Important content

1. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227444756
Strategic Planning for Management Information Systems
Article in Management Science · November 1978
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.24.15.1631 · Source: RePEc
CITATIONS
106
READS
16,152
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Commonsense Knowledge Representation View project
D.B.A. Dissertation View project
Phillip Ein-Dor
Tel Aviv University
108 PUBLICATIONS 2,389 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Eli Segev
Tel Aviv University
58 PUBLICATIONS 2,614 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Phillip Ein-Dor on 27 June 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2. MIS Strategic Planning
Strategic Planning
for Management
Information Systems
By: William R. King
Abstract
Planning for the information systems in an
organizationgenerallyhasnot beenclosely related
to the overall strategic planningprocesses
through
whichthe organizationpreparesfor its future. An
M/Sstrategic planningprocessis conceptualized
andillustrated as onewhich/inks the. organiza-
tion’s "strategyset" tb anMIS"strategyset. "
The literature of managementinformation
systems (MIS) concentrates largely on the
nature andstructure of MIS’s and on processes
for designing anddeveloping such systems. The
idea of "planningfor the MIS"is usually treated
as either one of developing the needand the
general design conceptfor sucha system,or in
the context of project planning for the MIS
development
effort.
However,strategic planning for the informa-
tional needsof the organizationis both feasible
andnecessary
if the MISis to support the basic
purposesandgoals of the organization. Indeed,
one of the possible explanations [6] for the
failure of manyMIS’s i~-that they have been
designed from the same"bottom up" point of
view that characterized the development
of the
data processingsystemsof an earlier era. Such
design approaches
primarily reflect the pursuit
of efficiency, such as through cost savings,
rather than the pursuit of greater organizational
effectiveness.1
The modern
view of an MISas an organizational
decision supportsystemis inconsistent with the
design/development approaches which are
appropriate for data processing. The organi-
zation’s operatingefficiency is but oneaspectfor
consideration in management
decision making.
The achievement of greater organizational
effectiveness is the paramount
consideration in
most of the management
decisions which the
MISis to support; it also mustbe of paramount
importancein the design of the MIS.
Thereis an intrinsic linkage of the decision-
supporting MISto the organization’s purpose,
objectives, andstrategy. While.this conclusion
may
appearto be straightforward, it hasnot been
operationalized as a part of MIS design
methodology. There are those who argue that
the MISdesigner cannothopeto get involved in
suchthings as organizational missions, objec-
tives, and strategies, since they are clearly
beyondhis domainof authority.
This article describesan operationally feasible
approach for identifying and utilizing the
elementsof the organization’s "strategy set" to
plan for the MIS. Whether
or not written state-
Keywords: MIS planning. MtS design and implementation
Categories: 2.4. 2.41
1,,Efficiency,, maybe thoughtof in termsof a ratio of output
to input. "Effectiveness" relates output to the goals which
are being sought.
MIS Quarterly / March 1978 27

3. MIS Strategic Planning
ments of these strategic elements -- e.g.,
missions,
objectives,
etc. -- exist, it still oftenwill
be necessary
to performthe identification phase
of the analysis, since suchwritten statements
are
frequently outdated,or may
be of the variety that
are commonlyproduced for public relations
purposesrather than for strategic management
purposes. If credible statements of organiza-
tional purposeandstrategy do exist, only that
portion of the processwhich deals with trans-
forming organizational strategy into MIS
strategic parametersneedbe implemented.
MIS Strategic Planning--
An Overview
Figure t abstractly showsthe overall processfor
performing MISstrategic planning. This figure
shows an "MIS Strategic Planning" process
which transforms an "Organizational Strategy
Set," made
up of organizational mission, objec-
tives, strategy, andother strategic organizational
attributes, into an"MISStrategySet," made
upof
system objectives, constraints, and design
principles.
Figure . 1 describes an information-based
approach
to strategic planningfor the MISin that
it identifies an information set -- the "MIS
Strategy Set" -- whichwill guide the designand
developmentof the MIS. While the elements of
this MiS Strategy Set -- system objectives,
constraints, anddesign principles -- are not
usually thought of in this context, they are
generally recognized to be the guiding
considerations in developing the MIS design
(e.g., [10]).
However
well recognizedthe elementsof the MIS
Strategy Set are, Figure 1 shows the MrS
Strategy Set as emanating
directly from another
information set, the "Organizational Strategy
Set." This direct relationship betweenthe two
information sets is neither well recognizednor
operationalized. It is this linkage whichis the
province of MISStrategic Planningandit is on
the operationalizing of the transformation
processbetween
these two information sets that
this article focuses.
It will proveuseful to describeboth the "Organi-
zational Strategy Set" andthe "’MIS Strategy
Set" in some
detail, before describing anopera-
tional process for accomplishing the MIS
Strategic Planning function which is described
conceptuallyin Figure 1.
The Organizational
Strategy Set
The "Organizational Strategy Set" is composed
of those elementsof organizational purposeand
direction whichare developedas a result of the
organization’s strategic planningprocess-- the
organization’s mission, objectives and
strategy -- as well as certain other strategic
organizational attributes whichare of particular
relevanceto the MIS.
Since the terminology whichis applied to these
strategic planningoutputs generally varies from
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRATEGY
SET
MIS
STRATEGY
SET
Mission
Objectives
Strategy
Other Strategic Organizational
Attributes
MIS
Strategic
Planning
Process
SystemObjectives
SystemConstraints
SystemDesignStrategies
FIGURE1. Overall MIS Strategic Planning Process
28 MIS Quarterly / March1978

4. MIS Strategic Planning
company to company and between business
firms andpublic agencies,it is useful to define
andillustrate the elementsof the organizational
strategy set usedin this article. Noinference
should be drawnthat these are proposedas the
"correct" descriptions, or that the definitions
usedhere are universally appropriate; rather,
the delineations are useful for fully developing
the MISStrategic Planning process.
The organization’s mission
The broadest strategic planning which must be
doneby anorganizationis that of its mission.An
organization’smissionstatementtells whatit is,
whyit exists, andthe uniquecontribution it can
make. The mission answersthe organization’s
basic question, "What business are we in?"
Somepeople consider such questions idle
academic
nonsense;to them, their mission --the
businessthat they are in mis clear: "Wemake
widgets," or "Werun railroads."
It becameincreasingly apparent during the
1960’s that such thinking was too limited.
Organizations which felt that they knewtheir
business disappearedin vast numbers
from the
scene. Today’s business, howeverbright its
growth prospects mayappear, maynot exist in
its current formin only a fewyears.
Conversely, during the 1970’s, it also became
apparent that firms which slavishly followed
expansiveviews of their mission could encounter
serious problems. Broad mission statements
wereopeninvitations to get into newbusinesses
solely onthe criterion of "potentialprofitability. ’"
Sucha criterion doesnot take into accountvital
factors such as expertise -- technological,
market,andotherwise; neither doesit take into
account the uncertainty which is inherent in
potential profit. Manyof the companieswhich
got into new"growth" businesseson this basis
in the 1960’sfoundthemselves
in the position of
selling off unprofitable ventures in the 1970’s
[12]. Theseproblemshaveled to the conclusion
that the mission statement for an organization
mustcarefully define whatit doesnot do, as well
as whatit does.
The values of such a clearly defined mission
statementcan be illustrated with the "business
statement" of onemedium-sizedfirm:
weare in the business
of supplying
system
components
andservices
to a worldwide, non-
residential
air conditioning
market.
Air condi-
tioningis defined
asheating,
cooling,
cleaning,
humidity
control, and
air movement.
While sucha statement mayat first seemto be
the sameas "Wemakewidgets," it clearly
specifies by exclusion many
things that the firm
doesnot do: it doesnot supply air conditioning
systems ~ rather it focuses on system
components;it does not addressitself to the
residential marketfor air conditioners;etc.
The organization’s objectives
Once the organization’s mission has been
determined, its objectives -- desired future
positions or "destinations" that it wishes to
reach mshould be selected. Thesedestinations
may
bestated in either quantitative or qualitative
terms, but they should be broad and timeless
statements,as opposed
to specific, quantitative
goals, or targets.
For instance, amongthe stated objectives of
PPG
Industries are:
"1) . . . to increaseearningsper shareto
attain a continuing return of 14.5%or
more
on stockholder’s equity and to provide
consistently increasing dividends [the
primeobjective].
"2) . . . to employthe least numberand
highest quality of people necessary to
accomplish the prime objective and to
provide them with the opportunities to
developandapplytheir fullest abilities.
"3)... to have the company
acceptedas
dynamic, responsible, professionally
managed,profit oriented corporation
engaged
in exciting andimportantfields of
business, with the ability to meet
successfully the economic and social
challengesof the future." [5]
While suchstatementsmayat first appearto be
"motherhoodand sin," they say very important
things about the company.For instance, the
"image" objective, #3° says that PPGcares
greatly howit is thought
of in society. Thisserves
to clearly constrain other choiceswhichmustbe
made
in the planning process, e.g., strategies
which may be followed to attain the prime
objective.
MIS Quarterly / March 1978 29

5. MIS Strategic Planning
The organization’s strategy
The organization’s strategy is the general
direction in whichit chooses
to move
in order to
achieveits goals and objectives. For instance,
onecompany
has stated that it:
"... has heavyinvestment, a goodreputa-
tion, great skills andexperience,a viable
organization, and, in someinstances, a
.special situation in the.., industries."
andthat it will:
"... exploit these strengths and.... not
diversify at the presenttime, into unrelated
industries."
A more detailed strategy for another firm
includes the following:
"... increase U.S. market penetration
through the development of a regional
manufacturingcapability andthe develop-
mentof secondarydistribution channels."
Anothercompany’s
strategy calls for a:
"... low-price, low-cost product achieved
through product standardization..."
together with:
"... the development
of newproducts on a
similar basis in a posture of defensive
innovation against the technological
progress of competitors."
Again, as with a missionstatement, the strategy
is as important for whatit doesnot say, as what
it does say. By excluding numerous,possibly
valid waysof achieving a stated objective, it
ensuresa focusing of organizational resources
and precludes a "scatter-gun" approach which
is likely to beineffective andwhichis likely to
result if numerousmanagersare permitted to
makedecisions without strategy guidance.
Other strategic
organizational attributes
Other strategic attributes of the organization
should also influence the strategic planningfor
the MIS. These"miscellaneous" attributes are
difficult to categorize, but they may be
extremely important. For instance, if the
sophistication of management
is low andtheir
familiarity with computers, models,and inter-
active systems is limited, such factors must
obviously be explicitly taken into account in
planning for the MIS. If they are not accounted
for, an MISbetter suited for sophisticated
computer-skilled managersmight be developed
by technicians whonaturally desire the systems
that they develop to be as "modern" and
sophisticatedas is possible.
Admittedly, such organizational attributes as
the sophistication of management,
the readiness
of the organization to accept change, andthe
familiarity of management
with the values and
limitations of computersystems
are difficult to
measure.
Howeve[,
if strategic MISplanningis to
be performed, such strategic organizational
attributes mustbeincorporated into the organi-
zational strategy set and used as a basis for
developingthe MISstrategy set.
The MIS Strategy Set
The MIS strategy elements, which are the
substance
of strategic planning for the MIS, are
system objectives, system constraints, and
systemdesign strategies.
Systemobjectives
System
objectives define the purposewhich the
MISis to serve. For instance, systemobjectives
maybe stated in terms that are similar to, but
much more specific than, organizational
objectives -- e.g., "to permit the payment
of 98%
of invoices by the duedate" is a systemobjective
stated in activity terms. Also, systemobjectives
maybe stated in direct information andcommu-
nication terms-- e.g., "to collect, andprocess
all
routing andcost information andprovide it in a
timely fashion to the dispatcher." The most
sophisticated variety of systemobjectives are
stated in decision-oriented terms -- e.g., "to
permit the determination of the best routing no
morethan one hour after the tentative routing
choice has beenimplemented."
System constraints
Both internal andexternal constraints must be
identified if MISplanning
is to beeffective. These
constraints will emanate
both from outside and
within the organization.
30 MIS Quarterly / March 1978

6. MIS Strategic Planning
The most obvious forms of external MIS
constraints are government and industry
reporting requirementsandthe needfor the MIS
to interface with other systems, such as the
ordering and billing systemsof suppliers and
customers.
Internal constraints emanate
from the nature of
the organization, its personnel, practices, and
resources. Themostobviousinternal constraint
is the MIS budget; however, many other
organizational characteristics serveto limit the
MIS’sscopeandnature. For instance, the degree
of complexity with which the systemis incor-
porated maybe constrained because of the
limited sophistication of management,
the lack
of experiencewithin the management
group with
computers,or demonstrated
distrust of sophisti-
cated information systems.
Systemdesign strategies
The strategies which guide the MIS design
effort are important MISstrategy elements, as
are the organizationalstrategies whichguideits
progress. While m,anydesign strategies appear
to be of the "motherhood
andsin" variety, their
value maybe demonstrated by virtue of the
number of unsuccessful systems which have
beendevelopedin the abscenceof such under-
lying strategic principles.
Among
the strategies which might guide an MIS
design effort is onedealing with parsimony--
e.g., "the systemshould be designedso that the
user is provided with the minimumamountof
relevant information which is necessary to
achieve his managerial objective." Another
often useful designstrategy dealswith the nature
of the system -- e.g., "the system should
operate primarily in an exception-reporting
modein accomplishing its credit monitoring
objective." Other possibledesignstrategies have
to do with the criteria which will be used to
evaluatethe system-- e.g., "the systemwill be
evaluated
bothin termsof its pe~’ceived
utility to
usersas well as its technicalcapability.’" [9]
The MIS Strategic
Planning Process
Theprocessfor MISstrategic planning is oneof
¯ transforming the Organizational Strategy Set
into an appropriate,relevant, andconsistent MIS
StrategySet.
Explicating the organization’s
strategy set
Thefirst step in MISstrategic planning is the
identification andexplication of the organiza-
tional strategy set. Some
elements
of the organi-
zational strategy set mayexist in written form.
Theorganization’s strategic, or long-range,plan
is the mostobvioussourceof suchmaterial. So
too are various pronouncements
madeby chief
executiveofficers in reporting to their various
constituencies: stockholders, unions, govern-
ment,etc.
However,
existing plans maybe deficient if the
planning process is not a sophisticated one
which explicitly gives consideration to such
broad choices as that of the organization’s
objectives. Other documentary
evidencemaybe
deficient in that it is preparedfor a "public
relations" purposerather than for the purposeof
guiding managerial choice. If so, an explicit
processof identifying strategy set elements
will
be required of the MISdesigner.
Sucha processmaybe thought of in terms of a
numberof steps:
1. delineating the claimant structure of the
organization,
2. identifying goals for each claimant group,
and
3. identifying the organization’s purposes
and
strategy relative to eachclaimant group.
Delineatingtheeorganization’s
claimant
structure
The organization’s purpose, objectives, and
strategy mustnecessarily relate to its various
clientel, or claimants ~ those whohavea claim
on it. Theseclaimants, sometimes
referred to as
"stakeholders"to distinguish themfromthe legal
ownersof corporations, have a stake in the
activites andfuture of the organization. Thus,
mostbusiness firms will delineate its owners,
MIS Quarterly / March 1978 31

7. MIS Strategic Planning
managers,employees,suppliers, customers,and
creditors as claimant groups~Other claimants
whose
viewsanddesires will form a basis for the
organization’s purpose and strategy maybe
local governments, local communities, com-
petitors, other firms in the same
industry, andthe
general public.
Identifying the goalsIor clalmant~
The goals of each claimant group must be
accounted for in the organization’s mission,
objectives, and strategy. King and Cleland [8]
have shownan approach for doing this which
involves the qualitative description of the nature
of eachclaimant’s claim andthe specification of
measures,
direct or proxy, of the degreeto which
the claim is beingsatisfied.
Identifying the organization’sgoalsand
strateg.les for eachclaimantgroup
Oncethe nature of eachclaimant group’s claim
has beenidentified, the organization’s goals
and strategies relative to each group must be
identified. Sometimes
these linkages will be
quite simple, as in linking a desire for a 15%
ROI
to the stockholders’ desire for investment
return. "Per shareearnings"objectives relate to
the goals of stockholders as well as to those of
creditors, whowishthe firm to remainfinancially
stable. "Social responsibility" objectives can be
traced directly to the goals of the generalpublic
and local communities, as can strategies
involving the construction of pollution-free
production facilities and the employmentof
minority group members."Product quality"
objectives and strategies are traceable
directly to the interests of customers,govern-
mentregulatory agencies, andthe industry.
Methodologies for further,
explication and validation of
the organization’s strategy set
Oncetentative statements of organizational
mission, objectives, and strategy have been
developed either from written documents, an
analytic processsuchas that just described, or
more commonlysomecombination of the two,
the organization’s top managersmaybe asked
to critique the statement. This feedback step
essentially says, "Hereis whatMISanalysts can
infer about the organization’s MIS-relevant
missions,objectives, andstrategies. Pleasegive
us your opinion as to the validity of these
inferences."
Thesequeries maybe presented to top manage-
menteither as overall statements on which to
comment or in the form of Likert scale
statements [11] with which top managersmay
agreeor disagreeto various degrees.Theoverall
statement format allows for more substantive
feedback, but the use of the Likert scale
permits ’easier aggregationof judgments
into an
overall priority evaluation of the strategy
elements.This latter approachalso is conducive
to assessingthe "other" organizational strategy
attributes. For instance, Likert scale items
related to the "willingness of top management
to
accept change,"andthe "familiarity of manage-
mentwith the use of decision models"permit the
assessment of these factors as they are
perceived to be important by the managers
who
will ultimately bethe usersof the MIS[11].
Transforming the organizational
strategy set into the MIS
strategy set
The heart of MIS strategic planning is the
process through which the organizational
strategy set is transformedinto a set of system
objectives, system constraints, and system
design principles which comprise the MIS
strategyset.
Figure2 shows
the overall process.Thetop of the
figure showsvarious claimant groupswhich may
havebeenidentified. Theupperwiderectangle is
the "Organizational S~rategy Set" which
delineateso, rganizationalobjectives, strategies,
and other strategic attributes. The lower wide
rectangle is the "MIS Strategy Set" entailing
system objectives, constraints, and design
strategies.
AnIllustration of the process
Figures3 and4 illustrate in specific termshow
the overall processof Figure 2 operates. Figure
3 is anillustrative explosion
of the Organizational
Strategy Set. The organizational objectives,
strategies, andother attributes whichare shown
there are eachrelated to those elementsof the
claimant structure from which it is primarily
32 MIS Quarterly / March1978

8. THE
PUBLIC(P)
CUSTOMER~
(Cu)
STOCK-
HOLDERS
(s)
GOVERN-
MENT
(G)
EMPLOYEES
(E)
/ / ~/ / ~L/ /
MANAGE-
MENT
(M)
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRATEGY
SET
ORGANIZATIONAL OBJECTIVES ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES
STRATEGIC
ORGANIZATIONAL ATTRIBUTES
MIS
STRATEGY
SET
MIS OBJECTIVES MIS CONSTRAINTS MIS DESIGN STRATEGIES
FIGURE1.
Overall MISStrategic PlanningProcess

9. MIS Strategic Planning
ORGANIZATIONAL
OBJECTIVES
O1: to increase earnings by
10%
per year (S, Cr, M)
02: to improve cash flow
(G, S, Cr)
03: to maintain a high level
of customer good will
(Cu)
04: to be perceived as
socially responsible
(G, P)
05: to producehigh quality,
safe products (Cu, G)
06: to eliminate vulnerability
to the business cycle
(S, Cr)
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRATEGIES
Sl: Diversification into new
businesses(O1, 06)
$2: Improvementsin credit
practices (P1, 02, 03)
$3: Product redesign
(03, 04, 05)
STRATEGIC
ORGANIZATIONAL
ATTRIBUTES
AI: highly sophisticated
management(M)
A2: poor recent performance,
has fostered a recogni-
tion of the need for
change (S, M)
A3: most managers are ex-
perienced users of com-
puter services (M)
A4: high degreeof decentral-
ization of management
authority
A5: organization must be
responsive to regulatory
agencies
FIGURE 3. Organizational Strategy Set
derived. For instance, the earningsobjective (01)
derives from the goals of stockholders (S),
creditors (Cr), and management (M).
"recognition of the needfor change"attribute
(A2) reflects both stockholder (S)
managerial(M) goals.
Theorganization’s strategies are related to its
objectives. This is also shown
in Figure 3. For
instance, the diversificatior; strategy ($1)
derived from two objectives (01 and 06) --
desire for earnings and a need to eliminate
vulnerability to the businesscycle.
Figure 4 showsthe MISStrategy Set andhowit is
derived fromthe Organizational Strategy Set. It
showshowsystem objectives, constraints, and
design strategies are delineated and related to
various elementsof the Organizational Strategy
Set as well as to other elements of the MIS
Strategy Set. For instance, the MISobjective of
improvingthe speedof billing (MO1)
is directly
related to the organization’scredit strategy ($2).
Theconstraints and environmental information
(C2 andC3) are related respectively to various
organizational attributes (A1 and A3) and
specific MIS objectives (MO2, MO3, MO4).
The design strategy involving the systems
inquiry capability (D5) is derived from the MIS
objective of providing quick response to
customerinquii’ies (MO7)which is, in turn,
derived from the organizational objective of
maintaining a high level of customergoodwill
(o3).
Figures2, 3 and4 also showhowthe "poor recent
performance"strategic organizational attribute
(A2) leads to a systemconstraint that recognizes
the possible future unavailability of necessary
development
funds (C1), which in turn dictates
both a modulardesignstrategy (D1) anda design
strategy which recognizes that the system may
never be finished andmaytherefore be required
to operate effectively at eachstage of partial
completion (D2).
It is impractical to demonstrate
all of the rela-
tionships whichexist among
the elementsof the
34 MIS Quarterly / March 1978

10. MIS Strategic Planning
MOI:
MO2:
MO3:
MO4:
MO5:
MO6:
MO7:
MIS OBJECTIVES
to improve speed of
billing ($2)
to provide information
onproduct failures ($3)
to provide information
on new business oppor-
tunities ($1)
to provide information
which will permit the
assessment
of the level
of organizational objec-
tives (O)
to provide timely and
accurate information on
recent performance
(A2)
to produce reports
desired by regulatory
agencies(A5)
to produce information
which will permit quick
response to customer
inquiries (03)
MIS CONSTRAINTS
C1: Availability of funds for
MIS development may be
reduced (A2)
C2: Systemmust incorporate
best available decision
models and management
techniques (AI, A3)
C3: Systemmust incorporate
environmental informa-
tion as well as internal
information (MO
2, MO
3.
MO
4)
C4: Systemmust provide for
different reports involving
various levels of aggrega-
tion (A4)
C5: System must be capable
of producing information
other than management
information (MO6)
MIS DESIGN STRATEGIES
DI: Design on modular basis
(cl)
D2: Modular design must
produce viable system at
each stage of completion
(Cl)
D3: Systemmust be oriented
to differential usage by
various classes of
managers(A4, C4)
D4: System should be
responsive to the per-
ceivedneedsof it’s user-
managers
(A1, A
3, A4)
D5: Systemshould have real
time inquiry capability
(MO
7, 03) -- use COBQL
(A1, A
3)
FIGURE
4. MISStrategy Set
two strategy sets -- onefor the overall organi-
zation andonefor the MIS. However,
the figures
show
sufficient detail to illustrate the myriadof
relationships as well as howthey can be opera-
tionally developedfrom a claimant analysis.
Themethodology
of the process
The methodologywhich maybe used for devel-
oping the MISStrategy Set as shownin Figure 2
is onein whichanalysts make
inferences, based
on their experience and knowledgeof informa-
tion systems: the range of systemobjectives,
characteristics, anddesignprinciples are shown
to be consistent with the elementsof the Organi-
zational Strategy Set. For instance, a stated
objective of one bank was "... to provide
knowledgeable counseling on all of the
customers’ financial matters." This combined
with a precise statementof the "businesses"that
the bankis in allows the MISanalyst to define a
rangeby interpreting "all" the workliterally as
well as in a morelimited, but still reasonable,
fashion. A rangeof systemobjectives is created
in this wayextendingfrom:
"Provide basic data and reference infor-
mation on stocks, bonds, options, real
estate, etc. -- a predefinedrangeof finan-
cial alternatives that extendsbeyond
those
that formthe ’business’ of the bank."
to:
"Provide data on all of those financial
alternatives whichare the ’business’ of the
bank -- e.g., savings accounts, treasury
bills, trusts, certificates of deposit,etc."
MIS Quarterly / March 1978 35

11. MIS Strategic Planning
Rangessuch as this can be derived from many
different elements
of the Org.anizationalStrategy
Set andused to construct alternative general
designsfor the MIS.In principle, this is a com-
binatorial problem. For instance, one MIS
general design is represented by the combina-
tion of the mostambitious extremes
in the range
for eachobjective, constraint, anddesign prin-
ciple; another one is madeup of the least
ambitious extreme for each element, etc. The
analyst, in practice, will wishto constructonly a
reasonable numberof alternative reasonable
designs for presentation to management.
This process gives management
the opportunity
to select an MIS general design as well as
provides the basis for understandingthe alter-
native ~lesigns. This is because
the designshave
beengeneratedfrom "business raw materials" --
the elements of the Organizational Strategy
Set -- rather than on moretypical, but less
understandable, technical bases.
This processtherefore providesboth an intrinsic
link between the organization’s guiding
influences and those which will guide the
detailed designandimplementation
of the MIS. It
also provides a basis for effective manager/
analyst communicationabout the MIS-- one of
the mostimportant, but least developed,aspects
of MISdesign.
Conclusions
TheMISStrategic Planningprocessinvolves the
identification and assessment
of an "Organiza-
tional Strategy Set" -- an informational set
which delineates the organization’s mission,
objectives, strategies, and other strategic
attributes. This set can be transformed into
another information set, an "MIS Strategy Set,"
whichdelineates systemobjectives, constraints,
anddesign strategies.
The outputs of MISstrategic planning become
the inputs to the subsequentsystemsdevelop-
mentprocess. In many
organizations these plan-
ning outputs havebeenarbitrary starting points
for systemdevelopment.The process described
here derives these Inputs to system develop-
mentfrom the organization’s mostbasic tenets.
Sucha processis much
morelikely to producee
systemwhichis closely related to the organiza-
tion, its strategy, andits capabilities.
The MIS strategic planning process described
here cannot be delineated in algorithmic form
becausethe relevant aspects of the Organiza-
tional Strategy Set will be vastly different in
various organizations. However,the process of
identifying and assessing the Organizational
Strategy Set has beensystematically outlined
using the conceptsof claimants and measurable
claimant goals. Onceorganizational strategic
elements have been identified, they can be
validated through the structured queries of the
organization’s top management.
Oncethe Organizational Strategy Set has been
delineated, its various elementscan be trans-
formed into MIS Strategy Set elements by
analysts whoare familiar with the available
system alternatives, configurations, and
attributes. This is a process which analysts
performin any case, but it is usually donewith
only the mostvaguereference to the elementsof
organizational purpose and strategy. The
processdescribedhere necessitates an explicit
andrational considerationof theserelationships.
Animportant aspect of the MISstrategic plan-
ning processis that it ensuresthat the MISis
developedas an integral part of the organiza-
tion andnot merelyappended
to it. Theprocess
inherently requires manager/analyst interac-
tion of the variety as specified by King and
Cleland[7] andothers [2, 4]; it wouldbe fool-
hardyfor the MISanalyst to attemptthis process
in isolation from management.
This approach
also provides for specific feedback from
management,even in those cases where the
Organization’s Strategy Set is already well
explicated. Suchinteraction has beenidentified
as oneof the primary requirementsfor success-
ful MISimplementation.
This process further presents an operational
framework within which the "information
analyst" -- a job title whichresulted from an
ACM
educational study [3] -- can operate in a
systemplanningrole. Previously, the role of the
information analyst has beenprescribed, but
has been given no operational guidance that
relates directly to the MIS field. The MIS
strategic planning frameworkpresentedin this
article provides suchguidance.
36 MIS Quarterly / March1978

12. MIS Strategic Planning
The process does not explicitly deal with the
assessment
of priorities for a number
of systems
whichmight be a part of an overall MISmaster
plan. It does, however, provide a basis for
explicating individual systems
in a fashion which
facilitates choice and priority setting. For
instance, a systemwhichis not closely related to
manyelements of the Organizational Strategy
Set mayinevitably be assigneda low priority
since limited funds are best spent on those
systems which most directly address those
objectives that the organization as a whole is
trying to achieve.
Oneobjection to the described process can be
raised in termsof its superficial circularity. The
MISdesign is to be based on organizational
mission, objectives, and strategy which are
themselves the product of management
choice.
Thus, a system which is meant to support
managementdecision making is, in fact,
designed on the basis of choices which have
already beenmade.
This difficulty is inherent in
any systemsdesign effort. Unfortunately many
such systemsare designedwithout knowledge
of
previous strategic organizational choices and
are therefore obsolete before they are
developed.
The relatively great longevity and enduring
nature of organizational strategy, objective, and
mission choices suggest that this planning
approach is surely valid for the support of
middle-level organizationa! decisions, a
management
level which Anthonyhas classified
as the management
control level [1]. Moreover,
the approachis evenvalid for an MISwhich is
designed to support strategic choice, since
there must be somestarting point at which a
systemis developedto feed backinformation on
the validity and degree of attainment of
strategies already chosen. Such a system can
directly support the selection of newfuture
strategies, andit canbe adaptedto permit their
assessment
as well.
References
{1] Anthony, R. N. Planning and Control Systems: A
Frameworkfor Analysis, Harvard Business School,
Division of Research,1965.
[2] Argyris, C. "ManagementInformation Systems: The
Challenge to Rationality and Emotionality,"
Management
Science, Vol. 17, No, 6, February 1971,
pp. B275-B292.
[3] Ashenhurst, R. L. (ed.). "Curriculum Recommenda-
tions for Graduate Professional Programsin Infor-
mation Systems: A Report of the ACMCurriculum
Committee on Computer Education for Manage-
ment," Communicationsof the ACM,Vol. 15, No. 5,
May1972, pp. 363-398.
[4] Churchman, C. W. and Schainblatt, A. H. "The
Researcher and the Manager: A Dialectic of Imple-
mentation," ManagementScience, Vol. 11, No. 4.
February 1965, pp. B69-B87.
[5] "Corporate Objectives," PPGIndustries, Pittsburgh,
PA, undated, p. 13.
[6] Dearden, John. "MIS is a Mirage," Harvard Business
Review, January-February 1972.
[7] King, William R. and Cleland, D.I. "The Design of
ManagementInformation Systems: An Information
Analysis Approach," Management
Science, Vol. 22,
No. 3, November1975, pp. 286-297.
[8] King, W. R. and Clelando O. I. "A NewApproachto
Strategic Systems Planning," Business Horizons,
August 1975.
[9] King, W. R. "Methodological Optimality in OR,"
OMEGA,
VoL 4, No. 1, February 1976.
[10} Murdick, R. G. andRoss, J. E. Information Systems
for
ModernManagement
(2nd ed.), Prentice Hall, 1975.
Ill] Schultz, R. L. and Slevin, D. P. "Implementation and
Organizational Validity: An Empirical Investigation,"
Implementing OR/MS.
Elsevier, 1975, Chapter 7.
[12] "You CanBe Sure, If It’s Industrial-Westinghouse,"
Iron Age, March3, 1975, pp. 20-25,
About the Author
Wllllam R. King Is Professor of Buslness
Admlnlstratlon In the Graduate School of
Business
at the Universityof Pittsburgh.HeIs
the author of elght booksand morethan 60
technlcalpapersin the fields of MIS,Plannlng,
and Systems
Analysls. Hls mostrecent book,
Marketing Management
Information Systems
waspublishedIn 1977.
MIS Quarterly / March 1978 37
View publication stats
View publication stats