A Conceptual Framework to Classify Strategic Information Systems Planning Methodologies

For many information systems executives, strategic planning for information systems continues to be a critical issue and remains a top concern of many organisations. Also, a comprehensive review of the recent IS planning literature reveals that selecting a proper methodology used in developing an information systems plan is one of the success factors related to the success of the IS planning process. Although this individual success factor should have attracted more research and discussions, there have not been enough attempts to create a framework to compare and classify strategic information systems planning methodologies to select a proper method for a specific organisation with its unique requirements. The purpose of this paper is primarily theoretical and is to propose a conceptual framework to classify strategic information systems planning methodologies to choose the suitable methodology(ies) according to the specific given requirements of an organisation. Indeed, there is little guidance available in the literature regarding what relative strengths and weaknesses of existing approaches are (Rogerson & Fidler, 1994). Also many techniques have been advocated for use within the SISP process (J Ward, Griffiths, & Whitmore, 2002), including the definition and the analysis of the critical success factors (CSFs), SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) and valuechain analysis (VCA). Some organisations, which specialise in information technologies and their applications, have coupled together different methodologies resulting in a complete SISP methodology such as the work by Min et al. (1999) proposing an integrated approach toward strategic information systems planning (Min, Suh, & Kim, 1999). Several studies also have focused on SISP approaches e.g. by following Mintsberg’s models in his book: the rise and fall of strategic planning (Mintzberg, 2000), the stage of growth analysis which relates to Nolan’s work (Gibson & Nolan, 1974) or by invoking the Organisation’s Theory in order to obtain an organisational fit for IS (Burn, 1991). Through the comprehensive studies and practices of SISP, many methodologies are being applied in order to perform SISP processes, therefore organisations may need a set of criteria to better understand different methods, techniques, and tools to choose the proper one based on their requirements (Basahel, 2009; Basahel & Irani, 2009). 2 A FRAMEWORK TO CLASSIFY SISP METHOOLOGIES In this paper, we firstly introduce a conceptual framework to classify SISP methodologies then we compare some major SISP methodologies using our proposed conceptual framework (as demonstrated in Table 2 in the appendix). There are different frameworks to evaluate and classify IS development methodologies such as NIMSAD (Jayaratna, 1986), DESMET (Kitchenham, Linkman, & Law, 1996), and Avison and Fitzgerald’s framework (Avison & Fitzgerald, 2006; Avison & Fitzgerald, 2003) however there is only a few attempts to classify and compare IS planning methodologies (Basahel, 2009; Basahel & Irani, 2009; Rogerson & Fidler, 1994). Avison and Fitzgerald’s framework has the right level of abstraction and generality and could be mapped and adjusted in order to also evaluate and classify IS planning methodologies. According to the General System Theory (GST) (Von Bertalanffy, 1968), models, principles, and laws exist that apply to generalised systems or their subclasses, independent from their specific kind, the nature of their sub-elements, and the relationships among them. Therefore, by looking at Avison and Fitzgerald’s framework as a ‘system’ of comparison, it is possible to generalise this framework and adjust it (from the IS development level) to the IS planning level. This adjusted conceptual framework will be then used as a guide to choose a relevant SISP methodology when planning for information systems. This conceptual framework is introduced in the following sections (2.1 to 2.7): 2.1 Fundamental Philosophy Fundamental philosophy is a vision upon which the methodology has been established and forms the approach of problem solving. This criterion considers SISP methodologies as problem solving approaches with different fundamental philosophy. When choosing a methodology, it is important to determine a proper approach towards SISP process and select ones with adaptable approach to the problem with which organisation is facing. It consists of three factors of 1) Paradigm, 2) Methodology objective and 3) Domain and target of the methodology (Avison & Fitzgerald, 2006; Avison & Fitzgerald, 2003).