Write 3-4 pages of in-depth information on the -Background and Significance of Study used in Strategic planning in Information Technology
– Have the citation and APA 6th or latest edition format
– 2 Paragraphs on Strategic planning in Information Technology: Literature Review

– Use the below resources and any other published journels or articles

urgentStrategic Planning

Collaborative open strategic

planning

: a method and

case study
Alireza Amrollahi

School of Information and Communication Technology, Griffith University,
Southport, Australia, and
Bruce Rowlands

School of Information and Communication Technology, Griffith University,
Brisbane, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show how collaborative information technology (IT) tools and a
crowdsourcing model can be leveraged for the purpose of strategic planning. To achieve this objective,
a formal method of open strategic planning (OSP) is proposed.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on a review of the literature a set of activities, stakeholders, and
governing rules are identified in the form of an OSP method. The proposed planning method is implemented
in a case study of strategic planning in an Australian university. Observations by the research team,
and archival records were used to ascertain the relevance of the used method.
Findings – A method for OSP is presented and assessed. The method contains four phases: pre-planning,
idea submission, idea refinement, and plan development. These phases cover the activities required from
conceptualization to preparing and publishing the strategic plan. The findings clarify how the principles of
OSP helped the organization to include more stakeholders and provided the opportunity to make the planning
process transparent through use of a collaborative IT tool.
Practical implications – The study provides managers and planning consultants with detailed guidelines
to implement the concept of open strategy.
Originality/value – This study is among the few to propose a method for OSP based on empirical research.
The study also shows how collaborative IT tools can be used for high-level organizational tasks such
as strategic planning.
Keywords Open innovation, Strategy, Collaboration, Case study
Paper type Case study

1. Introduction
Open strategic planning (OSP) is a recent paradigm in strategic planning characterized by
applying the principles of inclusiveness, transparency, and the use of information
technology (IT) tools (Tavakoli et al., 2015). The concept of OSP has its roots in the notion of
open innovation within the information systems (IS) discipline (Chesbrough and
Appleyard, 2007; Grøtnes, 2009), and advances in social technologies known as Web 2.0
(Haefliger et al., 2011). IT tools including a crowdsourcing model are reported to
play an important role in the success of OSP practice (Amrollahi et al., 2014; Dobusch, 2012;
Matzler et al., 2014; Stieger et al., 2012).

The dominant perspective in strategic management research is logical positivist focusing
on outcomes of strategic planning and considering strategy process as a black box
(Tavakoli et al., 2015). This perspective is less efficient for OSP research, and we claim is
unable to study different socio-technical process of planning, and organizational and
behavioral responses. For this reason, there are calls for conducting IS/IT focused research
in the area of OSP (Amrollahi and Rowlands, 2016a; Morton et al., 2016; Tavakoli et al., 2015)
using an alternative perspective.

Despite the prevalence of strategic planning tools amongst managers (Kalkan and
Bozkurt, 2013), academic work and practice in the field of strategic planning has been

Information Technology & People
Vol. 30 No. 4, 2017
pp. 832-

852

© Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-3

845

DOI 10.1108/ITP-12-2015-0310

Received 28 December 2015
Revised 20 July 2016
10 November 2016
Accepted 16 January 2017

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-3845.htm

832

ITP
30,4

criticized in the last two decades. In particular, Mintzberg (1994a) questioned the orthodox
perspective on strategic planning, differentiating between strategic formulation and
strategic implementation. Mintzberg (1994b) also introduced the notion that there is an
information barrier between planners and implementers relating to the fallacy of
detachment, i.e. the assumption that planners should be divorced from operations for the
sake of objectivity, hindering the planning process. These comments started a new era of
transformative strategic planning research (Wolf and Floyd, 2017) focusing on the role of
middle managers ( Jarzabkowski and Balogun, 2009; Wooldridge et al., 2008),
decentralization of strategic planning (Aldehayyat and Al Khattab, 2012; Phillips and
Moutinho, 2000), and the creative facilitator role for planning departments (Grant, 2003).
These transformations from the viewpoint of academia concerning participation and
transparency in strategic planning led to the development of the so-called OSP approach.
The study proposes a formal method for collaborative strategic planning specifying the
steps to be taken, and the stakeholders responsible for each phase. IT tools and a
crowdsourcing model are leveraged to achieve this aim.

Although formal methods of strategic planning have been studied and developed to a
lesser extent in recent years (Wolf and Floyd, 2017), there are still calls for step-by-step
guides to planning for practitioners (Galbreath, 2010; Papke‐Shields et al., 2002). The need
for formal methods is highlighted to an even greater degree when it comes to the new
concept of OSP that is less known to practitioners and is in need of identifying a series of
sequential actions. The current body of the literature, however, has focused more on the
conceptual and theoretical aspects of strategic planning, with a few case studies of
implementation, and the practices have been less generalized to planning methods or
processes. The present study focuses on planning methods and process, and through a
review of the literature proposes a formal method of collaborative strategic planning.
This planning method has been applied and the results are reported in a case study.

The rest of this paper proceeds as follows. First, it considers the background to research
on strategic planning, the crowdsourcing model, and the concept of OSP. The proposed
method of OSP is then explained through its various components. The research approach is
explained and the case is introduced in Section 4. Section 5 contains the results of case
analysis, potential challenges, and contributions for academia and practice. Section 6
concludes the paper and explains how the research aims were achieved.

2. Research background
2.1 Strategic planning models and methods
Strategic planning is defined as “a disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and
actions that shape and guide what an organization (or other entity) is, what it does, and why
it does it” (Bryson, 2011, p. 6). This concept was primarily introduced with Drucker’s (1954)
notion of “management by objective” and is still of great importance among academics
(Wolf and Floyd, 2017). The importance of strategic planning efforts are more highlighted in
the context of public organizations (Tan and Artist, 2013) especially for the purpose of
education (Woods et al., 2016).

Among the many different areas studied in the strategic planning literature,
formal methods of strategic planning can be found dating back to the early 1970s
(McConnell, 1971). Although formal methods of strategic planning have featured less
frequently in research studies since 1994 and the dynamic capabilities of the firm and
contextual elements have been highlighted rather more (Wolf and Floyd, 2017), a number of
papers can nonetheless be found which have developed sequential steps for the planning
process (Ratcliffe, 2000; Wang et al., 2014).

Moreover, a number of tools and techniques have been suggested to facilitate the
planning process, including scenario analysis (Brauers and Weber, 1988), stakeholder

833

Collaborative
open strategic

planning

analysis (Frooman, 1999), the balanced scorecard (Voelker et al., 2001), the Delphi method
(Loo, 2002), ontology-based IS (Paradies, 2010), and the Scrum method of agile software
development (Cervone, 2014). Table I summarizes some of the formal methods of strategic
planning and activities identified in each method. The review and synthesis of these formal
methods helped to develop a set of activities for strategic planning proposed in this study.

The way strategic planning projects are preformed within organizations has shifted from a
primarily centralized to a decentralized approach. A crowdsourcing model is one of four tools
suggested for decentralization of strategic planning (Whittington et al., 2011) and is central to
the method proposed in this paper. For this reason, the model is briefly introduced next.

2.2 Crowdsourcing
Using the collective wisdom of a large crowd inside or outside the firm for performing
organizational tasks has always been a beneficial approach for organizations
(Ranard et al., 2013; Tarrell et al., 2013). However, after the term crowdsourcing was first
introduced by Howe (2006) as a new sourcing approach, it attracted considerable attention from
both academia and practitioners. Research on different aspects of crowdsourcing started before
the term itself was coined (Brändle, 2005). This approach is expected to provide an organization
with broader viewpoints and make the firm more powerful in solving its problems compared to
traditional approaches of out-sourcing or doing the tasks in house (Howe, 2008). The model has
also been used widely for academic, scientific, cultural, and commercial purposes (Choy and
Schlagwein, 2016; Graber and Graber, 2013; Sawyer et al., 2011).

Various mechanisms of governance for crowdsourcing projects have been suggested in the
literature. Pedersen et al. (2013) identified five categories of governance mechanisms for
crowdsourcing projects: right incentive mechanism, managing submissions, loss of control,
quality of the ideas, and creating trust. Stakeholders in crowdsourcing projects have been
classified as problem owners, individuals, and crowds. The crowdsourcing process has also
been subject of attention in the literature and required activities for conducting these projects
have been classified in five groups of: preliminary, idea submission, evaluation, monitoring,
and implementation activities (Amrollahi, 2015). The body of research on crowdsourcing

Source(s) Output type Activities/steps/stages of the planning process

McConnell (1971) Method/model/
approach

Determination of corporate objectives, assembling information,
development of planning actions, preparation of the provisional plan

Camillus (1982) Framework Analytical dimension, interactive dimension, temporal dimension
Ghosh and
Nee (1983)

Approach Perception stage, internal appraisal, external appraisal, decision on
strategy, search and evaluation

Nutt (1984) Method Techniques linked to the stages (and the within-stage phases) of a
strategic planning process and decision rules to make a selection from
various techniques for particular applications

Brauers and
Weber (1988)

Technique Determination of compatible scenarios, determination of scenario
probabilities, determination of main scenarios

León-Soriano
et al. (2010)

Framework Planning of the project, definition of enterprise mission statement,
stakeholder analysis, strategy definition, strategy implementation and
execution, design of indicators and targets, validation,
implementation, monitoring

Bryson (2011) Cycle Initial agreement, mandates, mission and values, internal/external
environment, strategic issues, strategy formulation, strategy and plan
review and adoption, description of the organization in the future,
implementation, strategy and planning process re-assessment

Cervone (2014) Method The kick-off, sprint planning meeting, sprint, daily Scrum, sprint
review meeting

Table I.
Formal methods of
strategic planning
in the

literature

834

ITP
30,4

stakeholders has been focused predominantly on stimuli for problem owners to initiate a
crowdsourcing project, the motivations for individuals to participate in crowdsourcing
projects and managing the dynamic behavior of crowds to fulfill the aims of the project.

In this study, a mix of governance mechanisms identified from the literature is used for
strategic planning where the quality of ideas submitted was assessed in a survey of experts
within the organization, and stakeholders involved in crowdsourcing were classified.
The following section elaborates on the concept of open strategy to describe how a
crowdsourcing model can be leveraged for the purpose of strategic planning in an organization.

2.3 Open strategy
Involving multiple stakeholders in the strategy process has been the subject of research and
practice for many years. Mitroff et al. (1977) studied the benefits of staff participation in
developing a plan for the year 2000 (25-year plan) in the governmental sector. IBM started a
strategy jam project prior to 2002 (Bjelland and Wood, 2008; Palmisano, 2004) in which
50,000 IBM employees posted approximately 10,000 comments concerning the future plans
of the company. From July 2009 to July 2010, the Wikimedia foundation also undertook an
initiative in which 1,000 volunteers joined in over 50 languages to develop a five-year
strategic plan for the Wikimedia foundation using a wiki (Dobusch, 2012).

In other case studies, technologies such as wiki (Kendall et al., 2008), forums
(Stieger et al., 2012), social networks (Matzler et al., 2014), and jamming (Gast and
Zanini, 2012; Morton et al., 2015) have been reported for the purpose of facilitating
strategic planning. The variety of IT tools used for the purpose of strategic planning,
and studies on architecture of the required system (such as Liinamaa et al., 2004) conveys
the importance of paying attention to IT tools as a new dimension for OSP (Amrollahi and
Rowlands, 2016b; Tavakoli et al., 2015).

Another perspective on the open strategy concept is the extension of the body of research
on group decision support systems (GDSS) and collaborative systems to the area of strategic
decision making. This concept involves a group of stakeholders arriving at a consensus to
deliver a consistent decision (Wu and Xu, 2012) through synchronous or asynchronous
communication (Kock and McQueen, 1995). The GDSS concept has been used to facilitate
collaboration among managers and strategic negotiations by providing anonymity and
increasing the effectiveness of strategic decisions (Ackermann and Eden, 2011; De Vreede
et al., 2003; Olesen and Myers, 1999).

Despite the early practice of open strategy, no theoretical research can be found in the
literature prior to the work of Chesbrough and Appleyard (2007) who developed a new
concept based on the notion of open innovation that they called open strategy.
They introduced open strategy as a concept that “embraces the benefits of openness as a
means of expanding value creation for organizations. It places certain limits on traditional
business models when those limits are necessary to foster greater adoption of an innovation
approach” (Chesbrough and Appleyard, 2007, p. 58). OSP is said to “widen the search for
strategy ideas and improve commitment and understanding in strategy implementation”
(Whittington et al., 2011, p. 535).

Another shortcoming in the area of OSP is a lack of a process view. A number of case
studies have suggested high level processes for strategy formulation through stakeholders’
participation. Dobusch (2012) for example suggested four phases of “preparation and
staging of the strategy process, structuring organized publics, strategizing led by organized
publics, and selecting, synthesizing and disseminating the results” in the case of Wikimedia
strategic planning. Stieger et al. (2012) also suggested three general activities of energizing,
listening and talking, and supporting as the components of OSP. Tavakoli et al. (2015)
suggested a three phased process model, covering preparing strategy planning, forming
and evaluating strategy, and implementing strategy, as part of a research-in-progress.

835

Collaborative
open strategic
planning

However, to best of our knowledge, no empirical research on OSP methods can be found in
the literature providing detailed steps toward preparing such a plan.

As previously explained, formal and processual methods are frequently used in strategic
planning, however, case studies of strategic planning focus on stakeholders undertaking
each phase of strategic planning, for example Bryson (2011) and Frentzel et al. (2000).
Furthermore, the available literature on OSP remains silent about how to implement OSP
principles in an organization. Moreover, crowdsourcing models are less focused for the
purpose of strategic planning in the OSP literature and the effectiveness of using these
models is not clear in the literature.

This study addresses these shortcomings by providing a processual perspective for
implementing the OSP concept. To achieve this, a method for collaborative strategic
planning through the crowdsourcing model is introduced. Moreover, the study focuses on
the interactions between the IT artefact (planning system) and people (stakeholders) to
study the social aspects of an inclusive approach for strategic planning. Finally, the method
is implemented in a world-ranked top 300 university and the suitability of the proposed
method is studied through research team observations. Hence, the following research aims
are formulated for the current study:

Research Objective 1: to conduct an exploratory study of possible outcomes for
implementing a collaborative model of strategic planning.

Research Objective 2: to develop a collaborative tool for strategic planning based on the
crowdsourcing model.

The proposed method of strategic planning is intended to engage stakeholders in an
online environment, and potentially foster adoption of the resultant plan among
stakeholders involved in the strategy formulation process. The implementation of the
model in a case study makes it possible to observe the attainability and relevance of the
method, and underlying crowdsourcing model.

3. Proposed method of OSP
Based on a review of the literature, a method of OSP is proposed to address the identified
shortcomings of implementation: a processual perspective (through a sequence of activities),
identification of stakeholders in charge of each activity, and providing details on how the
crowdsourcing model can be leveraged for the purpose of OSP (through the identification of
a set of governing rules). A review of strategic planning methods, crowdsourcing, and open
strategy helped frame the development of the OSP method. As illustrated in Figure 1,
the three components of method development were drafted based on a review of strategic
planning methods and the crowdsourcing literature.

Formal strategic
planning methods

Crowdsourcing
literature

Glossary of
planning activities

An initial classification
of stakeholders

An initial set of
governing rules

Open strategy
literature

Open strategy
practices

Planning activities

Refined classification
of stakeholders

Refined governing
rules

Strategic planning method

Figure 1.
Method

development

836

ITP
30,4

First, based on the literature on crowdsourcing, an initial classification of stakeholders in the
planning process was made. This classification was later updated and refined based on
examples of practice and theoretical work on open strategy. Then, a glossary of planning
activities was developed based on the review of the literature on formal methods of strategic
planning. This glossary reflects all possible activities through which a strategic plan could
be developed. Later, based on the results of the review of open strategy practices and the
principles of open strategy outlined in theoretical work, these activities were refined to form
a final set of activities. Finally, governing rules were identified based on the crowdsourcing
literature and best practices in OSP. The following subsections introduce each component of
the proposed OSP method.

3.1 Stakeholders
The method proposed for OSP in this study involves five levels of organizational
stakeholders in the planning process. As shown in Figure 2, the stakeholders’ classification
was inspired by the crowdsourcing literature but is more detailed on two categories of
crowd, and problem owners to fit the context of OSP.

Individual. This category of stakeholders comprises all designated stakeholders who
have been selected to be included in the planning process and access the strategic plan
developed. According to the organizational structure and policies and the scope of planning,
this may cover various stakeholders, such as employees, customers, or community
members. Various types of motivation and incentives should be considered to transform
these stakeholders into an active crowd.

Crowd. This includes all designated stakeholders who agree to participate in the
planning project and tender their ideas using the planning platform. Although this group of
stakeholders has access to the content of the final plan, they are less involved in making
decisions about its content.

Selected crowd. Managers select specific groups of stakeholders to perform roles such as
ranking and revising ideas. This could be middle managers in the organization or employees
who have a comprehensive understanding of the business context and limitations and thus are
able to comment on others’ ideas or transform them into more suitable and achievable ideas.

Managers. This is the highest level of the organization in charge of confirming the
strategic direction and making strategic decisions. People in this group should approve the
planning method, confirm the ideas to be considered in the final plan and approve the final
plan. Support and involvement at this organizational level play a crucial rule in the success
of the development of the strategic plan and related planning process.

Problem
owner

Crowd

Individual Individual

Crowd

Selected
crowd

Managers

Planning experts

Categorization of people in the crowdsourcing
literature (Pedersen et al., 2013)

Categorization of the stakeholders in the
current study

Figure 2.
Contrasting categories
of stakeholders in this

study and the
crowdsourcing

literature

837

Collaborative
open strategic
planning

Planning experts. This is the consultancy team which is in charge of the conceptual and
technical development of the planning platform, based on benchmarking using similar
plans, and also transforming the ideas that are approved into the final plan. These experts
are required to have multidisciplinary knowledge in the areas of strategic planning and IS to
handle both the technical and managerial aspects of OSP.

3.2 Planning phases
In order to identify a set of activities required to form the planning phases in the proposed
method, the practices of OSP from the literature were reviewed. To do this, similar studies
in the literature and phases or activities they proposed for OSP were reviewed. After
extracting the suggested activities from the literature, they were then synthesized to form
four phases of the method. In synthesizing the activities of the OSP literature, a certain level
of abstraction was required to make the method applicable across all cases. For this reason
some of the tasks in the literature were integrated with each other and some others were
broken down to more than one phase. Table II illustrates the activities found in the
literature, and how they relate to each phase of the proposed method.

As shown in Table II, the proposed method covers activities suggested in the literature.
Details of each phase and their relationship to the literature are described below.

Pre-planning activities. The development of a planning system (Stieger et al., 2012) and the
introduction of the project (Dobusch and Kapeller, 2013; Tavakoli et al., 2015) are highlighted
as necessary parts of OSP in the literature. In this study, the pre-planning phase also entails an
in-depth analysis of similar plans in the context. In this analysis, both the content of the plan
and the planning process should be the subject of attention. Reviewing the content of similar
plans will help the planning team to develop a structure for the final plan and reviewing the
process will make it possible to modify or customize the process based on previous practice.

The results of this benchmarking exercise will be presented to the managers and based
on their comments; the planning team will develop a conceptual design for the planning
system. This will include:

• the structure of the final plan;

• the interface and questions in an idea submission form;

• the planning scope and stakeholders in the crowd and selected crowd groups; and

• criteria for ranking the ideas.

The current study Pre-planning Idea submission Idea refinement Plan development

Stieger et al. (2012) Creation of platform
software, Introduction
of the project

Launch and
online time

Evaluation of the project

Liinamaa et al.
(2004)

Questioning Analysis of
answers, dialogue

Planning

Dobusch (2012) Preparing and staging
of the strategy process

Structuring
organized
publics

Strategizing by
organized publics

Selecting, synthesizing
and disseminating
the results

Dobusch and
Kapeller (2013)

Explaining Defining Versioning

Tavakoli et al.
(2015)

Setting-up Generating
ideas

Analyzing Decision making and
synthesizing,
communicating,
operationalizing

Table II.
Planning activities in
the current study and
some of the open
strategy practices

838

ITP
30,4

Based on the conceptual design of the planning platform, the technical development of an
online system will be initiated and the final products of this phase will be presented to the
managers for their approval followed by the second phase.

Idea submission phase. The submission of strategy ideas is mentioned as part of the
process in all studies reviewed in this research (Dobusch, 2012; Liinamaa et al., 2004; Stieger
et al., 2012; Tavakoli et al., 2015). In the idea submission phase, designated stakeholders
were asked to enter their ideas using the planning platform. Our research, however, stressed
increasing participants’ awareness of and motivation toward the planning project.
Increasing personnel awareness can be undertaken through newsletters, workshops, and
direct communication. Workers’ motivational factors in crowdsourcing projects are
categorized in five groups: enjoyment-based motivation, community-based motivation,
immediate payoff, delayed payoff, and social motivation. This categorization can also be
used in the context of OSP as a guideline.

Idea refinement activities. The refinement phase of the planning process starts with
ranking the ideas submitted by a number of people in the selected crowd group. To rank the
ideas, a number of pre-identified criteria can be utilized, including: how strategic the idea is;
whether or not the idea will be applicable in the academic groups in two years’ time
(planning horizon); and whether or not the idea could be generalized to all units of the
organization. This ranking will help managers to filter ideas based on their scores. Here, the
manager will rank each idea submitted as follows: accept, reject, or revise. Those ideas that
are marked for revision will be sent back to experts in the selected crowd group and for
adaptation to provide a better fit with the final strategic plan in the business context. Ideas
that are accepted and those that are revised will be sent to the next phase for the
development of the strategic plan. This phase has been mentioned in previous work as
analysis (Liinamaa et al., 2004; Tavakoli et al., 2015).

Plan development activities. Accepted and revised ideas form the input for the plan
development phase. In this phase of the project, a group of experts in strategic planning will
be asked to transform the approved ideas into a plan. It is worth noting that the structure of
the final plan will already have been identified (based on the benchmarking using similar
plans) and approved by managers.

Although this phase is suggested in previous studies (Liinamaa et al., 2004; Stieger et al.,
2012; Tavakoli et al., 2015), details on how to develop the strategic plan has received less
focus. In our method, analysis of approved and revised ideas is recommended for extracting
strategic elements from the pool of ideas. Upcoming sections contain more examples for
each phase. Figure 3 illustrates the proposed method for OSP. The horizontal axis in this
figure shows the phases of the proposed method, and the vertical axis is devoted to the
various groups of stakeholders involved in each phase.

4. Research methodology
4.1 Research approach
In this study, a single case study was used to evaluate the efficiency of the proposed method
when implemented in practice. The case method has been introduced as a facilitator of
human knowledge generation (Flyvbjerg, 2006) helping researchers to provide descriptions
and generate or test theory (Benbasat et al., 1987; Eisenhardt, 1989). The case approach was
also considered useful when “the investigator has little control over events, and when the
focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context” (Yin, 2014, p. 1).

Taking into consideration: the research aim to propose an online and collaborative
method of strategic planning, to conduct an exploratory study on the relevance and
outcomes of the proposed OSP method, and the novelty of using a crowdsourcing model for
the purpose of strategic planning, a case study was selected as the research approach.

839

Collaborative
open strategic
planning

This approach also helped the study to investigate possible outcomes of using the proposed
method when in implemented in real-life planning situation. An Australian university was
selected as the unit of analysis.

4.2 Case site
In order to evaluate the viability of the proposed OSP method, an academic group in an
Australian university was selected as the case site. This academic group had over 400
academic staff, serving over 5,000 students in four schools. The organizational structure in
universities is usually one of professional bureaucracy in which the power is to some extent
shared at the operational level and staff are expected to participate actively in the process of
decision making (Mintzberg, 1979). Collaborative models such as crowdsourcing were
recognized to be suitable for this context as they facilitate accessing collective intelligence
and creative ideas from the virtual community of stakeholders (Pedersen et al., 2013).

The relatively flat organizational hierarchy and presence of well-educated and literate
employees were factors which could facilitate the use of the crowdsourcing approach for
strategic planning (Stieger et al., 2012). For this reason, an OSP approach was expected to fit
this organizational structure and culture best. The project was introduced as an initial step
toward collaborative planning with the intention that the plan should also be aligned with
the long-term strategic plans of the university.

4.3 Data collection
Two main sources of evidence were used in the study: as the first author of this paper was
involved in all four phases of the study, his observations and notes formed part of the data
collected. The data and information recorded in the developed collaborative strategic planning
system formed a second source of data. Referring to multiple sources helped the study to

Individuals

Crowd

Selected Crowd

Managers
Approve the method Filter ideas

Approve the plan

Revise ideas
Rank ideas

Idea entry

Strategic plan

Research team/
planning experts

Start Benchmark
plan development method
user portal development

Preplanning activities Idea submission phase Idea refinement activities Plan development activities

Convert ideas to plan

S
ta

ke
h
o
ld

e
rs

Figure 3.
Proposed method for
open strategic
planning

840

ITP
30,4

ensure veracity and dependability of the collected data (Wiredu, 2012). All academics in the
group were invited to participate in the planning project and submit their ideas. These
stakeholders also submitted their comments about the project via e-mail in a number of
occasions. The first author of this paper was also in charge of developing the planning system.

Specifically, the following sources of data were obtained: notes from five meetings with
project sponsors (managers in the case organization) throughout the planning process
(qualitative); notes taken by system developers throughout the development and
prototyping process (qualitative); submitted ideas (qualitative); comments received via
e-mail from participating stakeholders throughout the idea submission (qualitative);
and planning system statistics and log data (quantitative).

4.4 Data analysis
The technique used for data analysis was explanation building, a type of pattern matching in
exploratory case studies. This method is based on the identification of a set of casual links to
explain a phenomenon. The process starts with an initial theoretical statement and continues
by comparing the findings to this statement and revising it accordingly (Yin, 2014). In this
study, the process was built on the theoretical foundations provided by the literature relating
to the possible effects of inclusion, transparency, and using IT tools on strategy process.

An iterative and deductive approach of data analysis was followed to find evidence
supporting initial statements retrieved from the main research questions. For example, an
initial statement was “the developed plan as a result of the proposed OSP is of high quality.”
To search for evidence supporting (or opposing) this statement data referring to the
implementation of each activity were scrutinized and managers’ expressions during final
meetings were found to be relevant to support this statement. Referring to this data led to
the identification of suggestions and revision of the statement to read “inclusion of more
stakeholders can potentially lead to a quality plan.” Table III contains a number of examples
of data analysis.

Results of this data analysis are narratively explained in the following section.

5. The findings and discussion
In our primary discussions with the top and middle managers in our case company, they
expressed their need for an IT-enabled solution in long-term planning for their organization.
These technologies are expected to facilitate the participation of people in various locations
(university campuses) and lead to time and cost savings for the organization (through
avoiding brainstorming and decision-making sessions).

Research question Statement Research data Outcome

Possible outcomes for
implementing a
collaborative model of
strategic planning

The developed plan
as a result of the
proposed OSP is of
high quality

Meeting notes (qualitative) According to managers
improvement in communication
with stakeholders can improve
the quality of the resultant plan

Inclusion of more
stakeholders can
potentially lead to a
quality plan

Meeting notes/System
developer notes (qualitative)

More stakeholders should be
involved

Stakeholders were
motivated to
submit their ideas

Comments received from
participating stakeholders
(qualitative)/Planning system
statistics and log data
(quantitative)

Better communication was
required to attract
stakeholders

Table III.
Sample data analysis

841

Collaborative
open strategic
planning

5.1 Pre-planning activities
As an initial part of the pre-planning phase, a review of similar plans in 15 Australian
universities was conducted to ascertain their approach to strategic planning, the structure of
their plans, and the areas focused on. This review assisted the OSP process identify the
required structure for the final plan (goals, objectives, and strategies). This structure later
led to the design of the idea submission forms. Finally, contrasting the content of the
submitted ideas and developed plan in this study with similar plans in other universities
assisted the study gaining an understanding about the robustness of the planning method
(see Section 5.5).

The results of this review exercise and the conceptual design for the planning system
were then submitted to the managers for their comments and approval. Confirmation of
the content/process and selected stakeholders by top managers helped to align the plan
(at any level) with other strategies or long-term plans, as well as gaining support from top
management, which is specified in the literature as an important factor leading to the
effectiveness of strategic planning (Elbanna, 2008, 2009; Suklev and Debarliev, 2012).
In addition, establishing the content and participating stakeholders led to the development
of a general matrix which was used as a conceptual basis for the technical development of
the planning platform. This platform enabled authorized stakeholders to submit their
ideas and then these ideas were refined in the same portal with different authorities.
Online tools and Web 2.0 technologies are suggested to be appropriate for conducting
organizational surveys as they result in benefits such as time and cost savings, better
access to populations and ease of use (Sandars and Schroter, 2007; Wright, 2005). For this
reason, the project progressed with the development of a planning platform, facilitating
the submission and refining of ideas. Figure 4 illustrates a data flow diagram for the
strategic planning system.

A strategy questionnaire was developed as a component of the planning system.
The idea submission forms were designed to capture stakeholders’ ideas about long-term
objectives of the organization. They also asked about approaches to achieve those objectives
in the form of a strategic plan. Based on this (and in accordance with the benchmarking of
best practices in ranked universities), participants were asked to enter any idea they
believed would assist in reaching a specific goal, by answering the following questions
“What is your idea for achieving this goal?” (objective) and “How do you think the idea could
be implemented?” (strategy).

Accepted ideas
Plan

development
Crowd
Strategic plan

Idea Rank
ideas

Ranked idea
Bank of ideas

Idea

For revision
idea

Labelled for
revision ideas

For revision
idea

Filter
ideas

Revise
ideas

Revised idea

Final list of
ideas

Accepted idea

Rejected idea

Rejected ideas

Figure 4.
Data flow diagram
(DFD) for the
planning platform

842

ITP
30,4

5.2 Idea submission activities
The idea submission activities officially started with a video message from the head of the
academic group where he invited academic staff to submit their ideas for future directions of the
group. Prior to the official launch, the planning approach and basic attributes of the planning
platform were presented in a series of workshops to academics in the case organization.

Participants had the option either to submit information on their identity to enter a prize
draw and be acknowledged or enter their ideas anonymously. They were then asked to provide
their ideas in relation to four specified “areas of improvement” which were retrieved from the
university’s strategic plan (the plan governing the existing learning and teaching plan).

5.3 Idea refinement activities
In the next step, two experts were asked to provide a score for each idea on a five-point
Likert scale. These experts were selected among those with high levels of experience in the
academic group and were aware of contextual factors and limitations in the case
organization. For this reason, their scores were expected to illustrate the quality of each idea.
These scores helped the managers to filter the ideas in the next stage. Here, a set of criteria
were used to label the ideas as “accept,” “reject,” or “revise.” Ideas which were marked for
revision were sent to another member of the community for amendment.

5.4 Plan development
The structure of the plan was developed based on the benchmarking of similar plans with
three different levels: goals, objectives, and strategies. The top tier of this plan is the “goals”
component, which is based on the four areas of improvement (identified on the basis of the
governing strategic plan of the university). In the next level, the “objectives” were developed
based on the participants’ ideas generated in response to the first prompt in the idea
submission form (ideas for achieving each area of improvement). In the lowest tier,
“strategies” were developed based on participants’ responses to the prompt asking for their
recommendations for implementing their ideas. This is also consistent with the definitions
of strategy and objective (a portfolio of actions which are agreed upon) and goals (which
may be achieved by implementing the strategies) (Bryson, 2011).

To develop the strategic plan, an analysis was performed (similar to the analysis approach
by Cochrane, 2015) on each aspect of the ideas submitted. Then the result was mapped with
the identified levels of the plan and available goals. To perform this analysis, each idea was
studied by the first member of the team, and one or a number of codes were assigned to that
idea. The final list of ideas was reviewed by other team members and some codes were
merged into each other or changed to better reflect a strategic theme. The relationship
between the themes extracted was then developed in a map to construct the final strategic
plan. In order to this, the approach used by Bryant et al. (2011) was followed and several maps
were constructed relating the themes to each other and the specified goals of the organization.
A sample of these constructive maps is illustrated in Figure 5.

Finally, we discuss the strategic plan based on the developed constructive maps. The
plan contained strategic directions for the learning and teaching department over the next
two years and contained 15 objectives and 31 strategies for achieving the goals in the four
areas of improvement. These objectives and strategies were grouped under four general
goals retrieved from the strategic plan of the university and covered different areas of
students’ experience and graduate outcomes.

5.5 Study outcomes
Considering the number of submitted ideas, and the managers’ acceptance of the quality of
the formulated plan, the proposed model yielded satisfactory results. To evaluate the

843

Collaborative
open strategic
planning

robustness of the ideas, the retrieved themes in the final pool of ideas (used to develop the
strategic plan) were compared to the frequency of each theme in similar university strategic
plans (already reviewed during the preplanning phase). The results of this comparison
indicated that all the ideas submitted in this case corresponded to those in the benchmark
results; moreover, there was no significant difference in frequency ranking or percentage.
For example, the theme of “education techniques” as the most frequent theme was among
the top themes in similar strategic plans.

The planning system log file and analytics system showed 3,622 views by users and
27 strategy threads submitted over a period of two months. Submitted strategy ideas covered
all of the areas of interest. Almost half of the submitted ideas addressed student retention and
only a few (7 percent) addressed the topic of “graduate outcomes.” The student

experience

(26 percent) and teaching quality (19 percent) were other popular topics among the submitted
ideas. The average score (during idea refinement) for the submitted ideas was relatively high
(4.2 out of 5) and most (93 percent) were approved for the plan development phase.

The quality of submitted ideas, and the final plan was mentioned as satisfactory during
the final meetings with managers. Factors such as “covering important areas of
competency,” “alignment with high-level strategies in university level,” and “attainability of
the strategies” were highlighted as advantages for the developed plan. However, a number
of challenges were highlighted during the strategy process, and are discussed next.

5.6 Challenges and recommendations
The first and most important challenge encountered in the case study was the participation
rate. The submissions covered all of the pre-identified improvement areas. However, increasing
the number of idea submissions widens the scope of strategy ideas (Whittington et al., 2011),
and can potentially improve the effectiveness of the developed plan. For this reason, increasing
the number of idea submissions should always be considered as an important consideration in
OSP. However, according to the literature on public participation, it is less feasible for all
stakeholders to want to or be able to participate in high-level strategic forums (Brackertz and
Meredyth, 2009).

This challenge has also arisen in some other case studies in which personnel were asked to
participate in the planning process. These studies mentioned reasons such as inadequate
self-confidence and shyness of staff (Cochrane, 2015; Eppler and Platts, 2009; Mitroff et al., 1977).

Goal 1

Goal 2

Goal 4

Goal 3

First year

Student
involvement On campus

experience

Early feedback Graduation
advantages

Survey

Techniques

Blended learning

Course
development

Program
development

Student support

Staff (academic)

Staff
(administrative)

Communication
with students

Figure 5.
Sample of mapping of
ideas and goals

844

ITP
30,4

Another study considered that people who had not participated “did not feel that they were in a
position to contribute to the plan” (Hjortsø, 2004, p. 671). These factors and the specific structure
of the academic group could have caused this problem in this study.

Another challenge encountered during the planning process was the lack of consistency of
ideas in submissions. According to the pre-developed structure of the plan in the study and
the form developed for the submission of ideas, it was intended that the objectives (second
level of the strategic plan) would be ascertained through the crowd’s response to the first
question (what is your idea?) and the strategies (third level of the strategic plan) through the
crowd’s response to the second question (how do you think the idea could be implemented?).
Despite the rigor of the conceptual design and implementation, many participants entered
responses to the questions relating to different levels of strategy. For example, in the final
submissions of ideas there were general suggestions, such as “A comprehensive survey and
analysis of the current student experience” and detailed ideas such as “Ensure that in school
assistance/staff is/are available for administrative, blended learning, and computer-related
tasks associated with teaching.” There were also various instances in which participants
entered details on how to implement the idea (strategy in the current classification) as part of
their ideas (objectives in the current classification). This issue was simply resolved by
revising the ideas, but in future implementations, more information and guidelines on these
concepts and examples for each of them may help the participants to align their ideas with the
template to a greater extent.

In addition, a challenge was presented by the lack of strategic attributes in ideas, for
example in the case that participants submitted ideas that could be considered short-term
improvements in the work environment and thus lacking strategic value. These included
ideas such as “upgrading the technological facilities for staff” or “accelerating
improvements in the marking system.” On the other hand, it should be noted that the
evaluation of ideas in the ranking phase is an extremely subjective- and context-based
process. Short workshops and training materials on, for example, the concept of “strategy”
and the notion of “long-term planning” may help mitigate this challenge in the future.

Furthermore, many ideas were submitted that were related to a specific domain and/or
discipline. For instance, suggestions were made concerning improvements to teaching
technologies which were applicable to only one specific program. These ideas were sent for
revision in the next phases and were transformed to general ideas. The challenge during idea
submission showed that although using the crowdsourcing model assisted the planning
project getting more people involved, stakeholders often do not present ideas in a way that can
be easily included in the strategic planning process. This challenge possibly won’t happen in
further applications of the OSP concept as knowledge about OSP effort grows.

Other than the aforementioned challenges, which mainly occurred during the “idea
submission” phase of planning, another challenge was faced during the idea ranking and
idea filtering phases. It is widely accepted that the main benefit of the open strategy
approach is the opportunity to take more strategic ideas into consideration. However,
participants have been reported to be disappointed or dissatisfied in similar case studies
when their ideas have not been incorporated in the final strategic plan (Hjortsø, 2004;
Langley, 1988; Ormerod, 2005). This should not affect the decisions of people who rank or
filter ideas, resulting in the tolerance of low quality ideas as observed in some instances
during this case study. Table IV summarizes the challenges faced in the current study.

5.7 Implications for research
Considering inclusion as a key principle of open strategy, the following points can be
inferred from the current study: first, the organizational structure of the institution should
be considered as people operating in traditional structures may have higher levels of
motivation to participate in strategic decision making compared to employees in flat

845
Collaborative
open strategic
planning

organizations who have already experienced some levels of participation in high-level
decision making (e.g. the participation of academic staff in school committees); second, some
stakeholders in traditional structures might be persuaded to participate by their managers,
which is not the case in flat organizations.

Considering the specific dimensions and attributes of OSP, future research should revisit
various topics in relation to this specific context. Future research on the open strategy
approach should specifically address the evaluation area and attempt to adapt aspects of the
literature to specific dimensions of open strategy. The models and concepts already
developed in IS area can be extended to OSP and benefit future studies. Specific dimensions
of OSP highlighted in this study such as task type, participation and the process view
should be considered. For example, this study could have implications for future research in
the crowdsourcing area. While the basic model in this study was the crowdsourcing model,
the participation and motivation trends could be studied in greater depth in future research.

Future studies can develop the proposed method in two ways. First, case studies can
apply the method in other contexts and evaluate its relevance. Second, the model can be
further developed and other potential components such as a planning system can
be considered to develop a general methodology for OSP. Using a design perspective can be
beneficial here as it is recommended for strategy research (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2013)
and may further help the construction of a methodology. Finally, although the current study
confirmed the utility and viability of using the crowdsourcing model for the purpose of
strategic planning, the short-term effectiveness (stakeholders’ interpretations) and long-term
effectiveness (organizational impact) of OSP warrants future study.

5.8 Implications for practice
The open strategy concept (like open innovation) has been introduced as a continuum (not a
binary concept) in the literature and for this reason, developing an open strategy in its pure form
(with the inclusion of every possible stakeholder and complete transparency) may not be feasible
for most organizations. However, even in a less than optimal case, a number of challenges could
arise which hinder the application of an open strategy approach. These include conventional
perceptions regarding the strategy and the central role of managers in its development.
The perspective adopted here, in contrast to the contention of Whittington et al. (2011), is that the
open strategy approach is not expected to destabilize strategic planners and those in consulting.
This approach is even expected to provide better opportunities for consultants to shift their
services to pre-planning activities (especially platform development) and develop a wider market
in new small- and medium-sized enterprises, which could start their strategic planning
initiatives with the open strategy approach.

Challenge Possible roots How to avoid/address challenges

Lower than expected
participation rate

Lack of self-confidence in
participants

Increase awareness

Inconsistency of ideas
with identified structure

Lack of consistent perception
about strategy levels

Guidelines and examples

Lack of strategic value Lack of awareness regarding
the concept of strategy

Workshops and training materials

Lack of awareness
regarding current practices

– Increase organizational awareness regarding
ongoing strategic projects/systems

Discipline-based ideas – Revise the ideas and arrive at more
general notions

Tolerance in ranking and
filtering the ideas

Tendency to include
more ideas

Better criteria for ranking and filtering

Table IV.
Challenges of
implementing the
open strategy
approach in the
current case study

846

ITP
30,4

Using IT, as a principle of OSP, facilitated collaborative formulation of the strategic plan.
As the case study was conducted in a multi-campus university with difficulties in accessing
stakeholders in different geographical locations, collaborative technologies and a
crowdsourcing model resulted in savings of time and cost of accessing stakeholders.
This case illustrates a new application for groupware technologies having already been
implemented in various areas (Robertson et al., 2001; Yoong and Gallupe, 2001). For this
reason, this study should attract the attention of practitioners aiming to develop strategic
plans in multi-location organizations.

In the current study, we also found the principles of transparency and inclusiveness to
impact the planning process in terms of saving time and cost for planning. However,
practitioners who intend to use an open strategy approach should consider different ways
of increasing participation in the planning process. Comparing the participation rate in
this study to that in other similar cases, it seems that there might still be a role for
face-to-face communication inside the firm. In all of the cases considered here, an online
tool has been utilized for strategic planning, but communication between the stakeholders,
which might be expected to be lower in an academic group across four different campuses,
still seems to be of considerable importance in motivating the participants. The role of
incentives (especially monetary and payoff incentives) has also been questioned in
this study: although three different types of incentive mechanisms were considered
in this case, more than half of the ideas were submitted anonymously, which indicates the
lack of willingness on the part of the participants to enter the prize draw or even be
considered as a participant in the final plan.

Compared to previous published studies proposing a processual approach for OSP
(Dobusch, 2012; Stieger et al., 2012; Tavakoli et al., 2015), the current study provides a more
detailed approach and explains how each step functioned through an empirical case.
Moreover, the proposed method contains information about various groups of stakeholders
responsible for each activity in the strategy process – a topic not reported on in previous
studies. A detailed method for collaborative strategic planning and the outcomes of this
method can create a benchmark for OSP in future work. This means that practitioners can
contrast their outcomes and the context of their organization and decide to choose or modify
the proposed OSP method.

Practitioners can also benefit from the challenges faced in this case study and try to
mitigate and/or address such challenges following certain recommendations. The main
lessons learned through this case study were the significance of increasing awareness
(through meetings, workshops, training sessions and online materials) and providing better
criteria for ranking and filtering strategic ideas. Based on these, various areas for
improvement were identified at the end of the project which could be implemented in future
practice. To increase transparency, the rank and revising of ideas could be performed by the
crowd (rather than the selected crowd). Beyond increasing the openness of the process, this
could also result in increasing participants’ engagement in future and help more
stakeholders (especially those who are less likely to trigger a strategic idea) to participate.

6. Conclusion
This paper proposed a method for OSP and reported on a case concerning the use of
crowdsourcing techniques to implement open strategy. This approach helped an
organization to maintain managerial supervision over the strategy process (through
approval functions) whilst simultaneously widening the search for ideas. The results of
implementing the proposed method indicate its potential for use in the context of other
universities and similar organizations. The crowdsourcing model helped the proposed OSP
method to develop phases of collaborative strategic planning and also assisted the research
to identify stakeholders relevant in the strategy process.

847

Collaborative
open strategic
planning

Based on data collected during the implementation of the OSP approach, this study
suggests that using an IT-enabled crowdsourcing system is an appropriate tool to attract
strategy ideas and refine them in the form of a plan. The use of collaborative technologies
and a crowdsourcing model helped the research to implement two other principles of OSP
(inclusiveness and transparency) through the means of seeking anonymity and constant
communication with stakeholders. Further, the online crowdsourcing system resulted in
savings of time and budget for strategic planning. Finally, IT tools helped a geographically
dispersed organization (multi-campus university) to improve inclusion of stakeholders in
high-level strategic tasks.

The results of this study may be beneficial for future practitioners who intend to use the
OSP approach. The study also highlights several questions which could be answered by
future studies in the open strategy area. The study achieved its identified objectives.
First, by exploring challenges and opportunities that may be encountered as a result of
employing such an approach; and second, proposing a method for implementing the OSP
concept in organizational settings. The proposed method is a first step toward a generic
methodology for OSP.

References

Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. (2011), “Negotiation in strategy making teams: group support systems and
the process of cognitive change”, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 293-314.

Aldehayyat, J. and Al Khattab, A. (2012), “Strategic planning and organisational effectiveness in
Jordanian hotels”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 11-25.

Amrollahi, A. (2015), “A process model for crowdsourcing: insights from the literature on implementation”,
paper presented at the Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Adelaide.

Amrollahi, A. and Rowlands, B. (2016a), “The effectiveness of an open strategic planning approach”,
paper presented at The 20th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Chiayi.

Amrollahi, A. and Rowlands, B. (2016b), “OSPM: a design methodology for open strategic planning”,
paper presented at the Twenty-second Americas Conference on Information Systems,
San Diego, CA.

Amrollahi, A., Ghapanchi, A. and Talaei-Khoei, A. (2014), “Using crowdsourcing tools for
implementing open strategy: a case study in education”, paper presented at the Twentieth
Americas Conference on Information System, Savannah, GA.

Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K. and Mead, M. (1987), “The case research strategy in studies of information
systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 369-386.

Bjelland, O.M. and Wood, R.C. (2008), “An inside view of IBM’s ‘innovation Jam’ ”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 32-40.

Brackertz, N. and Meredyth, D. (2009), “Community consultation in Victorian local government: a case
of mixing metaphors?”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 152-166.

Brändle, A. (2005), “Too many cooks don’t spoil the broth”, paper presented at The First International
Wikimedia Conference, Frankfurt.

Brauers, J. and Weber, M. (1988), “A new method of scenario analysis for strategic planning”, Journal of
Forecasting, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 31-47.

Bryant, J., Darwin, J. and Booth, C. (2011), “Strategy making with the whole organisation: OR and the
art of the possible”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 840-854.

Bryson, J.M. (2011), Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening
and Sustaining Organizational Achievement, Vol. 1, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Camillus, J.C. (1982), “Reconciling logical incrementalism and synoptic formalism – an integrated
approach to designing strategic planning processes”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 3
No. 3, pp. 277-283.

848

ITP
30,4

Cervone, H.F. (2014), “Improving strategic planning by adapting agile methods to the planning
process”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 155-168.

Chesbrough, H.W. and Appleyard, M.M. (2007), “Open innovation and strategy”, California
Management Review, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 57-76.

Choy, K. and Schlagwein, D. (2016), “Crowdsourcing for a better world: on the relation between IT
affordances and donor motivations in charitable crowdfunding”, Information Technology &
People, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 221-247.

Cochrane, R. (2015), “Community visioning: the role of traditional and online public participation in
local government”, Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 18-32.

De Vreede, G.-J., Davison, R.M. and Briggs, R.O. (2003), “How a silver bullet may lose its shine”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 96-101.

Dobusch, L. (2012), “Strategy as a practice of thousands: the case of Wikimedia”, paper presented at the
Academy of Management Proceedings, Boston, MA.

Dobusch, L. and Kapeller, J. (2013), “Open strategy between crowd and community: lessons
from Wikimedia and creative commons”, paper presented at the Academy of Management
Proceedings, Orlando, FL.

Drucker, P.F. (1954), The Practice of Management, Harper & Brothers, New York, NY.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.

Elbanna, S. (2008), “Planning and participation as determinants of strategic planning effectiveness:
evidence from the Arabic context”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 779-796.

Elbanna, S. (2009), “Determinants of strategic planning effectiveness: extension of earlier work”,
Journal of Strategy and Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 175-187.

Eppler, M.J. and Platts, K.W. (2009), “Visual strategizing: the systematic use of visualization in the
strategic-planning process”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 42-74.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006), “Five misunderstandings about case-study research”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 219-245.

Frentzel, W.Y., Bryson, J.M. and Crosby, B.C. (2000), “Strategic planning in the military: the US naval
security group changes its strategy, 1992-1998”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 402-429.

Frooman, J. (1999), “Stakeholder influence strategies”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 191-205.

Galbreath, J. (2010), “Drivers of corporate social responsibility: the role of formal strategic planning and
firm culture”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 511-525.

Gast, A. and Zanini, M. (2012), “The social side of strategy”, McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 82-93.

Ghosh, B.C. and Nee, A.Y.C. (1983), “Strategic planning – a contingency approach – part 1.
The strategic analysis”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 93-103.

Graber, M.A. and Graber, A. (2013), “Internet-based crowdsourcing and research ethics: the case for
IRB review”, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 115-118.

Grant, R.M. (2003), “Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: evidence from the oil majors”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 491-517.

Grøtnes, E. (2009), “Standardization as open innovation: two cases from the mobile industry”,
Information Technology & People, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 367-381.

Haefliger, S., Monteiro, E., Foray, D. and von Krogh, G. (2011), “Social software and strategy”,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 297-316.

Hjortsø, C.N. (2004), “Enhancing public participation in natural resource management using Soft
OR – an application of strategic option development and analysis in tactical forest planning”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 152 No. 3, pp. 667-683.

Howe, J. (2006), “The rise of crowdsourcing”, Wired Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 1-4.

849

Collaborative
open strategic
planning

Howe, J. (2008), Crowdsourcing: How the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business,
Random House, New York, NY.

Jarzabkowski, P. and Balogun, J. (2009), “The practice and process of delivering integration through
strategic planning”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 1255-1288.

Kalkan, A. and Bozkurt, Ö.Ç. (2013), “The choice and use of strategic planning tools and techniques in
Turkish SMEs according to attitudes of executives”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 99 No. 6, pp. 1016-1025.

Kendall, S.L., Nino, M.H. and Staley, S.M. (2008), “Collaborative strategic planning: a wiki application”,
Journal of Web Librarianship, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 3-23.

Kock, N.F. and McQueen, R.J. (1995), “Integrating groupware technology into a business process
improvement framework”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 19-34.

Langley, A. (1988), “The roles of formal strategic planning”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 40-50.

León-Soriano, R., Muñoz-Torres, M.J. and Chalmeta-Rosalen, R. (2010), “Methodology for sustainability
strategic planning and management”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 110 No. 2,
pp. 249-268.

Liinamaa, K., Nuutinen, J.A., Sutinen, E. and Vanharanta, H. (2004), “Collaborative strategic planning
on-line”, Psychology Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 242-254.

Loo, R. (2002), “The Delphi method: a powerful tool for strategic management”, Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 762-769.

McConnell, J.D. (1971), “Strategic planning: one workable approach”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 2-6.

Matzler, K., Füller, J., Koch, B., Hautz, J. and Hutter, K. (2014), “Open strategy – a new strategy
paradigm?”, in Matzler, K., Pechlaner, H. and Renzel, B. (Eds), Strategie and Leadership,
Springer, Osterreich, pp. 37-55.

Mintzberg, H. (1979), “The structuring of organizations: a synthesis of the research”, Champaign’s
Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship,
University of Illinois at Urbana, NJ.

Mintzberg, H. (1994a), “The fall and rise of strategic planning”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 1,
pp. 107-114.

Mintzberg, H. (1994b), “Rethinking strategic planning part I: pitfalls and fallacies”, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 12-21.

Mitroff, I.I., Barabba, V.P. and Kilmann, R.H. (1977), “The application of behavioral and philosophical
technologies to strategic planning: a case study of a large federal agency”, Management Science,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 44-58.

Morton, J., Wilson, A. and Cooke, L. (2015), “Opening strategy through ’Jamming’: exploring the
process”, paper presented at the Loughborough School of Business and Economics (SBE)
Doctoral Conference, Loughborough University, Loughborough.

Morton, J, Wilson, A. and Cooke, L. (2016), “Open strategy initiatives: open, IT-enabled episodes of
strategic practice”, paper presented at the Twentieth Pacific Asia Conference on Information
Systems, Chiayi.

Nutt, P.C. (1984), “A strategic planning network for non‐profit organizations”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 57-75.

Olesen, K. and Myers, M.D. (1999), “Trying to improve communication and collaboration with
information technology: an action research project which failed”, Information Technology &
People, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 317-332.

Ormerod, R. (2005), “Putting soft OR methods to work: the case of IS strategy development for the UK
Parliament”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 56 No. 12, pp. 1379-1398.

Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2013), “Designing business models and similar strategic objects: the
contribution of IS”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 237-244.

850

ITP
30,4

Palmisano, S. (2004), “Leading change when business is good”, HBR’s 10 Must Reads on Change,
Vol. 82 No. 12, pp. 60-70.

Papke‐Shields, K.E., Malhotra, M.K. and Grover, V. (2002), “Strategic manufacturing planning systems
and their linkage to planning system success”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-30.

Paradies, S. (2010), “An approach to support strategic planning by ontological structures”,
paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information
Science, Nice.

Pedersen, J., Kocsis, D., Tripathi, A., Tarrell, A., Weerakoon, A., Tahmasbi, N., Xiong, J., Deng, W., Oh, O.
and de Vreede, G.-J. (2013), “Conceptual foundations of crowdsourcing: a review of IS research”,
paper presented at the 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui.

Phillips, P.A. and Moutinho, L. (2000), “The strategic planning index: a tool for measuring strategic
planning effectiveness”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 369-379.

Ranard, B.L., Ha, Y.P., Meisel, Z.F., Asch, D.A., Hill, S.S., Becker, L.B., Seymour, A.K. and Merchant, R.M.
(2013), “Crowdsourcing – harnessing the masses to advance health and medicine, a systematic
review”, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Ratcliffe, J. (2000), “Scenario building: a suitable method for strategic property planning?”, Property
Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 127-144.

Robertson, M., Sørensen, C. and Swan, J. (2001), “Survival of the leanest: intensive knowledge work and
groupware adaptation”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 334-352.

Sandars, J. and Schroter, S. (2007), “Web 2.0 technologies for undergraduate and postgraduate medical
education: an online survey”, Postgraduate Medical Journal, Vol. 83 No. 986, pp. 759-762.

Sawyer, S., Griffiths, M., Light, B., Lincoln, S. and Kidd, J. (2011), “Enacting engagement online: framing
social media use for the museum”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 64-77.

Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S. and Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F. (2012), “Democratizing strategy:
how crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues”, California Management Review, Vol. 54
No. 4, pp. 44-68.

Suklev, B. and Debarliev, S. (2012), “Strategic planning effectiveness comparative analysis of the
Macedonian context”, Economic and Business Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 63-93.

Tan, S.F. and Artist, S. (2013), “Strategic planning in Australian local government: a comparative
analysis of state frameworks”, Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government,
University of Technology, Sydney.

Tarrell, A., Tahmasbi, N., Kocsis, D., Tripathi, A., Pedersen, J., Xiong, J. and de Vreede, G.-J. (2013),
“Crowdsourcing: a snapshot of published research”, paper presented at the Nineteenth Americas
Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, IL.

Tavakoli, A., Schlagwein, D. and Schoder, D. (2015), “Open strategy: consolidated definition and
processual conceptualization”, paper presented at the Thirty-Sixth International Conference on
Information Systems, Fort Worth, TX.

Voelker, K.E., Rakich, J.S. and French, G.R. (2001), “The balanced scorecard in healthcare organizations:
a performance measurement and strategic planning methodology”, Hospital Topics, Vol. 79
No. 3, pp. 13-24.

Wang, X.P., Zhang, J. and Yang, T. (2014), “Hybrid SWOT approach for strategic planning and
formulation in china worldwide express mail service”, Journal of Applied Research and
Technology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 230-238.

Whittington, R., Cailluet, L. and Yakis-Douglas, B. (2011), “Opening strategy: evolution of a precarious
profession”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 531-544.

Wiredu, G.O. (2012), “Information systems innovation in public organisations: an institutional
perspective”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 188-206.

Wolf, C. and Floyd, S.W. (2017), “Strategic planning research toward a theory-driven agenda”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1754-1788.

851

Collaborative
open strategic
planning

Woods, R., Artist, S. and O’Connor, G. (2016), “Learning in Australian local government: a roadmap for
improving education & training”, Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, Vol. 1 No. 18,
pp. 108-126.

Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T. and Floyd, S.W. (2008), “The middle management perspective on strategy
process: contributions, synthesis, and future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 6,
pp. 1190-1221.

Wright, K.B. (2005), “Researching Internet-based populations: advantages and disadvantages of online
survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services”,
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 10 No. 3.

Wu, Z. and Xu, J. (2012), “A consistency and consensus based decision support model for group
decision making with multiplicative preference relations”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 52
No. 3, pp. 757-767.

Yin, R.K. (2014), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, CA.
Yoong, P. and Gallupe, B. (2001), “Action learning and groupware technologies: a case study in GSS

facilitation research”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 78-90.

Corresponding author
Alireza Amrollahi can be contacted at: alireza.amrollahi@griffithuni.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

852
ITP
30,4

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.

978-1-5386-2930-7/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 15-17 November 2017, Melia Purosani Hotel, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

2017 International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech)

Page 31

Information System Strategic Planning
In XYZ Foundation

at Learning and Development Division
Rainer Hannesto, Mahenda Metta Surya

Information Systems Department
School of Information Systems

Bina Nusantara University
Jakarta, Indonesia 11480

, mmetta@binus.edu

Abstract — IS Strategic Planning was conducted based on the
framework by Ward & Peppard. Researchers interviewed the
management and doing direct observation to determine the
current business processes. Background of this study is to achieve
the vision and mission of the organization through alignment
between IT and business strategy that can brings benefit for
organization. The data obtained by distributing questionnaires to
the employees of the organization as well as literature. The result
of this study is the composition of an application portfolio that
contains information system strategic planning needs,
management and infrastructure also performance measurement
targets indication based on the results of the analysis of the
Balanced Scorecard.

Keywords — Strategy; Planning; Information
Technology; Information; Business Strategy

I. INTRODUCTION
IT has entered into organization and covers all business

process, with main purpose is to increase the company’s
business performance. IS is a tool for people and organizations
using technology (hardware, software, communication
networks and data resources) to collect, process, store, use and
disseminate information that automate manual processes into
an integrated operational system ([1]; [6], p7-11; [7], p3). The
development of education industry is growing rapidly
nowadays and competition among similar companies become
more competitive.

Business strategy is about positioning business by
analyzing business internal and external environment and
IS/IT, determine objectives, how to achieve the goals, and
review them periodically ([4]; [2]; [3], p127). For XYZ
Foundation, have business strategy is not enough to achieve the
opportunities and face the competition today. To be able to
compete better, organization need to develop a business
strategy which supported by IS Strategic planning so that
investment issued by XYZ Foundation can be more effective
and optimal. Information system strategy is the use of
information, information processing and or communication to
reach new business strategy or competitive advantage [5].
According to Ward & Peppard [7], information system strategy
describes the requirements and needs of information and
system to support all organization business strategy.

Targets to be achieved from the implementation of IS/IT in
an organization such as maximizing the efficiency of business
processes, improving the effectiveness of information
processing in decision making, and improving competitive
advantage by optimizing the process [7]. All of these goals can
be achieved when there is alignment between the IS/IT strategy
with the organization’s business strategy [7]. However, the
most common condition is that the implementation of IT has
small effect on performance improvement, competitive
advantage and organizational success. This can be seen from
the company’s assumption about the investment procurement of
IS/IT that has not produced results up to a certain value.
Although IS/IT has been applied to the management of
company business processes such as finance, procurement,
human resource management, marketing operations that can
reduce processing time or provide cost efficiency but it is not
clear whether the use of such IS/IT has actually produced an
appropriate output.

The management wants IT not only as a support, but it can
better analyze the needs of the organization and provide
strategic IT innovations to support the achievement of the
company’s overall performance. For that we need a strategic
planning IS/IT to improve competitive advantage tailored to
the needs, resources and the goals of the company. The
strategic planning of information systems is a process of
identifying the portfolio of computer-based applications to be
implemented, both of which are aligned with the company’s
strategy and have the ability to create an advantage over
competitors [7].

II. METHODOLOGY
This study used a methodology based on the conceptual

framework of Ward & Peppard. The process started from
identifying the current condition of an organization.
Environmental analysis that includes the internal and external
aspects of business and IS / IT as well as the analysis of the
current application portfolio. The next stage will result in the IS
business strategy, IS/IT management strategy and IT strategy
that will result in future applications portfolio ([7], p. 154).

978-1-5386-2930-7/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 15-17 November 2017, Melia Purosani Hotel, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2017 International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech)

Page 32

Fig. 1. IS/IT Strategic Planning Framework[7]

This research was conducted in period January 2015 to

March 2015, interviews conducted on the management
concerned. This interview conducted face to face with
Learning & Development Division Managers. A questionnaire
was distributed to the management and the result obtained by
the application of a suitable strategy is SO strategy. Researcher
also got data from the observation and study of documents.

The method of data Analysis using references based on the
premise by Ward & Peppard consisting of internal business
environment analysis using the SWOT & Value Chain
analysis. Analysis of the internal environment of the IS/IT
using Balanced Scorecard, and application portfolio.
Environmental analysis of external IS/IT used were analyzing
competitors and growing trend at this time. After that,
researcher propose future portfolios and IS/IT strategies to
meet future business requirements.

III. RESULTS
To construct IS strategic planning, analyzing business

environment and IS/IT both internal and external need to be
done first.

A. SWOT Analysis
SWOT analysis is used to analyze internal and external

business environments to identify strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats to the organization. The results of the
SWOT analysis will then determine the position of the
organization and be used to determine the strategic direction
that the organization can take to achieve its objectives. After
analyzing both internal and external factor using Pairwise
Method, researcher concludes that the institution currently in
aggresive position.

TABLE I. SWOT MATRIX

Strengths Weakness
Opport SO Strategy WO Strategy

Strengths Weakness
unity • Focus on local market

control.
• Focus on Content Quality

Control.
• Cost Leadership &

Efficiency.
• Provide regular training &

assessment to employees.
• Strengthen & ease the e-

learning portal.
• Inculcate an independent

learning culture in the
application of work to every
employee.

• Proactively find out the
difficulties & ways of
learning the employees.

• Increase productivity &
welfare level of employees
of the Learning &
Development Division.

• Implementing IT
Governance based on
CoBIT 4.

• Maximize current existing
resources

Threats

ST Strategy WT Strategy
• Focus on local market

control
• Differentiation of learning

materials & delivery.
• Creation of content

appropriate to the Division’s
competencies.

• Maintaining ISO 9001 /
management quality.

• Establish a proactive
strategy.

• Looking for a more
efficient way of learning.

• Time & resource efficiency.
• Actively looking for new

potential materials.
• Maximize IT usage.

B. Value Chain Analysis
This analysis is to look at internal conditions of companies

that need improvement in achieving efficient organization.

Fig. 2. Value Chain Diagram

From the value chain analysis, which needs to be done by

Division XYZ, namely:

• Low rate of uptake of knowledge sharing employees.

• Low quantity of training for employees.

• IT governance that has not been systematic.

C. Balanced Scorecard
Before analyzing the IS/IT environment, it is necessary to

align the company’s vision, mission and strategy with the
vision, mission and strategy of IT Division. The results will be
formulated into perspective in the Balanced Scorecard.

978-1-5386-2930-7/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 15-17 November 2017, Melia Purosani Hotel, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2017 International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech)

Page 33

Fig. 3. KPI Component in Balanced Scorecard

Measurements are then made by identifying the results of
strategic measures. Weights are categorized into very bad (0%
– 54%), poor (55% -64%), enough (65% -74%), good (75% –
84%), excellent (85% -100%).

TABLE II. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS OF IT DIVISION

Perspective Strategic Goal Results Description

Financial
Absorption Efficiency
Budget 70% Enough
Average 70% Enough

Customer
% Active Participant 75% Good
Consumer Satisfaction 93.75% Excellent
Average 84.38% Good

Internal
Business
Process

Effectiveness of Learning
Program 85% Excellent
Learning Applied
Assurance 65% Enough
Average 75% Good

Learning &
Growth

Number of Sharing
Knowledge 100% Excellent
Number of Professional
Services 100% Excellent
Digitize & Systematize 75% Good
KM Implementation 80% Good
Average 88.75% Excellent

Average 79.53% Good

D. Current Infrastructure
Infrastructure available at XYZ Foundation’s Learning &

Development Division today, namely:

• 23 units of PC.

• 13 units of Laptop.

• 1 unit of printer.

• Server: integrate with IT Division

• Network: Wi-Fi, LAN, Internet.

E. Current Application Portfolios

TABLE III. CURRENT APPLICATION PORTFOLIOS AT XYZ
FOUNDATION’S LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

Strategic High Potential
• Learning Delivery

System

• Learning Measurement

System
• Blended Learning System

• KM Portal
• Dynamic Reporting System

• Training Information
System

• Corporate Website

• Ms Office
• Attendance System
• Communication System

(V-Con, Phone line, dll)
Key Operational Support

F. Proposed Future Application Portfolios

TABLE IV. FUTURE PROPOSED APPLICATION PORTFOLIOS

Strategic High Potential
• Learning Delivery System
• Learning Measurement

System
• Blended Learning System
• Learning Delivery Mobile

System
• KM Portal
• Dynamic Reporting System
• Training Information
System
• Corporate Website

• Ms Office
• Attendance System
• Communication System
(V-Con, Phone line, dll)
Key Operational Support

G. Technology Needs
1) Upgrade Learning Delivery System

System requirements: Windows 7 or equivalent.
Software requirements: .Net Visual Studio 2010, MS

SQL.
Network requirements: internet connection.
Hardware requirements:

• RAM 3GB or more.
• Database MS SQL Server
• DB Size: 200GB or more
• Hard disk 500GB or more
• Motherboard: Intel 915
• Processor: Intel i5

Currently hardware requirements are met for upgrading.
2) Integration between Training Information System and

Learning Delivery System
System requirements: Windows 7 or equivalent.
Network requirements: internet connection.
Hardware requirements: could follow hardware
requirements from Learning Delivery System

3) Upgrade Blended Learning System
System requirements: Windows 7 or equivalent.
Software requirements: VS .Net 2005 or above.
Network requirements: internet connection.
Hardware requirements:

• RAM 3GB or more.
• Database MS SQL Server 2005
• DB Size: 200GB or more
• Hard disk 500GB or more
• Processor: Intel i5

978-1-5386-2930-7/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 15-17 November 2017, Melia Purosani Hotel, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2017 International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech)

Page 34

4) Learning Delivery Mobile System implementation
System requirements: Windows 7 or equivalent.
Software requirements: Java & Objective C.
Network requirements: internet connection.
Hardware requirements:

• RAM 2GB or more.
• Database MS SQL Server 2008 or above
• DB Size: 200GB or more
• Hard disk 500GB or more
• Processor: Intel i5

5) Upgrade of

KM Portal

System requirements: Windows server 2005.
Software requirements: SharePoint 2013
Network requirements: intranet connection.
Hardware requirements:

• RAM 16GB or more.
• Database MS SQL Server 2008
• DB Size: 200GB or more
• Hard disk 500GB or more
• Processor: Intel i5 or equivalent

6) Dynamic Reporting System development
System requirements: Windows server 2005 or
equivalent.
Software requirements: .Net Visual Studio 2010.
Network requirements: internet connection.
Hardware requirements:

• RAM 1GB or more.
• Database MS SQL Server 2008
• DB Size: 200GB or more
• Hard disk 500GB or more
• Processor: Intel i5

H. Management Strategies IS/IT

TABLE V. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Software Priority
Related
Division Notes

Implementation
Needs

Learning
Delivery

System

IT, HC, &
Learning

Development
Division

Upgrade

Resource needs: 1
Project Manager (PM),
1 System Analyst (SA)
& 2 Programmer.
Training after
implementation: 1 day.

Learning
Measurement

System

IT, Learning
Development

Division
Upgrade

Resource needs: 1
Project Manager (PM),
1 System Analyst (SA)
& 2 Programmer.
Training after
implementation: 1 day.

Blended
Learning

IT, Learning
Development
Division
Upgrade
Resource needs: 1
Project Manager (PM),
1 System Analyst (SA)
& 2 Programmer.
Training after
implementation: 1 day.

Training
Information

System

IT,
Learning

Developme
nt Division

Integrate

Resource needs: 1
Project Manager (PM),
1 System Analyst (SA)
& 2 Programmer.
Training after
implementation: 1 day.
Learning
Delivery

Mobile System

IT,
Learning
Developme
nt Division

New

Resource needs: 1
Project Manager (PM),
1 System Analyst (SA)
& 2 Programmer.
Training after
implementation: 1 day.
KM Portal

IT, KM
Directorate,

Learning
Developme
nt Division

Upgrade
Resource needs: 1
Project Manager (PM),
1 System Analyst (SA)
& 2 Programmer.
Training after
implementation: 1 day.

Dynamic
Reporting

System

IT,
Learning
Developme
nt Division
New
Resource needs: 1
Project Manager (PM),
1 System Analyst (SA)
& 2 Programmer.
Training after
implementation: 1 day.

IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the SWOT analysis, it is found that

the XYZ Foundation’s Learning & Development Division is in
quadrant 1 (SO) which means taking advantage of
opportunities with current strengths. From the analysis of IT
Balanced Scorecard perspective of future orientation is known
that the Division of Learning & Development needs
improvement in terms of employee satisfaction and innovation
while other perspectives need to be maintained and improved
further.

It is expected that the management support is still in place
so that the implementation plan of information system can be
implemented properly. In addition, it is necessary to
periodically evaluate the performance of IS/IT to continuously
improve the performance of the Learning & Development
Division in the future.

REFERENCES

[1] Bhatnagar, A. (2007). Strategic Information Systems Planning:
Alignment of IS/IT Planning and Business Planning. School of
Computing and Information Technology Dissertation and Theses, 1-77.

[2] Bateman, T. S., (2001), Management: Building Competitive Advantage,
Business Week Edition, New York.

[3] Craig, James C., dan Grant, Robert M. (2008). Manajemen Strategik.
Mediator. Jakarta.

[4] Gartlan, Jovita and Shanks, Graeme. (2007). The Alignment of Business
and Information Technology Strategy in Australia. Australasian Journal
of Information Systems. Vol. 14 No. 2, June 2007.

[5] Hesterly, William S., & Barney, Jay (2009). Strategic Management and
Competitive Advantage : Concepts and Cases 3rd ed. Pearson Prentice
Hall.

[6] O’Brien, James. (2005). Pengantar Sistem Informasi : Perspektif Bisnis
dan Manajerial Edisi Bahasa Indonesia. Salemba Empat. Jakarta.

[7] Ward, John & Peppard, Joe. (2002). Strategic Planning for Information
System 3rd edition. England : John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles false /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 0 /ParseDSCComments false /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo false /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo false /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo true /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts false /TransferFunctionInfo /Remove /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true /Arial-Black /Arial-BoldItalicMT /Arial-BoldMT /Arial-ItalicMT /ArialMT /ArialNarrow /ArialNarrow-Bold /ArialNarrow-BoldItalic /ArialNarrow-Italic /ArialUnicodeMS /BookAntiqua /BookAntiqua-Bold /BookAntiqua-BoldItalic /BookAntiqua-Italic /BookmanOldStyle /BookmanOldStyle-Bold /BookmanOldStyle-BoldItalic /BookmanOldStyle-Italic /BookshelfSymbolSeven /Century /CenturyGothic /CenturyGothic-Bold /CenturyGothic-BoldItalic /CenturyGothic-Italic /CenturySchoolbook /CenturySchoolbook-Bold /CenturySchoolbook-BoldItalic /CenturySchoolbook-Italic /ComicSansMS /ComicSansMS-Bold /CourierNewPS-BoldItalicMT /CourierNewPS-BoldMT /CourierNewPS-ItalicMT /CourierNewPSMT /EstrangeloEdessa /FranklinGothic-Medium /FranklinGothic-MediumItalic /Garamond /Garamond-Bold /Garamond-Italic /Gautami /Georgia /Georgia-Bold /Georgia-BoldItalic /Georgia-Italic /Haettenschweiler /Impact /Kartika /Latha /LetterGothicMT /LetterGothicMT-Bold /LetterGothicMT-BoldOblique /LetterGothicMT-Oblique /LucidaConsole /LucidaSans /LucidaSans-Demi /LucidaSans-DemiItalic /LucidaSans-Italic /LucidaSansUnicode /Mangal-Regular /MicrosoftSansSerif /MonotypeCorsiva /MSReferenceSansSerif /MSReferenceSpecialty /MVBoli /PalatinoLinotype-Bold /PalatinoLinotype-BoldItalic /PalatinoLinotype-Italic /PalatinoLinotype-Roman /Raavi /Shruti /Sylfaen /SymbolMT /Tahoma /Tahoma-Bold /TimesNewRomanMT-ExtraBold /TimesNewRomanPS-BoldItalicMT /TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT /TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT /TimesNewRomanPSMT /Trebuchet-BoldItalic /TrebuchetMS /TrebuchetMS-Bold /TrebuchetMS-Italic /Tunga-Regular /Verdana /Verdana-Bold /Verdana-BoldItalic /Verdana-Italic /Vrinda /Webdings /Wingdings2 /Wingdings3 /Wingdings-Regular /ZWAdobeF ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 200 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages true
/GrayImageMinResolution 200
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 300
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages false
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages true
/MonoImageMinResolution 400
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 600
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict << /K -1 >>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier ()
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName ()
/PDFXTrapped /False
/CreateJDFFile false
/Description << /CHS
/CHT
/DAN
/DEU
/ESP
/FRA
/ITA (Utilizzare queste impostazioni per creare documenti Adobe PDF adatti per visualizzare e stampare documenti aziendali in modo affidabile. I documenti PDF creati possono essere aperti con Acrobat e Adobe Reader 5.0 e versioni successive.)
/JPN
/KOR
/NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken waarmee zakelijke documenten betrouwbaar kunnen worden weergegeven en afgedrukt. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.)
/NOR
/PTB
/SUO
/SVE
/ENU (Use these settings to create PDFs that match the “Required” settings for PDF Specification 4.01)
>>
>> setdistillerparams
<< /HWResolution [600 600] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice

PROCESS ACCEPTANCE AND ADOPTION BY IT SOFTWARE

PROJECT PRACTITIONERS

by

Deana R. Guardado

RICHARD DANIELS, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

HENRY GARSOMBKE, PhD, Committee Member

SHARON E. BLANTON, PhD, Committee Member

William A. Reed, PhD, Dean, School of Business and Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

June 2012

PR
EV

IE
W

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 – 1346

UMI 3512446
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.

UMI Number: 3512446

PR
EV
IE
W

Abstract

This study addresses the question of what factors determine acceptance and adoption of

processes in the context of Information Technology (IT) software development projects.

This specific context was selected because processes required for managing software

development projects are less prescriptive than in other, more straightforward, IT

contexts. Adopting a process that affects how well custom software is developed and

implemented may be different from would be required in the IT Infrastructure field.

Levels of acceptance and adoption are ascertained using the Unified Theory of the Use

and Acceptance of Technology (UTAUT) model first proposed by Venkataesh, Morris,

Davis & Davis (2003), combining several technology acceptance models into one that

demonstrated the best fit for studying acceptance of technology. As suggested by

Venkatesh (Venkatesh, 2006) in a later study, the model was applied to the study of

process acceptance. Like the original study, this was based on a survey sent to IT

software development project practitioners who had actually worked on projects within

two months of conducting the study. Results show that effort expectancy, attitude, social

influence, facilitating conditions, and self-efficacy are significant determinants for

accepting process; and that attitude in particular is a determinant of process adoption. The

original study on technology acceptance found that performance expectancy, effort

expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions were significant. While the

studies agree on significance of effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating

conditions, this study found that self-efficacy and attitude are also significant, and that

performance expectancy is not. Attitude, in particular, demonstrated that the respondents

show that processes have also been adopted as a way of doing business. Implications are

PR
EV
IE
W

that determinants are somewhat different for technology and process acceptance in the

context of software development projects. While performance expectancy is significant

for accepting technology, it was not found to be significant for this group of people when

applied to process. Developing process should not be a goal in itself, managed by

professional consultants, but rather developed in context by practitioners with the

guidance of process professionals to ensure process ―fit‖ for the work being done. Further

study should be conducted to determine the appropriate level of process design and

development that provides value to the client. Additional study should also be conducted

in other context areas of IT, such as Infrastructure Management.

PR
EV
IE
W

iii

Dedication

This study is dedicated to Jerry Guardado, my husband and life partner, who

supported my efforts in completing this study. I could not have done this work without

his support and belief in me. His love and patience through the challenges of life, as well

as the demands of this study, have given a deeper level of meaning to the level of

commitment he has toward me, and the things in life that really matter.

PR
EV
IE
W

iv

Acknowledgments

My deepest thanks go to Dr. Richard Daniels, who has provided guidance,

demonstrated patience, and has shared a deep commitment for presenting the study

clearly, with the highest level of scholarship that I could produce. He has been an

exemplary mentor and guide for the final dissertation stage in becoming a PhD.

I would also like to sincerely thank my committee members, Dr. Sharon Blanton

and Dr. Perrin Garsombke, who have also provided invaluable feedback, challenged my

thinking with significant consideration on their part, and have asked thought-provoking

questions that added significant value to the study. Thank you so much for taking time

out of your schedules to support this effort.

I could not have done this without the help of the company for whom I work. I

also want to thank the Director of the organization that was surveyed, Ann Hutchison,

who was instrumental in opening doors so that the study could be conducted. She also

helped to ensure that the study was appropriate for the environment. Thank you to Kevin

Higashi, a General Manager in the same organization, who encouraged me before the

study began, as well as during the course of the study. Sincere thanks also go to Heather

Rodriguez, my immediate manager, who has been very understanding and supportive of

the study, being nearly as excited about its completion as I have been. I also want to

thank Paul R. Jones, PhD, who was also an instrumental mentor and partner in my study

at the beginning of my journey. My colleagues and peers at the company have also

provided a lot of encouragement along the way, even those who are not directly

connected in any way to the study. The members of the Process Management team in IT

PR
EV
IE
W

v

have also been very helpful in providing insight on processes in context, and business

process management in general. Thank you for your support, confidence, and excitement

with this study.

I also want to especially thank my family for their enduring confidence in me,

patience with me for all the times I have not been available, and for believing that this is

important enough for them to modify their activities around mine.

PR
EV
IE
W

vi

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………………….. iv

List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………………………

ix

List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………………………

x

CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW OF PROCESS ACCEPTANCE AND ADOPTION ………….

1

IT Software Project Management …………………………………………………………………

4

Why Study Software Project Management? ………………………………………………….. 4

Software Project Management as a Discipline ……………………………………………….

6

Software Project Management and Process Management ……………………………… 13

Factors Influencing Software Project Success ……………………………………………… 14

Factors Influencing Software Project Failures ……………………………………………… 15

Technology Acceptance Models ………………………………………………………………… 18

History and Background …………………………………………………………………………… 18

Proposal for Dissertation…………………………………………………………………………… 24

Research Question …………………………………………………………………………………… 25

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………………………………. 28

Business Process Management ………………………………………………………………….. 32

Information Technology Process Management ……………………………………………. 58

Organizational Change Management ………………………………………………………….. 75

Putting it All Together ……………………………………………………………………………… 82

Research Hypotheses ……………………………………………………………………………….. 84

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………….. 86

Research Design………………………………………………………………………………………. 86

PR
EV
IE
W

vii

Sample……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 87

Setting ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 89

Instrumentation / Measures ……………………………………………………………………….. 90

Data Collection ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 90

Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 91

Validity and Reliability …………………………………………………………………………….. 93

Ethical Considerations ……………………………………………………………………………… 94

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS ……………………………………………………………………………………. 96

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 96

Reliability of the Data …………………………………………………………………………….. 100

Research Results ……………………………………………………………………………………. 102

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ……………. 127

Performance Expectancy ………………………………………………………………………… 128

Effort Expectancy ………………………………………………………………………………….. 130

Attitude ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 132

Social Influence …………………………………………………………………………………….. 133

Facilitating Conditions ……………………………………………………………………………. 135

Self-efficacy ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 136

Anxiety …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 138

Summary of Determinants ………………………………………………………………………. 138

Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………………………… 139

References …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 142

APPENDIX A TRADITIONAL IT PROJECTS COMPARED TO

TECHNOCHANGE PROJECTS …………………………………………………………….. 153

PR
EV
IE
W

viii

APPENDIX B SURVEY QUESTIONS ……………………………………………………. 155

APPENDIX C RELATIONSHIPS OF SAP EXPORTED DATA FOR

PRACTITIONER LIST ………………………………………………………………………….. 159

APPENDIX D SIGNIFICANCE OF POTENTIAL DETERMINANTS BY

CONTEXT AND SURVEY QUESTION …………………………………………………. 160

APPENDIX E VERBATIM RESPONSES ……………………………………………….. 161

PR
EV
IE
W

ix

List of Tables

Table 1. Project Management Knowledge Areas ………………………………………………………

8

Table 2. Core Constructs of Acceptance Models…………………………………………………….. 21

Table 3. Moderators of Core Constructs ………………………………………………………………… 22

Table 4. Characteristics of the Role of IT in BPR …………………………………………………… 40

Table 5. Different Definitions of the BPM Life Cycle …………………………………………….. 49

Table 6. Items Used in Estimating UTAUT for Process ………………………………………… 100

Table 7. Reliability Scale Using Cronbach’s Alpha ……………………………………………….. 101

Table 8. Means of Potential Determinants by Context …………………………………………… 105

Table 9. Significance of Potential Determinants …………………………………………………… 109

Table E1.

How IT Processes and Procedures Affect Software Projects

Table E2.

Respondent’s Role in Understanding the Client’s Business

Table E3.

Message to Management

PR
EV
IE
W

x

List of Figures

Figure 1. Primary research areas …………………………………………………………………………… 32

Figure 2. IT circle of influence …………………………………………………………………………….. 65

Figure 3. Screen shot of survey…………………………………………………………………………… 103

Figure 4. Responses coded as attitude …………………………………………………………………. 120

Figure 5. Coding of responses related to client processes ………………………………………. 122

Figure 6. Coding of responses relating to other determinants …………………………………. 124

PR
EV
IE
W

1

CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW OF PROCESS ACCEPTANCE AND ADOPTION

The things we do every day, by habit or by assignment, are likely to be driven, in some

way, by a process. Getting up in the morning and getting ready for work often involve some kind

of informal routine. Leaving home to go to work often involves going the same way, to the same

place, every day. These activities are generally a matter of practice, seldom thought about or

subject to much change. If the need for changes should become apparent, making those changes

very likely affects only one’s personal routines, while not having much effect on others.

In most organizations, performing work also follows some kind of routine or process.

Whether formal or informal, there is generally an accepted way of getting things done in the

workplace. When interactions are required between individuals or groups of individuals, it often

becomes necessary, in some way, to document or to formalize these interactions between groups.

These documents might be informal lists of steps that should be followed; or they could be more

formal. For example, more formality might be appropriate when agreements need to be made

between individuals or groups, especially when signatures are required indicating agreement.

Another type of formality might be required to align with industry standards by documenting the

way an organization follows accepted practices. In the accounting field, most accountants are

expected to follow ―Generally Accepted Accounting Principles‖ in order to ensure that financial

statements meet accepted standards for reporting (―Accounting developments 2009,‖ 2010).

Most organizations document these principles as processes.

Once processes are documented, they are likely to need improvement. In fact, one of the

key tenets of process management is that there is a need to continuously improve existing

processes, because of changes in the business environment, changes in technology, and the need

PR
EV
IE
W

2

to ensure that production costs are at an optimum level (Paré & Jutras, 2004). IT practitioners

and their clients, then, should always be seeking ways to improve business practices (or

processes).

Process improvements are often enabled by IT solutions (Attaran, 2004; Davenport,

2005; Steuperaert, 2009). In fact, new IT solutions could actually be described as process

improvements. Clients understand their own business requirements, and the processes needed to

satisfy requirements. When business requirements change, process improvements are often

needed in order to respond to, and support change. If new technology can support those changing

requirements, IT is asked to implement a technology solution. Clients expect IT to not only

implement the solution, but to also implement the technology in a manner that that supports their

new and existing processes (Feurer, Chaharbaghi, Weber, & Wargin, 2000; Ward & Peppard,

2002). IT support, then, becomes critical for success for the client who implements process

changes with technology.

Because IT’s role is often critical to enabling and adopting processes within the

organization, IT practitioners could provide additional value by understanding their role in

enabling their clients to adopt new and improved processes. Perhaps the best place to gain this

understanding is within IT itself. By reviewing how processes are acknowledged, accepted, and

adopted within their own environment, IT practitioners will have the background needed to learn

about and understand their clients’ processes in context.

IT practitioners are accustomed to following procedures, which are the building blocks of

process. When asked to fulfill an order for a new laptop computer, for example, IT follows a

standard list of instructions in order to fulfill the request. In this sense, following process is the

way work gets done in IT. Following process is unique, however, for software project managers.

PR
EV
IE
W

3

In a classic software development project, seeing results of development effort requires waiting

until the project is nearly complete to see success (e.g., software that works). Using traditional

software development processes, getting to this point often takes months of effort with little

evidence of a good technology solution. Following industry-standard software project

management practices is critical, then, to ensure that each phase of a project is as successful and

repeatable as possible. Neither the IT practitioners nor their clients can see whether the software

development efforts have succeeded until the work is nearly over. Similar to flying an airplane

on instruments only, there are few visual clues along the path to project completion that can

demonstrate project success. Only when the destination is reached will the software project

practitioners know whether their efforts have effectively delivered the product requested by the

client. Because of this lack of visibility into the progress of developing the final product, failure

is more likely with these IT efforts than those that deliver and install hardware products. Good,

solid process management is likely the best mechanism for ensuring that the software project will

succeed. Failed software projects are costly not only to IT, but to the client who sponsors them.

These project failures result in loss of trust in IT’s ability to support any future process changes

(Ewusi-Mensah, 1997).

New software development methods have been developed to address some of the issues

of not seeing the software product until the software development project is completed. Agile

software development, for example, is a method that develops or enhances software, showing the

client progress continually throughout the project (Lindstrom & Jeffries, 2004; Saran, 2004).

This method comes closer to understanding what the client’s needs are because of constant

feedback from the client. However, this method still does not help IT or the client determine

PR
EV
IE
W

4

whether the software being developed or enhanced will truly address what the client needs to

fulfill their organization’s overall mission.

IT Software Project Management

Why Study Software Project Management?

Managing software projects is fundamentally different from managing the infrastructure

operations in IT. Infrastructure operations include ordering and fulfilling hardware requests, such

as servers, network components, cell phones, and similar devices. The time it takes to fulfill a

hardware order is repeatable and well defined. The processes and procedures required to fulfill

these orders are also repeatable and well defined. Timelines and progress on these orders are

easily observed.

Software project management is fundamentally different from infrastructure

management. For example, progress on an IT infrastructure project to install Microsoft Office

upgrades on all PCs in an organization is much more visible. In this case, a project manager can

easily determine when different groups of PCs have been upgraded. Determining whether the

project is on schedule and within budget is easier; progress can be observed on specifically

assigned tasks throughout the entire project. However, progress cannot be as easily observed

when developing software. IT practitioners depend on following industry-standard practices in

order to measure progress. A project plan outlines the activities that must be accomplished in

order to deliver a product that meets the client’s needs and expectations—developing

requirements, engineering the solution, and writing software code (McDonald, 2001). Observing

project status depends on each team member accurately reporting progress on their assigned

tasks on the project schedule. Actual evidence of completion of the development project occurs

later in the project, when the software is actually tested. The project manager, therefore, must

PR
EV
IE
W

5

depend upon process artifacts (documentation required by standardized software project

management rules) as evidence that different tasks have been completed throughout the life of

the software development project, according to the project plan.

The project plan is the most important part of the process. It must include, at a minimum,

agreement among stakeholders about what the project is to accomplish, who will accomplish

different parts of the plan, when the phases will be complete, how much it will cost, and what

will be delivered at the completion of the project. This is true whether the software project is

being run as a traditional project, or whether the software project is being run using newer

methodologies such as Agile Development. There must be a plan or a ―blueprint‖ for judging

whether a software project is on track, and the project manager is responsible for ensuring that

the software development project stays on track, according to the project plan.

In order to manage software development projects consistently in an organization, a solid

foundation of project management processes is critical (Sharma & Sharma, 2010). IT must

integrate at least four levels of processes both vertically and horizontally to be successful. The

lower-level processes are generally step-by-step procedures. They include Software Engineering

Processes, are more tactical in nature, and focus on software development activities. This level

includes, but is not limited to, hardware engineering for servers, networking, and other technical

requirements. Most IT practitioners supporting software projects focus their work at this lowest

level of detail. The next level, Project Management, is still tactical, but a higher level than the

technical layer. It includes standard software project management disciplines such as estimating,

requirements management, and change management. Project managers, as well as clients,

generally focus their work at this level. Moving toward strategic processes, the third level,

Program Management, requires coordinating the efforts of all IT projects so that the organization

PR
EV
IE
W

6

has a ―big picture‖ view of project work in the organization. The organization’s financials are an

important part of this process layer. Finally, at the highest level, the organization’s strategic

Portfolio Management Processes determine how the overall portfolio will be managed. IT

governance, IT alignment with the organization’s core business processes, and IT accounting

processes form the highest-level strategic processes.

Software project management processes are critical not only to IT but also to the

enterprise and their clients. IT projects are often capital intensive, requiring large investments in

capital and human resources (Ewusi-Mensah, 1997). Because software development projects can

be very costly for clients, the processes that are used to manage these projects are important for

IT to not only manage, but to understand. Clients are not as interested in the processes used to

manage their projects as they are in the end product; but these processes are critical for

delivering what the client expects—software products that support their business.

Software Project Management as a Discipline

The practice of software project management, like many others, benefits from standards

published by the Project Management Institute (PMI). These standards help define best practices

in how a project should be controlled in the following areas: project management methodology

(including both formal and informal procedures); project management tools and information

systems; earned value calculations; and expert judgments (Hällgren & Maaninen-Olsson, 2005).

A software development organization can leverage the best practices established by the PMI to

create its own procedures, processes, and project management disciplines.

Founded in 1969, the PMI was formed to guide the effective management of any kind of

project. Since the mid-1980s, the PMI’s guidebook, or the Project Management Body Of

Knowledge (PMBOK), has been widely used as the guide for managing construction, IT, and

PR
EV
IE
W

7

utilities projects (Rivard & Dupré, 2009). A non-profit organization, the PMI has become widely

recognized as the primary body establishing standards for successful project management,

offering certifications as a Project Management Professional (PMP), Program Management

Professional (PgMP), and the Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM), to name a

few (Du, Johnson, & Keil, 2004).

The PMBOK is comprised of nine primary areas that are interdependent on each other. A

successful project manager will need to understand all of these areas, as well as how each of

them change throughout all phases of a project. Du et al., (2004) list and describe these nine

knowledge areas (Table 1). As a guidebook, it is designed to address project deliverables more

than the human side of project management (Reich & Siew Yong, 2006). Change and process

management are generally left to Organizational Change Management and Process Management

practitioners, respectively.

PR
EV
IE
W

8

Table 1.

Project Management Knowledge Areas

Knowledge Area Description

Project integration management

A subset of project management that includes the processes required to ensure

that the various elements of the project are properly coordinated.

Project scope management A subset of project management that includes the processes required to ensure

that the project includes all the work required, and only the work required, to

complete the project successfully.

Project time management A subset of project management that includes the processes required to ensure

timely completion of the project.

Project cost management A subset of project management that includes the processes required to ensure

that the project is completed within the approved budget.

Project quality management A subset of project management that includes the processes required to ensure

that the project will satisfy the needs for which it was undertaken.

Project human resource

management

A subset of project management that includes the processes required to make

the most effective use of the people involved with the project.

Project communications

management
A subset of project management that includes the processes required to ensure

timely and appropriate generation, collection, dissemination, storage, and

ultimate disposition of project information.

Project risk management Risk management is the systematic process of identifying, analyzing, and

responding to project risk. It includes maximizing the probability and

consequences of positive events and minimizing the probability and

consequences of adverse events to project objectives.

Project procurement management A subset of project management that includes the processes required to acquire

goods and services to attain project scope from outside the performing

organization.

Note: The above table is from (Du et al., 2004) and describes nine knowledge areas found in the

PMBOK.

This does not imply that the PMI has the only – or even the best – project management

practices. Other organizations have also published frameworks and best practices for managing

different areas of IT (Sharma & Sharma, 2010). Carnegie Mellon’s Capability Maturity Model

(CMM), for example, provides a set of key process areas that software development

PR
EV
IE
W

9

organizations can follow in order to develop software in the most consistent, efficient way

(―Capability maturity model for software (SW-CMM),‖). The more mature a development

organization is, the higher the certification level is. The value of these processes is to help a

development organization grow toward following more mature software development processes,

resulting in fewer software defects. The Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)

expanded the original CMM practices to include integration between development and other

areas.

Other best practice standards include COBIT and ITIL. In an attempt to provide a

framework for all areas of IT, COBIT (Control Objectives for Information and related

Technologies) was developed by auditors to focus on risk management and controls (Bernstein,

2009). COBIT views IT practices from the IT organization’s viewpoint, more than from the

enterprise or client views. Additionally, the Information Technology Infrastructure Library

(ITIL) was developed by IT professionals in Great Britain to manage IT operations activities,

such as Release Management, Change Management, and Configuration Management (Bernstein,

2009). ITIL focuses on IT practices in specific areas of IT, rather than from the enterprise or

client views. Each of these models focuses on a different aspect of Information Technology, and

they are actually more alike than they are different.

Capability Maturity Model (CMM). Since 1986, Carnegie Mellon’s Capability

Maturity Model (CMM) has been used to not only define what different levels of software

development maturity are, but to assess organizations on their own level of maturity (Hardgrave

& Armstrong, 2005).

The CMM model does not prescribe the exact processes that must be followed. Rather, it

establishes a set of requirements or key process areas that must be identified, developed, and

PR
EV
IE
W

10

followed in order to demonstrate software development maturity in an organization (Debreceny

& Gray, 2009). IT, in conjunction with the organization it supports, must develop its own key

processes that it will follow in order to deliver software products with as few defects as possible.

The intent of the CMM is to assist with implementing processes to address software

development quality issues, not software development project management. CMM does not

prescribe specific processes, but does establish standards for managing development processes

(Davenport, 2005). It does this by identifying five levels of software development process

maturity, moving from one level to the next by adding specific process capabilities.

At CMM Level 1, an organization has some processes, but they are primarily ad hoc,

often at the discretion of individual software development practitioners (Davenport, 2005). At

CMM Level 2, software development organizations follow basic, repeatable processes to track

costs, schedules, and functionality. These processes support software project management

processes by beginning to focus on the schedule, scope, and budget of development as part of a

project. At CMM Level 3, the organization adds additional software project management and

engineering practices, such as Quality Assurance. The next level, CMM Level 4, starts

measuring capability by tracking detailed metrics of the software development processes.

Finally, CMM Level 5 organizations continuously improve to optimize their processes, using

controlled experiments and feedback from metrics (―CMM process,‖ 2005).

The benefit of achieving any improved level in the CMM model is that the software

development process should see improvements in the time it takes to develop software, the

overall cost of the custom product, and the number of defects in the final product (Harter,

Krishnan, & Slaughter, 2000). While these improvements are not normally evident when the

software product is first released, the improvements in quality, in theory, reduce rework and

PR
EV
IE
W

11

defects, resulting in a higher quality product with lower overall costs. The initial increase in

cycle time has been shown to be outweighed in some situations by lower costs, overall, for the

software project. CMM also supports the theory that spending additional time in planning and

analysis results in a better product and reduced time in fixing defects that appear in the later

stages of software development (Kumari, Sharma, & Kamboj, 2009). In this way, CMM supports

not only the IT organization, but also the entire enterprise, including the client’s organization, by

reducing overall cost and improving software functionality for the client.

The road to CMM Level 5 is a long and arduous one, and is not taken by most software

development organizations. Some industries, however, require some level of CMM certification.

The U.S. military, for example, requires software development companies that they work with to

have achieved a CMM Level 3 certification. Results indicate that software produced for the

military has one-sixth to one-tenth the error rates of commercially developed software

(Davenport, 2005).

ISO standards. While the Capability Maturity Model is specifically associated with

processes for developing software, it is not the only standard or model for software development

process. The International Organization for Standardization publishes a number of process

standards, including one for software development quality – ISO 9000-3 (―ISO IEC 90003 2004

software standard translated into plain English,‖ 2010). The ISO 20000 standard covers project

management practices (Bernstein, 2009). Currently in development, ISO standard 21500 will

establish project management standards for the international market. While the PMBOK has

been used widely in the United States as a guidebook for managing projects, it has not been

accepted worldwide as such. To help address this, the PMI is participating with many other

organizations and the International Organization for Standardization to complete new project

PR
EV
IE
W

12

management standards by the end of 2012 (Best, 2011). Rather than replacing the PMBOK, the

ISO 21500 standards will provide project managers worldwide with common standards, not

common practices. The two are compatible, focusing on different areas in managing projects.

Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL). Another focus area within IT,

not limited to project management, are the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL)

standards. ITIL addresses service management, largely in the area of IT Infrastructure activities.

These standards are not as widely adopted as the PMI standards, but are gaining wider

acceptance among organizations in the United States (Garbani, 2005). ITIL standards were

developed in the United Kingdom; they are becoming accepted as the standard for service

management practices, including configuration management, change, and release management

(Gomolski, 2004). ITIL’s purpose is to summarize best practices in the industry, to improve IT

and contain costs for attaining high-quality IT products (Garbani, 2005). IT software

development projects are not specifically addressed by ITIL, but these standards support projects

by helping to ensure that project changes are implemented properly.

Control Objectives for Information and Related Technologies (COBIT). The Control

Objectives for Information and related Technologies (COBIT) is a framework for managing

controls and metrics across the Information Technology function. It provides a global view of IT

processes and management principles, more so than ITIL, which is more focused on the IT

Infrastructure area (Garbani, 2005). As a framework, COBIT (version 4) focuses on 34 key areas

aimed at IT governance controls, a benefit to the enterprise. A key benefit of COBIT is that is

enables an organization to structure its IT processes and controls in alignment with the

organization’s overall strategies (Syndikus, 2009). The four structural areas of COBIT are: Plan

and Organize, Acquire and Implement, Deliver and Support, and Monitor and Evaluate.

PR
EV
IE
W