IT alignment: what have we learned?

Journal of Information Technology (2007) 22, 297–315 & 2007 JIT Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. All rights reserved 0268-3962/07 $30.00 palgrave-journals.com/jit State of the Art IT alignment: what have we learned? Yolande E Chan1, Blaize Horner Reich2 1 The Monieson Centre, Queen’s School of Business, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada Segal Graduate School of Business, Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada 2 Correspondence: YE Chan, Queen’s School of Business, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6. Tel: þ 1 613 533 2364; Fax: þ 1 613 533 2321; E-mail: Abstract We provide a review of the alignment literature in IT, addressing questions such as: What have we learned? What is disputed? Who are contributors to the debate? The article is intended to be useful to faculty and graduate students considering conducting research on alignment, instructors preparing lectures, and practitioners seeking to assess the ‘state-of-play’. It is both informational and provocative. Challenges to the value of alignment research, divergent views, and new perspectives on alignment are presented. It is hoped that the article will spark helpful conversation on the merits of continued investigation of IT alignment. Journal of Information Technology (2007) 22, 297–315. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000109 Published online 18 September 2007 Keywords: alignment; linkage; fit; models; measures; antecedents; outcomes; strategy; structure; culture; knowledge; social dimensions Introduction or two decades, IT alignment has consistently appeared as a top concern for IT practitioners and company executives (Luftman et al., 2005). Hundreds of commentaries and cases have been published in trade publications. Many scholarly journal articles have been published. So what have we learned? In this article, we focus on the alignment literature within the MIS research discipline, reviewing past articles – primarily of a scholarly nature – and proposing integrating views. Researchers, teachers, and practitioners alike should find this integration of the literature beneficial. For research, we suggest where future contributions might be made. For lecturers, we present alignment models that can be used in IT strategy classes to explain key concepts. In addition, we present the ‘state-of-play’ in alignment practice for lecturers and practitioners. For the latter, we also suggest ways to interpret the literature and implement research recommendations. We have tried to be both informational and provocative. Challenges to the value of alignment research, divergent views and new perspectives on alignment are presented. Our goal is to be as inclusive of major alignment perspectives as possible.1 We invite scholars and practitioners to contact the authors to provide additional information, similar and contrary views, and case studies. Via the Journal of Information Technology and AISWorld (http://www.isworld. org), we will summarize the feedback and stories we receive. Welcome to a conversation on IT alignment. F Structure of Article In the article, we first discuss the motivation for alignment research. Next, we move on to define alignment and to present key dimensions and levels of the alignment construct. Our goal is to be inclusive of many different perspectives. We then present a review of various factor models of alignment and discuss antecedents and outcomes. We address the questions: What creates alignment? What benefits can reasonably be expected? Next, we present a process perspective on alignment and comment on different process models that have been researched. In closing, we provide reflections on the IT alignment research stream to date and highlight key implications for research and practice. Motivation and need for alignment research For many years, researchers have drawn attention to the importance of alignment between business and IT2 (e.g., McLean and Soden, 1977; Henderson and Sifonis, 1988). In early studies, this often meant linking the business plan and the IT plan. Another perspective involved ensuring congruence between the business strategy and the IT strategy. Still another has required examining the fit between business needs and information system priorities. These conceptualizations have been enlarged over time and now research recognizes many points of alignment between business and IT. IT alignment: what have we learned? YE Chan and BH Reich 298 Early motivation for alignment emerged from a focus on strategic business planning and long-range IT planning in the early 1980s (e.g., IBM, 1981). From a business perspective, planning was characterized as a top-down and a bottom-up process, and departmental (e.g., IT) plans were created in support of corporate strategies. From an IT perspective, decisions on hardware and software had such long-term implications that tying them to current and future plans of the organizational unit was a practical necessity. The business and IT performance implications of alignment have been demonstrated empirically and through case studies during the last decade (e.g. Chan et al., 1997; de Leede et al., 2002; Irani, 2002; Kearns and Lederer, 2003). Simply put, the findings support the hypothesis that those organizations that successfully align their business strategy with their IT strategy will outperform those that do not. Alignment leads to more focused and strategic use of IT which, in turn, leads to increased performance (Chan et al., 2006). For all these reasons, academics have been motivated to study IT alignment. However, the motivation for and methods of alignment research have also been challenged. A counter-argument Many scholars argue that the alignment literature fails to capture important phenomena and that in fact, alignment is not always desirable. The arguments have several themes, including (1) alignment research is mechanistic and fails to capture real life, (2) alignment is not possible if the business strategy is unknown or in process, (3) alignment is not desirable as an end in itself since the business must always change, and (4) IT should often challenge the business, not follow it. These arguments that challenge the need for further alignment research are described more fully below. Ciborra (1997)3 suggests that the alignment literature is too theoretical; that it is generated by the scientific method applied to the design of human affairs and computer systems. He recommends a Mintzberg-like approach, where researchers go to the field for insights (Mintzberg, 1973). Critics of IT alignment research argue that in the world of work, alignment does not succeed because strategy is not a clear concept due to various turbulent, unpredictable circumstances that leave managers muddling through, betting, and tinkering with their corporate strategies (Vitale et al., 1986). Tightly coupled arrangements can have negative outcomes especially in turbulent times. That is, if the business environm (...truncated)