may lead to giving an executive information that s/he does not regard as important (Ibid.). (e) CSFs do not draw attention to the value-added aspect of information systems. While CSF analysis facilitates identification of information systems which meet the key information needs of an organization/business unit, the value derived from these systems is not assessed. B. Alignment Methodologies 1. Business Systems Planning (BSP): This methodology, developed by IBM, combines top down planning with bottom up implementation. The methodology focuses on business processes which in turn are derived from an organizations business mission, objectives and goals. Business processes are analyzed to determine data needs and, then, data classes. Similar data classes are combined to develop databases. The final BSP plan describes an overall information systems architecture as well as installation schedule of individual systems. Steps in a BSP study are:9 Reduce and organize interview data Gain top management commitment Prepare for the study Conduct the kickoff meeting Define the business processes Define the data classes Analyze current business and systems relationships Interview leading executives Define an information architecture

Determine architectural priorities Develop recommendations and an action plan Review the Information Systems Management Report results Figure 4: Steps in a BSP Study (Martin, 1982) Barlow (1990) and Ledrer and Sethi (1988) have discussed strengths and weaknesses of BSP. Strengths: Because BSP combines a top down business analysis approach with a bottom up implementation strategy, it represents an integrated methodology. In its top down strategy, BSP is similar to CSF method in that it develops an overall understanding of business plans and supporting IS needs through joint discussions. IBM being the vendor of this methodology, it has the advantage of being better known to the top management than other methodologies. Weaknesses: (a) BSP requires a firm commitment from the top management and their substantial involvement. (b) it requires a high degree of IT experience within the BSP planning team.1 0 (c) there is a problem of bridging the gap between top down planning and bottom up implementation. (d) it does not incorporate a software design methodology. (e) major weakness of BSP is the considerable time and effort required for its successful implementation. 2. Strategic Systems Planning (SSP): Also known as PROplanner and developed by Robert Holland, this methodology is similar to BSP. A business functional model is defined by analyzing major functional areas of a business. A data architecture is derived from the business function model by combining information requirements into generic data entities and subject databases. New systems and their implementation schedules are derived from this architecture. This architecture is then used to identify new systems and their implementation schedule. Although steps in the SSP procedure are similar to those in the BSP, a major difference between SSP and BSP is SSPs automated handling of the data collected during the SISP process. Software produces reports in a wide range of formats and with various levels of detail. Affinity reports show the frequencies of accesses to data and clustering reports give guidance for database design. Users are guided through menus for on-line data collection and maintenance. The software also provides a data dictionary interface for sharing SSP data with an existing data dictionary or other automated design tools. Steps in the SSP procedure are shown in figure 5. In addition to SSP, Holland Systems Corporation also offers two other methodologies - one for guiding the information system architecture and another for developing data structures for modules from the SISP study. The strengths and weaknesses of BSP apply to SSP as well. Define new systems and their implementation schedule Analyze major functional areas Develop a business functional model Determine information requirements Combine information requirements into generic data entities and subject databases Derive IS architecture Figure 5: Steps in SSP Procedure1 1 3. Information Engineering (IE): This methodology was developed by James Martin (1982) and provides techniques for building enterprise, data and process models. Theses models combine to form a comprehensive knowledge base which is used to create and maintain information systems. Basic philosophy underlying this technique is the use of structured techniques in all the tasks relating to planning, analysis, design and construction of enterprise wide information systems. Such

structured techniques are expected to result in well integrated information systems. IE relies on an information systems pyramid for an enterprise. Such a pyramid is shown in the figure 6. The pyramid has three sides which represent the organizations data, the activities the organization carries out using the data and the technology that is employed in implementing information systems. IE views all three aspects of information systems from a high-level, management oriented perspective at the top to a fully detailed implementation at the bottom. The pyramid describes the four levels of activities, namely, strategy, analysis, systems design and construction, that involve data, activities and technology. Strategic overview of the information needed to run an enterprise as effctively as possible Fully normalized logical data model Design of the records used by specific procedures Application program view of the data Strategic overview of how technology can be used to improve the enterprise The processes needed to operate the enterprise, and how they integrate Design of procedures for executing specified processes Design of detailed program logic or input to a code generator Strategy Analysis System Design Data Construction Activities Figure 6: The IS Pyramid (Martin, 1989) In addition to information engineering, Martin advocates the use of critical success factors. A major difference between IE and other methodologies is the automated tools provided by IE to link its output to subsequent systems development efforts, and this is the major strength of this methodology. Major weaknesses of IE have been identified as difficulty in securing top management commitment, difficulty in finding the team leader meeting criteria, too much user involvement and that the planning exercise takes long time. 4. Method/1: Method/1 (Arthur Anderson and Co., 1982) is a layered approach for SISP. The top layer is the methodology itself, the middle layer of techniques supports the methodology, and a bottom layer of tools supports the techniques. Techniques supported by this methodology include data flow diagramming, matrix analysis, functional decomposition, focus groups and Delphi studies. Andersen Consultings CASE tool set FOUNDATION includes computer programs that support Method/1. This methodology has five distinct objectives (Lederer and Gardiner, 1992): To identify the organizations information needs.1 2 To find new opportunities for using information to achieve competitive advantage. To define an overall IT strategy for satisfying the organizations IT objectives. To define data, applications, technology and organizational requirements for supporting the overall IT strategy. To define the activities needed to meet the above requirements and thereby implement the overall IT strategy. This methodology incorporates the value chain analysis in its approach towards business and competitive assessment. The ten work segments of Method/1, their actions and products are shown

in table 3 (Lederer and Gardiner, 1992). Work Segment Actions Product 1. Scope Definition and Organization Determine key planning issues Determine project scope Organize project team Obtain management commitment Definition of key planning issues Definition of project scope Schedule of key management checkpoints Proposal letter 2. Business and Competitive Assessment Study business and competitive environment Identify competitive information opportunities Define strategic information needs Opportunities to use information competitively Definition of priority-setting criteria 3. Present State Assessment Document present systems Assess effectiveness of information services Review functional operations Assess present operations Evaluate competitive IT position Evaluation of organizations IT position Description of present and planned application characteristics Assessment of present operations, architecture, and capacity1 3 4. Information Technology Opportunities Analyze IT trends Determine information needs Define major IT objectives Identify opportunities for improvement Summary of needs of each major functional department Description of opportunities for improvement Summary of IT objectives and trends 5. Information Technology Strategies Develop high-level IT

strategies Define conceptual architecture of required information systems Identify high-priority projects IT strategies Description of high-priority projects 6. Organization Plan Develop change management approach Develop human resources plan Organization plan 7. Data and Applications Plan Define data and applications Define data and maintenance approaches Develop data and application plan Data and application plan 8. Technology Plan Develop technical architecture Develop technology plan Technology plan 9. Information Action Plan Develop migration plan Prepare information action plan Approve and initiate information action plan Information action plan 10. Product Definition and Planning Initiate project definition Define requirements Develop a conceptual design Obtain management advisory committee approval Project definition report Table 3: Work Segments, Actions and Products in Method/1 4. Key Issues in SISP Methodologies: Lederer and Sethi (1988) surveyed 80 organizations to examine the problems faced by1 4 information systems managers when they attempt to implement one of three alignment methodologies, BSP, SSP or IE. Barlow (1990) has also examined the SISP methodologies and has provided some insights into their structure and implementation problems. Bergeron et al. (1991) examined the issue of application of two impact methodologies, Porters Value Chain Analysis and Wisemans Strategic Thrust Methodology. These studies and the insights developed by us form the basis of this section which provides a critique of the existing methodologies. The detailed list of problems in implementing SISP methodologies has been classified by Lederer and Sethi as resource, planning process, or output related problem associated with the three methodologies. According to this survey, the most severe problem identified by IS managers is the failure to secure top management commitment for carrying out the final plan. The second most severe problem identified is the requirement for substantial further analysis after the completion of the IS plan. Both these problems are related to the output of the planning process. Besides these top two, six of the next top eight problems are related to the resources required to carry out the strategic information systems planning (success of the plan depends on the team leader, difficulty in finding the team leader meeting the criteria specified in the study, methodology lacking computer support, planning exercise taking long time, etc.). Among the top ten problems encountered while implementing one of these methodologies (or, even while implementing an in-house methodology), three are common: difficulty in obtaining top management commitment for implementing the outputs, the requirement of substantial further analysis and difficulty in finding a good team leader. The results of this survey suggest that IS planners are not particularly satisfied with their

methodologies. If the objective of the SISP exercise is to align IS objectives with business goals, then detailed, lengthy and complex SISP may be of limited value. Where the objective is to use IT to impact a business strategy, these methodologies may not generate useful ideas for that purpose. Bergeron et al. (1990), however, point out that the value chain analysis and Wisemans strategic methodologies do help in achieving that purpose. Barlow (1990) suggests that the large number of methodologies that have been developed can often add confusion rather than clarity to the (IS) planning process. Salient points which emerge from this and the preceding sections are: Although strategic information systems planning is a major concern, most organizations find it difficult to undertake it. Besides their lack of experience with SISP, absence of a comprehensive, structured, easy to use methodology may also be a main reason for it. It is possible that the advances in Information Technology and their applicability in organizations has outpaced all formal methodologies evolved in the 70s and 80s or evolved in 90s as marginally modified versions of the earlier methodologies, which were largely dominated by IBMs Business Systems Planning. Further, as pointed out by Barlow (1990) also, the overall success of an integrated business/technology architecture depends upon the organizational structure, the level of IT1 5 experience within the company and the availability of information resources. Since these factors differ between firms, there may not be a single best way to view IT planning. A comprehensive methodology for SISP will need to incorporate both the impact and the align views. Method/1 incorporates Value Chain Analysis. IE supports Critical Success Factors Analysis. Even BSP is now incorporating CSFs. Since it is difficult to find a team leader who meets the criteria specified in SISP methodologies, it is proposed that detailed guidelines on how to perform a SISP study by way of an automated tool will help. Such a tool will make the task more structured and less leader-critical. Some such tools for strategic business planning have been developed by the Search Technology, Inc. and are reported in Rouse and Howard (1993). 5. Conceptual Framework for SISP - A Research Agenda A conceptual framework for SISP is necessary both from a theory building perspective as also providing a basis for undertaking SISP. The latter is expected to answer the following questions frequently encountered by the practitioners in this area: What is involved in SISP and how to go about doing it? How to link the products of SISP to systems analysis, design and implementation in a timely manner? Is one SISP methodology more suitable than another in a given context? How to evaluate alternative information systems plans? The theory building perspective of SISP is expected to contribute to research in this area, which, being in its infancy, has been largely anecdotal. Based on the literature in this area and a careful study of the current methodologies, certain generic steps in a typical SISP formulation can be identified. These are: Study Internal Business Environment. This is a prerequisite to determining the business IS needs. The internal business environment is comprised of mission of the organization, its objectives, strategies and plans, business activities, the organizational environment, core competencies, its critical success factors and the internal value chain. Study external business environment. This helps an organization focus attention on the forces and pressure groups it encounters. These external forces exert a very strong influence on the business strategy of an organization. Factors to be considered here are the industry that the organization is in and that industrys critical success factors, competitive position of the organization in the industry, relationship with major buyers and suppliers. Study internal IS/IT environment. This is mainly comprised of the current and planned applications portfolio that supports the business. Other aspects to be considered here are the present IS organization, skills and attitudes of people in the organization, IT environment and the IS/IT budgets.1 6 External IS/IT Environment. This consists of scanning the environment for available and emerging technologies and their business implications. An important aspect of this is to understand how the competitors are using information technology. Strategic Information Systems Planning essentially provides a high level business/information model for an organization. Conceptually, the entire process of planning down to its detailed implementation can be looked at as occurring at three levels as shown in figure 7.

Planning Level Analysis and Design Level Implementation Level Figure 7: Three Levels of IS Planning and Implementation All the generic tasks associated with SISP are performed at the top level and the information flows at that level are diagrammed. The outflows from the top level flow vertically into the next Analysis and Design level. This level has its own generic flows, associated with the analysis and design cycle of the systems development life cycle. The vertical flows do two things: (a) provide constraints on the flows and entities at this level and (b) create entities which link the analysis and design level to the upper, planning level. Similarly, outputs from the analysis and design level create and constraint flows at the implementation level. It is hypothesized that different combinations of flows and entities at the top level will result in different information architecture for the organization. For example, a different set of critical success factors will give rise to different constraints and hence different architecture. Similarly, if entities are changed at the top level, a different flow and hence a different architecture will emerge. For example, if the planning level model uses the internal value chain as against the external value chain - the resulting vertical flows, and hence the architecture, will be different. This should provide an organization the capability to (a) experiment with different architecture and (b) to modify its current architecture in response to high level changes without having to redo the entire systems development life cycle.1 7 It is also hypothesized that the above model will provide an organization a third alternative to develop applications based on either a comprehensive systems development life cycle or rapid prototyping. Either after the completion of the top level model or even during its completion, some critical vertical flows can be identified - for example those based on the critical success factors, or some competitive advantage/threat. Applications can then quickly be developed, tested and implemented along those critical/competitive flows. The rest of the model can await completion and subsequent implementation while the organizational resources are concentrated on developing applications demanded by the exigencies of the current situation. Developing a Theoretical Perspective Hsu and Rattner (1993) developed a theory of information integration in CIM environment. This theory developed a concept of parallel paradigm of integration which asserts that by the sharing of information between processes interdependent decisions are pooled into concurrent processes. This parallel formulation of processes is a major change from the traditional sequential formulation of processes. In traditional CIM formulation, functions are supported by isolated decision spaces. That is, only the information pertaining to that decision is handled as a variable. Other information is inherited as a constraint. For example the part cycle inherits the information processed by the production cycle as a constraint which in turn is constrained by the information processed at the product development cycle. One can look at the degree of non-integration as the number of constraints a decision space inherits. The extent to which these constraints can be converted into variables represents the degree of integration. For instance, the design function in sequential formulation will constraint the process planning function. Because of the isolation of decision spaces, a mere interfacing between these two functions will require repeated iterations. Integration of the functions, will, however, provide for real-time interaction between these functions. From an enterprise point of view, parameterized decision spaces are fragmented and their existence prevents the associated set of functions from operating as an information-processing and decision-making whole, since results reflect a sequence of discrete decisions. Hsu and Rattners work suggests that while such functions operate as though they are using local variables, they are in fact tightly coupled (through, perhaps second or third order relationships) to many other apparently local variables. Part of the difficulty in achieving integration stems from the obscured local vs. global distinction. Another distinction which needs to be made here is that between local and global optimality. Since constraints from both higher levels and from peer-level are inherited as constraints, they are not evaluated in local decisions. Therefore, it is possible that while an enterprise may try to achieve local optimality, it may prevent global optimality of enterprise performance. This is further explained with reference to figure 8. Figure 8(a) depicts a traditional, sequential formulation of manufacturing functions. Each oval represents a decision space . Within each level in the hierarchy, the arrows depict the explicit flow of information between pairs of peer functions. Between hierarchy levels, the arrows1 8 symbolize the assertion of constraints.

Product development cycle Production cycle Part cycle Demand Material Design Capacity Demand Material Design Capacity Demand Material Design Capacity Demand Material Design Capacity Demand Material Design Capacity Demand Material Design Capacity Flow of information Constraints Decision Space Levels of decreasing decision scope, information aggregation, and real time unit of measure. Fig. 8(a): Sequential Formulation Fig. 8(b): Parallel Formulation Figure 8: Sequential and Parallel Formulation of Decision Making Hierarchy (Rattner, 1990) In contrast, manufacturing functions can be organized in parallel; i.e., to explicitly share unified decision spaces. The extent to which parameters and constraints are converted to decision variables is a measure of integration strength among sub-functions. The implication is that by explicitly managing global decision variables as such, each local function supports global performance objectives. The impact of optimizing global performance is ultimately measurable from the firms production function. The paradigm is rooted in the premise that local productivity is largely irrelevant and that an enterprise achieves competitive success if it achieves optimal global productivity. Formulating tasks in parallel is a means towards that end. The paradigm alters the decision-making hierarchy so that peer functions operate in parallel. Thus, all decisions are made in support of explicit global requirements. In this way, decisions contribute to synergy. Figure 8(b) depicts the concept of parallel formulation. Each oval again represents a decision space and each arrow represents the flow of constraints (downward) and feedback (upward) between hierarchy levels. There is no longer a need for explicit flows among peer functions since such iterations (sequential iterations) have been replaced by a comprehensive decision space. The three level approach to information systems development can also be brought into the ambit of the above theoretical framework. The decisions at the planning level constraint those at the analysis level and from there down to the design level. The task here is to convert these constraints into variables which can be manipulated as the need arises. For example, the critical success factors at the planning level constraint the analysis, design and implementation of a particular application. In a parallel formulation this constraint would become a variable - that is not only do CSFs

determine applications to support them but the CSFs set itself will be altered depending on the realities of an enterprises information system. This provides a new perspective on SISP - the1 9 bottom up planning - where the planning level variables (at least some of them) are manipulated by the state of the IS in the organization. Where these variables can not be manipulated, for example those reflecting the external environment (competitors, technology available, etc.), this bottom-up approach will explicitly acknowledge those limitations and hopefully initiate a corrective action. It is not that organizations are not doing some or all of the things suggested here. The parallel formulation of information systems development tasks is expected to formalize and structure these steps and provide automated support for carrying them out in an interactive manner. This parallel formulation of IS development tasks will also help organizations tide over a major limitation of SISP methodologies: planning is unnecessarily detailed and takes a long time. When the entire hierarchy of tasks related to developing down to implementing a plan is modeled in terms of its explicit information flows and data and knowledge classes, information systems can be developed quickly along the preferred paths (flows) without having to develop the entire system. Systems so developed will be different from those developed in an ad hoc manner in response to exigencies of the situation - these systems will be integrated with the overall system at the logical level as they are developed out of the shared information, data and knowledge spaces. This concept has its parallel in Physics. Holographic images are made up of a multitude of images where each individual image is derived from and contains the big image. In the same way, individual systems will be derived from the overall system and will in turn holistically support the overall system. To conclude this theoretical perspective, it offers a viable alternative to the SISP process. Although not as well defined as in the CIM scenario, there is a structure to the SISP process. The literature and the analysis of existing methodologies, as mentioned earlier, does point to certain generic tasks and information flows required for SISP. This will provide the starting point for building a framework for a parallel formulation of SISP tasks. 6. Conclusions Information-based enterprises must be planned in an integrated way whereby all stages of the life cycle are engaged to bring about agility, quality, and productivity. This integration is similar in nature to the integration of product life cycle for an enterprise. The existing methodologies, however, tend to support information planning as an island separated from the wealth of the enterprises information resources. A needed new approach would tap into these resources which capture and characterize the enterprise to allow for integration of the planning stage with information systems development stages and support a shortened and adaptive cycle. This paper is a small first step towards a big task: developing a framework and a theory for strategic information systems planning. The need for such a framework is established by the existing problems in implementing SISP methodologies and also by what these methodologies themselves lack. A possible approach to building a framework is traced to the theoretical work of Hsu and Rattner (1993) and that is where the thrust of this line of research is expected to lie. References2 0 1. Barlow, J.F., Putting Information Systems Planning Methodologies Into Perspective, Journal of Systems Management, July, 1990, pp. 6-9. 2. Battaglia, Greg, Strategic Information Planning: A Corporate Necessity, Journal of Systems Management, February 1991, pp. 23-26. 3. Beath, C.M., and Orlikowski, W., The Contradictory Structure of Systems Development Methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-User Relationship in Information Engineering, Information Systems Research, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1994, pp. 350-377. 4. Hsu, C. and Rattner, L., Information Modeling, Journal of Productions and Operations Management, 1(3), 1993. 5. Keen, P.G.W., Information Technology and the Measurement Difference: A Fusion Map, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1993. 6. King, William R., " Creating A Strategic Capabilities Architectur," Information Systems Management," v.12 (Winter '95) p. 67-9. 7. Ledrer, Albert L., and Sethi, Vijay, Guidelines for Strategic Information Planning, The Journal of Business Strategy, November/December 1991, pp. 38-43. 8. Ledrer, Albert L., and Sethi, Vijay, Pitfalls in Planning, Datamation, June 1, 1989, pp. 59-62. 9. Ledrer, Albert L., and Sethi, Vijay, The Implementation of Strategic Information Systems Planning Methodologies, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 3, September 1988, pp. 445-460. 10. Lederer, Albert L., and Gardiner, Veronica, Strategic Information Systems Planning - The Method/1 Approach, Information Systems Management, Summer, 1992.

11. Ledrer, AL and Mendelow, AL, Information Resource Planning: Overcoming Difficulties in Identifying Top Managements Objectives, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1987, pp. 389-399. 12. Martin, James, Strategic Information Planning Methodologies, Second Edition, Prentice Hall, 1989. 13. Martin, James, Strategic Data-Planning Methodologies, Prentice Hall, 1982. 14. McFarlan, F.W., Information Technology Changes the Way You Compete, Harvard Business Review, May-June 1984, pp. 98-105. 15. Pant, S., Rattner, L., and Hsu, C., "Manufacturing Information Integration Using a Reference Model," International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 14, No.. 11, 1994. 16. Parvi, F., and Ang, J., " A Study of the Strategic Planning Practices in Singapore," Information & Management, Vol. 28, Number 1, January, 1995, pp 33-47. 17. Porter, M.E., Competitive Advantage, Free Press, 1984. 18. Porter, M.E. and Millar, V.E., How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage, Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1985. 19. Rattner, L., Information Requirements for Integrated Manufacturing Planning and Control: A Theoretical Model, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1990.2 1 20. Rockart, J.F., Chief Executives Define Their Own Information Needs, Harvard Business Review, March-April 1979. 21. Rouse, W.B., and Howard, C.W., Software Tools For Supporting Planning, Industrial Engineering, June, 1993, pp. 51-53. 22. The Technology Payoff, Feature Article, Business Week, June 14, 1993, pp. 57-68. 23. Vitale, M., Ives, B. and Beath, C., Identifying Strategic Information Systems, Proc. 7th Intl Conf. Inf. Sys., San Diego, December 1986, pp. 265-276. 24. Ward, John, Griffiths, Pat and Whitmore, Paul, Strategic Planning for Information Systems, John Wiley & Sons, 1990. Strateko planiranje informacijskih sustava: pregled Somendra pant i Cheng Hsu 1995 Information Resources Management Association Meunarodni Konferencija, svibanj 21-24, Atlanta, Gruzija. Sijeanj 1995 Doktorski student, School of Management, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180-3590 Izvanredni profesor, Odluka znanosti i inenjerskim sustavima odjela, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180, 3590Abstract Informacije je nastao kao agent integracije i enabler novih konkurentnosti dananje poduzea na globalnom tritu. Meutim, ima paradigma stratekog planiranja promijenio dovoljno za podrku novu ulogu informacijskih sustava i tehnologije? Pregledali smo literatura za najee koritene ili predstavnik informacije metodologija planiranja i pronaao da novi pristup je potrebno. Postoji est metodologije pregledani u ovom radu. Svi oni imaju tendenciju da se pogledu planiranja kao zasebna faza koja se ne povezuju strukturno i izravno informacijskih sustava razvoja. Integracija planiranja razvoja i upravljanja kroz poslovne informacije resursima - koje istiu i obiljeavaju poduzea - e skratiti ciklus odgovor, pa ak i omoguiti ekonomsku evaluaciju informacijskog sustava investment.1 1. Pozadina Za dugo vremena odnos izmeu informacijskog sustava funkcija i korporativne strategije nije bio mnogo interesa na vrh Upravljanje tvrtki. Informacijski sustavi se mislilo da su sinonim za korporativne obrade podataka se tretira kao neki back-sobni operacije u potpori dan-to-day zadataka zemaljski (Rockart, 1979). U 80-ih i 90-ih, meutim, dolo je do raste realizaciju je potrebno kako bi informacijski sustavi od strateke vanosti za organizacije. Dakle, strateko planiranje informacijskih sustava (SISP) je kritino pitanje. U Mnoge industrije ankete, poboljana SISP esto se spominje kao najozbiljniji izazov JE menadera (Pavri i Ang, 1995, Beath i Orlikowski, 1994, Martin, 1993; Porter i Miller,

1985). Planiranje informacijskih sustava, kao i za bilo koji drugi sustav, poinje identifikacija potrebe. Da bi bila djelotvorna, razvoj bilo koje vrste raunalnih sustava treba biti odgovor na potrebe - bilo na razini obradu transakcija ili na vie sloenih informacijskih i sustavi za podrku razinama. Takve planiranje informacijskih sustava je mnogo kao i strateko planiranje u upravljanja. Ciljevi, prioriteti i odobrenja za informacijske sustave projekata moraju biti formalizirano. Plan razvoja sustava treba identificirati konkretne projekte predvien je za budunost, prioritete za svaki projekt i za resurse, ope procedure i ogranienja za svaku primjenu podruje. Plan mora biti specifian dovoljno kako bi se omoguilo razumijevanje svake aplikacije i znati gdje stoji u redu razvoja. Takoer plan bi trebao biti fleksibilan, tako da prioriteti mogu biti prilagoditi ako je potrebno. Kralj (King, 1995) u svom nedavnom lanku je tvrdio da strateki sposobnost Arhitektura - fleksibilan i stalno poboljanje infrastrukture organizacijske sposobnosti - je primarnoj osnovi za tvrtke odrive konkurentske prednosti. On je naglasio potrebu za kontinuirano auriranje i poboljanje stratekih sposobnosti arhitekture. SISP je analiza korporacije podatke i procese koristei poslovnih informacija modela, zajedno s procjenom rizika, trenutnim potrebama i zahtjevima. Rezultat je akcija Plan prikazuje eljeni tijek dogaaja potrebno uskladiti podatke koristiti i potrebama stratekog usmjerenja tvrtke (Battaglia, 1991). Istom se lanku naglaava potrebu imati na umu da SISP je funkcija upravljanja, a ne tehniki. To je u skladu s ranijim razlika izmeu starijih obradu podataka stavova i moderna strateku vanost pogled Informacijski sustavi. SISP stoga se koristi za identifikaciju ciljeva najbolje za kupnju i instaliranje nove za upravljanje informacijskih sustava i pomo organizaciji maksimizirati povrat na informacijske tehnologije ulaganja. Portfelja raunalnih aplikacija je utvrdila da e pomoi organizaciji u izvravanju svoje poslovne planove i ostvariti svoje poslovne ciljeve. Tu je raste spoznaja da primjene informacijske tehnologije (IT) tvrtke strateke aktivnosti je jedan od najeih i uinkovite naine kako poboljati poslovne performance.2 Ovaj rad razmatra postojee metodologije za SISP u pokuaju odgovoriti na kritine pitanje: kako ii naprijed i dalje poboljati uinkovitost stratekog planiranja za informacijama utemeljenih poduzea? Konkretno, mi ispitati svoju sposobnost za vonju razvoj korporativnih informacijskih sustava proizlaze planiranja, i njihov potencijal za potporu gospodarskih procjene informacijskih sustava ulaganja. 2. Perspektiva strategijsko planiranje informacijskih sustava Kako staviti planiranje stratekih informacijskih sustava u perspektivi, evolucija informacijskih sustava u skladu s tri doba model John Ward, i sur. (1990) je bitno. Prema tom modelu postoje tri razliita, ali se preklapaju, razdoblja informacijskih sustava, datiraju iz 60-ih. Odnos s vremenom od tri razdoblja informacijskih sustava prikazana je u tablici 1: ERA ZNAAJKE 60 Obrada podataka (DP) Samostalni raunala, udaljenim od korisnika, smanjenje trokova funkcija. 70 & 80-ih godina za upravljanje Informacijski sustavi (MIS) Distribuirani proces, meusobno, ureena Management Service, podrku poslovanju, korisnik preao. 80 i 90 strateke informacije Sustava (SIS) Umreeni, integrirane sustave, dostupan i potporu za korisnika, odnose se na poslovnu strategiju, omoguiti poslovanje poslovni pogon. Tablica 1: Tri era model je [Prilagoeno iz Ward (1990)] Prijave u ukupnom obradu podataka (DS), upravljanje informacijskih sustava (MIS) i strateku informacijski sustavi (SIS) podruje trebaju biti planirane i uspio u skladu s njihovim postojee i budue doprinos poslovanja. Tradicionalni portfelj modela uzeti u obzir odnos sustava meusobno i zadataka se obavlja, a ne odnos s poslovni uspjeh. Portfelj modela proizlazi iz McFarlan (1984) smatra da je doprinos

IS / IT u poslovanju sada iu budunosti temelji se na industriju utjecaj. Na temelju ovog modela aplikacije su podijeljena u etiri kategorije, kao to je prikazano ovdje: Strateki (Aplikacije koje su kritine za budue uspjeh. Primjeri: raunalo s integriranim proizvodnje, linkovi prema dobavljaima, itd.) Preokret (Programi koji mogu biti u budunosti strateku vanost. Primjeri: elektroniki razmjene podataka s trgovci na veliko, elektronski mail, itd.) 3 Tvornica (Aplikacije koje su kritine za odravanje postojeeg poslovanja. Primjeri: zaposlenik baze podataka, odravanje planiranje, itd.) Podrka (Prijave koje poboljati upravljanje i performanse, ali nisu kritina za poslovanja. Primjeri: vrijeme snimanja, plae, i sl.) Tablica 2: portfelja model [McFarlan (1984)] Neke karakteristike stratekog planiranja IS su: Glavni zadatak: strateki / konkurentsku prednost, povezanost s poslovnom strategijom. Kljuni cilj: provodi mogunosti, integrirajui IS i poslovne strategije Smjer od: rukovoditelji / vii menadment i korisnicima, koalicija korisnika / upravljanja i informacijskih sustava. Glavni pristup: poduzetnika (upute za inovacije), vie (bottom-up razvoja, odozgo prema dolje analize, itd.) u isto vrijeme. Strateko planiranje informacijskih sustava u ovom SIS doba nije jednostavan zadatak jer je takav proces je duboko ukorijenjeno u poslovnim procesima. Ovi sustavi trebaju dostaviti na strateke zahtjeve organizacija, odnosno, slui poslovnih ciljeva i stvaranju konkurentne prednost, kao i zadovoljavanja njihovih obrada podataka i MIS potrebe. Kljuna stvar ovdje je da organizacije moraju planirati za informacijske sustave ne samo kao alat za rezanje trokova, ali kao sredstvo za dodavanje vrijednosti. Veliina te promjene u perspektivi IS / IT-a ulogu u organizacijama je istaknuto u lanku Business Week ", tehnologije isplata" (Business Week, 14. lipnja 1993.) Prema ovom lanku, tijekom 1980-ih SAD poduzea uloio nevjerojatnih 1 trilijun dolara u informacijske tehnologije. Ova velika investicija nije rezultirao razmjerno produktivnosti dobitak sveukupnu nacionalnu produktivnost porasla na 1% godinje u usporedbi s gotovo 5% u Japanu. Koritenje informacijske tehnologije samo za automatiziranje rutinskih zadataka bez promjene poslovnih procesa identificiran kao uzrok iznad produktivnosti paradoks. Kao to se koristi za podrku proboj ideje u poslovnim procesima, u osnovi podrava neposrednu vrijednost dodavanjem aktivnosti umjesto samo smanjenje trokova, to je rezultiralo u veim produktivnosti. Godine 1992, produktivnost porasla gotovo 3%, a korporativnih profita porasla otro. Prema MIT-ovoj studiji navodi u gore lanak, povrat na investiciju u informacijskim sustavima prosjeno 54% za proizvodnju i 68% za sve poduzea ispitanika. Ovaj utjecaj informacijske tehnologije na re-definiranja, re-inenjering tvrtke je vjerojatno da e nastaviti i oekuje se da e informacijska tehnologija e igrati sve vanu ulogu u budunosti. Na primjer, pant, et al. (1994) istiu da u nastajanju vizija virtualne korporacije e postati stvarnost samo ako je ukorijenjena u novim vizionarskim informacije tehnologije. To je informacijska tehnologija samo koja e izboriti vie "virtualnih korporacija istovremeno iz iste fizike resurse, te ih prilagoditi bez promjene stvarna organizacija. Dakle, oito je da informacijska tehnologija doista prela je dalek put u SIS doba, nudei bez mogunosti, koje, ako ne i unoviti na, bi zauzvrat into4 bez rizika. Kao Keen (1993) morbidno je ali realno je istaknuo da organizacije ne planiranje za strateke informacijske sustave mogu uspjeti na licu mjesta poslovanja implikacije konkurencije koritenje informacijske tehnologije dok ne bude prekasno za njih reagirati. U situacijama

kao to je toga, kada informacijske tehnologije mijenja osnove konkurencije u industriji, 50% tvrtki u toj industriji nestaju u roku od deset godina. 3. Strateko planiranje informacijskih sustava Metodologije Zadatak strategijsko planiranje informacijskih sustava je teko i esto puta organizacije ne znam kako to uiniti. Strateko planiranje informacijskih sustava je velika promjena za organizacija, od planiranja za informacijske sustave na temelju zahtjevi korisnika za one koje se temelje na poslovne strategije. Takoer strategijsko planiranje informacijskih sustava mijenja karakteristike planiranje u glavnim naine. Na primjer, vremenski horizont planiranja promjena od 1 godine do 3 godine ili vie i razvojni planovi su voeni sadanje i budue poslovne potrebe, a ne inkrementalni korisnika potrebe. Poveanje vremensko razdoblje je faktor to rezultira u loem odgovoru na vrhu upravljanje strategijsko planiranje informacijskih sustava proces kao to je teko odravaju svoje pozornost za tako dugo razdoblje. Ostala pitanja povezana sa stratekim informacijskim sustavima planiranje se odnose na opseg planiranja istraivanja, fokus planiranja vjebe - korporativni organizacija vs stratekih poslovnih jedinica, broj studija i njihova slijed, odabir stratekog planiranje informacijskih sustava ili metodologija u razvoju jedan, ako nitko je prikladno, ciljeve planiranja procesa i rezultata. Zbog sloenosti strategijsko planiranje informacijskih sustava procesa i jedinstvenost svake organizacije, ne postoji jedan najbolji nain da ga se borila protiv. Vitale, et al. (1986) klasificiraju SISP metodologije u dvije kategorije: utjecaj i poravnanje. Utjecaj metodologije pomoi stvoriti i opravdanje nove primjene IT-a, dok je metodologija u "usklaivanje" Kategorija uskladiti JE ciljeve s organizacijskim ciljevima. Ta dva pogleda SISP prikazani su u Slika 1.5 Usklaivanje Pregled Utjecaj Pregled Posao Golovi Aplikacije Aplikacije Baze podataka Baze podataka Hardver Komunikac Softver Hardver Softver -Situacijama i Mree Konkurentan Prednost Komunikac -Situacijama i Mree Slika 1: dva pogleda SISP Metodologije A. Utjecaj metodologije 1. Vrijednosni lanac Analiza: koncept lanca vrijednosti se smatra u duljini Michael Porter (1984). Prema njegovim rijeima, "svaka tvrtka je skup aktivnosti koje se obavljaju za projektiranje, proizvoditi, trite, dostaviti i podrku svojih proizvoda. Sve ove aktivnosti mogu se prikazati pomou lanca vrijednosti. "Portera odlazi na da objasni da je informacijska tehnologija jedan je od glavnih potpore aktivnosti za lanac vrijednosti. "Informacijski sustavi tehnologija je posebno rairena u vrijednosti lanac, jer svaki vrijednost aktivnost stvara i koristi informacije. .. Nedavno, brz tehnoloki promjena u informacijskim sustavima ima dubok utjecaj na trino natjecanje i natjecateljski prednost zbog sveprisutno ulogu informacija u lancu vrijednosti. .. Promjena u nainu uredu funkcije mogu obavljati jedan je od najvanijih vrsta tehnoloke trendove dogaa danas za mnoge tvrtke, iako malo se posvetivi znaajna sredstva na njega. .. Tvrtka koja moe otkriti bolje tehnologije za obavljanje djelatnosti od konkurencije time dobiva konkurentnu prednost " (Porter, 1985). Tipino lancu vrijednosti je saeti u slici 2,6 Primarne djelatnosti

Dolazei logistika Operacije Izlazni logistika Marketing i prodaje Usluga $ Pomone djelatnosti Tvrtka infrastrukture Upravljanje ljudskim resursima Tehnologija razvoja Nabava Slika 2: Porter u vrijednosti Lanac (Porter, 1985) Nakon to je lanac vrijednosti je ucrtana, rukovoditelji mogu poredak korake u vanosti odrediti koji su odjeli u sreditu stratekih ciljeva organizacije. Takoer, rukovoditelji tada mogu uzeti u obzir suelja izmeu primarnih funkcija du proizvodnog lanca, izmeu aktivnosti podrke i sve primarne funkcije. Ovo pomae u identificiranju kritinih toke meuresornom suradnju. Tako, lanca vrijednosti analize: (A) je oblik poslovanja analize koja razgrauje poduzee u njegovim dijelovima. Informacijski sustavi su izvedeni iz ove analize. (B) pomae u osmiljavanju informacijskih sustava koji poveavaju ukupnu dobit na raspolaganju tvrtke. (C) pomae u identifikaciji potencijala za meusobne poslovne prednosti komponenti tvrtke, u iste ili srodnih industrija, na raspolaganju od vora podataka. (D) usmjeren je na vrijednosti dodavanje poslovnim aktivnostima i ne ovisi o organizacijskoj strukturi. Prednosti: Glavna snaga lanca vrijednosti analize je da se koncentrira na neposrednu vrijednost dodavanjem djelatnosti tvrtke, a time i parcela informacijskih sustava desno u podruje dodaju vrijednost, a od smanjenja trokova. Slabosti: Iako vrlo korisno i intuitivno privlana, analiza lanca vrijednosti pati od nekoliko slabosti, naime, (A) samo daje veu razinu modela informacija za vrsto i ne adresu razvojnih i provedbenih pitanja. (B) zbog fokusa na unutarnje poslovanje, umjesto podataka, ne definira strukturu podataka za firm.7 (C) osnovni koncept lanca vrijednosti je teko primijeniti na ne-proizvodnih organizacija u kojima proizvod nije opipljiv i ne postoje oiti sirovina. (D) ne prua podrku automatizirani za obavljanje analize. Vrijednost analize lanca, dakle, treba koristiti u sprezi s nekim drugim metodologiji koje se odnose na razvoj i implementaciju pitanja i definira strukturu podataka. 2. Faktor uspjeha Analiza: Kritini imbenici uspjeha analiza moe se smatrati i uinak kao i usklaivanje metodologije. Kritini imbenici uspjeha (CSF) u kontekstu SISP se koriste za tumaenje jasnije ciljeve, taktike i operativne aktivnosti u smislu kljunih informacijske potrebe organizacije i njezinih menadera i prednosti i slabosti organizacije postojee sustave. Rockart (1979) definira kritini imbenici uspjeha kao "za svaki poslovni ogranieni broj podruja u kojima rezultati, ako su zadovoljavajui, e osigurati uspjeno konkurentnosti za organizaciju. "Kao to je prikazano na slici 3, moe postojati CSFs na broj razinama. Oni predstavljaju nekoliko kljunih podruja u kojima stvari moraju ii desno za poslovanje u procvatu. Dakle, kritini imbenici uspjeha su podruja djelovanja koja bi trebala dobiti stalno i paljivo pozornost od upravljanja. Rockart izvorno razvijen CSF pristup kao sredstvo za razumijevanje podataka potrebe izvrnih direktora. Pristup je naknadno primijenjen na poduzee u cjelini i je proirena na iri Metodologija planiranja. Ona je napravljena na temelju mnogih savjetovanja praksi i ostvarila velike rezultate tamo gdje je koristio dobro. CSFs moe postojati na nekoliko razina, odnosno, industrija, organizacijska, poslovna jedinica, ili upravitelja. CSFs na nioj razini su izvedeni iz onih na prethodnom vioj razini. CSF pristup uvodi informacijske tehnologije u poetnim fazama procesa planiranja i pomae dati realnu procjenu IT doprinos organizaciji.

Industrija CSFs Organizacijska CSFs Poslovna jedinica ili Funkcija CSFs Upravitelj je CSFs8 Slika 3: Hijerarhija CSFs Prednosti: CSF analiza daje vrlo moan nain za koncentriraju na kljune informacije zahtjevima organizacije, poslovna jedinica, ili upravitelja. To omoguava upravljanje koncentrirati sredstva na razvoju informacijskih sustava oko tih zahtjeva. Takoer, CSF Analiza je lako izvesti i moe se obaviti s nekoliko resursa. Slabosti: (a), iako korisna i nairoko koristi tehniku, CSF analiza sama po sebi nije dovoljno za obavljanje sveobuhvatne SISP - ne definira podataka arhitekture ili prua automatizirano podrka za analizu. (B) da se od vrijednosti, CSF analiza treba biti lako i izravno se odnose natrag na ciljeve poslovnu jedinicu u pregledu. To je iskustvo ljudi koji koriste ove tehnike koje openito ona gubi svoju vrijednost kada se koristi ispod treeg stupnja u organizacijske hijerarhije (Ward, 1990, p.164). (C) CSFs usredotoiti prvenstveno na kontrolu upravljanja, a time i imaju tendenciju da interno fokusiran i analitiki, a ne kreativna (ibid.). (D) CSFs djelomino odraavaju odreeni izvrnog stil upravljanja. Koritenje CSFs kao pomo u utvrivanje sustava, s dugim povezana olovo-vrijeme za razvoj tih sustava, moe dovesti do davanje izvrni informacije koje on / a ne smatraju vanim (ibid.). (E) CSFs ne skrenuti pozornost na dodanu vrijednost aspekt informacijskih sustava. Dok CSF Analiza olakava identifikaciju informacijskih sustava koji ispunjavaju kljune informacije potrebama organizacija / poslovne jedinice, vrijednost izvedena iz tih sustava ne ocjenjuje. B. Poravnanje Metodologije 1. Poslovni sustavi za planiranje (BSP): Ova metodologija, razvijen od strane IBM-a, kombinira vrha prema dolje planiranje s dna prema gore provedbe. Metodologija usmjerena na poslovne procese koji se u okrenuti su izvedeni iz organizacije poslovanja misiju, ciljeve i ciljeve. Poslovni procesi su analizirani kako bi se utvrdilo podataka potrebama i, zatim, podaci klase. Slini podaci klase u kombinaciji s razvoj baza podataka. Konana BSP plana opisuje ukupni informacija arhitektura sustava, kao i kao instalacija raspored pojedinih sustava. Koraci u BSP studija: 9 Smanjiti i organizirati razgovor podataka Dobit vrh opredjeljenje za upravljanje Pripremite se za studij Provesti poetni udarac susreta Definiranje poslovne procese Definirati klase podataka Analizirajte trenutne poslovne i sustava odnosa Intervju vodei rukovoditelji Definiranje arhitekture informacije Odrediti prioritete arhitektonske Izraditi preporuke i akcijski plan Pregled informacijskih sustava Upravljanje Izvjee o rezultatima Slika 4: Koraci u BSP studije (Martin, 1982) Barlow (1990) i Ledrer i Sethi (1988) razgovarali prednosti i slabosti BSP. Prednosti: Budui da BSP kombinira odozgo prema dolje poslovne analize pristupa s dna prema gore provedbu strategije, to predstavlja integrirani metodologije. U vrha prema dolje strategije, BSP je slian nain u CSF da se razvija ukupni razumijevanje poslovnih planova i pratee IS treba kroz zajednike razgovore. IBM kao dobavljaa ove metodologije, ima prednost

bolje poznat na vrh upravljanja od drugih metodologija. Slabosti: (a) BSP zahtjeva strogu posveenost iz top menadmenta i njihova znaajna sudjelovanje. (B) zahtijeva visok stupanj informatike iskustva u planiranju BSP team.1 0 (C) postoji problem premoivanja jaza izmeu vrha prema dolje planiranja i odozdo prema gore provedbu. (D) ne ukljuuje metodologiju dizajn softver. (E) glavni slabost BSP je mnogo vremena i truda potrebno za uspjenu provedbu. 2. Strateko planiranje sustava (SSP): Takoer poznat kao PROplanner i razvijen od strane Robert Nizozemskoj, ova metodologija slian BSP. Poslovni funkcionalni model definiran analizom glavni funkcionalna podruja poslovanja. Podaci arhitektura je izvedena iz poslovnih funkcija model kombiniranjem zahtjeve za informacijama u generikih podataka subjekata i predmet baza podataka. Novi sustava i njihovu provedbu rasporedi su izvedeni iz ovog arhitekture. Ova arhitektura je zatim koristiti za identifikaciju novih sustava i njihovu provedbu raspored. Iako koraka u SSP Postupak su sline onima u BSP, glavna razlika izmeu Starevieve i BSP je SSP-a automatizirano rukovanje podataka prikupljenih tijekom SISP procesa. Softver proizvodi izvjea u irok raspon formata i sa razliitim razinama detalja. Affinity izvjea pokazuju frekvencije pristupa podacima i klastera izvjea daju smjernice za dizajn baze podataka. Korisnici su voeni kroz izbornike za on-line prikupljanje podataka i odravanje. Softver takoer nudi podatke rjenik suelje za razmjenu podataka s SSP postojeim rjenik podataka ili drugim automatiziranim dizajn alata. Koraci u postupku SSP prikazani su na slici 5. Osim SSP, Nizozemska Sustava Corporation takoer nudi dvije metodologije - jedan za voenje informacijskog sustava arhitekture i jo za razvoj strukture podataka za module iz SISP studije. prednosti i slabosti BSP se odnose na SSP kao dobro. Definiranje novih sustava i provedbu raspored Analiza glavnih funkcionalnim podrujima Razviti poslovni funkcijski model Odrediti podatke zahtjevima Kombinirajte informacije zahtjeve u generiki entiteti podataka i predmet baze podataka Izvedite JE arhitektura Slika 5: Koraci u SSP Procedure1 1 3. Informacije Engineering (IE): Ova metodologija je razvijen od strane James Martin (1982) i prua tehnike za izgradnju poduzea, podataka i procesa modela. Teze modela kombiniraju obliku sveobuhvatne baze znanja koji se koristi za stvaranje i odravanje informacijskih sustava. Osnovna filozofija podlozi ove tehnike je koritenje strukturiranih tehnika u svim zadacima koji se odnose planiranja, analize, projektiranja i izgradnje informacijskih sustava na korporativnoj razini. Takav strukturirani tehnika se oekuje da e rezultirati u dobro integriranih informacijskih sustava. IE se oslanja na informacijskih sustava piramida za poduzea. Takva piramida je prikazano na slici 6. piramida ima tri strane koje predstavljaju organizacije podataka, aktivnosti organizacije nosi se pomou podataka i tehnologija koja je zaposlena u provedbi informacijskog sustava. IE pregleda sva tri aspekta informacijske sustave iz visokoj razini, za upravljanje orijentirana perspektiva u vrha do potpuno detaljan opis provedbe na dnu. Piramida opisuje etiri razine aktivnosti, naime, strategija, analiza, sustavi projektiranja i izgradnje, koji ukljuuju podatke, aktivnosti

i tehnologije. Strateki pregled informacije potrebne za pokretanje poduzea to effctively mogue Potpuno normalizirana logiki model podataka Dizajn zapisa koristi odreeni postupaka Aplikacijski program prikaz podataka Strateki pregled kako Tehnologija se moe koristiti za poboljati poduzee Postupaka potrebnih za djeluju poduzea, i kako integrirati Dizajn postupaka za izvrenje navedene procesa Dizajn detaljni program logika ili ulaz kod generator Strategija Analiza Dizajn sustava Podaci u graditeljstvu Djelatnost Slika 6: IS piramida (Martin, 1989) Osim informacija inenjering, Martin zagovara koritenje kritinih imbenika uspjeha. Glavna razlika izmeu IE i druge metodologije automatiziranih alata koje IE povezati njegov izlaz na naknadne sustava razvoja, a to je glavna snaga ove metodologije. Glavni slabosti IE su identificirani kao to su potekoe u osiguranju vrhu upravljanje predanost, potekoe u pronalaenju tima kriterije voa sastanka, previe korisnika sudjelovanje, te da planiranje vjeba traje dugo vremena. 4. Metoda / 1: Metoda / 1 (Arthur Anderson i Co, 1982) je slojevita pristup za SISP. Vrh sloj je metodologija sama, srednji sloj tehnika podrava metodologije i donji sloj alata podrava tehnike. Tehnike podrava ove metodologije su tok podataka dijagrame, matrica analiza, ralamba funkcijskih podruja, fokus grupe i Delphi studija. Andersen Consulting sluaju skup alata ZAKLADA ukljuuje raunalne programe koji podrka Metoda / 1. Ova metodologija je pet razliitih ciljeva (Lederer i Gardiner, 1992): Identificirati organizacije informacija needs.1 2 Da biste pronali nove mogunosti za koritenje podataka kako bi se postigla konkurentska prednost. Za definiranje ukupnog IT strategiju za zadovoljavanje organizacije IT ciljeva. Za definiranje podataka, aplikacija, tehnologija i organizacijskih zahtjeva za potporu cjelokupnog IT strategije. Za definiranje aktivnosti koje su potrebne da zadovolji gore navedene uvjete, a time i provesti cjelokupni IT strategiju. Ova metodologija ukljuuje analize lanca vrijednosti u svom pristupu prema poslovnim i konkurentne procjene. Deset radnih segmente Metoda / 1, njihove akcije i proizvodi prikazani su u tablici 3 (Lederer i Gardiner, 1992). Rad segment Akcije proizvoda 1. Opseg Definicija i Organizacija Odrediti kljune planiranje

pitanja Utvrivanje opsega projekta Organiziranje projektnog tima Nabavite upravljanje opredjeljenje Definicija kljunih planiranje pitanja Definicija opsega projekta Raspored kljunim lanovima menadmenta kontrolne toke Prijedlog pismo 2. Poslovni i konkurentne Procjena Studija poslovne i konkurentskom okruenju Identificirajte konkurentske informacije o mogunostima Definirati strateke informacije potrebe Mogunosti za koritenje informacije se natjee Definicija prioriteta postavljanja kriterije 3. Procjena sadanje stanje dokumenta prisutan sustava Procijeniti uinkovitost informacijske usluge Pregled funkcionalne operacije Procijeniti sadanje poslovanje Ocijenite konkurentnom IT poloaj Evaluacija organizacije IT poloaj Opis sadanjosti i planirane primjene obiljeja Procjena sadanje operacija, arhitekturi i capacity1 3 4. Informacijske tehnologije Mogunosti Analizirajte IT trendove Utvrditi potrebe za informacijama Definirati glavne ciljeve IT Identificirati prilike za poboljanje Saetak potrebama svakog pojedinog glavni funkcionalni odjel Opis mogunosti za poboljanje Saetak IT ciljeva i trendovi 5. Informacijske tehnologije Strategije Razviti visokoj razini strategije Definiranje konceptualne arhitekture potrebnih informacija sustava Prepoznajte visoko prioritetne projekte

IT strategije Opis visokog prioriteta projekti 6. Plan organizacije Izraditi upravljanje promjenama pristup Razvoj ljudskih potencijala plan Plan organizacije 7. Podacima i aplikacijama plan Definiranje podataka i aplikacija Definiranje podataka i odravanje pristupa Razviti podataka i aplikacija plan Podataka i primjena plana 8. Tehnologija plana Razviti tehnike arhitekture Izraditi tehnologiju plana Tehnologija plana 9. Informacije Izraditi akcijski plan migracije plana Pripremite informacije akciju plan Odobri i pokrenuti informacije akcijski plan Informacije akcijski plan 10. Proizvod Definicija i Planiranje Pokrenuti projekt definicija Definirati zahtjeve Izraditi idejno rjeenje Nabavite upravljanje savjetodavne Odbor za odobravanje Projekt definicija izvjea Tablica 3: Rad segmenti, radnji i proizvoda u nainu / 1 4. Kljunih pitanja u SISP Metodologije: Lederer i Sethi (1988) ispitanih 80 organizacija za ispitivanje problema by1 4 informacijskih sustava menaderi kad pokuaju provesti jedan od tri trase metodologije, BSP, SSP ili IE. Barlow (1990) takoer je ispitao SISP metodologije i je pruio neke uvide u njihove strukture i provedbu problema. Bergeron i sur. (1991) ispitati pitanje primjene dva 'utjecaja' metodologije, Porter je vrijednosni lanac analiza i Wiseman je strateki Potisak metodologije. Ove studije i spoznaje razvijenih kod nas oblik temelju ovoga lanka koja prua kritiku postojeih metodologija. Detaljan popis problema u provedbi SISP metodologije je stupnjevan prema Lederer i Sethi kao resurs, proces planiranja, ili izlaz u svezi problem povezan s trima metodologija. Prema ovom istraivanju, najvie ozbiljan problem identificirati IS menadera neuspjeh da se osigura top menadmenta opredjeljenje za provoenje konanog plana. Drugi najvei ozbiljan problem identificiran je zahtjev za znaajnim daljnju analizu nakon zavretka IS plana. Oba ova problema se odnose na izlaz procesa planiranja. Osim tih prva dva, est od sljedeih osam najboljih problemi odnose se na sredstva potrebna za obavljanje strategijsko planiranje informacijskih sustava (uspjeh plana ovisi o voa tima, potekoe u nalaz voa tima zadovoljava kriterije navedene u studiji, metodologija nedostaje raunala podrku, planiranje vjebanja uzimanje dugo vremena, itd.). Meu deset najboljih problemi, dok provedbe jedne od tih metodologija (ili, ak i tijekom provedbe in-house metodologije), tri su zajednike: potekoe u dobivanju top menadmenta opredjeljenje za provedbu izlaza, zahtjev znaajne daljnje analize i potekoe u pronalaenju dobar voa tima. Rezultati ovog istraivanja ukazuju na to da IS planeri nisu osobito zadovoljni svojim metodologija. Ako je cilj SISP vjebe je usklaivanje IS ciljeve s poslovnim ciljevima, zatim detaljne, dugotrajne i sloene SISP mogu biti ograniene vrijednosti. Gdje cilj je da ih koriste utjecati na poslovnu strategiju, te metodologija ne moe generirati korisnih ideja za tu svrhu. Bergeron i sur. (1990), meutim, istaknuti da je analiza lanca vrijednosti i Wiseman stratekih metodologija ne pomau u postizanju tu svrhu. Barlow (1990) sugerira da je veliki broj

metodologija koje su razvijene esto mogu 'dodati zabune nego jasnou (IS) procesa planiranja. " Vidan bodova koji proizlaze iz ovog i prethodnih odjeljaka su: Iako strategijsko planiranje informacijskih sustava je glavna briga, veina organizacija pronai teko da ga poduzeti. Osim njihov nedostatak iskustva s SISP, odsutnost sveobuhvatan, strukturirano, jednostavan za koritenje metodologija moe biti glavni razlog za to. To je Mogue je da napredak u informacijske tehnologije i njihovu primjenjivost u organizacijama je pretekla sve formalne metodologije razvio u 70-ih i 80-ih ili evoluirao u 90 kao neznatno modificirane verzije ranije metodologija, koja u velikoj mjeri su dominirali IBM-ovog poslovanja Sustavi za planiranje. Nadalje, kao to je istaknuo Barlow (1990) takoer, opi uspjeh integriranog poslovanja / tehnologije arhitektura ovisi o organizacijskoj strukturi, razina IT1 5 iskustvo unutar tvrtke i dostupnost izvora informacija. Budui da ti imbenici razlikuju izmeu tvrtki, postoji svibanj ne biti jedan najbolji nain da bi je vidjeli planiranje. sveobuhvatan metodologija za SISP e morati ukljuiti i "utjecaj" i "poravnati" pregleda. Metoda / 1 ukljuuje analize lanca vrijednosti. IE podrava kritini imbenici uspjeha Analiza. ak i BSP sada ukljuuje CSFs. Budui da je teko nai voa tima koji zadovoljava kriterije navedene u SISP metodologijama, to Predloeno je da se detaljne smjernice o tome kako izvesti SISP studija putem automatiziranih alata e pomoi. Takav alat e uiniti posao vie strukturiran i manje voa-critical. Neki od tih alata za strateko poslovno planiranje su razvili Trai Technology, Inc i iskazane u Rouse i Howard (1993). 5. Konceptualni okvir za SISP - Istraivanje dnevnog reda Konceptualni okvir za SISP je potrebno i iz perspektive teorije zgrade kao takoer prua osnovu za poduzimanje SISP. Potonji se oekuje da e odgovoriti na sljedea pitanja esto susreu praktiara u ovom podruju: to je ukljuen u SISP i kako to ide o tome radi? Kako povezati proizvode SISP za analizu sustava, dizajn i implementaciju u vrijeme nain? Je li jedan SISP metodologija prikladniji od drugog u danome kontekstu? Kako procijeniti alternativne informacijskih sustava planove? Perspektiva teorija zgrada SISP se oekuje da e pridonijeti istraivanjima u ovom podruju, koji se u povojima, je u velikoj mjeri anegdota. Na temelju literature u ovom podruju i paljivo prouavanje postojee metodologije, odreeni openito korake u tipinom SISP formulacija moe biti identificiran. To su: Studija Unutarnja poslovno okruenje. To je preduvjet za utvrivanje je poslovanje potrebe. Unutarnja poslovno okruenje se sastoji od misija organizacije, njezinih ciljeva, strategija i planova, poslovne aktivnosti, organizacijskih okoli, jezgra nadlenosti, na kritini imbenici uspjeha i unutarnjeg lanca vrijednosti. Studija vanjskog poslovnog okruenja. To pomae panju usredotoiti na organizaciju snage i skupina za pritisak naie. Ove vanjske sile vre vrlo jak utjecaj na poslovanje strategiju organizacije. imbenici koje treba uzeti u obzir ovdje industrije koja organizacija u i da industriji kritini imbenici uspjeha, trinu poziciju organizacije u industriji, odnos s velikim kupcima i dobavljaima. Studija unutarnje IS / IT okruenja. To je uglavnom sastavljen od sadanjih i planiranih aplikacije portfelja koji podrava poslovanje. Ostali aspekti da se smatra da su ovdje prisutni Je organizacija, vjetina i stavova ljudi u organizaciji, IT okruenje i IS / IT budgets.1 6 Vanjski IS / IT okruenja. Sastoji se od skeniranja okruenja za dostupnih i novih tehnologija i njihove poslovne implikacije. Vaan aspekt ovoga je razumjeti kako natjecatelji koriste informacijske tehnologije. Strateko planiranje informacijskih sustava u osnovi osigurava visoku razinu poslovni / informacije model za organizaciju. Koncepcijski gledano, cijeli proces planiranja prema dolje njegove detaljne provedbe mogu se promatrati kao javljaju na tri razine kao to je prikazano na slici 7. Razini planiranja Analiza i dizajn Razina Provedba

Razina Slika 7: tri razine IS planiranja i provedbe Sve generike zadatke povezane s SISP izvode na najvioj razini i informacije tokova na toj razini su diagrammed. Izdaci od najvioj razini protok okomito u sljedeu Analiza i dizajn razini. Ova razina ima svoje tokove generiki, povezani s analizom i dizajn ciklus ivota sustava razvojni ciklus. Vertikalne tee uiniti dvije stvari: (a) osigurati ogranienja na tokove i entiteta na toj razini i (b) stvoriti subjekata koji povezuju analiza i dizajn razini kako bi se gornji, planiranje razini. Slino tome, izlazi iz analize i dizajna na razini stvoriti i ogranienje tokova na razini provedbe. To je pretpostavili da je drugaije kombinacije tokova i entiteta na najvioj razini e rezultirati razliitim podacima arhitekture organizacije. Na primjer, drugaiji skup kritini imbenici uspjeha e dovesti do razliitih ogranienja, a time i razliite arhitekture. Slino tome, ako osoba se mijenjaju na najvioj razini, razliitih protoka i stoga razliite arhitekture e se pojaviti. Na primjer, ako razinu planiranja model koristi unutarnje lanca vrijednosti u odnosu vanjski lanac vrijednosti - to je rezultiralo vertikalni tokova, i stoga arhitekture e biti drugaiji. To bi trebalo osigurati organizaciju sposobnost da (A) eksperiment s razliitim arhitekture i (b) modificirati svoje trenutne arhitekture kao odgovor na visokoj razini promjene bez potrebe za ponavljanjem cijelog sustava razvoja ivota cycle.1 7 Takoer je pretpostavio da gore model e pruiti organizacija treine alternativu razvijaju programe koji se temelje na bilo sveobuhvatne sustave razvoja ivotnog ciklusa ili brzog prototipova. Ili nakon zavretka najvioj razini modela ili ak i tijekom zavretka, neke kritine vertikalni tijek moe biti identificiran - na primjer one koje se temelje na kritini imbenici uspjeha, ili Neke konkurentske prednosti / opasnosti. Aplikacije onda moe brzo se razvijati, testirati i provodi uz one kritine / konkurentne tokove. Ostatak modela moe ekaju zavretak i naknadne provedbe, dok se organizacijski resursi koncentrirana na razvoj aplikacija zahtijeva hitnost trenutne situacije. Razvijanje teorijsku perspektivu Hsu i Rattner (1993) razvio teoriju informacije integracije u CIM okruenju. Ova teorija je razvio koncept paralelnog paradigme integracije koji tvrdi da je dijeljenje podataka izmeu procesa meusobno su odluke udruuju se u stjecaju procese. Ova formulacija paralelno procesa je velika promjena od tradicionalne formulacije sekvencijalno procesa. U tradicionalnoj formulaciji CIM, funkcije su podrane od strane izolirani odlukom prostorima. To je, samo informacije koje se odnose na tu odluku se rukuje kao varijabla. Ostale informacije naslijedio kao ogranienje. Na primjer, dio ciklusa nasljeuje informacije obrauje proizvodnog ciklusa kao ogranienje to zauzvrat je ograniena informacije obrauju u proizvoda razvojni ciklus. One mogu pogledati na stupanj ne-integraciju kao broj ogranienja odluku prostor nasljeuje. Mjeri u kojoj ta ogranienja moe pretvoriti u varijable predstavlja stupanj integracije. Na primjer, dizajn funkcija u sekvencijalnom formulacija e ogranienje funkcije procesa planiranja. Zbog izolacije od odluke mjesta, samo suelja izmeu ove dvije funkcije e zahtijevati ponovljeni ponavljanja. Integracija funkcija, e, meutim, osigurati meudjelovanje u stvarnom vremenu izmeu tih funkcija. Od poduzea toke gledita, parametrizirana odluka prostori su fragmentirane i njihova postojanja sprjeava povezani skup funkcija iz redovnog kao sustava za obradbu informacija i donoenja odluka cjelini, budui da rezultati odraavaju niz diskretnih odluka. Hsu i Rattner rad sugerira da Iako takva funkcija djeluju kao da koriste lokalne varijable, oni su u stvari usko povezana (Kroz, moda drugi ili trei red odnosa) i na mnoge druge naizgled lokalne varijable. Dio na potekoe u postizanju integracije proizlazi iz zaklonjen lokalnih vs globalne razlike. Jo jedna razlika koja treba da se ovdje je da izmeu lokalnih i globalnih optimalnosti. Od ogranienja i od viih razina i iz peer-razini naslijedio kao ogranienja, oni nisu procjenjuje u lokalnim odlukama. Stoga, mogue je da, iako poduzee moe pokuati postii lokalnim optimalnosti, moe sprijeiti globalno optimalnosti poduzea performanse. To je dodatno objanjava odnosu na slici 8. Slika 8 (a) prikazuje tradicionalni, sekvencijski formulacija proizvodnje funkcija. Svaki ovalni predstavlja rjeenje prostora. Unutar svake razine u hijerarhiji, strelice prikazuju eksplicitne protok informacija izmeu parova peer funkcija. Izmeu hijerarhijskih razina, arrows1 8 simboliziraju tvrdnja ogranienja. Proizvod

razvoj ciklus Proizvodnja ciklus Dio ciklus Zahtjev Materijal Projektiranje Kapacitet Zahtjev Materijal Dizajn Kapacitet Zahtjev Materijal Dizajn Kapacitet Zahtjev Materijal Dizajn Kapacitet Zahtjev Materijal Dizajn Kapacitet Zahtjev Materijal Dizajn Kapacitet Protok informacija Ogranienja Odluka prostor Razine smanjenja opsega odluke, informacije o agregacije, te u stvarnom vremenu jedinicu mjere. Slika. 8 (): Sekvencijalni formulacije slici. 8 (b): Paralelne formulacije Slika 8: sekvencijalni i paralelni Formuliranje odluivanja Hijerarhija (Rattner, 1990) Nasuprot tome, za proizvodnju funkcije mogu se organizirati paralelno, tj. eksplicitno dijeliti jedinstvenog rjeenja prostora. U kojoj mjeri parametre i ogranienja pretvoriti u odluku varijable je mjera integracije snage meu pod-funkcije. Posljedica je da se izriito upravljanje globalne varijable odluke kao takve, svaka lokalna funkcija podrava globalni izvedbu ciljeva. Utjecaj globalne optimizacije performansi u konanici mjerljiva od tvrtke proizvodnoj funkciji. Paradigma je ukorijenjena u premisi da lokalna produktivnost uglavnom nevane i da poduzee ostvaruje konkurentnu uspjeh ako se postigne optimalno globalne produktivnost. Formuliranje zadataka u paralelno je sredstvo u tom smjeru. Paradigma mijenja donoenja odluka hijerarhiju tako da je kolega funkcije djeluju paralelno. Dakle, sve odluke su u podrci globalne izriitog zahtjeva. Na taj nain, odluke doprinijeti sinergiji. Slika 8 (b) prikazuje koncept paralelnih formulaciji. Svaki ovalni ponovno predstavlja rjeenje prostora i svaka strelica predstavlja protok ogranienja (dolje) i povratne informacije (prema gore) izmeu hijerarhijskih razina. Nema vie potrebe za eksplicitnim tokova izmeu peer funkcije od takvih iteracija (ponavljanja sekvencijalni) zamijenjeni su sveobuhvatne Odluka prostora. Tri razine pristupa informacijskih sustava razvoja takoer mogu biti dovedeni u domaaj iznad teoretskog okvira. Odluka na ogranienje razinu planiranja te u Analiza razini i od tamo do dizajna razini. Zadatak je da se ovdje pretvoriti tih ogranienja u varijable koje se moe manipulirati kao ukae potreba. Na primjer, kritini imbenici uspjeha na ogranienje razinu planiranja analize, projektiranja i implementacije pojedinih zahtjeva. U paralelnom formulaciju ovog ogranienja postati varijablu - to nije samo da CSFs

odrediti programe da ih podre, ali CSFs skup sama e se mijenjati ovisno o stvarnosti poduzea informacijskog sustava. To daje novu perspektivu na SISP - the1 9 odozdo prema gore planiranje - gdje razinu planiranja varijable (barem neki od njih) su manipulirati 'stanje je' u organizaciji. Gdje ove varijable ne moe manipulirati, na primjer oni odraavaju vanjskog okruenja (konkurenti, dostupna tehnologija, itd.), to bottom-up pristup izriito e potvrditi ta ogranienja i nadamo se pokrenuti korektivne akcije. To je nije da organizacije ne rade neke ili sve predloene stvari ovdje. Paralelno formulacija informacijskih sustava razvoja zadataka Oekuje se da e formalizirati i strukturu tih koraka i pruiti automatizirani podrku za njih obavlja u interaktivnom nain. Ovaj paralelni formulacija je razvoj zadataka e takoer pomoi organizacijama tide nad Glavno ogranienje SISP metodologija: planiranje nepotrebno detaljnu i traje dugo vremena. Kad je cijeli hijerarhiju poslove koji se odnose na razvoj dolje za provedbu plana po uzoru na smislu njegove eksplicitne protok informacija i podataka i znanja klase, informacijski sustavi mogu biti razvijena brzo uz eljene staze (tokovi) bez potrebe da razviju cijeli sustav. Sustavi tako razvio e biti drugaija od onih razvijenih u ad hoc nain, kao odgovor na izvanrednih prilika - ovi sustavi e biti integriran s cjelokupnim sustavom na logian razini kao to su oni razvili iz zajednikog informacija, podataka i znanja prostore. Ovaj koncept ima svoju paralelu u fizici. Holografskih slika su sastavljene od mnotva slika, gdje svaki pojedine slike proizlazi iz i sadri velike slike. Na isti nain, individualne sustave e biti izvedeni iz cjelokupnog sustava i da e zauzvrat holistiki podrku cjelokupnog sustava. Na kraju ovog teorijsku perspektivu, nudi alternativa SISP proces. Iako ne tako dobro definirana kao u CIM scenariju, tu je struktura u SISP proces. knjievnosti i analizu postojeih metodologija, kao to je ranije spomenuto, ne upuuju na odreene openito zadatke i protok informacija potrebnih za SISP. To e pruiti polazite za zgrada okvir za paralelno formuliranje SISP zadataka. 6. Zakljuci Informacije na temelju poduzea moraju se planirati na integrirani nain kojim svim fazama ivotnog ciklusa se bave kako bi o agilnosti, kvalitetu i produktivnost. Ova integracija je slino u priroda integracije ivotnog ciklusa proizvoda za poduzea. Postojee metodologije, meutim, imaju tendenciju da se informacije o podrci planiranje kao otok odvojen od bogatstva poduzea podatke o resursima. Potreban novi pristup e iskoristiti ta sredstva koja hvatanje i obiljeavaju poduzea kako bi se omoguilo integraciju fazi planiranja s informacijama sustavi faze razvoja i podrke skraena i adaptivni ciklusa. Ovaj rad je mali prvi korak prema veliki zadatak: razvijanje okvira i teorija za strateke informacijske sustave planiranje. Potreba za takvim okvir utvren postojeim problemima u provedbi SISP metodologije, a takoer i ono to ti metodologija sami nedostatak. Mogue pristup zgrada okvir je pratiti na teorijski rad i Hsu Rattner (1993) i to je gdje potisak od ove linije istraivanja se oekuje da lae.

Business System Planning is a method for analyzing, defining and designing an information architecture of organizations. It was first issued by IBM in 1981, though the initial work on BSP began in the early 1970s. At first, it was for IBM internal use only. Later it was made available tocustomers and this method became an important tool for many organizations. It is a very complex method dealing with data, processes, strategies, aims and organizational departments which are interconnected. BSP brings new approach to design an information architecture and its goals are to:

understand the issues and opportunities with the current applications and technical architecture develop a future state and migration path for the technology that supports the enterprise provide business executives with a direction and decision making framework for IT capital expenditures provide information system (IS) with a blueprint for development

The result of a BSP project is an actionable roadmap that aligns technology investments to business strategy. BSP procedure contains 15 steps which are classified into three main sections according to their functions.
Contents
[hide]

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

1 Preparation part 1.1 Obtain authorization for the study 1.2 Study preparation 1.3 Study beginning 2 Analytical part 2.1 Define the business strategy 2.2 Define the business processes 2.3 Define the data classes 2.4 Analyse current information support 2.5 Discuss the analysis results with management 2.6 Issue the analysis results 3 Final part 3.1 Define the information architecture 3.2 Establish priorities for IS development 3.3 Verify the impact of study to IS managing 3.4 Next procedure proposal 3.5 Results presentation 3.6 Next procedure 4 References

[edit]Preparation [edit]Obtain

part

authorization for the study

The very first step of BSP is to obtain authorization for the study from management or a department interested in this study. There is no use to proceed in the study without this document. There are a number of roles which have to agree on the purpose and range of the study. These roles are as following:

Management member (Director)

Sponsor

can also operates as a sponsor or a team leader verifies and approves final results of the study

provides with the financial support for the study

Team leader

chooses and leads the team members (apr. 4-7 persons) coordinates activities guarantees early documentation has 8 weeks to carry out the study (it is usually more) presents final results to the management

Team member

is usually a leader of certain organization department analyses and determines information needs of organization recommends future content of IS presents final results to the management

Secretary

guarantees documentation of the study

is also an assistant of the team leader [edit]Study preparation

Second part of BSP is study preparation. The team leader is responsible for this part and its goal is to:

set time plan get all the necessary documents choose managers for interview ensure meeting and interview space inform team members about:

fundamental functions of the organization

data processing level of the organization

There is usually final product of this step, a book called Leading study book which contains all the necessary information mentioned above. It also contains concrete study schedule, documents relating to IT, diagrams, etc. [edit]Study

beginning

At the beginning of the study there is so-called Kick-off meeting where:

sponsor presents

the main purpose of the study expected results of the study

team leader presents

results of previous part plan of the study

IT manager presents

the present state of IS role of IS within the organization

After this meeting the preparation part of the project is finished and we can proceed to the analytical part of the study. [edit]Analytical

part

Analytical part is the most important part of BSP. Team searches for appropriate organizational structure and defines business strategy, business processes[1], data classes[1] and analyses current information support. From these for steps goes out all the others. [edit]Define

the business strategy

This step serves to define the strategic targets and the way how to achieve them within the organization as:

Adaptation to the customers desires Centrally planned reservations, stock, customers payments Check-in improvement Material movement improvement New customers

Noise reduction Paperless processes Product portfolio expansion Presentation improvement Advertising improvement Reduction of commitment losses Reduction of material costs Relations with business partners improvement Stock management impovement Simplification customers order cycle Transport coordination Upgrade of production line Up-to-date information

Team is responsible for creating the main processes from these strategic targers. The final output of this step is a matrix called Strategy / OU. Strategy contains particular strategic targets mentioned above. Organizational units are particular departments of the organization (i.e. production,business, marketing, etc.). Every single department is considered to have a responsibility for each strategic target. There is a cross written down in the matrix in case of primary responsibility. There is a slash written down in the matrix in case of partial responsibility.

Strategy / OU

Technical Administration Operational Transport Marketing IT department

Paperless processes

Transport coordination x

Noise reduction

Check-in improvement

New customers

MM improvement

* MM improvement = material movement improvement

* This is only a part of a large BSP analysis considering Aircraft cosporation

* Matrices can be adjusted to get the important information (crosses in the matrices are usually adjusted crossways)

* Crosses and slashes in all the matrices can be marked in many other ways then it shows my example

[edit]Define

the business processes

There are several business processes (activities) within every organization. The most important is to choose the most relevant ones which are profitable for the organization and select the department which is responsible for the particular process. There is usually about 40-60 business processesdepending on the size of the organization. There are some examples of them:

Contacts creation Hangaring Invoicing Monitoring Plane coordination Plane service Registration of a new customer Service Catalog creation Service reservation Employee training Transfer Car rental

The final output of this step are two matrices called Processes / OU and Processes / Strategy using the same describing system as the matrix Strategy / OU.

Processes / OU

Operational Technical Administration Transport IT department Marketing

Training

Monitoring

Plane coordination x

Plane service

Hangaring

Reservation

Processes / Strategy

Paperless processes

Transport coordination

Check-in improvement

Noise reduction

MM improvement

New custumers

Training

Plane coordination

Plane service

Hangaring

Reservation

Monitoring [edit]Define

the data classes

It is necessary to create data classes (DC, Entities) which represent data classes of the particular organizational units. There is usually about 30-60 data classes depending on the size of the organization. Future IS is about to use databases based on these data classes. There are several examples of data classes:

Accommodation[disambiguation needed]

Branch Corporation Customer Employee Invoice Load Plane Purchase order Service Catalog Supplier Vehicle

The final output of this step are three matrices called Data classes / Processes, Data classes / Strategy and Data classes / OU using the same describing system as all the matrices mentioned above.

DC / Processes Monitoring Training Plane coordination Hangaring Plane service Reservation

Corporation

Plane

Employee

Customer

Load

Supplier

DC / Strategy

Transport coordination

Paperless processes

MM improvement

Noise reduction

New customers

Check-in improvement

Corporation x

Customer

Supplier

Plane

Load

Employee

DC / OU

Operational Technical IT department Administration Transport Marketing

Plane

Corporation x

Customer

Load

Supplier

Employee / [edit]Analyse

current information support

The main aim of this part is to check all the applications used by organization which has to consider information support of each application and think of its importance. The final output of this step is so-called Informational cross which contains some of the matrices mentioned above: Processes(Activities) / OU (functions) and Data classes(Entities) / OU. During this step are also defined information subsystems which plays an important role in the other two matrices called IS / Entities and IS / Activities. There are now four matrices which are used to create

the informationalcross. Its main aim is to catch the most important dependencies and responsibilities within the organization and can also lead to appropriate elimination of redundancies. [edit]Discuss

the analysis results with management

This step should be the last during the analytical part. Team debates on up to now achieved results with the management. The main purpose of this step is to:

consider all the matrices and informational cross confirm presumptions relating to processes and datas fill in the missing information reveal deficiencies within the organization establish future priorities

The final output of this part strongly depends on the quality of prepared question. [edit]Issue

the analysis results

There are gathered all the documents created during the preceding analysis. These documents server as a base for the future information architecture. The organization classifies and dissects all the came out problems. There is prepared a list of causes and their effects for each problem and all the problems are put into the relation with the future IS. [edit]Final

part
the information architecture

[edit]Define

The main goal of this step is to define the information architecture[2] of the organization. It is necessary to connect all the information subsystems to the logical complex. There is usually used the matrix Processes / Data classes in order to find appropriate subsystems. Organization then generally:

reorder processes according to the product or service life cycle reorder data classes to get the squares "creates" along the main diagonal eventually aggregates processes and data classes into logical groups which then create particular information

subsystems [edit]Establish

priorities for IS development

Which IS implement first? There are criteria (i.e. costs, development time, etc.) which should lead to establish the right order of system implementation. There are always subsystems with the highest priority which are about to be analysed more deeply. The information are presented to the sponsor who can decide which information subsystems will be developed and which not.

[edit]Verify

the impact of study to IS managing

There should be carried out a study about IS from the view of their planning and managing. Once the organization has finished the work on processes and data classes it should explore the main functions of the system and their goals. There can arise unexpected difficulties which are about to be eliminated. The final output of this step is:

a list of requested changes in particular departments a calculation of costs necessary to re/built the IS

[edit]Next

procedure proposal

There are made final recommendations and realisation plan for the organization during this step. It considers information architecture, IS managing and the sequence of information subsystems development. An important part of the plan procedure is are expected costs, profits a schedule for future activities. [edit]Results

presentation

This step contains the final agreement of all interested parties (team, management, sponsor). All the interested parties should agree on the future actions. [edit]Next

procedure

This is the final part of BSP. The organization should establish all the particular responsibilities during the project implementation. There is usually a controlling commission which ensures the consistency across the IS. BSP, in addition to its value for IS planning, also made two other important intellectual contributions:

It helped introduce the process view of the firm. The popular Business Process Re-engineering of the 1990s

was built on this concept.

It pointed out the need to de-couple data from the applications that use these data, i.e., data independence.

This supported the database approach to systems development. [edit]References