Organizational and Technological Infrastructures Alignment HICSS 2001 A.M. Croteau, S. Solomon, L. Raymond and F. Bergeron,

Présentation au sujet: "Organizational and Technological Infrastructures Alignment HICSS 2001 A.M. Croteau, S. Solomon, L. Raymond and F. Bergeron,"— Transcription de la présentation:

1 Organizational and Technological Infrastructures Alignment HICSS 2001 A.M. Croteau, S. Solomon, L. Raymond and F. Bergeron,

2 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 2 Agenda Context Theoretical background Research model Methodology Results and discussion Lessons learned

3 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 3 Strategic Alignment Model (Henderson and Venkatraman, 1999) External Internal Functionalintegrity Alignment BusinessStrategyBusinessStrategy OrganizationalInfrastructureOrganizationalInfrastructureTechnologicalInfrastructureTechnologicalInfrastructure ITStrategyITStrategy

4 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 4 Infrastructures (Tapscott and Caston, 1993) Organizational shared vision cooperation empowerment adaptability learning Technological user involvement connectivity distributed computing flexibility technology awareness

5 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 5 Research Model TechnologicalInfrastructureTechnologicalInfrastructure OrganizationalInfrastructureOrganizationalInfrastructure Co-Alignment BusinessPerformanceBusinessPerformance P Proposition: The co-alignment between the organizational infrastructure and the technological infrastructure positively enhances business performance

6 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 6 Organizational Infrastructure Shared Vision, (6 items) Kravchuk and Schack (1996), Boynton, Zmud and Jacobs (1994), Mayer and Shoorman (1992), Henderson,Thomas and Venkatraman (1992) Cooperation, (7 items) Pinto, Pinto and Prescott (1993), Zaheer and Venkatraman (1994), Jones and James (1979) Empowerment, (10 items) Bartunek, Pennie, Foster-Fishman and Key (1996), Boynton, Zmud and Jacobs (1994) Adaptability, (9 items) Lai and Guynes (1994) Learning, (10 items) Agarwal, Krudys and Tanniru (1997)

7 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 7 Technological Infrastructure User Involvement in IS, (7 items) Hartwick and Barki (1994), Torkzadeh and Doll (1993 Connectivity, (8 items) Premkumar and Ramamurthy (1995), Sethi and Carraher (1993), Kraemer and Danziger (1993), Ferioli and Migliarese (1996), Debanne (1997) Distributed Computing, (4 items) Sethi and Carraher (1993 ), Kraemer and Danziger (1993) Flexibility, (11 items) Chau and Tam (1997), Duncan (1995 ) Technology Awareness, (10 items) Lai and Guynes (1994), Croteau (1998)

8 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 8 Other variables Business Performance 2 nd order factor derived from sales growth and profitability Venkatraman, 1989 Co-alignment 2 nd order factor derived from organizational and technological infrastructures

9 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 9 Data Collection 945 pre-tested questionnaires sent to CEO Reminder card 104 questionnaires usable Response rate of 11% Mean of total yearly revenues: 1.5 billion $ Manufacturing and finance industries

10 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 10 Data Analysis Structural Equation Modeling with EQS Assessment of the measurement model unidimensionality reliability convergent validity Assessment of the theoretical model

11 TechnologicalInfrastructure ( =.75) TechnologicalInfrastructure OrganizationalInfrastructure ( =.89) OrganizationalInfrastructure Co-Alignment ( =.74) BusinessPerformance ( =.84) R 2 =0.37 BusinessPerformance ( =.84) R 2 =0.37.61 *** shared vision cooperation empowerment adaptability learning user involvement connectivity distributed computing flexibility technology awareness.75.67.91.76.80.74 ***.44.67.59.76.60.79 *** growth.71 *** profitability.97 *** ***: p < 0.001 2 = 114.2 (df = 51, p < 0.001) 2 = 114.2 (df = 51, p < 0.001) 2 /df = 2.1 2 /df = 2.1 comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.89 Results © Croteau, Simonon, Raymdon and Bergeron, 2001

12 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 12 Discussion When there is co-alignment, there is a potential for Business Performance. The stronger the co-alignment, the higher the potential for Business Performance When co-aligned, stronger organizational and technological infrastructures mean higher Business Performance. In any case, low co-alignment means low Business Performance

13 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 13 Shared Vision Cooperation Empowerment Adaptability Learning User Involvement Connectivity Distributed Computing Flexibility Technology Awareness Co-Alignment of Infrastructures

14 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 14 Methodological Conclusion Test of Fit as Co-Alignment Credence to Venkatramans work on fit Applicability of Henderson & Venkatraman model SEM - EQS is a powerful tool Usefulness of Tapscott and Castons practitioner perspective Survey approach is appropriate

15 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 15 Ref Disk Zip2000; pub+doc/hicss/reach01_hicss.ppt; 20 décembre 2000

16 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 16 Bergeron Harmonisation stratégique But: Démontrer que lharmonisation stratégique permet aux TI de contribuer à la performance de lorganisation Facteurs influençant la profitabilité des TI: Orientation stratégique Agressive, analyste, défensive, futuriste, proactive, risquée Complexité structurelle Décentralisation, formalisation, complexité

17 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 17 Bergeron suite 1 Gestion stratégique des TI Veille technologique en TI Planification et contrôle des TI, Acquisition et implantation des TI Usage stratégique des TI Harmonisation nécessaire des facteurs CE partie intégrante des TI Conclusion: Besoin dharmoniser CE avec: Stratégie des TI Stratégie dentreprise Complexité structurelle

18 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 18 Kaplan Plan stratégique équilibré But: Accroître lavoir des actionnaires 4 perspectives intégrées: 4: Apprentissage et croissance et Connaissance, Aptitudes, Systèmes 3: Processus internes Innovation, Gestion de clientèle, Chaîne de valeur, légal 2: Client Une stratégie parmi: Excellence opérationnelle, relation client, leadership de produit 1: Financière Croissance des revenus, Productivité

19 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 19 Kaplan suite 1 Mesures à prendre: CRM: acquisition, rétention, satisfaction Revenus de nouvelles sources, valeur ajoutée pour le Cr, Coût de production par unité Utilisation des actifs Prix des actions Retour sur le capital

20 © Croteau, Solomon, Raymond and Bergeron, 2001 20 Kaplan suite 2 Le CE Doit sintégrer dans le plan stratégique équilibré Son efficacité doit être mesuré Contribuer au profit