Final Assignment-Mircea Cojocaru - MIS_III

7/31/2019 Final Assignment-Mircea Cojocaru - MIS_III

1/13

Mircea Cojocaru Wednesday 13th

of

MBA - Managing Information Systems April 2011

Prof.: Marius Mihailescu

How to implement IS in an organization

and how does it affect its Organizational Culture?

I have chosen this topic as I run a sales consulting company called High Mark Business whichimplements sales training programs, social media branding campaigns and e-shops. I run this companyover a year now and I have noticed that the main challenge I face in implementing the products withsuccess is the organizational culture of the clients organizations as well as the capability to understandwhy does Is matter to his organization. In order to further develop my skills in this area I will write thisessay as a personal study as well as a school project.

To have a better understanding on how IS can improve the efficiency of an organization I wouldlike to use Mark S. Silvers of why IS are implemented in an organization.

He states that Information systems are implemented within an organization for the purpose ofimproving the effectiveness and efficiency of that organization. Capabilities of the information systemand characteristics of the organization, its work systems, its people, and its development andimplementation methodologies together determine the extent to which that purpose is achieved.

According to his definition IS should be introduced in every organization and used by everyoneas it looks like the propose is met with ease improving the effectiveness and efficiency of thatorganizationand it is in my opinion true, however I have noticed that in reality when implementing ISinto a an organization an multitude of challenges arise and to sustain my opinion here is a statement byGary Hamel, Author, Leading the Revolution

"Companies around the world have spent billions of dollars on information technology, yet inmost cases this investment has failed to produce any genuine competitive advantage and challengesbusiness leaders to take a more prudent and practical view of the role of IT in business success."

Why did he state this? Lets have a look at the history of ISThe history of information systems coincides with the history of computer science that began

long before the modern discipline of computer science emerged in the twentieth century. Regarding thecirculation of information and ideas, numerous legacy information systems still exist today that are

continuously updated to promote ethnographic approaches, to ensure data integrity, and to improve thesocial effectiveness & efficiency of the whole process. In general, information systems are focusedupon processing information within organizations, especially within business enterprises, and sharingthe benefits with modern society.

Although Information Systems as a discipline has been evolving for over 30 years now, the corefocus or identity of IS research is still subject to debate. There are two main views around this debate: anarrow view focusing on the IT artifact as the core subject matter of IS research, and a broad view thatfocuses on the interplay between social and technical aspects of IT that is embedded into a dynamicevolving context. A third view provided by calling IS scholars to take a balanced attention for both the ITartifact and its context.

Since information systems are an applied field, industry practitioners expect informationsystems research to generate findings that are immediately applicable in practice. However, that is not

always the case. Often information systems researchers explore behavioral issues in much more depththan practitioners would expect them to do. This may render information systems research resultsdifficult to understand, and has led to criticism.

Here is another point of view within in regards to IS history, for a long time relationship betweeninformation system functions and corporate strategy was not of much interest to Top Management offirms. Information Systems were thought to be synonymous with corporate data processing and treatedas some back-room operation in support of day-to-day mundane tasks (Rockart, 1979). In the 80s and90s, however, there has been a growing realization of the need to make information systems ofstrategic importance to an organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_integrityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_integrityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_science


2/13

2

I noticed from the articles presented before that the first step of implementing IS into anorganization begins with the identification of needs. In order to be effective, development of any type ofcomputer-based system should be a response to need, whether at the transaction processing level orat 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, prioritiesfor 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 knowwhere it stands in the order of development. Also the plan should be flexible so that priorities can beadjusted if necessary.

King (King, 1995) in his recent article has argued that strategic capability architecture - a flexibleand continuously improving infrastructure of organizational capabilities, is the primary basis for acompany's sustainable competitive advantage. He has emphasized the need for continuously updatingand improving the strategic capabilities architecture.

The key point here is that organizations have to plan for information systems not merely as toolsfor cutting costs but as means to adding value.

According to this Week article, The Technology Payoff (Business Week, June 14, 1993)explains that throughout the 1980s US businesses invested a staggering $1 trillion in the informationtechnology. This huge investment did not result in a commensurate productivity gain - overall nationalproductivity rose at a 1% annual rate compared with nearly 5% in Japan.

As IT is used to support breakthrough ideas in business processes, essentially supporting directvalue adding activities instead of merely cost saving, it has resulted in major productivity gains. In1992, 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 informationsystems averaged 54% for manufacturing and 68% for all businesses surveyed.

This impact of information technology on re-defining, re-engineering businesses is likely tocontinue and it is expected that information technology will play increasingly important roles in future.

As Keen (1993) has morbidly but realistically pointed out that organizations not planning forstrategic information systems may fail to spot the business implications of competitors use ofinformation technology until it is too late for them to react. In situations like this, when informationtechnology changes the basics of competition in an industry, 50% of the companies in that industrydisappear within ten years.

As I have a better understanding of what IS planning does, I will focus my attention now on howto plan? What to look out for?

I came across planning methodologies.

The task of strategic information systems planning is difficult and often time organizations do notknow 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?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 userneeds. Increase in the time horizon is a factor which results in poor response from the topmanagement to the strategic information systems planning process as it is difficult to hold their attentionfor such a long period.

Other questions associated with strategic information systems planning are related to the scopeof the planning study, the focus of the planning exercise corporate organization vs. strategic businessunit, number of studies and their sequence, choosing a strategic information systems planning


3/13

3

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 ofeach organization, there is no one best way to tackle it.

In this next section I have searched few ways to tackle system planning and I have found a fewImpact Methodologies.

First off I will present to you the Value chain of Michael Porter who is a leading authority oncompany strategy and the competitiveness of nations and regions.

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 valuechain. Information systems technology is particularly pervasive in the value chain, since every valueactivity creates and uses information. The recent, rapid technological change in information systems ishaving a profound impact on competition and competitive advantage because of the pervasive role ofinformation in the value chain. Change in the way office functions can be performed is one of the mostimportant types of technological trends occurring today for many firms, though few are devotingsubstantial resources to it. A firm that can discover a better technology for performing an activity thanits competitors thus gains competitive advantage (Porter, 1985). A typical value chain is summarized

in the figure

PRIMARY ACTIVITIESInbound>logistics>Operations Outbound>logistics>Marketing and sales>Service $

SUPPORT ACTIVITIES Firm infrastructure Human resources management Technology development Procurement

Porters Value Chain (Porter, 1985)

Once the value chain is charted, executives can rank order the steps in importance to determine whichdepartments are central to the strategic objectives of the organization. Also, executives can thenconsider the interfaces between primary functions along the chain of production, and between supportactivities and all of the primary functions. This helps in identifying critical points of inter-departmentalcollaboration. Thus, value chain analysis:(a) Is a form of business activity analysis which decomposes an enterprise into its parts. Informationsystems 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 thesame 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 addingrather than cost cutting.

Weaknesses: Although a very useful and intuitively appealing, value chain analysis suffers froma few weaknesses, namely,(a) It only provides a higher level information model for a firm and fails to address the developmentaland implementation issues.(b) Because of its focus on internal operations instead of data, it fails to define a data structure for thefirm.


4/13

4

(c) The basic concept of a value chain is difficult to apply to non-manufacturing organizations where theproduct 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 andimplementation issues and defines a data structure.

Since I have learned that the value chain on its own has a few drawbacks I further researchedother planning methodologies and came across the Critical Success Factor Analysis.

Here is what the CSFs are aboutCritical success factors analysis can be considered to be both an impact as well as an

alignment methodology. Critical Success Factors (CSF) are used for interpreting more clearly theobjectives, tactics, and operational activities in terms of key information needs of an organization andits managers and strengths and weaknesses of the organizations existing systems.

Rockart (1979) defines critical success factors as being for any business the limited number ofareas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive performance for theorganization. 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 carefulattention from management.

Rockart originally developed the CSF approach as a means to understanding the informationneeds of CEOs. The approach has subsequently been applied to the enterprise as a whole and hasbeen extended into a broader planning methodology. It has been made the basis of many consultingpractices and has achieved major results where it has been used well. CSFs can exist at a number oflevels, i.e., industry, organizational, business unit, or managers. CSFs at a lower level are derived fromthose at the preceding higher level. The CSF approach introduces information technology into the initialstages of the planning process and helps provide a realistic assessment of the ITs contribution to theorganization.

Industry CSFs>Organizational CSFs>Business Unit or Function CSFs>Manager's CSFs

Strengths: CSF analysis provides a very powerful method for concentrating on key informationrequirements 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, CSFanalysis 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 - it does notdefine 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 thebusiness unit under review. It has been the experience of the people using this technique thatgenerally 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 analyticalrather than creative (Ibid.).

(d) CSFs partly reflect a particular executives management style. Use of CSFs as an aid in identifyingsystems, with the associated long lead-times for developing these systems, may lead to givingexecutive 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 analysisfacilitates identification of information systems which meet the key information needs of anorganization/business unit, the value derived from these systems is not assessed.

Another method I have run into is called Method/1 (Arthur Anderson and Co., 1982) is a layeredapproach for SISP. The top layer is the methodology itself, the middle layer of techniques supports themethodology, and a bottom layer of tools supports the techniques. Techniques supported by this


5/13

5

methodology include data flow diagramming, matrix analysis, functional decomposition, focus groupsand Delphi studies.This methodology has five distinct objectives (Lederer and Gardiner, 1992):

To identify the organizations information needs. 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 andcompetitive assessment. The ten work segments of Method/1, their actions and products are shown intable 3 (Lederer and Gardiner, 1992).Work Segment Actions Product1. 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 capacity

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


6/13

6

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

According to this survey, the most severe problem identified by IS managers is the failure tosecure top management commitment for carrying out the final plan. The second most severe problemidentified is the requirement for substantial further analysis after the completion of the IS plan. Boththese 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 requiredto carry out the strategic information systems planning (success of the plan depends on the teamleader, difficulty in finding the team leader meeting the criteria specified in the study, methodologylacking 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 topmanagement commitment for implementing the outputs, the requirement of substantial further analysisand difficulty in finding a good team leader.

The results of this survey suggest that IS planners are not particularly satisfied with theirmethodologies. If the objective is to align IS objectives with business goals, then detailed, lengthy andcomplex 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.


7/13

7

Bergeron et al. (1990), however, point out that the value chain does help in achieving thatpurpose. Barlow (1990) suggests that the large number of methodologies that have been developedcan 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 are a major concern, most organizations find itdifficult 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. Further, as pointed out by Barlow (1990) also, the overall success of integrated

business/technology architecture depends upon the organizational structure, the level of ITexperience within the company and the availability of information resources. Since thesefactors differ between firms, there may not be a single best way to view IT planning.

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 automatedtool will help. Such a tool will make the task more structured and less leader-critical. Somesuch tools for strategic business planning have been developed by the Search Technology, Inc.and are reported in Rouse and Howard (1993).

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 questionsfrequently 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, certaingeneric steps in a typical SISP formulation can be identified. These are:

Study Internal Business Environment. This is a prerequisite to determining the business ISneeds. The internal business environment is comprised of mission of the organization, itsobjectives, strategies and plans, business activities, the organizational environment, corecompetencies, its critical success factors and the internal value chain.

Study external business environment. This helps an organization focus attention on theforces and pressure groups it encounters. These external forces exert a very stronginfluence on the business strategy of an organization. Factors to be considered here are theindustry that the organization is in and that industrys critical success factors, competitiveposition 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 plannedapplications portfolio that supports the business. Other aspects to be considered here arethe present

IS organization, skills and attitudes of people in the organization, IT environment and theIS/IT budgets.


8/13

8

External IS/IT Environment. This consists of scanning the environment for available andemerging technologies and their business implications. An important aspect of this is tounderstand how the competitors are using information technology.

Strategic Information Systems Planning essentially provides a high level business/informationmodel for an organization. Conceptually, the entire process of planning down to its detailed

implementation can be looked at as occurring at three levels.As a conclusion 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 integrationis 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 theenterprises information resources. A needed new approach would tap into these resources whichcapture and characterize the enterprise to allow for integration of the planning stage with informationsystems development stages and support a shortened and adaptive cycle. This paper is a small firststep towards a big task: developing a framework and a theory for strategic information systemsplanning. The need for such a framework is established by the existing problems in implementing SISPmethodologies and also by what these methodologies themselves lack. A possible approach tobuilding 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.The next main challenge I face is about organizational culture as I have noticed that most of the

time here is where the main reason for failing lies. Therefore I will run through the organizationalCulture and the way to best change it.

Organizational cultureDefinition by Kenneth Desson,(Pentor Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada)the personality of anorganization that guides how employees think and act on the job is central to the values, beliefs, inter-personal behaviors, and attitudes to stakeholders that determine how the organization does its job.Culture is a key factor not only in achieving organizational goals, but in attracting and keeping desirableemployees, creating a positive public image, and building respectful relationships with stakeholders.

In the next part lets explore what organizational culture is, why it is important, and how tochange an established culture so that it is better aligned with changes in organizational objectives andwork practices.1. What is organizational culture?

In his seminal 1992 work entitled Organizational Culture and Leadership, Edgar H. Schein,Professor Emeritus in the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,offered a definition of what he called an empirically based abstraction.

Organizational culture, he said, is a pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned bya group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked wellenough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way toperceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems Schein, Edgar H., Organizational Culture andLeadership, Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, 2004.2

The definition applies to organizations of virtually every kind families, social clubs, workgroups, companies, governments, and nations. Over time, each such group develops a set of tacit andexplicit understandings, beliefs and practices. It might not be easy to explain exactly what the culturalcharacteristics of a particular group are, but all of its members understand and conform instinctively toits expectations. As abstract as the concept of organizational culture may be, it is often grounded inclearly identifiable characteristics. These may include:A shared understanding of the organizationsmission.


9/13

9

This may be evident in such things as: a formal charter or mission statement; explicit strategies,goals and principles; and staff beliefs and assumptions about why the organization does what it does.Values that guide decision-making and activity at all levels in the organization.

For instance, it may be evident in the organizations policies, public statements and activitiesthat it values:

Safety the physical safety of staff and the public Security the protection of information and other assets Integrity the reputation of the organization for honesty, high ethical standards, reliable

outputs, and impeccable methodologies Continuous improvement with mistakes seen as learning opportunities Continuous learning the creation of rich opportunities for staff to gain new knowledge and

skillsThe focus and management style of senior officers.

This is often evident in statements that senior managers make about organizational priorities,the management style that they embrace (e.g. Top-down? Consultative?), and staff perceptions aboutsenior managements main preoccupations and commitment to walking the talk.

How employees think of their relationships with management, one-another, partnerorganizations, and clients. Are relationships predominantly adversarial, competitive, distrustful, collegialand mutually supportive, etc.?2. Why does culture matter?

As Edgar Schein and other management theorists have observed, organizational culture maybe an abstraction, but it has powerful effects on the way organizations think and behave. Indeed,having the right kind of culture a culture that is appropriate to the kind of enterprise in which anorganization is engaged is widely acknowledged to be among the most important determinants ofhow effective or successful the organization will be.Why is that so?Culture is important because it shapes:

What the organization considers to be right decisions What employees consider to be appropriate behaviors and how they interact with each other

within the organization How individuals, work groups and the organization as a whole deal with work assigned to them The speed and efficiency with which things get done The organizations capacity for and receptiveness to change the attitudes of outside

stakeholders to the organization In short, an organizations culture can be supportive of or hinder the implementation of new

initiatives and the achievement of its overall goals.3. Why might cultural change be necessary?

When an organization is faced by a changing marketplace or regulatory environment, or hasidentified the need for a shift in strategic direction, the implementation of a new technology, or theintroduction of new processes, the established culture may impede progress unless it, too, is changed.For that reason, the success of major organizational change initiatives are almost always dependent on

internal cultural change.What are some of the main reasons that a regulatory organization such as the IAEA mightconsider embarking on a cultural change initiative? The reasons might include:

Circumstances change for instance, the organization finds that it is encountering moreinstances of false or incomplete declarations that require a different attitude when conductinginspections;

Stakeholder expectations change for instance, the organization encounters greater skepticismabout its conclusions, requiring a culture that places even greater emphasis on the quality of itsprocesses while permitting more transparency about how it performs its functions;


10/13


11/13

11

Executive briefings on the initiative Change readiness assessment Change leadership plan Communication plan Orientation session for project team members Training plan for team members Change leadership training Team building sessions Leadership alignment Creativity workshop

During the Design and Build phases of implementation, typical activities include: Visioning session(s) with key stakeholders Stakeholder consultation Change readiness assessment (performance against plan) Leadership coaching & action planning Team renewal (team-building) Identification & enrolment of change agents within the organization

Face-to-face communications with larger stakeholder community Identification of impacts of new technology & processes on individuals Change agent training Employee Workshops During the Deliver and Operate phases, activities include: Workforce transition support including related HR policies & programs - training- performance

evaluation- compensation- reward and recognition- career development and planning Skills gap analysis End-user non-technical training

5. Why do culture change initiatives often fail?The unfortunate truth is that many organizational change initiatives fail to achieve their

objectives. This is often due to the inherent resistance of organizational culture to change. Argumentsoften offered as to why change should not take place include: Its best to stick to our tried-and-trueapproaches; This is the wrong time to be attempting a major change;Were different; Our people will instinctively do the right thing; and many others.

However, there may be other reasons for the failure of an organizational change initiative.These include:

Competing change initiatives (i.e. too many overlapping change initiatives)9 Lack of management ownership (managers may be as heavily invested in the existing culture as

other staff members) Differences of opinion and approach among senior leaders Unrealistic time lines

Failure to embed the desired changes in work processes and performance standards Failure to consult, engage and communicate Failure to measure progress Lack of recognition and rewards for progress toward change - and punishments for failure to live

up to expectations.6. What is needed to succeed?

Clearly, change leaders must commit themselves to well-reasoned, carefully planned, vigorouschange management activities including opportunities for staff members to practice new approachesin controlled settings if behavior, and eventually culture, are to be changed.


12/13

12

Essentials for success include: Have a good plan to work from Have compelling reasons for the specified change Demonstrate strong change leadership and unswerving commitment at the senior management

level Insist on middle-management ownership of the process Implement a program of ongoing communication Provide access to expert resources and on-going support for change at the staff level Measure and continually adjust

Before ending this study I would like to question myself weather I have achieved the desiredpurpose:

After this study I introduced the following procedures into the company:a) Identifying the needsb) The plan must be specific enough to enable understanding of each applicationc) The plan should be flexible so that priorities can be adjusted if necessaryd) IS should be viewed as a tool for adding value and not cutting costse) Evaluate the CSFs and make them clear to the client in order to make sure that the

implementation will run smooth.f) Secure top management commitment for carrying out the plang) verify that all resources needed are there or obtainableh) Carefully make use of proactive organizational change.i) Follow the change planning Framework

j) Avoid differences of opinion and approach among senior leadersk) Set realistic timelinesl) Follow the essentials guide lines for success measure and continually adjust

I feel that I managed to reach the goal that I have set for myself at the beginning of this studyand managed to find solutions to most of the challenges I was facing on a daily basis. Furthermore afterthis study I have introduced a new product on the market which I call Thesecret shopper programwhich is meant to continually measure so we can adjust the programs to the customers needs.

This study has inspired me to further research and ordered a book about the topic fromamazon.com Information-Systems-Live-About

As a conclusion to my study I challenge myself from now on to asses all assets and draw backsand create a SMART based plan before proceeding with implementing IS, furthermore I will make surethat everyone involved in the project will have a clear understanding of the roles they take part in, I willensure that feedback is collected on a regular basis so that adjustment will be implemented in a timelyand effective manner like this my company will be able to implement IS with a higher rate of success asI now understand the stages that need to be followed and the CSF that must be evaluated in order toobtain a smooth and effective implementation without shaking the organizational culture and placingemployees into situations where they will react defensive.

References1. Barlow, J.F., Putting Information Systems Planning Methodologies Into Perspective, Journal of SystemsManagement, 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.


13/13

13

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 SystemsJournal, 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 BusinessStrategy, 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 Implemen tation of Strategic Information Systems PlanningMethodologies, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 3, September 1988, pp. 445-460.10. Lederer, Albert L., and Gardiner, Veronica, Strategic Information Systems Planning The Method/1Approach, Information Systems Management, Summer, 1992.11. Ledrer, AL and Mendelow, AL, Information Resource Planning: Overcoming Difficulties in Identifying TopManagements 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 theWay 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 TheoreticalModel, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1990.2120. Rockart, J.F., Chief Executives Define Their Own Information Needs, Harvard Business Review, March-April1979.21. 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

Final Assignment-Mircea Cojocaru - MIS_III

Documents

Transcript of Final Assignment-Mircea Cojocaru - MIS_III