Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Sehoon Kim
 -- 2344 2022-06-14 13:27:36 |
2 format correct
Vivi Li
 + 21 word(s) 2365 2022-06-15 03:49:48 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Kim, S. A Strategic Information System Planning and Strategy-As-Practice Perspective. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24013 (accessed on 26 April 2024).
Kim S. A Strategic Information System Planning and Strategy-As-Practice Perspective. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24013. Accessed April 26, 2024.
Kim, Sehoon. "A Strategic Information System Planning and Strategy-As-Practice Perspective" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24013 (accessed April 26, 2024).
Kim, S. (2022, June 14). A Strategic Information System Planning and Strategy-As-Practice Perspective. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24013
Kim, Sehoon. "A Strategic Information System Planning and Strategy-As-Practice Perspective." Encyclopedia. Web. 14 June, 2022.
A Strategic Information System Planning and Strategy-As-Practice Perspective
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/info13060270

Strategic information system planning (SISP) is a central process that enables organizations to identify the strategic alignment of their IT portfolio to achieve their business needs and objectives. The extant SISP literature has focused on theoretical and processual aspects and has left methodological ambiguity about how SISP is practiced. Strategic information system planning (SISP) becomes central for any business when an organization faces an inflection point concerning its information system.

causal layered analysis critical success factors mission-critical system multi-criteria decision-making strategic information system planning strategy-as-practice

1. Introduction

A firm’s information systems (IS) significantly affect business results in the modern management environment. The information systems substantially shape the way the organizations work, and their performance is embodied and realized through those systems [1]. The rapid penetration of information technology has resulted in considerable attention on digitized data and business intelligence [2], and the enabled digital connectivity has changed how businesses and people work, expediting the proliferation of business information systems to increase efficiency, value, and innovation opportunities [3][4]. Therefore, modern businesses actively aim at improving their performance through adequate information systems [1] as an innovative and core means to secure competitive advantage [5][6][7], and an undoubtable de facto element of success [8].
However, contrary to the expectations, the introduction of all information systems does not necessarily lead to desired performance. The information systems consist of infrastructure, data, applications, and, most importantly, the people who embrace the technology services within the organization [9][10]. IT assets, such as a newly adopted mission-critical system whose usage is often mandated, may lead to dissatisfactory results if the system design is not aligned with the strategic direction or fails to meet the requirements of its users [11][12][13][14]. Furthermore, businesses undergo unprecedented technological changes with their information systems under COVID-19 [15]. Business systems face new technological challenges, such as infrastructure that enables remote work, virtual meetings, contactless commerce, privacy protection, cybersecurity, data analytics, and data-driven decision-making processes [16]. Therefore, it becomes imperative for firms to entrench the new system in the desired organizational practices and processes, while achieving continued system usage from the employees [14][17][18] in the “New Normal,” the post-COVID-19 era.
Strategic information system planning (SISP) becomes central for any business when an organization faces an inflection point concerning its information system. Overall, SISP is a process through which an organization identifies its IT applications portfolio to achieve its organizational objectives and to help execute its business plans [7]. Changing environments enforce organizations to entail significant investments from their revenue and R&D budgets to develop strategic information systems [10][19][20]. Estimating the effectiveness of the investments has been the primary purpose of strategic planning for IS/IT decision-makers [21][22], and the proliferation of new IT technologies since the 1990s has further strengthened the value and contribution of the SISP practice in organizations [20][23]. IS long-term planning that is well-aligned with business strategy has been one of the top management concerns for decades [24].
Moreover, desired performance generated from the information systems in which all the resources are shared and interconnected with the users is crucial for firms [20]. Hence, today’s organizations include SISP as an essential process to improve their performance in designing the elements in information system development, seeking the best effectiveness and efficiency available [7]. As a result, it is understood that aligning the firm’s strategy with the core business system based on a SISP perspective becomes critical for organizations.
A firm’s management can consider various methodological approaches to identify and evaluate the priorities in developing an information system, and one of the vital issues in the SISP is to choose the best-suited method for the stakeholders [25]. In exploring the business needs for IS, various analytical frameworks and techniques may help managers find insight into maximizing organizational effectiveness. The critical success factors (CSFs) approach [26] is widely utilized in implementing the SISP process. Rockart [26] defined CSFs as the crucial areas of business activities that require constant and careful attention from top management. Identifying the CSFs is substantial to businesses [27][28]; the approach has been broadly accepted in the IS literature for a long time [29][30], and is believed to be a valid research methodology to make sense of finding latent elements for competitive advantage [27][31][32].
After analyzing the organizational goals and objectives and the stakeholders having extracted the key CSFs, prioritizing those dimensions would be an issue of significance [31]. Then, a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model can be considered to evaluate the factors drawn [33]. MCDM has helped to overcome the choice problem in various research fields [33][34]. MCDM methodologies support the decision-makers in resolving problems in situations where multiple conflicting criteria exist that need coordination. It is of practical value, capable of being utilized under certain or uncertain situations, and enables stakeholders to scientifically make critical decisions, in line with quantitative and qualitative analyses [34]. Among the various MCDM methods available, AHP [35] has been chosen as a viable technique, proving its compatibility with other methods [33]. In a general sense, a synthesis of methodologies can help researchers to overcome the limitations of a single method and enable a better understanding of a phenomenon, e.g., [25][36][37][38].
Although the extant literature has dealt with SISP as a research topic, most have focused on theorizing SISP in an academic sense and focused on the literature research. There is an information asymmetry in the IS literature on how SISP can occur in reality [39][40], leaving methodological ambiguity. Despite the large pool of literature dealing with SISP, many studies are concerned with its general processual characteristics, i.e., [41], leaving the detailed procedures of how SISP is practiced out of focus, loosening the links between the SISP process and underexplored macro-level contexts. Moreover, there is a strong need for IS researchers to consider connecting SISP with largely uncertain societal factors [42]. Therefore, this entry embraces a strategy-as-practice (SAP) method, e.g., [43][44][45], as a theoretical lens to explore SISP through an empirical case study. SAP allows scholars to shift their strategic focus from a mere concentration on effects to organizational performance, while enabling a more comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the real-world details of strategy formulation, planning, and implementation. Ultimately, this entry seeks to find a theoretical contribution to the existing literature, providing a practical and comprehensive case of SISP and a novel framework labeled CSF-MCDM. Relatively few academic efforts have been made to present the managerial benefits of a SISP based on the integrative and practical framework as presented in this entry. With this gap in mind, to theoretically contribute to the current knowledge, the primary objective of this entry is twofold. First, the entry aims to discover the CSFs in SISP practices that will enhance the suitability and effectiveness of the business core system required in the post-COVID-19 era. Second, the entry attempts to encapsulate the identified CSFs with a novel framework based on an MCDM model that would help businesses to acquire strategic alignment within the internal needs and existing resources to respond to the rapidly changing business environment, sustaining successful business results stemming from the newly developed information systems.

2. Strategic Information System Planning (SISP)

Strategic information system planning (SISP) has been a vital concept and interest for information systems managers since the 1980s [20], and the advent of new technologies such as internet-based computing further promoted IS/IT strategic planning in the 1990s, expediting the value of SISP practice [20][23]. Many scholars and the relevant literature have proposed various definitions of SISP. However, it can be generally defined as a process of identifying a computer-based portfolio/applications aligned with a firm’s strategy, which ultimately create a competitive advantage or help the organizations to perform their business by realizing their objectives, e.g., [6][7][46][47][48][49].
The concept of SISP arose with the unavoidable investment pressure to develop strategic information systems [10][19][20], with requirements for the evaluation of the investments becoming the primary drivers of strategic planning for IS/IT assets [21][22][50]. Therefore, SISP has gained considerable recognition and acceptance as an essential management practice and process for improving organizational performance in various fields [7]. Previous scholars stated a that focus and emphasis on SISP could help organizations to enhance their performance, productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness [7][51][52][53].
A large body of the literature has dealt with SISP, providing slightly different definitions from each author. However, some substantial elements are commonly found at its core throughout the research stream, highlighting SISP’s significance. SISP is an integrative and continuous planning activity, a review [20][54][55][56], or an analytical, evaluating exercise [57], which integrates technological elements [54][58], such as a computer-based portfolio/applications [5][6][7][46][47]. SISP is strategic thinking, planning, or deciding a direction for desirable information management and policies [59][60][61][62], which aligns, supports, and influences the business strategy for competitive advantage [53][54][55][58][63], benefiting organizations with superior IS/IT evaluation [25]. From the above, it can be understood that the following common elements are crucial in the SISP process; (a) identification of IS/IT elements, (b) alignment with strategy, (c) decision, review, and process for long-term planning, and (d) being based on the business’ needs and requirements. SISP’s definitions in the literature are presented as follows (see Table 1).
Table 1. SISP definitions in the literature.
No. Description Author
1 An integrative process that includes a firm’s various strategies such as IT, information management, change management, and human resources [54]
2 A continuous planning activity, ensuring the implementation of information and communication technology (ICT) in an organization, aligning to business strategies, improving organizational process effectiveness, creating business opportunities, and contributing to an organizational competitiveness [55]
3 A way of supporting and influencing a firm’s strategic direction that identifies value-adding information systems and integrates organizational technologies through holistic information architecture development for successful systems applications [58]
4 An analysis or an exercise of the corporate process using the business information models with the evaluation regarding risk, needs, and organizational requirements, enabling organizations to develop IS development priorities [57]
5 A process of deciding the direction for development and policies regarding the organization’s information use, management, and networking technologies [60]
6 A continuous review of the need to prepare, acquire, transfer, store, retrieve, access, present, and manipulate information in all forms [56]
7 A strategic thinking process or a mechanism that identifies the most desirable IS development through which a firm implements its long-term IT activities and policies, aligning the evolving organizational needs and strategies [48][61][62]
8 A process that helps to develop the information systems aligned with the organization’s strategic planning, including objectives and policies [63]
9 A process to create IS deployment plans to fulfill a firm’s strategic objectives [53]
10 A process of identifying a computer-based portfolio/applications aligned with corporate strategy, which is capable of creating a competitive advantage or helping organizations to execute their business, realizing their business goals [5][6][7][46][47]
Source: Author’s elaboration.
The existing SISP literature pool has proposed numerous methodologies to help organizations with strategic plans for information systems [20]. Often, the typical SISP process engages the following five stages; (a) strategic business planning, (b) setting the information systems’ mission and vision, (c) current information system assessment, (d) resource guidelines for the new information system, and (e) long-term strategic proposal [49]. The overall planning process should ensure that technology-related elements are well-aligned with the organization’s needs and strategy [25]. The success of SISP depends on the developers’ ability to ensure a proper alignment among the relevant components [49]. Moreover, as a critical part, the SISP process should define the planning objectives and environmental analysis that connects to the new strategy for the business systems [25][64][65].

3. Critical Success Factor (CSF)

Identifying critical success factors is substantial for businesses [27][28]. It is required for the top management to identify the performance factors and priorities in the information systems development strategy to stay competitive. Rockart [26] defines the critical success factors (CSFs) as the limited number of activity areas that must receive continuous and persistent attention from management and may ensure the organization’s successful competitive performance when satisfactory. The author argues that CSFs are substantial performance factors that would bring a competitive advantage to firms. Identifying CSFs allows management to determine the direction of the business focus, develop adequate measurements, and decide the scope of the required business data [26]. Daniel [66] first suggested the CSF concept, which was then further developed by Rockart [26], adding its value to business practices. Usually, the CSF is identified by four major factors; industry, environmental, strategic, and temporal factors.
Choosing an appropriate methodology is one of the vital issues for IS project managers before entering the SISP activities [25]. In implementing SISP to develop the information systems, researchers can consider various methodological options, such as the competitive forces model, value chain analysis, or the scenario planning method [25], to provide a long-term and integrative perspective. However, the CSF method is one of the most widely utilized methods for the SISP process. In particular, the CSF approach has been broadly accepted and utilized as a methodology in the IS/IT literature, has proved itself legitimate for a long time [29][30], and remains valid for the sense-making of a problem based in identifying potential factors for business success [27][31][67]. The CSF method has practical value and influence that enables project managers to integrate sustainability exploration into projects [32][68].

4. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM)

Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is a line of research methodology that enables decision-makers to resolve complex problems with multiple conflicting criteria that need to be prioritized based on evaluation values, e.g., [33][34]. It is a powerful and practical tool that can be applied to decision situations where both certainties and uncertainties prevail, and can be incorporated with other quantitative and qualitative methods to provide more scientific rigor [34]. Despite the differences in choosing the methodologies, in the recent literature, there have been efforts to embrace the MCDM approach to prioritize CSFs in other domains [69][70][71][72].
In general, a decision-making process based on MCDM engages the following three stages [73][74][75]; (a) structure the decision problem, (b) choose the best MCDM model, and (c) review the final result with prioritization pointing at preferable alternative orders, decided by the weighted scores. The literature has proposed multiple MCDM methods surrounding the complexity in decision problems. AHP (analytic hierarchy process) [76][77], the ELECTRE (Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la Realité) method [78][79] and its variants (e.g., ELECTRE I, II, III, IV, and Tri), PROMETHEE (preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation) [80][81] and its variations, TOPSIS (technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution) proposed by Hwang and Yoon [82], and the WASPAS (weighted aggregated sum product assessment) method suggested by Zavadskas et al. [83] are all among the prominent ways that are applicable to the solving of decision problems.

References

  1. Beynon-Davies, P. Business Information Systems, 3rd ed.; Red Globe Press: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
  2. Liang, T.-P.; Liu, Y.-H. Research Landscape of Business Intelligence and Big Data analytics: A bibliometrics study. Expert Syst. Appl. 2018, 111, 2–10.
  3. Schmidt, E.; Cohen, J. The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business; John Murray: London, UK, 2014.
  4. Schwertner, K. Digital transformation of business. Trakia J. Sci. 2017, 15, 388–393.
  5. Selamat, M.H.; Suhaimi, A.; Hussin, H. Strategic Information Systems Planning (SISP) and Strategic Information Security Planning (SISecP) In Malaysian Government Agencies. In Proceedings of the Regional Postgraduate Conference on Engineering and Science (RPCES 2006), Johore, Malaysia, 26–27 July 2006.
  6. Issa-Salwe, A.M.; Sharif, L.; Ahmed, M. Strategic information systems planning as the centre of information systems strategies. Int. J. Res. Rev. Comput. Sci. 2011, 2, 156–162.
  7. Harun, H.; Hashim, M.K. Strategic information systems planning: A review of its concept, definitions and stages of development. Int. J. Res. Sci. Eng. 2017, 3, 432–441.
  8. Legner, C.; Eymann, T.; Hess, T.; Matt, C.; Böhmann, T.; Drews, P.; Mädche, A.; Urbach, N.; Ahlemann, F. Digitalization: Opportunity and Challenge for the Business and Information Systems Engineering Community. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2017, 59, 301–308.
  9. Davis, G.B. Information Systems Conceptual Foundations: Looking Backward and Forward. In Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology: IFIP TC8 WG8.2 International Working Conference on the Social and Organizational Perspective on Research and Practice in Information Technology June 9–11, 2000, Aalborg, Denmark; Baskerville, R., Stage, J., DeGross, J.I., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 61–82.
  10. Chen, D.Q.; Mocker, M.; Preston, D.S.; Teubner, A. Information Systems Strategy: Reconceptualization, Measurement, and Implications. MIS Q. 2010, 34, 233.
  11. Malaurent, J.; Avison, D. From an apparent failure to a success story: ERP in China—Post implementation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 35, 643–646.
  12. Recker, J. Continued use of process modeling grammars: The impact of individual difference factors. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2010, 19, 76–92.
  13. Liang, H.; Xue, Y.; Wu, L. Ensuring Employees’ IT Compliance: Carrot or Stick? Inf. Syst. Res. 2013, 24, 279–294.
  14. Rezvani, A.; Dong, L.; Khosravi, P. Promoting the continuing usage of strategic information systems: The role of supervisory leadership in the successful implementation of enterprise systems. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017, 37, 417–430.
  15. Soto-Acosta, P. COVID-19 Pandemic: Shifting Digital Transformation to a High-Speed Gear. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2020, 37, 260–266.
  16. O’Leary, D.E. Evolving Information Systems and Technology Research Issues for COVID-19 and Other Pandemics. J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer. 2020, 30, 1–8.
  17. Arvidsson, V.; Holmström, J.; Lyytinen, K. Information systems use as strategy practice: A multi-dimensional view of strategic information system implementation and use. J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 2014, 23, 45–61.
  18. Kim, S. How a company’s gamification strategy influences corporate learning: A study based on gamified MSLP (Mobile social learning platform). Telemat. Informt. 2020, 57, 101505.
  19. Kleis, L.; Chwelos, P.; Ramirez, R.V.; Cockburn, I. Information Technology and Intangible Output: The Impact of IT Investment on Innovation Productivity. Inf. Syst. Res. 2012, 23, 42–59.
  20. Amrollahi, A.; Ghapanchi, A.H.; Najaftorkaman, M. A Generic Framework for Developing Strategic Information System Plans: Insights from Past Three Decades. In Proceedings of the PACIS, Chengdu, China, 24–28 June 2014.
  21. Earl, M.J. Experiences in Strategic Information Systems Planning. MIS Q. 1993, 17, 1–24.
  22. Krell, K.; Matook, S. Competitive advantage from mandatory investments: An empirical study of Australian firms. J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 2009, 18, 31–45.
  23. Grover, V.; Segars, A.H. An empirical evaluation of stages of strategic information systems planning: Patterns of process design and effectiveness. Inf. Manag. 2005, 42, 761–779.
  24. Luftman, J.; Ben-Zvi, T. Key Issues for IT Executives 2011: Cautious optimism in uncertain economic times. MIS Q. Exec. 2011, 10, 203–212.
  25. Al-Aboud, F.N. Strategic information systems planning: A brief review. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Netw. Secur. 2011, 11, 179–183.
  26. Rockart, J.F. Chief executives define their own data needs. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1979, 57, 81–93.
  27. Alhassan, I.; Sammon, D.; Daly, M. Critical Success Factors for Data Governance: A Theory Building Approach. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2019, 36, 98–110.
  28. Trkman, P. The critical success factors of business process management. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2010, 30, 125–134.
  29. Shah, M.H.; Braganza, A.; Morabito, V. A survey of critical success factors in e-Banking: An organisational perspective. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2007, 16, 511–524.
  30. Tan, W.G.; Catersteel, A.; Toleman, M. Implementing IT service management: A case study focussing on critical success factors. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2009, 50, 1–12.
  31. Caralli, R. The Critical Success Factor Method: Establishing A Foundation for Enterprise Security Management; Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2004.
  32. Banihashemi, S.; Hosseini, M.R.; Golizadeh, H.; Sankaran, S. Critical success factors (CSFs) for integration of sustainability into construction project management practices in developing countries. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1103–1119.
  33. Kabassi, K. Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Models for the Evaluation Cultural Websites: A Framework for Comparative Analysis. Information 2021, 12, 407.
  34. Sitorus, F.; Cilliers, J.J.; Brito-Parada, P.R. Multi-criteria decision making for the choice problem in mining and mineral processing: Applications and trends. Expert Syst. Appl. 2018, 121, 393–417.
  35. Sałabun, W.; Wątróbski, J.; Shekhovtsov, A. Are MCDA Methods Benchmarkable? A Comparative Study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS, and PROMETHEE II Methods. Symmetry 2020, 12, 1549.
  36. Liebovitch, L.S.; Coleman, P.T.; Fisher, J. Approaches to Understanding Sustainable Peace: Qualitative Causal Loop Diagrams and Quantitative Mathematical Models. Am. Behav. Sci. 2019, 64, 123–144.
  37. Kim, S.; Connerton, T.P.; Park, C. Exploring the impact of technological disruptions in the automotive retail: A futures studies and systems thinking approach based on causal layered analysis and causal loop diagram. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 172, 121024.
  38. Dhirasasna, N.; Sahin, O. A Multi-Methodology Approach to Creating a Causal Loop Diagram. Systems 2019, 7, 42.
  39. Peppard, J.; Galliers, R.D.; Thorogood, A. Information systems strategy as practice: Micro strategy and strategizing for IS. J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 2014, 23, 1–10.
  40. Ravichandran, T. Exploring the relationships between IT competence, innovation capacity and organizational agility. J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 2018, 27, 22–42.
  41. Shimada, T.; Soo-Keng, J.A.; Ee, D. Exploring the impact of IS function maturity and IS planning process on IS planning success: An ACE analysis. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2018, 28, 457–472.
  42. Seidl, D.; Whittington, R. Enlarging the Strategy-as-Practice Research Agenda: Towards Taller and Flatter Ontologies. Organ. Stud. 2014, 35, 1407–1421.
  43. Jarzabkowski, P.; Spee, A.P. Strategy-as-practice: A review and future directions for the field. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2009, 11, 69–95.
  44. Whittington, R. Information Systems Strategy and Strategy-as-Practice: A joint agenda. J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 2014, 23, 87–91.
  45. Hughes, J.; McDonagh, J. SISP as practice: De-isolating SISP activity across multiple levels. J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 2021, 30, 101658.
  46. Doherty, N.; Marples, C.; Suhaimi, A. The relative success of alternative approaches to strategic information systems planning: An empirical analysis. J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 1999, 8, 263–283.
  47. Salmela, H.; Lederer, A.L.; Reponen, T. Information systems planning in a turbulent environment. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2000, 9, 3–15.
  48. Lederer, A.L.; Sethi, V. The Implementation of Strategic Information Systems Planning Methodologies. MIS Q. 1988, 12, 445.
  49. Alamri, S.; Almutiri, N.; Ballahmar, H.; Zafar, A. Strategic Information System Planning: A Case Study of a Service Delivery Company. IARJSET 2016, 3, 78–84.
  50. Hoque, R.; Hossin, E.; Khan, W. Strategic Information Systems Planning (SISP) Practices in Health Care Sectors of Bangladesh. Eur. Sci. J. ESJ 2016, 12.
  51. Hakimpoor, H. Strategic Planning Process Dimensions and SMEs Performance. In Proceedings of the 10th Global and Social Science Research Conference, Beijing, China, 23–24 June 2014.
  52. Hammouri, Q.; Shraideh, L.; Abu-Shanab, E. Evaluating the Success of Information Strategic Information System Planning. In Proceedings of the the 7th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT), Hyderabad, India, 29–30 October 2015.
  53. Maharaj, S.; Brown, I. The impact of shared domain knowledge on strategic information systems planning and alignment. SA J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 17.
  54. Galliers, R.D. Strategic information systems planning: Myths, reality and guidelines for successful implementation. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 1991, 1, 55–64.
  55. Rogerson, S.; Fidler, C. Strategic Information Systems Planning: Its Adoption and Use. Inf. Manag. Comput. Secur. 1994, 2, 12–17.
  56. Pita, Z. Strategic Information Systems Planning (SISP) in Australia: Assessment and Measurement; RMIT University: Melbourne, Australia, 2007.
  57. Pant, S.; Hsu, C. An Integrated Framework for Strategic Information Systems Planning and Development. Inf. Resour. Manag. J. 1999, 12, 15–25.
  58. Segars, A.H.; Grover, V. Strategic Information Systems Planning Success: An Investigation of the Construct and Its Measurement. MIS Q. 1998, 22, 139.
  59. Lederer, A.L.; Sethi, V. Critical Dimensions of Strategic Information Systems Planning. Decis. Sci. 1991, 22, 104–119.
  60. Warr, A. Strategic IS Planning in UK Organizations: Current approaches and their relative success. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Information Systems, Goteborg, Sweden, 12–14 June 2006; pp. 972–983.
  61. Sabherwal, R.; Chan, Y. Alignment Between Business and IS Strategies: A Study of Prospectors, Analyzers, and Defenders. Inf. Syst. Res. 2001, 12, 11–33.
  62. Bechor, T.; Neumann, S.; Zviran, M.; Glezer, C. A contingency model for estimating success of strategic information systems planning. Inf. Manag. 2010, 47, 17–29.
  63. Gufroni, A.I. Information systems strategic planning at the Siliwangi University Tasikmalaya. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2011, 6, 53–59.
  64. E Newkirk, H.; Lederer, A.L.; Johnson, A.M. Rapid business and IT change: Drivers for strategic information systems planning? Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2008, 17, 198–218.
  65. Newkirk, H.E.; Lederer, A.L.; Srinivasan, C. Strategic information systems planning: Too little or too much? J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 2003, 12, 201–228.
  66. Daniel, D.R. Management Information Crisis. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1961, 39, 111–121.
  67. Lam, W. Investigating success factors in enterprise application integration: A case-driven analysis. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2005, 14, 175–187.
  68. Robichaud, L.B.; Anantatmula, V.S. Greening project management practices for sustainable construction. J. Manag. Eng. 2011, 27, 48–57.
  69. Singh, S.; Dasgupta, M.S.; Routroy, S. Analysis of Critical Success Factors to Design E-waste Collection Policy in India: A Fuzzy DEMATEL Approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 29, 10585–10604.
  70. Raval, S.J.; Kant, R.; Shankar, R. Analyzing the critical success factors influencing Lean Six Sigma implementation: Fuzzy DEMATEL approach. J. Model Manag. 2021, 16, 728–764.
  71. Yazdi, A.K.; Muneeb, F.M.; Wanke, P.F.; Figueiredo, O.; Mushtaq, I. Critical Success Factors for Competitive Advantage in Iranian Pharmaceutical Companies: A Comprehensive MCDM Approach. Math. Probl. Eng. 2021, 2021, 1–17.
  72. Sharma, S.; Darbari, J.D. Fuzzy MCDM Model for Analysis of Critical Success Factors for Sustainable Collaboration with Third Party Reverse Logistics Providers. Soft Comput. Probl. Solving 2021, 2, 651–662.
  73. Dodgson, J.S.; Spackman, M.; Pearman, A.; Phillips, L.D. Multi-Criteria Analysis: A Manual; Pitman: London, UK, 2009.
  74. Keeney, R.L. Feature Article—Decision Analysis: An Overview. Oper. Res. 1982, 30, 803–838.
  75. Tsoukiàs, A. On the concept of decision aiding process: An operational perspective. Ann. Oper. Res. 2007, 154, 3–27.
  76. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
  77. Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G. Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 2001.
  78. Benayoun, R.; Roy, B.; Sussman, N. ELECTRE: Une méthode pour guider le choix en présence de points de vue multiples. Note Trav. 1966, 49, 2–120.
  79. Roy, B. Classement et choix en presence de points de vue multiples (La methode ELECTRE). Rev. Fr. D Inform. De Rech. Oper. 1968, 2, 57–75.
  80. Brans, J. L’ingénièrie de la décision; Elaboration d’instruments d’aide àla décision: La méthode Promethee; Presses de l’Université Laval: Québec, QC, Canada, 1982.
  81. Brans, J.P.; Vincke, P. Note—A Preference Ranking Organisation Method. Manag. Sci. 1985, 31, 647–656.
  82. Hwang, C.L.; Yoon, K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1981.
  83. Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Antucheviciene, J.; Zakarevicius, A. Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektron. Elektrotech. 2012, 122, 3–6.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Management
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Sehoon Kim
View Times: 7.2K
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 15 Jun 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback