Custom Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/An-Evaluation-Of-SISP-Process-Stages-In 👈

1. Association for Information Systems
AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)
UK Academy for Information Systems Conference
Proceedings 2010
UK Academy for Information Systems
Spring 3-23-2010
AN EVALUATION OF SISP PROCESS STAGES
IN THE CONTEXT OF DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES AND THE ROLE OF
COMPETING VALUE OF LEADERSHIP
Esam Osman
University of Plymouth, Esam.Osman@plymouth.ac.uk
Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/ukais2010
This material is brought to you by the UK Academy for Information Systems at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in
UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings 2010 by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more
information, please contact elibrary@aisnet.org.
Recommended Citation
Osman, Esam, "AN EVALUATION OF SISP PROCESS STAGES IN THE CONTEXT OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND
THE ROLE OF COMPETING VALUE OF LEADERSHIP" (2010). UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings
2010. 42.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/ukais2010/42

2. AN EVALUATION OF SISP PROCESS
STAGES IN THE CONTEXT OF
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND THE
ROLE OF COMPETING VALUE OF
LEADERSHIP
Esam Osman,
University of Plymouth Business School, 504, Cookworth Building, Drake Circus, Plymouth,
PL4 8AA,
Esam.osman@plymouth.ac.uk,
07828302015
Abstract
The Strategic Information System Planning (SISP) is thought to be the first step toward implementing
information systems. The development and implementation of a highly aligned information systems still a top
concern among academics and professionals, where IT considered as a strategic asset capable of adding value
to overall organisation effectiveness. Based on the contingency theory of information system, this paper tend to
examine the affect of different leadership styles on the SISP process stages of growth, using the competing value
framework (CVF) as a measurement model of leadership orientations, and building on Grover and Segars
(2005) measurement model of SISP process stages of growth and contributing to his model by adding a new
SISP decision process dimension, lapelled “Intuition” as one of the SISP process stages of growth where it can
be seen as the first stage towards the SISP process rationality stage. By linking these two measures one should
be able to identify a pattern in which leadership orientation is most represented in each stage of SISP process
growth. This paper is representing a theoretical base for empirical testing yet to be carried out.
Keywords: Leadership, Planning process, SISP, Planning stages, Developing Countries, MIMIC Model.

3. 1. Introduction
SISP has been defined as the process of identifying opportunities to select and implement IS
applications to support achieving strategic business goals (Grover et al, 2005, Newkirk et al.,
2003). A recent survey carried out by the British Computer Society (BCS) has indicated that
the alignment of IS with overall business strategy is the most confronting issue facing top
management in today business environment (BCS, 2009). Studies surrounding strategic
information system planning in the context of developing countries have been rare (Avgerou
2007). There is argument that universal information system solutions are unlikely to be
successful in multiple locations, considering different social, political, and strategic planning
contexts (Walsham, 2006). Nevertheless, there are some efforts put forward to realize the
potential benefits of SISP in developing countries, however, research tends to ignore the role
of leadership and their value added toward formulating SISP in developing countries. This
paper represents model where leadership orientation viewed as Multiple-Indicators that
influence SISP decision process represented as Multiple-Causes. The aim of this model is to
identify the different affect of leadership orientation on each stage of SISP process.
2. Theoretical Background
1. SISP Process
The SISP process domain has experienced constant evolution since it was first introduced in
the 1970s (Lederer, 1986; Lederer, 1988; Grover, 1991; Earl, 1993; Grover et al, 2005;
Henry et al 2008). The main drives behind such evolution were mixed factors, between the
advancement in the technology (particularly the software and communication technology,
including the Internet), and the awareness of the important role of information technology as
value added and fundamental strategic resources able to contribute to the core competence
and overall organisation effectiveness and efficiency (Grover et al, 2005). The realisation of
information systems as strategic resources can make profound differences in the way
organisations perform and compete (Ifinedo, 2009). Conversely, globalisation and external
environments force firms to aggressively search for new ways to leverage their information,
knowledge, and IT resources in supporting of business strategy and competitiveness (Charlie,
2009). Therefore, SISP has become a challenging task for organisation leaderships who want
to promote effective information systems in their firms as a value-added opportunity via
alignment of the organisation’s strategy and IT resources (Henry et al, 2008).

4. The evolving SISP domain is evident through its shifting from the rigidity presented in the
fixed methodology, which might not be robust in different organisational situations, to more
flexible approaches that incorporate different organisation factors as stimuli for better SISP
outcomes ( Grover et al, 2005).
SISP Process
Dimension
Description
Comprehensiveness
The extent to which an organization attempts to be exhaustive or
inclusive in making and integrating strategic decisions
(Comprehensive vs. Limited).
Formalization
The existence of structures, techniques, written procedures and
policies which guide the planning process (Formal vs. Informal).
Focus
The balance between creativity and control orientations inherent
within the strategic planning system (Creative vs. Control Oriented).
Flow
The locus of authority or devolution of responsibilities for strategic
planning; in other words, the roles played by corporate and divisional
managers in the initiation of the planning process (Top–down vs.
Bottom–up).
Participation
The breadth of involvement in strategic planning (Broad vs. Narrow
participation profile).
Consistency
Consistency is concerned with the frequency of planning activities or
cycles, and relatedly, the frequency of evaluation/revision of strategic
choices (High vs. Low)
Table 1: SISP Processes Dimension (Segars et al., 2005)
Throughout their wide analysis of both the strategic management and SISP sequential
research flow, ( Grover et al, 1998) identified six important SISP process dimensions, and
illustrated that they are “robust in describing SISP design extending far beyond
methodologically-based and less-generalizable descriptions of IS planning while
complementing and further structuring general ‘’approaches’’ based descriptions” (Grover,
2005). The dimensions are labelled as, Comprehensiveness, Flow, Formalization, Focus,
Participation and Consistency (Table 1). The six dimensions of the SISP process exhibit
elements of both rationality (High comprehensiveness, high formalization, top–down flow,
Control focus) and adaptability (wide participation, high consistency) in decision making

5. process (Grover, 2005). Although these dimensions are more robust in capturing and
measuring the concept of SISP process, however, we would argue that there is still a missing
sequence in terms of measuring the same concept in developing countries.
- +
Rationality
Figure represents the SISP process stages, the adaptability stage and rationality stage, and illustrates that the
increases in decision making adaptability stage lead to rationality stage and more rationality increase the chance
of success in SISP.
2. Intuition as a new dimension in SISP planning process in developing countries
The Intuition construct primarily emerged in the field of strategic decision management and
organisational science. The basic assumption about strategic planning is that it represents a
systematic process of reviewing alternatives and selecting the best choices that are superior to
those choices coming from intuitive processes of decision making. However, this assumption
has been criticized by (Mintzberg, 1994). In his book, “The rise and fall of strategic
planning”, he described the concept of “Strategic Planning” as an oxymoron concept. He
argues that strategy cannot be planned because planning is about analysis and strategy is
about synthesis. This is why he emphasized that such a planning approach has failed so often
and so considerably (Mintzberg, 1994). Intuition is not the contradictory of rationality, nor is
it a chaotic process of guessing. It is a complicated form of thinking, stimulated by years of
experience in specific jobs involving problem solving skills, which requires a complete
understanding of business details, to the extent of knowing the inside out of business context
logic (Prietula & Simon, 1989). Therefore, intuition is a “synthetic psychological function in
that it apprehends the totality of a given situation” (Vaughan, 1990), the individual based
cognitive decision making process is intuitive when it relays on personal experience in
SISP
Success
Figure 1: SISP stages
Adaptability
+
-

6. making such decisions. The use of intuitive synthesis was found to be positively associated
with organisational performance in an unstable environment, but negatively so in a stable
environment ( Khatri & Ng 2000). In evaluation of the Intuition as strategic decision making
process, Khatri & Ng (2000) Surveyed executives of computer, banking, and utility industry
firms in the USA, they found that intuitive processes of decision making are commonly used
in these industries, thus intuition has been recognized as an important dimension of strategic
decision making process in the management field (Elbanna, 2009). However, few empirical
studies have been conducted on the role of intuition in strategic decision making process and
it is barely embedded on the SISP process.
Dimension Description
Comprehensiveness
Extent to which an organization attempts to be exhaustive or inclusive in
making and integrating strategic decisions (Comprehensive vs. Limited).
Formalization
The existence of structures, techniques, written procedures and policies
which guide the planning process (Formal vs. Informal).
Focus
The balance between creativity and control orientations inherent within
the strategic planning system (Creative vs. Control oriented).
Flow
The locus of authority or devolution of responsibilities for strategic
planning; in other words, the roles played by corporate and divisional
managers in the initiation of the planning process (Top–down vs.
Bottom–up).
Participation
The breadth of involvement in strategic planning (Broad vs. Narrow
participation profile).
Consistency
The frequency of planning activities or cycles and the frequency of
evaluation/revision of strategic choices (High vs. Low).
Intuition
The degree of relying on personal judgment, depending on gut feeling
and placing emphasis on past experience (High vs. low).
Table 2: Proposed SISP Process dimension in developing countries as expansion of SISP Processes
Dimension (Segars et al., 2005)
Nevertheless, to complete the sequence of SISP process in developing countries, this paper
argues that some firms in developing countries do not have the adequate resources and ability
to tolerate the expenditure of the adopted or rational processes of SISP, such as the
availability of IT resources and flexible organisational structure, the ability to analyse and
formulate clear policies and procedure, the consistency in the decision planning process and

7. the cost of hiring outsiders. Therefore, executives often base their decisions intuitively and
abandon adopted and rational approaches in decision making. Moreover, this paper argues
that as intuitive decision process becomes more frequent, the realisation of SISP process as
adoptability mechanism is possible over time. The intuition construct as a dimension of
decision making has been measured by (Khatri and Ng, 2000), with a degree of relying on
personal judgment, depending on gut feeling and placing emphasis on past experience. As the
author discussed above, the overall nature of SISP process in this study includes three main
stages (Rational stage, Adoptive stage and Intuition) characterised by the degree of rationality
in decision making that influenced by the organisational context, and SISP process approach
adopted by manager influence planning success of information system. The author argue that
there is a sequence in the decision process mechanism that started with the intuition and
should evolve as organisation evolves to be more adoptive to the environment to reach the
level of rationality in decision making where decision process demonstrate degree of focus to
produce efficient planning as well as demonstrate clearer method of planning based on past
experience and documentation and to be more comprehensive in planning where different
part of organisation can cooperate more effectively, this can be true when the participants in
the planning process demonstrate degree of understanding the organisation need of
information system. SISP Process
Figure represents the SISP process stages of growth, Intuition, adaptability and rationality stages, and illustrates
that the increases in intuitive lead to adaptability decision process and increases in adaptability leads to
rationality decision process and as rationality increase the chance of SISP success is higher.
SISP
Success
Intuition
‐ +
+
+
‐
Rationality
‐
Adaptability
Figure 2: SISP planning stages include intuition as stage in decision making process

8. 3. Leadership and SISP process
There is a strong body of opinion suggesting that organisational culture can be consciously
designed and manipulated by leadership (Weiling Ke, 2008). Leadership participation and
support has been found to extensively influence IT project performance by means of
importing external and integrating internal knowledge into the decision process mechanism
(Mitchell, 2006). Study of a large sample of companies in Singapore, Teo and Ang (2001)
found that one of the major IS planning problems is the lack of support from senior managers
in the three stages of planning, specifically, launching, development, and implementation.
This view confirms the view held by a number of other scholars (Lederer & Sethi, 1992a,
1992b; Teo & King, 1996). Senior executives should play proactive role in providing
leadership, vision, coordination, and ensuring that the resources are made available, most
importantly, leadership role is to interfere if action plans diverted from their main objectives,
senior managers ought to take immediate remedial action to move the situation forward in the
right direction (Philip, 2007). Many researchers have expressed the view that the support and
participation of senior management in SISP processes are critical factors to the success of
planning (Brown, 1994; Terry Anthony Byrd, 2006; Kearns, 2007). Whether IS considered in
strategic context or not, it is generally accepted that the management efforts surrounding the
technology play a essential role in ensuring its successful use (Booth & Philip, 2005). It is
evident that the most important stakeholder group participating in SISP processes is those of
leadership who hold responsibility at a strategic level of business and IT management,
namely CIOs and CEOs (Huigang, 2007; Kearns, 2007; Newkirk, 2008). On one hand, CEO
support of SISP may depend upon the perceived value of IS asset, and CIO support of SISP
may depend upon understanding of business functionality and overall strategic direction
(Raghunathan B., 1989; Applegate L.M., 1992). Support is more likely to exist when the
CEO and CIO are both aware of the IS as strategic assets (Kearns, 2006).

9. 4. Linking Competing Values Framework of Leadership and SISP process
This study is concerned with the intermediate level of organisational culture to capture the
effect of leadership value on SISP process, therefore the competing values framework of
leadership (CVF) is to be used in this study (Quinn, 2006).
“The study and practice of business strategy is fundamentally based on employing creative
solutions to differentiate a firm from its competitors. Theories used to describe the causes
and consequences of strategic differentiation tend to focus on organization-level
characteristics such as resources, capabilities and structures. However, less is known about
day-to-day processes and practices whereby strategic managers developing creative
solutions is necessary to establish strategic differentiation” (Cameron M. Ford 2008).
Because of its compatibility with the SISP process phenomenon under investigation, the
(CVF) is been selected as measurement model for leadership orientation. The following
seven points demonstrate the advantage of selecting (CVF). (1) It is practical; it captures key
dimensions of culture that have been found to make a difference in organisation’s success. (2)
It is timely; the process of diagnosing and creating a strategy for change can be accomplished
in a reasonable amount of time.(3) It is involving; the steps in the process can include every
member of the organisation, but they especially involve all who have a responsibility to
establish direction, reinforce value, and guide fundamental change.(4) It is both quantitative
and qualitative; the process relies on quantitative measurement of key cultural dimensions as
well as qualitative methods, including stories, incidents, and symbols that represent the
immeasurable ambience of the organisation.(5) It is manageable; the process of diagnosis and
change can be undertaken and implemented by a team within the organisation - usually the
management team - so that outside culture experts or change consultants are not required for
successful implementation. (6) It is valid; the framework on which the process is built is
extensively supported by empirical literature and underlining dimensions that have a verified
scholarly foundation. (7) It makes sense to people as they consider culture assessment of their
own organisation (Cameron & Quinn, 2006, pp. 19-20). Although this paper uses quantitative
methods to assess the leadership orientation, alternatives such as the Organizational Culture
Inventory (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988), and the model of Hofstede (Hofstede et al., 2001) were
viewed and found that they are far more complex in terms of the number of items and its
adequacy in capturing the domain and its dimensions that related to SISP processes. Hence,
the (CVF) focuses on values as core constituents of organisational culture. The (CVF) was
developed initially from research conducted on the major indicator of effective organisation

10. based on two distinctions dimensions of organisational effectiveness, first is flexibility and
discretion versus stability and control, second is external focus and differentiation versus
internal focus and integration .
Flexibility and Discretion
In the first case, organisational change underlines flexibility, discretion and dynamism, while
organisational stability focuses on control, sustainability, and systematic performance. But
internal focus underlines integration, unity and maintenance of the socio-technical system
(Iivari & Huisman, 2007), whereas external focus emphasizes rivalry and interaction with the
organizational external environment ,together these two dimensions form four clusters, each
representing a distinct set of organisational effectiveness indicators, these indicators as shown
in (Figure 2) represent leadership core values and orientation regarding organisational
performance. The opposite ends of these dimensions impose competing and conflicting
demands on the organization (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). The four types of leadership core
Stability and Control
External
Focus
and
Differentiation
Internal
Focus
and
Integration
Orientation: Creative
Orientation: Collaborative
Leader type: Innovator,
Entrepreneur, Visionary
Leader type: Facilitator, Mentor,
Team builder
Value Drivers: Innovative outputs,
Transformativeness, Agility
Value Drivers: Commitment,
Communication, Development
Theory of effectiveness:
Innovativeness, vision and new
resources produce effectiveness.
Theory of effectiveness: Human
development and participation
produce effectiveness.
Orientation: Controlling Orientation: Competing
Leader type: Coordinator, Monitor,
Organiser
Leader type: Hard driver, Competitor,
Producer
Value Drivers: Efficiency, Timeliness,
Consistency and Uniformity
Value Drivers: Market Share, Goal
Achievement, Profitability
Theory of effectiveness: Control and
efficiency with capable processes
produces effectiveness.
Theory of effectiveness:
Aggressively competing and customer
focus produces effectiveness.
Figure 3: The Competing Value of Leadership, Effectiveness, and Organisational Theory (Quinn, 2006)

11. value and orientation are as follows. The collaborative leadership orientation (Flexibility and
Discretion vs. Internal Focus and Integration) is primarily concerned with human relations
and flexibility. Commitment, communication, and development are its core value drivers.
Effectiveness criteria include the development of human potential and participation. The
creative leadership orientation (Flexibility and Discretion vs. External Focus and
Differentiation) is entrepreneur transformation and vision value driven. The effectiveness
criteria emphasize growth, resource acquisition, vision, and adaptation to the external
environment. The competing leadership orientation (Stability and Control vs. External Focus
and Differentiation) is hard driver, competitor value driven by goal achievement and
profitability. The effectiveness criteria emphasize aggressive competition and customer
focus. The controlling leadership orientation (Stability and Control vs. Internal Focus and
Integration) is coordinator, monitor and organiser. It emphasizes control, stability and
efficiency through the following of regulations; it is value driven by efficiency, timeliness,
consistency and uniformity. The effectiveness criteria emphasize control and efficiency with
capable processes. The highest performing leaders are those who have developed capabilities
and skills that allow them to succeed in each of the four quadrants shown above (Denison,
1995). They are self-contradictory leaders in the sense that they can be simultaneously hard
and soft, entrepreneurial and controlled. Managerial effectiveness as well as organisational
effectiveness is inherently tied to inconsistent characteristics (Cameron & Quinn, 2006, p.
47). Recognizing the leadership typology, this paper applies (CVF) of leadership to an
organisation’s top management who are responsible for planning Information systems
(mainly CIOs and CEOs), to identify their leadership orientation and its effect on the
behaviour of SISP processes and stages of growth.

12. 3. Methodology
The constructs used in this paper are developed and tested using combination of construct
development methodology in MIS research, referring to Bruce et al (2005) and Stacie et al,
(2007) work on construct development using SEM.
Construct
Development
Figure 4: Construct development methodology in MIS research
 Literature review
 Existing scales
Instrument
Refining
Pre-Test
Final Draft Measurement
Instrument
Validated Measurement Instrument
Confirmatory
Assessment
Exploratory
Assessment
Statistical
Measurement
Pilot Test
Item Screening
Specify the theoretical network and
definitional domain of research
construct
Initial Instrument
Development
Instrument
development
methodology

13. Rationality
Collaborate
y1
Figure 5: Conceptual model
1. Model evaluation
In evaluating the research model in this study (Figure 5) we estimate a MIMIC (Multiple-
Indicators, Multiple-Causes) as SEM model (see Joanne & Leas, 2004; Timothy, 2006,
Stacie, 2007). The construct of SISP process is represented as reflective variable (y), which is
determined by formative construct of leadership style that has four “causes or antecedents”
variables presented as (x1−x4); they are the four key leadership styles (Collaborate, Creative,
Controlling, and Competing) that combine to create the necessary conditions for SISP
process stages of growth that measured by y1, y2 and y3, and they are Rationality,
Adaptability and Intuition. A similar method was adopted by Segars and Grover (Segars,
1998) in their strategic IT planning study, and by Sethi and King (Sethi, 1994) in their
strategic IT application study, and by (Terry et al., 2006) in their IS Infrastructure study. In
this analysis, author will be using AMOS (SEM) program as the analytical tool for testing
statistical assumptions and for estimating the confirmatory and structural equation models
developed in this study.
Hypothesis
1) Leadership orientation has a direct affects on SISP process stages of growth.
2) The best leadership orientation(s) is the one that demonstrate rational outcome of SISP process.
x1
Competing
x4
Controlling
x3
Creative
x2
Intuition
y3
Adaptability
y2
SISP
Processes
y

14. 2. Data Collection
This paper is in the process of analysing the data using SEM. The instrument used is
questionnaire survey developed using the methodology represented in the figure above and
circulated to CIOs and CEOs and whom responsible for the information system planning in
public and private organisations in Libya, using mixed mood method of collecting data for
the survey including, online survey, telephone survey and physical distribution. Although
there is no ideal sample size when using SEM (Timothy, 2006), however general consensus
seems to have developed that between 100 and 200 is a "good sample size" (Hoelter, 1983).
In the present study, we aim for a sample size of 150, which falls in the middle of this range.
4. Discussion and limitation
This work is motivated by the contingency theory of Information System where “Leadership
orientation” viewed as a one of contingency variables that affect the SISP processes. We
believe that Investigating the relationship between leadership orientation and SISP processes
stages of growth is significant to the domain of SISP in developing countries, by identifying
which leadership orientation(s) that most influence the SISP processes in each stages we
would be able to determine the leadership orientation that is most likely to inhibit or
encourage SISP success, bearing in mind the proposition which suggested that as rational the
SISP Processes become as successful SISP will be, to complete the picture one should
incorporate the SISP success dimensions in the model to give deeper understanding of the fit
between leadership orientation SISP process and SISP success, however, the current model
should be sufficient to provide an observation on leadership behaviour toward SISP
processes, this is the main objective of this paper, nevertheless, statistical evaluation using
SEM should follow to test the hypothesis suggested in this model.

15. 5. References
Applegate L. M. E. J. (1992). "New information systems leaders: a changing role in a
changing world", MIS Quarterly 16(4): pp. 469–90.
Booth, M. & G. Philip (2005). "Information systems management: role of planning,
alignment and leadership", Behaviour & Information Technology, Taylor & Francis Ltd., 24,
pp. 391-404.
Bruce R, Gary T, and Terry B, (2005) “A methodology for construct development in MIS
research” European Journal of Information Systems.14, 388–400
Brews, P. J., & Hunt, M. R. (1999). “Learning to plan and planning to learn: Resolving the
planning school/learning school debate”, Strategic Management Journal, 20(10), pp. 889-913.
Brown, S. L. M. (1994). "Alignment of the IS function with the enterprise: toward a model of
antecedents", MIS Quarterly 18(4), pp. 371-403.
Cameron M., Ford, M. P. S. A. J. W. D. (2008). "Factors Associated with Creative Strategic
Decisions", Creative Strategic Decisions, 17(3).
Charles C, Jacqui H & David F (2009). “Top issues in IT management” Management Forum
Strategic Panel, British Computer Society - Delphi Survey 2009.
Charlie C., Chen, C. C. H. L. & Samuel, C. Yang (2009). "Managing ERP Implementation
Failure: A Project Management Perspective", IEEE Transactions on engineering
management, 56(1), pp. 157-170.
Chrisanthi Avgerou (2007),. “Information Systems in Developing Countries: a Critical
Research Review". Journal of Information Technology, 23, 133–146
Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). “Behavioural norms and expectations: A
quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture”. Croup and Organization
Studies, 13(3), 245-273.
Denison, D., Hooijberg & Quinn, Robert (1995). "Paradox and performance: Toward a theory
of behavioural complexity in managerial leadership", Organisational Science, pp. 514-540.
Earl, M. J. (1993). "Experiences in strategic information systems planning", MIS Quarterly,
17(1), pp. 1-21.
Geoff Walsham (2006), “Research on Information Systems in Developing Countries: Current
Landscape and Future Prospects”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 12 (1) 7–
24.
Goll, I., & Rasheed, A. M. A. (1997). “Rational decision-making and firm performance: The
moderating role of environment”, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), pp. 583-591.

16. Grover (1991). "Issues in corporate IS planning", Information Resources Management
Journal, 4(1).
Grover, V. S., Albert, H. (2005). "An empirical evaluation of stages of strategic information
systems planning: patterns of process design and effectiveness." Information & Management,
42(5), pp. 761-779.
Hoelter, J.A. (1983). "The Analysis of Covariance Structures: Goodness-of-Fit Indices",
Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 1983, pp. 325-344.
Hofstede, G. (2001). “Culture’s consequences” (2nd ed.), Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Huigang, L. S., Nilesh Qing, Hu Yajiong, Xue (2007). "Assimilation of enterprise system:
The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management", MIS
Quarterly, MIS Quarterly & the Society for Information Management, 31, pp. 59-87.
Henry E. Newkirk, Albert L. Lederer and Alice M. Johnson., (2008), “Rapid business and IT
change: drivers for strategic information systems planning?” European Journal of Information
Systems ,17, 198–218
Ifinedo, P., & Nahar, Nazmun (2009). "Interactions between contingency,. organizational IT
factors, and ERP success", Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109, pp. 118-137.
Jarvenpaa, D.S. Staples (2001), “Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of
information and expertise”, Journal of Management Information Systems ,18 (1), 151–183.
Joanne & Leas, (2004). “A Beginner’s guide to SEM”, Taylor & Francis (2nd Ed).
Kearns, G. S. (2006). "The effect of top management support of SISP on strategic IS
management: insights from the US electric power industry", Omega, 34, pp. 236-253.
Kearns, G. S. (2007). "How the Internal Environment Impacts Information Systems Project
Success: An Investigation of Exploitative and Explorative Firms", Journal of Computer
Information Systems, Vol. 48 Issue 1, p63-75, 13p.
Khatri & Ng (2000), “The Role of Intuition in Strategic Decision Making” Human Relations,
Volume 53 (1).
Khatri, N. &. Ng. A. (2000). "The role of intuition in strategic decision making ", Human
relations, 53(1), pp. 57-86.
Lederer, A. L. & Sethi, V. (1992a). Meeting the challenges of IS planning. Long Range
Planning, 25 (2), 69–80.
Lederer, A. L. & Sethi, V. (1992b). Root causes of strategic IS planning implementation
problems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9 (1), 25–45.
Lederer, A. L. M. (1986). "Issues in information systems planning", Information &
Management, 10(5), pp. 245– 254.

17. Lederer, V. S. (1988). "The implementation of strategic information systems planning
methodologies", MIS Quarterly, 12(3), pp. 444–461.
Livari, J. & M. Huisman (2007). "The Relationship between Organizational Culture and the
Deployment of Systems Development Methodologies", MIS Quarterly, MIS Quarterly & the
Society for Information Management, 31, pp. 35-58.
Miller, C. C., & Cardinal, L. B. (1994). “Strategic planning and firm performance: A
synthesis of more than two decades of research”, Academy of Management Journal, 37(6),
1649-1665.
Mintzberg, (1994). “The rise and fall of strategic planning”. The free press: New York.
Mitchell, V. (2006). “Knowledge Integration and Information Technology Project
Performance”, MIS Quarterly (30:4), pp. 919-939.
Newkirk, H. E. L., Albert L. Johnson, Alice M. (2008). "Rapid business and IT change:
drivers for strategic information systems planning?" European Journal of Information
Systems, 17(3), pp. 198-218.
Newkirk, H. E., Ledererb, A.L., Srinivasan, C. (2003), “Strategic information systems
planning: too little or too much”, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Volume 12,
Issue 3, 201-228.
Philip, G. (2007), "IS Strategic Planning for Operational Efficiency", Information Systems
Management, Taylor & Francis Ltd., 24, pp. 247-264.
Prietula & Simon, (1989); “The experts in your midst” Harvard business review.
Quinn, K. S. C. A. R. E. (2006). "Diagnosing and Changing Organisational Culture", the
Jossey-Bass Business and Management Series.
Raghunathan, B. R. T. (1989). "Relationship of the rank of information systems executive to
the organizational role and planning dimensions of information systems", Journal of
Management Information Systems, 6(1), pp. 111–24.
Segar, A., Grover. V & Teng. (1998). "Strategic Information Systems Planning: Planning
System Dimensions, Internal Coalignment, and Implications for Planning Effectiveness",
Decision Sciences, 29(2), pp. 303-341.
Segars, A.H. & Grover, V. (1998). "Strategic Information Systems Planning Success: An
Investigation of the Construct and its 71. Measurement", MIS Quarterly, 22:2, pp. 139-163.
Said Elbanna, R. N. (2009). "How much does performance matter in strategic decision
making?" International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58(5): 437 -
459.

18. Sethi, V. and W.R. King (1994). "Development of Measures to Assess the Extent to Which
an Information Technology Application Provides Competitive Advantage", Management
Science, 40:12, pp. 1601 -1627.
Stacie P, Detmar S, Arun R (2007) “Specifying formative constructs in information system
research” MIS Quarterly Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 623-656.
Terry Anthony Byrd, B. R. L., Randy V. Bradley (2006). "IS Infrastructure: The Influence of
Senior it Leadership and Strategic Information Systems Planning", Journal of Computer
Information Systems , 47(1), 101-113.
Thomas, F. (1988). "Can change in organisational culture really be managed", Organisational
dynamics, 17, pp. 4-16.
Teo, T. S. H. & Ang, J. S. K. (2001). An examination of major IS problems. International
Journal of Information Management, 21 (6), 457–470.
Teo T. S. H. & King, W. (1996). Assessing the impact of integrating business planning and
IS planning. Information and Management, 30, 309–321.
Timothy A. Brown, (2006), “Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research”, The
Guilford Press.
Vaughan, F.E (1990). “Varieties of intuitive experience. In W.H. Agor (Ed.) Intuition in
organisation, pp 40-61.
Weiling Ke , K. K. W. (2008). "Organizational culture and leadership in ERP
implementation", Decision Support Systems, 45, pp. 208–218.
Weber, N. Pliskin, (1996) “The effects of information systems integration and organizational
culture on a firm's effectiveness”, Information and Management 30 (2), 81.

19. Appendix (A)
Measurement model Items
Model factors
SISP Processes( Adaptability Dimension)
Item
code
Participation
PPA1 Top management is actively involved in strategic IS planning.
PPA2 A variety of functional area managers participate in the process of IS planning.
PPA3 Our process for strategic IS planning includes numerous participants.
PPA4 Strategic IS planning is a relatively isolated organizational activity.
PPA5 The level of participation in SISP by diverse interests of the organization is high.
Item
code
Consistency
PPA6 We constantly evaluate and review conformance to strategic plans.
PPA7 We frequently adjust strategic plans to better adapt them to changing conditions.
PPA8 Strategic IS planning is a continuous process.
PPA9 We frequently schedule face-to-face meetings to discuss strategic planning issues.
PPA10 We formally plan for information systems as the need arises.
SISP Processes (Intuition Dimension)
Item
code
Intuition Items
PPI1 We rely on personal judgment when planning for Information System.
PPI2 We depend on our gut feeling when planning for Information System.
PPI3 We emphasize past experience when planning for Information System.

20. Model factors
Leadership style dimension
Item
code
Collaborate Items
LSCC
1
Our organization is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves.
LSCC
2
Our leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify mentoring, facilitating, or nurturing.
LSCC
3
Our management style in the organization is characterized by teamwork, consensus and participation.
LSCC
4
The glues that hold our organization together are loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to this organization runs high.
LSCC
5
Our organization emphasizes human development. High trust, openness and participation persist.
LSCC
6
Our organization defines success on the basis of the development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment and
concern for people.
Item
code
Creative Items
LSCA
1
Our organization is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks.
LSCA
2
Our leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify entrepreneurship, innovation or risk taking.
LSCA
3
Our management style in the organization is characterized by individual risk taking, innovation, freedom and uniqueness.
LSCA
4
The glue that holds our organization together is commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis on being on
the cutting edge.
LSCA
5
Our organization emphasizes acquiring new resources and creating new challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for
opportunities are valued.
LSCA
6
Our organization defines success on the basis of having the most unique or newest products. It is a product leader and innovator.
Item
code
Controlling Items
LSCH
1
Our organization is a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally govern what people do.
LSCH
2
Our leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify coordinating, organizing or smooth-running efficiency.
LSCH
3
Our management style in the organization is characterized by security of employment, conformity, predictability and stability in
relationships.
LSCH
4
Our organization emphasizes performance and stability. Efficiency, control and smooth operations are important.
LSCH
5
Our organization defines success on the basis of efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling and low-cost production are
critical.
Item
code
Competing Items
LSCM
1
Our organization is very results-oriented. A major concern is getting the job done. People are very competitive and very
achievement-oriented.
LSCM
2
Our leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify a no-nonsense, aggressive, results-oriented focus.
LSCM
3
Our management style in the organization is characterized by hard-driving competitiveness, high demands and achievement.
LSCM
4
The glue that holds our organization together is the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment.
LSCM
5
Our organization emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. Hitting stretch targets and winning in the marketplace are
dominant.
LSCM
6
Our organization defines success on the basis of winning in the marketplace and outpacing the competition. Competitive market
leadership is the key.

21. Model factors
SISP Processes ( Rationality dimension)
Item
code
Flow
PPR1 Strategic planning for IS is initiated at the highest levels of the organization.
PPR2 The planning flow within our organization can be characterized as “top-down.”
PPR3 Planning for IS is initiated by requests/proposals from operational/functional managers.
PPR4 Those who formulate strategic IS plans are most responsible for their implementation.
PPR5 The primary role of upper management is to endorse rather than formulate IS plans.
Code Comprehensiveness
PPR6 We attempt to be exhaustive in gathering information relevant for IS planning.
PPR7 Before a decision is made, each possible course of action is thoroughly evaluated.
PPR8 We attempt to determine optimal courses of action from identified alternatives.
PPR9 There is little trial and error in our strategic decision process.
PPR10 We will delay decisions until we are sure that all alternatives have been evaluated.
PPR6 We attempt to be exhaustive in gathering information relevant for IS planning.
Item
code
Focus
PPR11 The primary focus of IS planning is controlling cost through extensive budgeting.
PPR12 In our IS planning process we encourage creativity and idea generation over control.
PPR13 Strategic IS planning is viewed as a means of controlling the growth of technology.
PPR14 Control systems are used to monitor variances between planned actions and outcomes.
PPR15 Our IS planning process is tightly integrated with the firm’s normal financial planning or capital budgeting routine.
Item
code
Formalization
PPR16 Policies and procedures greatly influence the process of SISP within our firm.
PPR17 We utilize formalized planning techniques (e.g.. IBM) in our SISP process.
PPR18 Our process for strategic planning is very structured.
PPR19 Written guidelines exist to structure strategic IS planning in our organization.
PPR20 The process and outputs of strategic IS planning are formally documented.