Creating an in practice usable framework on improving Strategic Business- IT Alignment Maturity

Master Thesis, University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Science

Information Studies - Business Information Systems

Submission date: July 1

_{, 2015}

Student:

W. Nieuwenhuizen (10413928)

Supervisor/first examiner: Signature:

D. Heinhuis ________________________________________

Second examiner: Signature: A. W. Abcouwer

________________________________________

Creating an in practice usable

framework on improving Strategic

Please consider your environmental responsibility. Before printing this report, ask yourself

whether you really need a hard copy. If you do decide to print this report, it should be printed in

colour, as the content contains coloured markings.

Thank you.

S

Despite the fact that literature has been writing about the subject of strategic business-IT alignment since the early nineties and some even earlier, today many organisations are still struggling on how to make this alignment happen. How does one make sure business and IT are working together on achieving the same goals? This research, done in the context of a Master Thesis project at the University of Amsterdam, focusses on this issue.

Literature shows that there are many existing frameworks and/or models on the topic of improving strategic alignment (maturity), but it also reveals that a framework/model with a more practical approach is missing. To fill this scientific gap a framework with a more practical approach, based on existing knowledge, is created. To make sure that this framework is also actually usable in practice, it is tested empirically in the field.

The conclusion of the empirical work shows, among other things, that the proposed framework is not usable in practice as it is, neither needs it to be rejected as it is, but that the framework needs to be revised before it will be usable in practice. With the revision of the proposed framework, all weaknesses (as a result from the empirical tests) were taken in to account. The appearance was changed, the content was changed and a manual to give explanations and examples to make the framework clearer was created.

The Business-IT Alignment Maturity Improvement Framework and its manual, are the final results of this master thesis.

T

C

I. Introduction ... 6

II. Literature review ... 8

What frameworks or models exist on strategic alignment and strategic alignment maturity? ... 8

Can these existing frameworks/model be used in practice? ... 9

Literature review conclusion ... 10

III. Development of the framework ... 11

Selection of applicable content for the framework ... 11

Applied weight factor for content ... 11

Conclusion: the proposed framework... 14

IV. Empirical review of the proposed framework ... 17

Translation of literature conclusion in to empirical questions ... 17

Justification of the approach ... 18

Design of empirical review ... 19

Assessment design ... 19

Interview design ... 20

Chosen organisations ... 20

Data analysis and results ... 21

Analysis ... 22

Results ... 23

Conclusion ... 26

V. Revision of the proposed framework ... 27

Weaknesses of the proposed framework ... 27

Included results of empirical review ... 28

New proposed framework ... 30

Business-IT Alignment Maturity Improvement Framework Manual ... 31

VI. Conclusion, limitations and future research ... 34

Conclusion ... 34

Future research ... 36

VII. References ... 37

VIII. Appendixes ... 39

A. Selection criteria and search string used for literature review ... 39

B. Summary of four main used terms ... 40

C. Assessment ... 42

D. Empirical review guide ... 43

E. Interview reports ... 44

Organisation A ... 44

Organisation B ... 47

Organisation C ... 52

I. I

Literature shows that across a wide spectrum of markets and countries IT is transcending its traditional “back-office” role and is evolving towards a “strategic” role (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993). The power and presence of IT has expanded, companies have come to view it as a resource ever more critical to their success. It needs to be part of the business, in other words, “digitization” of the business models is needed (Carr, 2003). The core purpose in developing this IT strategy is to ensure that there is a strong and clear relationship between IT investment decisions and the organisation’s overall strategies, goals and objectives (Glaser, 2006). If IT becomes more strategic and organisations are more and more depending on a well-functioning IT department, it is important that IT aligns with the business. This is called business-IT alignment and is often referred to as strategic alignment.

Despite the fact that literature has been writing about the subject of strategic business-IT alignment since the early nineties and some even earlier, today many organisations are still struggling on how to make this alignment happen. How does one make sure business and IT are working together on achieving the same goals?

Many frameworks and models on this issue have been created throughout the years, but none take a more practical approach. Existing frameworks and models are mostly about assessing and evaluating processes, communication flows, work structures, decision making hierarchies and etcetera. This takes time and requires investments from organisations.

Organisations today are looking for a more practical approach, something which they can use instantly, without having to perform complicated and time consuming assessments. This research, done in the context of a Master Thesis project at the University of Amsterdam, focusses on creating an in practice, easy usable framework on how organisations could improve their strategic business-IT alignment maturity level.

The main research question for this thesis is therefore:

How could an organisation improve their level of strategic business-IT alignment (maturity)?

The corresponding sub-questions are as follows:

- What frameworks or models exist on strategic alignment and strategic alignment maturity? - Can these existing frameworks/models be used in practice?

These sub-questions are discussed in detail in the literature review and it presents that there are many existing frameworks and/or models on the topic of strategic alignment (maturity), but it also reveals that a framework/model with a more practical approach is missing. So, the existing frameworks/models are not usable in practice as they are.

To fill this scientific gap, a framework (based on literature) with a more practical approach on how organisation could improve their level of business-IT alignment maturity is proposed in this thesis. To make sure that this proposed framework is actually usable in practice, it is tested empirically in the field.

The corresponding empirical questions are therefore as follows: - Is the proposed framework usable in different organisations?

- Does the framework encourage organisations to strive for the highest level of business-IT alignment (maturity)?

The conclusion of the empirical work shows, among other things, that the proposed framework is not usable in practice as it is, neither needs it to be rejected as it is, but that the framework needs to be revised before it will be usable in practice. This revised practical framework on how organisation could improve their level of business-IT alignment maturity is the final result of this master thesis project.

The mentioned concept of creating an in practice usable framework on improving strategic business-IT alignment maturity is presented in more detail in this master thesis and this is structured as follows: Chapter two presents the literature review. This is where the two sub-questions are answered, which lead to the discovered scientific gap of a missing practical framework on strategic business-IT alignment maturity. The following section, chapter three, presents the proposed framework, which is created to fill this gap. The development process of this framework is also discussed in this chapter. The next section, chapter four, presents the design, setup and results of the empirical testing of the proposed framework. This is all translated to a revised version of the framework, which is presented in chapter five. Chapter five also includes explanation on how the revised framework is developed. Chapter six presents the conclusion, limitations and advises on future research on this topic. At the end of the thesis the references and the appendixes are included.

II. L

This chapter presents the literature review. It is divided in three sections. The two sub-questions are answered in a separate section and finally the literature review conclusion is presented.

Appendix A presents the selection criteria and search strings used for this literature review.

What frameworks or models exist on strategic alignment and strategic alignment maturity?

Many papers have been written on strategic alignment and many researchers have tried to develop a framework or model on this topic (Abcouwer et al. ,1997; Burn ,1993; Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993; Luftman, 2000; Maes, Rijsenbrij, Truijens, & Goedvolk, 2000; Presley, 2006; Smaczny, 2001; Silvius & Smit, 2011; Vargas, Plazaola, & Ekstedt, 2008; Zhou & Cai, 2011). The model that has attracted the most attention in this area is the strategic alignment model (SAM), proposed in the paper written by Henderson and Venkatraman in 1993. It is even referred to as the most cited strategic alignment model in literature (Chevez, 2010). One thing is certain, many researchers have used this model as a starting point or reference in their research on this topic (Abcouwer et al. ,1997; Avison, Jones, Powell, & Wilson, 2004; Burn ,1993; Luftman, 2000; Maes, Rijsenbrij, Truijens, & Goedvolk, 2000; Presley, 2006; Smaczny,

2001; Silvius & Smit, 2011;).

The SAM model has received empirical support and has conceptual and practical value (Chevez, 2010). This underpins the relevance of using the SAM model as a starting point for this literature review as well.

Strategic alignment maturity, and its supporting models/frameworks might have empirical support and has conceptual and practical value according to Chevez (2010), they are also criticized by many authors, mainly on this practical value.

Many researchers found that levels of alignment should be implemented. This was first proposed by Luftman (2000) and was further explored by inter alia Luftman again in 2003, Sledgianowski et al in 2006, Khaiata and Zualkerman in 2009, Zhou and Cai in 2011, Silvius in 2013 and Versendaal et al in 2013. Luftman introduced these levels as strategic alignment maturity and this term was maintained by the others. The model he introduced was named SAMM, Strategic Alignment Maturity Model.

So, strategic alignment maturity is the concept referring to the extent to which organisational components reflect similar and act in synergy towards the organisational objectives (Nisar, 2010). For example: the IT investments should be in synergy with the overall organisational budget.

These levels and thus maturity is not the only aspect introduced to improve or extend the SAM model. Areas, criteria and descriptions were also added to contribute to the research topic of business-IT alignment and its maturity. Areas were added as researchers found that strategic alignment can have different focus points. For example communication could be a focus point (Cragg, King, & Hussin, 2002; Luftman, 2003; Bergeron, Raymond, & Rivard, 2004; Silvius, 2007; Khaiata & Zualkernan, 2009; Chen, 2010; Silvius, 2013.) Criteria were added, as per area, different criteria can be applicable for the contribution of the improving the level of alignment maturity (Luftman,

2003; Chen, 2010 and Silvius, 2013). For each criteria a description was added, to make the link between the alignment level and the criteria more clear (Luftman, 2003).

The four main used terms above: levels, areas, criteria and descriptions, are explained in more detail below:

- Levels: Business-IT alignment maturity knows five levels: 1) initial/ad hoc (with) process, 2) committed (beginning) process, 3) established focused process, 4) improved/managed process and 5) optimized process.

- Areas: Business-IT alignment maturity knows six different areas where organisations can focus on: 1) Communication (COMM), 2) Competency/Value Measurements (COMP), 3) Governance (GOV), 4) Partnership (PART), 5) Technology Scope (SCOPE), 6) Skills (SKILLS). (Luftman, 2003; Silvius, 2007;

Khaiata & Zualkernan, 2009; Chen, 2010; Silvius, 2013)

- Criteria: For each area, several criteria (total of 38) are proposed for organisations to establish when achieving business-IT alignment maturity (Luftman, 2003; Chen, 2010 and Silvius, 2013).

- Descriptions: For each of the 38 criteria, Luftman (2003) presented a description per maturity level (1-5) for organisations to better understand what the different levels of maturity include.

Appendix B shows pictures 1 and 2, which summarize the four main used terms as follows: the top row presents the levels of maturity, the first column presents the six areas, the second column presents the 38 criteria and the other columns and rows present the 190 (38*5) descriptions.

Can these existing frameworks/model be used in practice?

As we have already seen, the existing models where criticized by researchers, mainly for their missing practical value. Publications can be rather vague in terms of how to practice or improve alignment (Maes et al., 2000).

To achieve a higher level of business-IT alignment maturity, organisations first need to be aware of their current level before they can start improving. Many researchers have developed instruments on how to measure the current level of an organisation’s alignment (Luftman, 2003; Sledgianowski et al., 2006; Khaiata & Zualkernan, 2009). The problem of these instruments is the fact that they all assess the level of alignment and present the gaps between the levels, but details on how to exactly accomplish a higher level in practice are missing. Only a few researchers provide exact details and actions on creating alignment (Silvius, 2007; Microsoft “Technet Microsoft: Business/IT Alignment Service Management Function,”, 2008), but none give exact details on how to improve to the next level.

It can be stated that organisations looking for practical guidelines on improving the level of business-IT alignment maturity, are not going to find these in existing literature. A framework including practical guidelines on improving the level of business-IT alignment maturity is missing.

Literature review conclusion

Strategic business-IT alignment and its maturity is a well examined research topic in current literature. Frameworks have been created and have been supported empirically but have also been questioned for their lacking practical usability and value. Organisations searching for these practical guidelines may not find them in current literature. This gap is tackled in this research as a framework is proposed on how to improve business-IT alignment maturity, including practical guidelines on how to accomplish a higher or the highest level. The next chapter presents how this framework is developed and how it turned out.

III. D

This chapter is divided in three sections. The first section will present the substantiation of the selected content of the proposed framework. Secondly the applied weight factor for the used content of the framework is presented. Finally, this is concluded in to the proposed framework.

Selection of applicable content for the framework

It can be stated that for organisations is be mandatory to realize mature alignment to become durably successful. To achieve mature alignment an optimized process needs to be in place. Creating a simple form of alignment does not automatically mean an optimized process is in place. Therefore the degree of maturity is divided in levels, as already explained in the literature review. The in literature presented levels will be used in the framework as well. How these will actually be used can be read in the conclusion of this chapter.

As explained, many researchers have cited Luftman (2003) on his levels, areas, criteria and descriptions, but some also questioned or even criticized him (Chen, 2010; Silvius, 2013). Six areas, with a total of 38 criteria and 190 descriptions, as they are presented by Luftman, is a lot of information for organisations to analyse and process. Chen and Silvius became to wonder if the relevance and weight of all these areas and criteria are the same, in achieving mature business-IT alignment. In other words, is it really necessary for organisations to analyse and process all these 38 criteria and 190 descriptions before they can accomplish mature alignment? Chen and Silvius explored this in their empirical research.

Both of them tested the importance of the areas and concluded that not all areas are of the same importance. Chen concluded that all areas except skills were significant of influence when achieving business-IT alignment maturity. Silvius concluded that communication is the most important area to focus on. The results of the empirical study on the areas are summarized in column one of table 2: Maturity areas and criteria.

Both of them also tested the importance of the 38 criteria proposed by Luftman. Chen tested the loadings of the criteria from the model from Sledgianowski et al. (2006) which is based on Luftman (2003). Silvius measured the criteria from Luftman (2003), but also made some minor adjustments. These results are summarized in columns 3 and 4 of table 2: Maturity areas and criteria. The criteria in this table are marked with different colours. An explanation for these colours is presented in the next sub-section: Applied weight factor for content.

Applied weight factor for content

Not all 38 criteria and 190 descriptions will be used in the proposed framework, as this not seems suitable and feasible. As it is difficult to include statistic tests in a qualitative research, only some basic descriptive statistics are used in attempt to underpin the choices for the included and exclude criteria to create the guidelines for the proposed framework.

First a mean and a “standard”1 _{deviation was calculated from all weights for the criteria presented by Chen and Silvius}

in their studies. This provides insight in the relevance of the different weights. Table 1 presents the calculated means and standard deviations.

Mean “Standard” Deviation

Chen 0.65 0.08

Silvius 15.69 4.34

Table 1: Mean and standard deviation from weights by Chen and Silvius

In the next subsection, the conclusion, it is explained how these basic descriptive statistics are used for the proposed framework.

The colours in table 2 present the following:

- Red – Mean weight minus more than one standard deviation. - Pink – Mean weight minus one standard deviation.

- Yellow – Mean weight.

- Dark green – Mean weight plus one standard deviation.

- Light green – Mean weight plus more than one standard deviation.

Table 2 presents: maturity areas and criteria weighted by Chen and Silvius.

1 _{It should be noted that the standard deviation is only used here in the context of explaining the degree of distribution of numbers (weights) around}

Maturity Area Criteria by Luftman (2003) Chen (2010) Silvius (2013)

Communications (COMM) (Chen, sig. influence. Silvius, overall weight: 28)

1. Understanding of business by IT Accepted (0.61) 31.1 2. Understanding of IT by business Accepted (0.50) 15.8 3. Organisational learning Accepted (0.71) 14.6 4. Style and ease of access Dropped 9.9 5. Leveraging intellectual assets Accepted (0.66) 11.7 6. IT-business liaison staff Dropped 17.0

Competency/Value Measurement (COMP)

(Chen, sig. influence. Silvius, overall weight:

13.4)

7. IT metrics Accepted (0.78) 19.0

8. Business metrics Accepted (0.77) 17.2 9. Link between IT and business metrics Accepted (0.78) 14.2 10. Service Level Agreements Dropped 12.1

11. Benchmarking Dropped 9.1

12. Formally assess IT investments Accepted (0.69) 15.6 13. Continuous improvement practices Accepted (0.69) 12.9

Contribution of IT to strategic goals Dropped -

Governance (GOV) (Chen, sig. influence. Silvius, overall weight:

14.3)

14. Formal business strategy planning Dropped 18.6 15. Formal IT strategy planning Dropped 13.0 16. Organisational structure Missing 16.4 17. Reporting relationships Missing 10.6 18. How IT is budgeted Accepted (0.54) 11.8 19. Rationale for IT spending Accepted (0.64) 11.8 20. Senior-level IT steering committee Dropped Missing 21. How projects are prioritized Accepted (0.57) 14.7

IT function’s responsiveness to changing business needs

Dropped -

The level in which IT is being viewed as an asset that can improve the organisation’s competitive advantage.

- 15.0

Partnership (PART) (Chen, sig. influence. Silvius, overall weight:

15.7)

22. Business perception of IT Accepted (0.62) 21.7 23. IT’s role in strategic business planning Dropped 15.5 24. Shared risks and rewards Accepted (0.67) 10.9 25. Managing the IT-business relationship Dropped 17.2 26. Relationship/trust style Accepted (0.62) 20.6 27. Business sponsors/champions Dropped 14.1 Technology Scope

(SCOPE) (Chen, sig. influence. Silvius, overall weight:

12.7)

28. Primary systems Dropped Missing

29. Standards Accepted (0.68) 22.6/18.3

30. Architectural integration Accepted (0.74) 19.1 31. How IT infrastructure is perceived Accepted (0.56) 20.1 Degree of infrastructure flexibility Dropped 19.8

Skills (SKILLS) (Chen, not sig. influence.

Silvius, overall weight: 15.9)

32. Innovative, entrepreneurial environment Accepted (0.55) 20.1 33. Key IT HR decisions made by: Accepted (0.64) 17.8 34. Change readiness Accepted (0.66) 14.5 35. Career crossover opportunities Dropped 9.1 36. Cross-functional training and job rotation Dropped 14.6

37. Social interaction Dropped 11.3

38. Attract and retain top talent Accepted (0.69) Missing The level in which the work environment is safe

and reliable -

12.5

Conclusion: the proposed framework

The five levels proposed by Luftman, and supported by others, will be included in the proposed framework as follows. The levels will be referred to as 0-4, instead of 1-5, as the first level explains that there is no alignment at all, so zero seems more appropriate than 1. This leads to including the following levels in the framework:

0. Initial/ad-hoc Process (without/no alignment) 1. Committed Process

2. Established focused Process 3. Improved/managed Process

4. Optimized (optimal alignment) Process.

The guidelines which are included in the framework are based on the following rules:

- The results of the weights for the areas provided by Silvius (2013) and Chen (2010) are considered for the proposed framework. This leads to considering the communication area as the most important one to focus on in the journey of an organisation to mature strategic business-IT alignment.

- All weights, with the corresponding criteria, which are marked as light green (in table 2) and are not marked as red are included in the framework. The weights marked as light green are the weights that deviate more than one standard deviation from the mean. Concluded can be that these criteria are the most relevant for improving business-IT alignment maturity. If the criteria is marked light green and red, the criteria will not be considered as they also deviate too much from the mean in a negative way.

- The guidelines for achieving maturity level 1 (going from no alignment at all, to a beginning alignment process) are based on the steps provided by Silvius (2007) and Microsoft (“Technet Microsoft: Business/IT Alignment Service Management Function,” 2008).

- The 190 descriptions provided by Luftman (2003) are used to base the guidelines on.

Alignment Maturity Level Guidelines

Level 0: No alignment. Instructions are not necessary for achieving no alignment.

Level 1: Committed alignment.

COMM: Define an IT strategy by aligning IT goals to business goals and by creating an overview of budgets and resources. Make sure business and IT are starting to understand each other.

COMM: Create an overview of all services, applications and assets including key owners and users.

SCOPE: Create and maintain technical standards and manage the IT service/application portfolio.

PART: Setup Service Level Management by managing business relationships and needs, creating a service catalogue and centralizing the IT contracts (OLAs, UCs and SLAs).

GOV: Implement a project authorization process by demanding clear business cases.

Level 2: Established and focused alignment.

COMM: Business and IT need to have some understanding of one another. Make sure business management and IT management meet once a week. In this meeting all steps mentioned for level 1 need to be evaluated and maintained. As

communication is the most important area of alignment maturity, this action is most important to maintain and increase.

COMP: Create awareness by creating an overview of all business and IT metrics. Create a link between the two.

PART: With all previous actions the business perception of IT will change and needs to be changed, in order to maintain and increase the level of alignment maturity. Make sure business sees IT as an asset and an enabler for future business activity. IT needs to become a valued service provider for the business.

SCOPE: Maintain and improve the technical standards so they enable business processes.

SCOPE: Architectural integration needs to be created. Setup an agreement on risk sharing between business and IT, for standard and customized projects and/or other activities.

Level 3: Improved and managed alignment.

COMM: Once every two weeks business management and IT management should meet to maintain good understanding of one another.

COMP: Make sure the link between business metrics and IT metrics is checked every two weeks and is act upon.

PART: Business needs to see IT as a driver for future business activities. A foundation needs to be set for a long-term partnership.

SCOPE: Maintain and improve the technical standards so they drive business processes.

SCOPE: Make sure the risks are always shared between business and IT.

Level 4: Optimized alignment.

COMM: Once a month business management and IT management should meet. Understanding by all staff is necessary.

COMP: Implement balanced scorecards and include partners with business and IT metrics. Keep them connected.

PART: Business and IT needs to be partners in creating value. They need to trust each other.

SCOPE: Maintain and improve the technical standards so IT and business adapt quickly to change.

SCOPE: Managers are at this level of alignment obliged to take and share risks. Table 3: Content proposed framework.

As a framework needs to be presentable and needs to have a professional appearance, a presentable form of the framework is created. The framework also needs a name, as it cannot be referred to as “the framework” outside of this

thesis. The proposed name for the framework is:

Business-IT Alignment Maturity Improvement (BITAMI) Framework

For the appearance of the framework the ten heuristics by Nielsen (1990) and the Microsoft guidelines (Venkatesh, Ramesh, & Massey, 2003) are considered. Status (clear separation of levels), consistency, standards, recognition and design were the most useful for the framework.

IV. E

This following paragraphs will present the translation of the literature conclusion in to the empirical questions. These questions will show what the purpose of the empirical review is in detail. Secondly a justification of the approach of the empirical review is presented. Next the design of the empirical review is presented and the chosen organisations are introduced. The chapter is finished with the data analysis, results and conclusion.

Translation of literature conclusion in to empirical questions

As presented in the literature review, many researchers have shown interest in the topic of strategic business-IT alignment and showed that it is still examined for improvement and extension. The literature review has also shown that organisations are looking for guidelines or references on how they can improve their level of strategic business-IT alignment. A model/framework with a more practical approach for this was not found in the literature.

The BITAMI framework, based on literature, was created with the purpose of filling this gap of missing practicality for organisations on the topic of business-IT alignment. But, it needs to be recognized that a framework based only on literature may not be ready to use in practice. For this reason the proposed framework is tested in the field.

To recap, the main research question is: How could an organisation improve their level of strategic business-IT alignment (maturity)? The literature review focussed on the scientific relevance of this questions as the following two sub questions were answered: What frameworks or models exist on strategic alignment and strategic alignment maturity? and Can these existing frameworks/model be used in practice?

As described the conclusion from the literature review shows that there are many existing frameworks or models on the topic of strategic alignment and strategic alignment maturity, but the literature also shows that a framework/model with a more practical approach was missing. The BITAMI framework was proposed based on literature and needs to be tested in the field. This translates in the following empirical questions, as these questions will answer if the proposed practical framework could be usable in organisations and if it drives organisations to improve their level of strategic business-IT alignment:

- Is the proposed framework usable in different organisations?

- Does the framework encourage organisations to strive for the highest level of business-IT alignment (maturity)?

These questions will lead to the conclusion if the framework can be used in practice as it is, needs revision or if it should be rejected. This conclusion will provide the answer to the main research question.

Justification of the approach

Scientific research knows two main forms: quantitative or qualitative research. For this research a qualitative approach was chosen, as the question investigates the how of decision making (Robson, 2011). The research question is: How could an organisation improve their level of strategic business-IT alignment (maturity)?

Qualitative research knows many options for data collection and analysis approaches. Grounded theory, focus groups, case studies, participant observations, are just a view of them. For this research the approach of the grounded theory was used as a reference. As a grounded theory research seeks to generate theory and is about going out in the field using interviews as the most common data collection method, this method seemed best suitable to use as a reference for this research (Thompson & Panacek, 1998; Heath & Cowley, 2004; Charmaz & Henwood, 2007; Lehmann, 2010; Urquhart, Lehmann, & Myers, 2010; Robson, 2011).

To explain why this method is just used as a reference and why this master thesis is not completely a grounded theory study, the grounded theory method is shortly explained. After this the included and excluded parts are presented and explained.

As described by Robson (2011) one of the mandatory prerequisites for a grounded theory research, is to start a research with existing theory, which is going to be enhanced or expanded (Urquhart et al., 2010). As mentioned before a grounded theory research seeks to generate theory and is about going out in the field to test this theory. With a grounded theory research the sampling method, for the field testing, which needs to be used is the theoretical sampling method. Hereby the researcher decides after each round of analysis (interviews, coding and analysis of coding) what data and from where is needed next to enhance or complete the theory. This takes a lot of time, sometimes even years (Heath & Cowley, 2004; Charmaz & Henwood, 2007; Lehmann, 2010; Urquhart et al., 2010).

Furthermore it is common with a grounded theory to use the constant comparison method. This means that in between every analysis round the data is analysed and this may conclude in a change of the theory and/or change in the to be performed next step (Thompson & Panacek, 1998; Heath & Cowley, 2004; Charmaz & Henwood, 2007; Lehmann,

2010; Urquhart, Lehmann, & Myers, 2010; Robson, 2011).

To summarize, the grounded theory method starts with creating a new theory based on existing theory. Secondly this needs to be tested in the field, most commonly via interviews. The theoretical sampling method and the constant comparison method need to be used during the field testing. So, after each round of analysis (interviews, coding and analysis of coding) it needs to be decided, what data and from where is needed next and if the to be performed next step or originally created theory needs to be changed. This process repeats itself until the research and the new theory is complete.

In this research the grounded theory method is applied as follows. The proposed framework is based on existing literature and theories. The framework will enhance or expand literature as it will fill the practical gap that is missing

regarding the topic of business-IT alignment. The content of the framework is tested in the field, to make sure the practical gap is filled correctly according to professionals.

The theoretical sampling method is not used in this research as this was not suitable due to the limitations of the master thesis project setup (time and resources). The purposive sampling method was used as the organisations were explicitly selected to help formulate the theory (Robson, 2011). More on how and why the used organisations were selected can be found in paragraph on chosen organisations.

It can be stated that the constant comparison method is not applicable for this research, as the proposed framework will not change in between analysis rounds (the framework will only be revised after, if necessary, all interviews are done and analysed). All steps were predefined due to time limitations and mandatory planning.

Design of empirical review

The empirical review is designed in two parts, an assessment and interviews. The assessment is designed to create awareness of the topic of business-IT alignment and to determine the current level of business-IT alignment in the organisations. The interview is designed to answer the empirical questions:

- Is the proposed framework usable in different organisations?

- Does the framework encourage organisations to strive for the highest level of business-IT alignment (maturity)?

Assessment design

The assessment was done to determine the current level of business-IT alignment (maturity). From each organisation a minimum of two persons conducted the assessment. One from the business side of the organisation, who has knowledge about and experience with business strategies and one from IT department, who has knowledge about and experience with IT strategies.

The assessment was setup as follows:

1) The 6 areas of maturity with the 38 criteria from Luftman were rated by the interviewees. The 190 descriptions were presented and the interviewees have selected the description best applicable for the current situation in the organisation. An example of the used form(s) can be found in Appendix C, Assessment.

2) The scores from both interviewees were put together and average scores per criteria were calculated. 3) The overall average score was used to determine the current level of business-IT alignment maturity.

The results of the assessment were discussed with the participants. The discussion was initiated by asking the participants about the scores which deviated the most. For example: if the business interviewee scored a 1 for communication and the IT interviewee scored a 5 for this area, they were asked to elaborate on this and if they could provide an example of a situation where this was evident from.

Interview design

After the assessment was completed and the discussion was ended, the framework was presented and explained to both participants. The interview started with some basic check questions, such as: Is the framework with the guidelines clear? Do you have any questions?

After this, the interview aimed at finding answers to the empirical questions. Questions were asked such as: - What do you think about the feasibility of the guidelines on the different levels?

- Do you see the profit of reaching to level four? Do you think this is necessary for the organisation? - Do you believe this framework will help organisations in achieving better strategic business-IT alignment? The interviews were semi-structured. This entails that it is not mandatory to only discuss the questions but that there is place for open discussion as well. The open discussion might be interesting as the representatives for the business and IT could end up in an in-depth discussion on the topic, presenting several examples of real life situations when trying to aim for business-IT alignment, which may be usable in this research.

All interviews were recorded for analysis purposed (Thompson & Panacek, 1998).

The complete interview guide is presented in Appendix D, Empirical review guide. This was used during the assessment and interview.

Chosen organisations

Table 4 presents the selected organisations, the industry they operate in, the number of employees and the number of IT employees.

Organisation Industry Employees IT employees

A Logistics ± 1900 ± 20

B Resources ± 94.000 ± 4700

C IT ± 100 ± 4

D IT ± 300.000 ± 30.000

Table 4: Organisations and criteria.

The four organisations were selected for the following reasons. As IT is one of the major topics in business-IT alignment maturity, two IT companies were selected. One would expect them to understand the importance of IT and thus expect them to have a high level of business-IT alignment. One relatively large IT company was selected and one smaller one.

For comparison the other two selected companies do not operate in IT. Here also a relatively large organisation is selected and a smaller one is selected.

Data analysis and results

The interview reports can be found in Appendix E, interview reports. The content of these reports are coded as the content of the reports are marked with colours. First some background information is given on the chosen coding procedure. Afterwards the results are presented.

Coding data from a grounded theory research can be done via various possibilities, but the most common used methods are the coding procedures provided by Corbin/Strauss and Glaser (Heath & Cowley, 2004; Charmaz & Henwood, 2007; Urquhart et al., 2010; Lehmann, 2010; Robson, 2011). Many researchers have compared the two, so before a choice is made on which method is used in this research, a summary is presented on the two methods.

The first level of coding are open coding, according to Corbin/Strauss, whilst Glaser refers to substantive coding in this first level. The procedure descriptions from both are similar (Heath & Cowley, 2004). So, the name of this first level of coding procedures differ, the actual performed coding is similar. This first level provides categories of the data including labels, which present sub-categories (Robson, 2011; Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

The second level of coding is where the main difference between Corbin/Strauss and Glaser is shown. The second level of coding presented by Corbin and Strauss is referred to as axial coding, where a paradigm model is created to reduce, cluster and interconnect the categories (Heath & Cowley, 2004; Urquhart et al., 2010; Robson, 2011). Glaser pointed out that to ‘force’ coding through one paradigm and/or down one conditional path was not grounded theory, but conceptual description, which ignored the emergent nature of grounded theory (Urquhart et al., 2010; Lehmann, 2010). Glaser’s second level of coding is continuous with his previous phase and is referred to as theoretical coding. Here comparisons are made, with the focus on data. The data becomes more abstract and the categories are refitted (Heath & Cowley, 2004).

The third level of coding is referred to as selective coding by Corbin and Strauss and is referred to as theoretical coding by Glaser. In this phase Corbin and Strauss develop their categories in more detail, select a core category and make an integration of the categories. This all leads to a theory which is detailed and dense process fully described (Heath & Cowley, 2004; Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Glaser refits and refines the categories which integrate around the emerging core. This leads to a theory which is parsimony, in scope and modifiable (Heath & Cowley, 2004).

As the method used by Corbin and Strauss is most widely known and regarded as the most accessible, it only describes one version of grounded theory and has also been described as rather formulaic and overburdened with rules (Urquhart et al., 2010). Glaser presents a more understandable, simplistic approach of coding where there are less rules and it leaves room for modifications at the end.

Robson (2011) combined the methods as the three phases are described as, open coding (Corbin and Strauss), axial/theoretical coding (combination) and selective coding (combination). The first phase of open coding is the phase where the categories are created. The second phase of axial/theoretical coding interconnect these categories. The final

phase establishes the core category or categories.

This combined approach is the chosen approach for this research. The results of the first phase of coding will present categories and labels (sub-categories) of the data. The results of the second phase of coding will present how the categories are connected and the categories will be refitted. This is all about putting together again the data which have been effectively split apart into categories by the open coding in the first phase (Robson, 2011). The results of third phase will present a core category (or categories) and focusses on this (these). The core category (categories) and how the other categories are connect should remain abstract and integrated as well as condensed. This all will lead to a theory which is detailed, in scope and modifiable.

Analysis

As explained above the interview reports are coded. This is done via coloured markings in the content of the reports. The pink coloured markings are the categories. The yellow markings are the labels. The green markings present the core categories. All interview reports were marked via this method and by using these colours. An example of an interview report (interviewee B2) is presented in this section, all coded interview reports can be found in appendix E.

An example of a coded interview report:

Interviewee B2 has been working with the company for 15 years now. The assessment took about 10 minutes as the interviewee did not have any questions and understood everything fine. He had some experience with the topic of business IT alignment from previous work.

The discussion on the outcome of the assessment showed again that communication is seen as very important in this organisation and that this is a point for improvement. He mentioned that IT spends little time and effort in listening to the end users. The survey was the only thing regarding this, but there was no follow up by IT.

Interviewee B2 guesses that there is more alignment in the communication area on higher management level as this involves less people than, for example, on operational level. There should be more transparency on all levels within the organisation, when it comes to what, when and how IT delivers.

On the proposed framework the interviewee responded positively. He believes the framework is usable in this organisation and others. A point of improvement was, to split the framework in to two. One for large organisations, as the one he works in, and one for smaller organisations. He believes these organisations might think differently on the subject and can use the framework differently.

Some general pointers mentioned by interviewee B2:

- Communication is a good area to focus on when an organisation is trying to improve their IT processes, but another thing which needs to have focus is the budget. New developments or investment are most of the time rejected due to missing IT budget. Organisations should reserve a part of the budget for IT, each year so that they build up reserves. This way there will always be some budget to make investments, even if they are ad hoc.

- Another thing which needs focus is the abuse of IT by personnel. The business case needs to be improved and evaluated more extensively.

To conclude, the answers to the interview questions were as follows:

- Is the framework with the guidelines clear? Do you have any questions? – Yes, no questions. - Would you reposition the organisation, now you have read the framework? – No.

- If we take a closer look to all the guidelines, is there anything which needs improvement or should be left out? – Take sort of organisation in to consideration.

- What do you think about the feasibility of the guidelines on the different levels? – Good.

- Do you see the profit of reaching to level four? Do you think this is necessary for the organisation? – Yes, but this might not be case for smaller organisations.

- Do you believe this framework will help organisations in achieving better strategic business-IT alignment? – Yes.

- Do you believe this framework is usable in your organisation? – Yes.

Results

Table 5 presents the results of the coding. The table presents the core categories, categories and labels. First the categories and labels (sub-categories) were created and marked in the interview reports. The second phase of the coding is all about putting together these categories and labels. This was done via creating a mind map for defining the core categories. The mind map presents a summary of the results, as only the core categories and categories are included. The mind map presents that the labels and categories were used to create the core categories.

Mind map 1: creating core categories

Table 5: Coding results

Core categories Categories Labels

Organisation(s) Sort Core business IT immature IT depended IT independed Competitors - Processes

Primary (core business activities) Secondary Competitive advantage Size Small Big Large Sub-Organisations Operational levels Operations Middle-management Higher-management Business Procedures Documentation Formality Reporting structure Communication flows Handling budgets Abuse of IT by personnel

Business gap: desicions need to be explained and carried out through the entire organisation (all operational levels)

Measure and take action Orgnisational culture Balanced power and control IT Facilities

Portfolio Management Service Delivery Architecture Global Web Support Trends

Following the market Black box Centralized/decentralized Architecture Alignment Areas Communication Competence Governance Partnership Scope Skills Criteria Benchmarking Internal SLA's Assessing IT investments Estimated budget

Shared risks, responsibilities and accountabilities HR decisions

Clear business case Prioritizing projects Meetings Metrics Descriptions Enables Drives Performance Quality Transparency Involvement Knowledge sharing Relationship Trust Feedback Addes value Reliable Order taking

Frequency (only important if there ar no meetings at all) Siloed

Complementary Partnership

(Alignment maturity) levels

Low

Basic, with items that make a lot of difference but are easy and cheap to implement Communication

Setting a strong base is important

High Feasiblity Investments Necessity Cost-benefit analysis Governance Defining processes Beginning Established Improved Optimized Ad hoc Framework Content Best suitable

Simplified view of the real world Long term plans

Short term plans Focus on joint effort Seperate the areas Food for thought Eye opener Critical or not? Measure and take action

It is not always IT that had to change Feasiblity

Guideline

Manual with explanations and examples

Appearance

Not include numbers Positively growing line Not a linear line Seperate the areas Easy to start with No abbreviations

Conclusion

To recap, the main research question is about how an organisation could improve their level of strategic business-IT alignment. The two literature review questions focussed on what models or frameworks already exist regarding this topic and if these existing models or frameworks could be used in practice. The conclusion of the literature review showed that this was not the case, since a practical approach on how to improve strategic business-IT alignment maturity was not found. The BITAMI framework for this is proposed, based on literature only. The empirical review focussed on the practical usability of the proposed framework, as the two empirical review questions were:

- Is the proposed framework usable in different organisations?

- Does the framework encourage organisations to strive for the highest level of business-IT alignment (maturity)?

The first question can be answered with yes, the proposed framework is usable in different organisations, but it needs improvements. All interviewees explained that this framework is an eye opener or starting point when an organisation decides to work on their level of business-IT alignment. The most important things which needs to be encountered, before the framework can actually be used to improve the level of alignment, is that different sorts of organisations (size, industry, it depended or not) will use or look at the framework differently. The levels will also be applicable in different ways for different organisations. Even sub-organisations or different operational levels can have their own alignment level, so can use the framework in their own way.

The second question needs to be answered with no, the framework, as it is, does not encourage organisations to strive for the highest level of alignment. As the interviewees explained, there is a cost for doing things on the highest level. Investments need to be made by an organisation to accomplish a higher or highest level. The guidelines, as presented on the highest level in the proposed framework, need work, a lot of work. If an organisation is currently at the lowest level, the work demanding criteria on the highest level could be seen as too difficult to strive for.

The conclusion of the empirical review of the proposed framework is as follows, the proposed framework needs revision before it can be used in practice and encourages organisations to strive for the highest level of alignment. The next chapter will present this revision of the proposed framework. It will first present the weaknesses of the originally proposed BITAMI framework, as mentioned by the interviewees. The second section of that chapter will rationalize the results of the empirical review which will be included in a revised, or new proposed, framework. The chapter is concluded with this revised framework.

V. R

As mentioned in the previous chapter, this chapter will present the revised version of the framework. The weaknesses of the originally proposed framework is presented first. These are derived from the interview results. Furthermore a rationalization is given on which results from the interviews are used in the new framework. The final section presents the new BITAMI framework.

Weaknesses of the proposed framework

The weaknesses of the proposed framework are summarized and presented per core category. These weaknesses are derived from the interview results, as presented in the coding results, table 5, in the previous chapter.

Important to note is that the results in table 5 are not all weaknesses of the framework. Some are items which were mentioned by the interviewees and can be seen as important to consider for the revised framework.

The core category, framework, is discussed first in table 6, as this contains general remarks on the content and appearance of the proposed framework. The other three core categories, organisations, alignment and (alignment maturity) levels are also discussed in table 6, as these provide weaknesses on a more detailed level of the framework.

Table 6: Weaknesses of proposed framework per core category Core category Category Weakness

Framework

Appearance

Numbers Linear line

Areas are not separated Abbreviations

Content

No distinction between long term goals and short term goals. No focus on joint effort (focus is on IT that should change). Areas are not separated.

No distinction between critical and none critical guidelines. No manual with explanations and examples.

Organisation(s)

Sort Industry (core business type) is not taken into account. IT dependency is not taken into account.

Processes Sort of process is not taken into account. Size Size of organisation is not taken into account. Operational

levels

Operational levels are not taken into account.

Business Formal or informal business difference is not taken into account. Organisational culture is not taken into account.

IT Different sorts of IT is not taken into account. Positioning of IT is not taken into account.

Alignment

Areas Areas are not separated.

Criteria Are not always clear, need more explanation or examples. Descriptions Need to be consistent per level.

Need to be clear. (Alignment

Maturity) Level(s)

Low Should focus more on communication. High Should focus more on governance. Defining

Processes

Included results of empirical review

This section will present the characteristics which will be included in the new proposed BITAMI framework and an explanation is given on why. These are based on the results of the interviews and are derived from the coding results. The weaknesses, as presented in the previous section, will be taken in to account as well.

The new characteristics, presented per core category: - Framework

o Appearance

 The numbers per level will be left out.

 The line will not be linear as the gap between levels is not even. For example; going from nothing to something, setting the base for business-IT alignment, is probably overcoming a bigger gap than going from level 3-4. So, a positively and not linear growing line will be included in the framework.

 The areas will be separated and the abbreviations of the areas will be left out.

o Content

 Its needs to be a framework which is best suitable for all kinds of organisations. All organisations need to be able to benefit from this framework. This also means it should be understandable for all. It should be a simplified view of the real world. A manual with explanations and examples will be created to provide more detailed information on the content of the framework, but overall the framework should be easy to understand. It needs to be an eye opener and at the same time it should create food for thought.

 The framework or the manual will take into account that organisations have short and long term goals. Choices, on what to strive for first (which area of alignment will an organisation improve first), should be possible. Organisations should not be forced into any path or direction. This will be translated in to a separation of the areas. There will be criteria including descriptions for every area, for every alignment level.

 The framework will focus more on creating a joint effort between the business and IT. The focus should not only be on IT, as it is not always IT that needs to change in order to improve the alignment level.

 The manual will explain that organisations can choose for themselves which guidelines are critical for them to tackle and which will not be critical. The manual will explain that an organisation should start with a self-assessment, measuring the current level of alignment. Furthermore the organisation should elaborate on where they would want to go and which area needs improvement. Which level is the organisation striving for on each level? Is the highest level feasible? This, off course, needs to be decided by the business and IT together.

- Organisation(s)

o Sort, processes, size

 In the manual the industry, IT dependency, processes and size of an organisation will be taken into account. As it has been mentioned by several interviewees, this is important but is maybe hard to implement in to a framework. A framework which is perfectly suitable for every sort of organisation is impossible to create.

o Operational levels

 In the manual it will be pointed out that alignment can be accomplished on different operational levels. The framework needs to be usable for an organisation as a whole, a sub-organisation or just an operating level.

o Business

 Organisational culture, formality and/or informality will be mentioned in the manual. The framework represents a more formal organisation as more things need to be documented or will be done via a specific procedure. Reporting, communication, budget flows will all be important. The framework will encourage the business to measure things and take action, but it will also be about creating the right balance in power between business and IT. o IT

 The manual will mention that organisations which will be using the framework need to be aware of the different sorts of IT and the positioning of IT in their organisation.

- Alignment o Areas

 The six areas will be separated in the framework. o Criteria

 The manual will give more explanation and examples on the following criteria, so they become clearer; assessing IT investments, shared risks, responsibilities and accountabilities, HR decisions and metrics. The interviewees asked the most questions about these criteria. The internal SLA’s, budget, business case, prioritizing projects and meetings were the items which were most discussed since most of the interviewees recognized problems in their organisation regarding these criteria. These criteria will therefore get extra attention in the framework and/or manual.

o Descriptions

 The descriptions will be consistent per level. Enables, drives, added value will be used to define the level setting descriptors. Furthermore, the guideline referring to the meetings, will be more about quality and not frequency. Order taking and partnership will be used to define the alignment processes. Performance, siloed and complementary are terms that will be used to define the metrics guideline. The framework will be about the relationship between the business and IT. Key words here are; transparency, involvement, knowledge

sharing, trust, feedback, reliability.

- (Alignment Maturity) levels o Low

 The guidelines on lower level(s) will be easy to implement, as accomplishing a low level of alignment should not be difficult. The focus on a particular area in a particular level will be left out of the framework, as in the manual the organisations will be addressed to elaborate for themselves on which area they want to focus.

o High

 In the manuals it will be pointed out that organisations striving for these level need to be aware of the investments it will cost them to accomplish this level and the necessity. Is it necessary to strive for this level? A cost-benefit analysis needs to be done to make sure the level including guidelines are feasible.

o Defining processes

 The terms beginning, established, improved and optimized were not clear to the interviewees. The definitions of the different alignment processes will therefore be based on terms as provider and partnership. This one term should describe the relationship between the business and IT.

New proposed framework

The new proposed BITAMI Framework is presented in picture 3.

As it became clear from the interviews, a framework needs explanation and sometimes even examples to become clearer. To provide organisations with more insight in how to accomplish a higher level of business-IT alignment maturity, a manual is created. This manual presents guidelines and descriptions per area and per level on how to accomplish that specific level. With this manual it leaves organisations free to decide on which area they would like to focus and which level per area they would like to accomplish.

The manual for the new proposed framework is presented next.

Business-ITAlignment Maturity ImprovementFramework Manual

Every business has IT and in every business, the business and IT have some form of alignment. But the question is, how to improve this alignment in such a way that a partnership is created and both parties can benefit from each other? The BITAMI framework, in combination with this manual, can provide guidance is this journey to mature alignment.

First things first. Improving means growing and going forward, but before this can be done an organisation needs to know where it currently stands. Current situation versus wanted situation.

An organisation needs to measure and elaborate on their

current level of alignment; where are we now? After this is known, the organisation (business and IT together) needs to elaborate on the goal; where do we want to go?

Important things which need to be taken into account when an organisation is determining this goal, is the feasibility of the maturity level and if this level fits the organisation. Questions an organisation needs to answer are; - Is it necessary for us to strive for the highest level?

- Is the level we strive for feasible for our organisation? Are there more benefits than costs if we strive for this level? - Does the maturity level we strive for fits our organisational culture?

Other important characteristics organisations need to be aware of, before they can start working on improving their level of business-IT alignment maturity are;

- What type of organisation are we? IT immature, IT depended or IT not dependent. For example: A hospital is highly IT depended. If the heartrate monitoring system fails, the consequences can be fatal. Mature alignment is ethically obliged.

- What types of IT do we have and where is it positioned? IT facilities, architecture, applications, etc. Are these centralized or decentralized? Does every type of IT need to have the same level of alignment?

- Where in our organisation do we strive for mature alignment? In every sub organisation? On every operational level?

After all these questions are answered and the overall goal is set, the organisation needs to decide what is the next step? Included in the BITAMI framework are 6 possible focus areas; communication, competence, governance, partnership, scope and skills. For every focus area an organisation needs to decide which level of alignment they are striving for and which area will be handled first and the roadmap needs to be created. Questions which need to be answered are;

- Which area is critical for the organisation to improve? - What are our short term goals?

- What are our long term goals?

- Will we focus on quick-wins or long term investments?

* These metrics are all about performance. KPI’s: key performance indicators can be used here. If an organisation has siloed metrics, this means that for every sub-organisation, department or team other metrics are defined. Complementary metrics are metrics defined to complement each other’s outcome.

** This IT request form should entails questions for the business such as: What IT is needed? Why is this needed? What are the expected costs? A simple example: A business employee want a laptop. Currently he only owns a laptop, but for his new internal job, he also needs to able to work from home. Expected costs: € 1000,-.

*** SLA: Service Level Agreement. The service is formally defined in this agreement document. This should entail aspects such as scope, availability and response/resolve time.

**** IT HR decisions can be multiple things. For example a basic hire decisions, as who will be the next IT intern, is part of this criteria. These IT HR decisions can also be about deciding if the entire service desk needs to be outsourced or not.

Systems Provider (Enables) Solutions Provider (Supports) Collaboration (Adds value) Partnership (Drives) Communication

- Define IT strategy (enable business)

- Create overview of communication flows, reporting flows, budget flow. - Create overview of services, applications and assets including key owners and users.

- IT strategy should support business - Setup reoccurring meeting to evaluate all overviews (maintain

transparency) - Setup support plan to maintain overviews and solutions

- IT strategy should add value to business - Collaborate in meetings to make sure IT adds value to business (maintain quality) - Make sure the support plan is act upon by management

- IT strategy should drive business

- Collaborate in meetings to make sure IT drives business

- Understanding of support plan by all staff is necessary

Competence

- Define business and IT metrics* (siloed) to monitor performance

- IT assesses own investments (afterwards)

- Monitor, assess and communicate (siloed) metrics

- IT formally assesses investments and reports to business

- Define complementary metrics

- Business and IT assess IT investments together, they share their knowledge

- Monitor, assess and communicate complementary metrics - Business and IT are partners in evaluating and assessing investments

Governance

- Provide insight in budget (investments) on management level

- Create IT request form for business**

- Setup IT project prioritizing process. (IT decides priority.)

- Make sure budget (investments) is supporting the business budget.

- Demand clear business cases from business. Business cases are assessed by IT. - Make sure the set priority supports the business strategy.

- Collaborate on setting the budget. Make sure IT adds value and is not just an expense.

- Assess business cases together.

- Collaborate on setting IT project priorities.

- Be partners in making budget plans. The budget plans need to be communication across the organisation. - Be partners is requesting and setting up new IT.

- IT project can be initiated by business and IT.

Partnership

- Create service catalogue

- IT needs to be a reliable

system and services provider

- Business needs to change perception of IT, they are no longer a black box.

- Setup SLA management***

- Strong foundation for partnership needs to be established. IT and business need to collaborate on creating added value via IT. IT is

involved.

- Business and IT need to be partners. IT needs to drive business. Go to the next “level” together. They need to trust each other.

Scope

- Create technical standards and IT portfolio management

- Create overview on responsibilities

- Standards need to support the solutions and therefore the business - Create different portfolios on solutions and make sure they are managed

- Make sure the responsibilities are maintained (providing

feedback is key)

- Collaborate on improving standards so they add value - IT portfolio

management should be a collaboration between business and IT - Responsibilities and risks should be shared

- Become partners in creating new standards, maintaining and managing them. Business and IT need to become quickly adaptable for change.

- Managers (business and IT) are incented to take risks together

Skills

- IT HR decisions are made by top business and top IT management**** - IT HR decisions are elaborated throughout IT and business management evaluates - IT HR decisions are made in collaboration between IT and business management

- IT HR decisions are still made by top management but is supported across firm and partners