developing a framework for it governance · pdf filedeveloping a framework for it governance...

DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK FOR IT GOVERNANCE IN THE

POST-MERGER INTEGRATION PHASE

Journal: 17th European Conference on Information Systems

Manuscript ID: ECIS2009-0632.R1

Submission Type: Research-in-Progress Paper

Keyword: Mergers and Acquisitions, IT governance, Design Science,

Organisational Change

17th European Conference on Information Systems

DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK FOR IT GOVERNANCE

IN THE POST-MERGER INTEGRATION PHASE

Becker, Jörg, University of Münster, European Research Center for Information Systems,

Leonardo-Campus 3, 48149 Münster, Germany, [email protected]

Pöppelbuß, Jens, University of Münster, European Research Center for Information Systems,


Stolze, Carl, University of Münster, European Research Center for Information Systems,


Asgarian, Cyrus, Deloitte Consulting GmbH, CIO Advisory Services, Franklinstraße 46-48,

60486 Frankfurt am Main, Germany, [email protected]

Abstract

As today’s Information Technology (IT) penetrates the business of almost any company, the IT

integration of two companies is regarded as one of the most challenging tasks in mergers and

acquisitions (M&A). This integration mainly takes place during the post-merger integration (PMI)

phase of an M&A endeavor. In this phase, well-defined IT governance is critical to success since it

specifies the decision rights and an accountability framework to encourage a desirable course of the IT

integration. It harmonizes IT-related integration issues with desired behaviors and business objectives.

In this paper, we provide a framework for IT Governance in the PMI phase (ITGoPMI). The ITGoPMI

framework can serve as a blueprint for the specification of organizational units and their decision

fields when the IT functions of two companies become one. We are developing the framework

according to the principles of design science research in an iterative manner. Preliminary versions of

the framework were evaluated through expert interviews. They approved that the here presented

version of our ITGoPMI framework already has the potential to serve as a beneficial guideline for

post-merger IT integration in practice. Nevertheless, we will continue our research process with

further evaluation and improvement of the framework.

Keywords: Mergers and Acquisitions, IT Governance, Design Science, Organizational Change

of 13 17th European Conference on Information Systems

1 MOTIVATION

Over the last few decades, mergers and acquisitions (M&A) have established themselves as important

options for companies striving for growth or increasing profitability (Alaranta & Henningsson 2008).

As today’s Information Technology (IT) penetrates the core business of almost any company, the IT

integration is regarded as one of the most challenging tasks in these M&A endeavors (Schewe &

Lohre & Böhmer 2007, Carr 2003). Surveys underline that this integration aspect is often seen as a

cause for problems or unfulfilled expectations (PwC 2004, ComputerWeekly 2001, Deloitte

Consulting 2008).

Consequently, IT governance can be considered as critical to the combination of IT functions that

mainly takes place during the post-merger integration (PMI) phase of an M&A endeavor. Not only in

the PMI context, IT governance specifies the decision rights and an accountability framework to

encourage a desirable course of the IT integration (Weill & Ross 2004). It harmonizes IT-related

integration issues with desired behaviors and business objectives. Appropriate structures and

procedures need to be established in order to achieve success of the overall M&A endeavor.

Although the importance of this topic is striking, the issue of IT integration in M&A has only received

little consideration in academic literature (Henningsson & Svensson & Vallén 2007, Mehta &

Hirschheim 2004, Alaranta & Henningsson 2008). From our point of view, especially the role of IT

governance in the PMI phase of M&A has been regarded insufficiently.

Addressing this insufficiency, the objective of this paper is to provide a framework for defining IT

governance for the course of the PMI phase. It can serve as a guideline to cope with the issues linked

to the post-merger IT integration by suggesting IT-related organizational units and adequate allocation

of decision rights.

Having provided the motivation for the development of a framework, the next section will present

foundations about IT governance and M&A that lay out the basis for our work. Thereafter, we will

argue that the development of such a framework can be approached according to design science which

aims at designing innovative artifacts that are built and evaluated in an iterative manner (Hevner &

March & Park & Ram 2004). We will present our research method by illustrating the iteration steps

that have been completed so far. Subsequently, we will explain the current version of our Framework

for IT governance in the PMI phase (ITGoPMI) which is the result of the third iteration of our research

process. Finally, we will briefly discuss implications for further research.

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 IT Governance

Beyond doubt, the term IT governance refers to the steering of the use of information technology of all

kinds within a company. However, as several authors have pointed out, there is no consistent

understanding of the term neither in research nor in practice (Johannsen & Goeken 2007, Rüter &

Göldner & Schröder 2006, Simonsson & Johnson 2006). For instance, Weill and Ross (2004) define

IT governance as “specifying the decision rights and accountability framework to encourage desirable

behavior in using IT”. Desirable is the behavior that is aligned with the general targets, strategy,

values and norms of a company. Therefore, the design of IT governance is always specific to a given

company. The scope of IT governance are not single decisions themselves but the determination which

decisions need to be made, who can contribute to the decision-making processes and who is eventually

eligible to make the decision. In this sense, every company has an IT governance, but only an

explicitly designed one is able to align IT effectively and efficiently to the goals of the company. In

order to achieve this, IT governance needs to be in line and linked with the general corporate

governance. Information and information technology are seen next to employees, finance, physical

of 1317th European Conference on Information Systems

assets, intellectual property and relationships as one of six levers for strategy implementation and

value creation (Weill & Ross 2004).

Not only in the previous definition, but also according to Luftman (2003), Van Grembergen (2002)

and the IT Governance Institute (2003) IT governance refers to the leadership of the use of IT.

Furthermore, there is consensus that the ultimate goal of IT governance is IT business alignment

(Gentle 2004). Steering and monitoring of structures form the key tasks of IT governance.

From our point of view, a strict differentiation between two possible conceptions of IT governance is

necessary. On the one hand, IT governance can be regarded as the definition of structures and

procedures of decision-making, and the allocation of decision rights to people and units. On the other

hand, some definitions also include the actual decision-making. Adopting the definition of IT

governance by Ross and Weill in this paper, we agree with the first conception.

2.2 Post-Merger Integration of IT

Mergers and acquisitions can be classified entirely different based on either legal terms or practical

power differences between the two fusing companies (Alaranta & Henningsson 2007, Henningsson &

Carlsson 2007). A discussion of these differences is beyond the scope of this paper. In fact, both

mergers and acquisitions typically require the IT of two companies to be combined to a certain degree.

Integrating former independent IT functions is one of the major challenges of an M&A process, even

seen more critical than resistance of employees in general. Nevertheless, this challenge is not always

considered as it should be in respect to its importance (McKiernan & Merali 1995, Wirtz & Wecker

2006, Deloitte Consulting 2008). For the series of actions, which need to be proceeded to form the

combined IT, the term IT integration process has been established. However, it is not necessarily an

integration in the truest sense of the words. As a matter of fact, the IT integration process covers all

decision areas of IT governance, not just the technical core parts but also its soft aspects like

organization and strategy. Therefore, we assume that the integration of IT also covers the integration

of information systems (IS). In this sense, we see IT as the broader term that encompasses not only

technical facilities but people, organizational structures, procedures, tasks and processes as well.

The IT integration process can be regarded as a transformation caused by the overall M&A process

(Farhoomand 2005, Schewe & Lohre & Genius 2007) and takes place during the post-merger

integration (PMI) phase (see Figure 1). Together with the two phases ‘preparation’ and ‘transaction’

PMI forms the M&A process as a whole (Meckl 2006, Henningsson & Carlsson 2007).

Figure 1. Transformation of IT during the post-merger integration

According to Wijnhoven & Spil & Stegwee & Fa (2006), there are four prototypic strategies which

refer to different levels of integration. For instance, a superior player usually assimilates the inferior

one, whereas there are also mergers of coequal organizations that have to proceed differently. The


most rigorous strategy is to replace any existing IT (see outer left box in Figure 2). The second

strategy is the adoption of existing IT instead of creating an entirely new one. Standardization as the

third option can be described as taking parts out of both present ones and recombine them into the new

IT. This is often done in a “best-of-breed” fashion. Synchronization finally describes a strategy in

which the new IT is basically a consolidated interface for the still existing pre-merger ones which can

stay unchanged. Independent from the chosen strategy, the PMI of IT requires in any case adequately

defined structures for decision-making and monitoring as well as accountability to enable and

encourage an efficient management of the desired changes (Stolzenberg & Heberle 2006, Ringlstetter

& Kaiser & Schuster 2006).

Figure 2. Transformation of IT during the post-merger integration (see Wijnhoven et al. 2006)

Because of the explicit or implicit existence of IT governance in the two merging firms, IT governance

during the PMI cannot be entirely detached from the existing IT governances. In fact, their structures

need to be investigated during the initial stage of the PMI. Existing boards, committees and levels of

management need to be carefully integrated (Wijnhoven et al. 2006). Although the situation is

different for every single M&A process, it is not unlikely that the existing IT governance incorporates

elements of standardized frameworks, especially ITIL or COBIT (Fink & Ploder 2008, IT Governance

Institute 2008).

2.3 Facilitating the Definition of IT Governance in the PMI Phase by a Framework

A framework is a conceptual model that describes the structures of the organization in scope on an

abstract level by a selected organizational paradigm (Meise 2001). The purpose of a framework is to

provide an overview of relevant elements and their interdependencies. As the arrangement of elements

in a framework can be chosen freely, the visualization of the overall has priority over the detailed

depiction of single elements. Every element itself can be represented by a model of its own again and

thereby a hierarchy of models within a framework can be formed (vom Brocke 2003, Meise 2001).

The development of a framework often aims at creating a reference model that includes abstract

solutions and generic schemes for the design of organizations and information systems (Meise 2001).

Those can be based on either theoretical considerations or practical experiences. The resulting

framework then describes either an ideal and theoretically sound status (“best practice”) or a

systematic compressed image of the perceived reality of the modeler (“common practice”). Both types

hold recommendations to help the practitioners and scientists alike in their work (vom Brocke 2003).

Whilst the main characteristic of a framework is the provision of an overview over a certain field, we

especially aim at creating a model with a normative character. It is expected to give a guideline for the

IT integration within the M&A process. As Weill and Ross (2004) emphasized, IT governance means

to define which decisions about IT should be made by whom and in what manner in order to provide

accountability and control. Finally, as discussed in the previous section, existing IT governance

approaches need to be respected when designing a new one for the post-merger company. A general

vision of the change process needs to be determined which eventually has to be put into practice.

Altogether, these assumptions form the basic requirements for our framework for IT governance

during the post-merger integration phase (see Table 1).


Framework

• Provide an overview about organizational units and decision fields

• Provide reference for IT integration endeavors

IT governance

• Define decisions to be made

• Clarify who is allowed to make these decisions

• Specify the way decision-making is done as well as accountability and control

Post-merger integration phase

• Respect that elements of existing IT governance are the starting basis for the new one

• Help to decide about the vision for the IT transformation

• Support steering and monitoring of the IT integration

Table 1. Requirements for a framework for the IT governance during the PMI phase

3 RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Developing the Framework According to Design Science Research

We regard the development of a framework as being subject to design science research which is

motivated by the desire to improve the environment by means of innovative artifacts in terms of

constructs, models, methods, and instantiations (Hevner et al. 2004). However, contrary to design

science research as depicted by Hevner et al. (2004) that focuses the IT artifact per se, we also include

the non-technological context, i.e. people and organization. We aim at developing a framework that

provides practical knowledge that is applicable for the management of IT during M&A endeavors

(Carlsson & Henningsson & Hratinski & Keller 2008). This practical knowledge can also be referred

to as being a design theory (Carlsson et al. 2008, Gregor 2006, Hevner et al. 2004).

Build first draft of the ITGoPMI framework

Evaluate first draft in an expert interview

Extend knowledge base by review of literature and IT governance frameworks

Enhance ITGoPMI framework (second version)

Evaluate second version in multiple expert interviews

Refine ITGoPMI framework (current version)

Iteration 1

Iteration 2

Iteration 3

...

Figure 3. Framework Development Process

According to Hevner et al. (2004) and March & Smith (1995), design science research proceeds as a

cycle of the two phases ‘build’ and ‘evaluate’. Similarly, literature on design theory development

gives ‘propose/refine design theory’ and ‘test design theory’ as two key research activities (Carlsson et

al. 2008). Thus, first within an iteration loop, artifacts or design theories are built addressing problems

in an innovative way. Then, they are evaluated or tested against the utility they provide in solving

these problems, and they are examined whether requirements and restrictions are met (Hevner et al.

2004). If an artifact fails this evaluation, the heuristic process is resumed beginning again with the next

build phase aiming at refinement of the previous result. Our research process, which is currently in its

third iteration, reflects these basic principles (see figure 3) and is described in detail in the following

sections.


3.2 First Draft of the Framework

Initially, we designed a first and – in retrospect – comparatively simple and incomplete draft of the

ITGoPMI framework. We selected the shape of a house according to Meise (2001) as the basic design

of our framework. This reference design allocates the core processes in the center of the framework

which are surrounded by steering and support processes.

The first draft was evaluated by discussing it with an academic expert in the field of PMI and

innovation management. He approved the systematic design of the framework. However, he

questioned the explicit consideration of an integration of IT cultures due to concerns (especially

German) workers’ representatives possibly have. We answered to these concerns by abandoning the

accentuation on IT cultures from our framework. Henceforth, we regarded this rather as one of the

human resources topics in M&A (Picot 2005). Our overall objective was sharpened, namely to design

a framework that provides a guideline for the specification of decision rights as well as an

accountability framework to enforce desirable outcomes during the PMI phase.

3.3 Extending the Knowledge Base

Design science research refers to a broad knowledge base of theories, models or methods that provide

the basis for the design process (Hevner 2007). Similarly, design theories are expected to ground in

previous research which has to be reviewed systematically (Carlsson et al. 2008). Due to the identified

shortcomings of our first draft, we recognized the need to extend our knowledge base with further

existing artifacts, experiences, and expertise that define the state-of-the art.

First, we analyzed frameworks like COBIT and ITIL since organizations frequently adopt those when

explicitly designing their IT governance (IT Governance Institute 2008, Rüter & Göldner & Schröder

2006, Fink & Ploder 2008). For instance, decisions regarding the ‘Service Strategy’ aspect of ITIL V3

(Cartlidge & Hanna & Rudd & Macfarlane & Windebank & Rance 2007) largely cover the IT decision

fields presented by Weill and Ross (2004).

Second, we conducted a literature review in order to identify possibly existing theories and artifacts

regarding IT governance in the PMI phase. To analyze the state-of-the-art of research in this field, we

examined high quality publications listed as ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the well-established rankings VHB

JOURQUAL 2 (Hennig-Thurau & Schrader 2008) and WKWI (2008). We searched the online

databases of these journals and conferences for the terms „post-merger“, „PMI“, „information

technology“, „governance“ and „IT integration“. To guarantee up-to-date results, we limited our

literature review to papers published from July 2005 to June 2008.

This literature review reinforced our proposition that currently there is no comprehensive framework

for our scope, since almost any of the 25 publications we identified referred to a quite specific sub-

aspect. Nevertheless, most of these aspects were relevant to at least some degree and thus had to be

considered in the further development of our framework. For instance, Vaast and Levina (2006) advise

against over-codification of procedures, and as already presented in section 2.2, Wijnhoven et al.

(2006) provide an excellent overview about possible integration strategies.

3.4 Enhancing the Framework

We refined the ITGoPMI framework driven by the identified shortcomings of the first draft and our

extended knowledge base. We kept the basic design of the framework, but added certain

organizational units that address key subprograms and decision fields relevant during the PMI phase.

Referring to the structuring found in the frameworks ITIL (Cartlidge et al. 2007) and COBIT (IT

Governance Institute 2007) as well as in further publications (Rüter et al. 2006, Weill & Ross 2004,

Deloitte Netherlands 2008), we derived seven sub-aspects of governing IT in the PMI phase. These

comprise: IT Strategy, IT Governance, IT Organization, IT Processes and Services, Information


Systems, IT Personnel and Change Management. Each subprogram is managed by an integration team

that is lead by a team leader who is responsible for his/her particular aspect.

The subprograms are steered by superior organizational units: the IT Integration Strategy Committee

which holds the overall responsibility for the IT integration in the M&A process and makes

fundamental decisions, and the IT Integration Steering Committee that is responsible for the

coordination with the departments of the demand organization. The IT Integration Office serves as an

interface between steering level and the integration teams. Located below the subprograms, the units

IT Governance Assurance Team and IT Integration Assessment Team monitor the compliance with the

defined IT governance and the progress of the integration endeavor. Additionally, the Demand

Organization (in the organizational view) with its levels represents those parts of both companies

outside the actual IT organization that demand and consume IT services of any kind (see Figure 4). It

should be noted that these organizational units are also affected by the M&A transformation and

therefore may be constantly changing.

Figure 4. Enhanced Version of the Framework

3.5 Expert Interviews

Proceeding with the next evaluation phase in our design process, the ITGoPMI framework was

evaluated through five (semi-structured) expert interviews. Four of these experts were professional IT

consultants; the fifth person was the academic expert we had already interviewed in the previous

evaluation phase. All interviewees were experienced with M&A endeavors (see Table 2). We

especially asked IT consultants for their view because they are typically involved in M&A endeavors

in order to facilitate the IT integration with their expert knowledge and tools (e.g. a normative

framework). Furthermore, we argue that consultants, as being not directly affected by the outcomes of

the M&A process itself, are less biased in their view on how the IT governance should be shaped

during the PMI.


Interviewee Consultant A Consultant B Consultant C Consultant D Academic Expert

Involvement in

M&A Processes

Yes, but more

demergers

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Number 3-5 More than 5 1 1 More than 5

Role External

consultant

External

consultant and

affected

employee

External

consultant

External

consultant

External assessor

Table 2. Sample of Experts

The practical value of the framework as well as theoretical premises and the relevance of included

elements were discussed. Parts of our interview outline were inspired by a past PMI survey conducted

by Bauch (2004). Again, the interviewees appreciated the structuring of the framework and they

honored its level of detail (the experts received a description of the framework that was of

considerably more detail than the previous section 3.4). However, the heterogeneity of their

perceptions – even of basic terms like ‘IT governance’, ‘change management’ and ‘framework’ –

became apparent through the interviews. This also left some degree of uncertainness of how a

framework for IT governance in the PMI phase precisely should look like. Nevertheless, some

common criticisms led the further development of the framework. For instance, a distinct IT

Integration Strategy Committee was regarded as superfluous which we consequently dropped in the

next build phase. The result of this phase represents the current version of the framework being subject

to the next chapter.

4 FRAMEWORK FOR IT GOVERNANCE IN THE PMI PHASE

As a result of the suggestions made by the experts during the interviews we developed the ITGoPMI

framework further to its subsequently presented form. The house as the basic design of the framework

has proven to be sufficient to structure the matter in a consistent and comprehensive way and thus has

been kept throughout the development process. The structure is still steering as the roof, subprograms

to structure the integration work itself as the body and monitoring as the basement of the framework.

However, the organizational units in each part have been revised to reflect insights gained through the

feedback and suggestions of the interviewed experts.

The steering level at the roof of the ITGoPMI framework has been consolidated to two units: The IT

Post-Merger Integration Office and the IT Post-Merger Integration Steering Board. The first one acts

as a project management office by coordinating the work of all integration teams and keeping them on

track from the operational perspective. The IT Post-Merger Integration Steering Board is responsible

for making strategic and far reaching decisions about the transformation of IT in general. It decides

especially about the desired outcome of the overall transformation process and which strategic

integration approach should be followed (see section 2.2). As this has profound impact on the way IT

can support the demand organization, the demand-sided senior management level needs to be

represented in the IT Post-Merger Integration Steering Board. As an M&A process is usually about

more than IT, both organizational units in the framework’s roof (see Figure 5) have to keep close ties

with the steering committee and project office of the entire post-merger integration process.

The steering level is supported by IT Post-Merger Integration Steering Committees for specific IT

PMI decisions which require the involvement of the department level of the demand organization. For

instance, these can refer to the consolidation of CRM systems, which the marketing departments

heavily rely on. Nevertheless, the exact number and topics of those committees needs to be

individually determined for any M&A process with its specific requirements und situation. Hereby

also the likely transformation of the demand organization needs to be taken into account.

On the operational level, Business Liaison Managers form the interface between the subprogram

integration teams and the departments of the demand organization. Hence, these positions possess a

political dimension as especially cooperation and communication needs to be facilitated between the


different stakeholders. In this context, according to our interviewed experts, it is advisable to involve

external professionals as neutral instances for this role. At least one Business Liaison Manager is

needed for each subprogram. A larger number seems to be appropriate for situations with highly

complex work in the subprograms or many departments involved.

Figure 5. ITGoPMI Framework

As shown in Figure 5, a dedicated Integration Team is responsible for each subprogram. Each team

should comprise members from the two merging companies in order to avoid political disputes and

facilitate knowledge sharing. All integration teams must report at least to the steering level. Out of the

wide range of thinkable subprograms for the post-merger integration of IT itself, seven subprograms

have been identified as being repeatedly used and/or suggested by the interviewed experts. These

seven are the following: IT Strategy, IT Organization & IT Governance, IT Processes, IT Services, IT

Applications, IT Systems and IT Facilities & Networks.

The subprogram IT Strategy aims at developing an integrated and sustainable IT strategy for the

newly-merged company. Hence, the general parameters for the future developments of IT are defined

in this subprogram. Moreover, this must also include the definition of an exact strategy for the

transformation of IT during the PMI phase as this is highly related with the to-be future IT strategy as

well as the general logic behind the M&A process.

To make the new IT strategy come alive after the merger, appropriate organizational structure and

governance are needed. Due to the highly interrelated nature of IT organization and IT governance

both are jointly worked on in the subprogram IT Organization & IT Governance. One of the key tasks

in this subprogram is to determine which mechanisms and structures exist already in both companies

and how they can be used or integrated into the structures during the PMI as well as afterwards.

Whilst the subprogram IT Processes defines – as the internal perspective of structuring – how IT

operates, IT services describe what the outcomes of IT use are. These outcomes can be either delivered

to the – from the point of view of the IT function – external demand organization or being used


internally as inputs of another service. Therefore the subprogram IT Services determines what the IT is

supposed to deliver to whom after the completion of the PMI.

The remaining three subprograms address the technical transformation itself during the PMI phase.

The subprogram IT Applications is about the software layer that runs the business-relevant programs

and their interfaces within and across the newly-formed company. The subprogram IT Systems deals

with desktop hardware and system software that enables the applications to run. Last but not least, the

subprogram IT Facilities & Networks is covering the topological aspect of IT by determining for

example where data centers should be located and how the networks should be operated.

In the basement of the ITGoPMI framework, two teams are monitoring the IT integration. First, the IT

Integration Assessment Team is concerned with tracking the progress of the transformation. Second,

the IT Governance Assurance Team checks the compliance with the governance structures valid for

the course of the IT integration. In order to cope with conflicting interests, both teams should consist

not only of members of the involved firms but of external professionals as well. Especially from a

corporate governance point of view, it is important that steering and monitoring do not influence each

other. Consequently, it can make sense to involve external consultants in these two teams.

To breathe life into the organizational units, especially in steering and monitoring, we developed a set

of typical processes they need to execute. Maybe the foremost obvious is that the integration office of

the general M&A process needs to make sure that the IT Post-Merger Integration Steering Board is

formed. Then, this board appoints the IT Post-Merger Integration Office, the integration teams at the

core and all other needed organizational units. These are the most responsible actions as the choice of

people with their talents, skills and motivations determines the performance that can be achieved for

the whole transformation. Moreover, as the IT Post-Merger Integration Steering Board is responsible

for the outcome, it needs to receive reports of the subprogram integration teams and the monitoring

teams. These disclose the achieved progress of the integration and the compliance to the PMI-specific

IT governance structures. Finally, the IT Post-Merger Integration Office manages the day-to-day

coordination between the integration teams and drives their work efforts if needed.

Altogether these organizational units form a comprehensive structure to assign decision rights and

define accountability during the PMI of IT. However, it merely represents a heuristic proposition and

guideline. Adjustments may be necessary for individual M&A.

5 IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

In this paper, we presented a framework for IT governance in the PMI phase which is the preliminary

result of a still ongoing research process. Building on the well-established definition of IT governance

according to Weill and Ross, the ITGoPMI framework provides a blueprint for the specification of

decision rights and accountabilities. Precisely, it outlines organizational units and their decision fields

for the course of the IT integration. It aims at providing a means to ensure desirable outcomes of IT

use, even during the fairly instable time when two companies and their IT functions merge.

Nevertheless, there might be limits in applicability for M&A processes in which small and medium-

sized enterprises join forces. We see the need for further applicability checks to explore which

structural elements of our framework can be regarded as universal and which are only needed in large-

scale M&A endeavors. There may even be cases in which no integration of IT takes place at all and

consequently such a framework guiding the IT integration process is not needed either.

As we have seen, there are different strategies for the post-merger IT integration. Hence, there is no

single best way of how to integrate two former independent IT functions. Further research should

analyze if varying strategies also require specific adjustments to the framework.

We learnt that developing a comprehensive framework for the IT governance in the PMI phase is a

challenging task. So far, our empirical research was limited to interviews with German experts. Even

in this relatively small sample of interviewees there were divergent perceptions of basic terms like ‘IT


governance’ and ‘framework’. This opened up controversial discussions about what IT governance

actually is, especially during the post-merger integration phase. In spite of the heterogeneity of their

perceptions, we have been assured by all experts we interviewed that our ITGoPMI framework already

has the potential to serve as a beneficial guideline for post-merger IT integration in practice.

Obviously, this opinion needs to be validated by empirical research on a larger scale.

As the output of design science research must be returned to the environment for evaluation (Hevner

2007), we will continue our research process by interviewing IT managers with M&A experience as

well as by trying to apply the framework in practical M&A situations. This will possibly lead to

further improvements. In the long term, we will strive for establishing it as a reference model for IT

governance in the PMI phase.

References

Alaranta, M. and Henningsson, S. (2008). An approach to analyzing and planning post-merger IS

integration: Insights from two field studies. Information Systems Frontiers, 10 (3), 307-319.

Bauch, C. (2004). Planung und Steuerung der Post Merger-Integration. Deut. Univ.-Verl., Wiesbaden.

Carlsson, S.A. and Henningsson, S. and Hratinski, S. and Keller, C. (2008) Towards a Design Science

Research Approach for IS Use and Management: Applications from the Areas of Knowledge

Management, E-Learning and IS Integration. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference

on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (Vaishnavi, V. and

Baskerville, R. Eds.), Atlanta, Georgia

Carr, N.G. (2003). IT Doesn't Matter. Harvard Business Review, 81 (5), 41-49.

Cartlidge, A. and Hanna, A. and Rudd, C. and Macfarlane, I. and Windebank, J. and Rance, S. (2007).

An Introductory Overview of ITIL V3 (Cartlidge, A. and Lillycrop, M. Ed.). The UK Chapter of

the IT Service Management Forum (itSMF), Wokingham.

ComputerWeekly (2001). Don't overlook IT in the merger. Available from http://www.computerweek

ly.com/Articles/2001/05/31/180596/dont-overlook-it-in-the-merger.htm [accessed 2008-11-26].

Deloitte Consulting (2008). Segel setzen - IT M&A in Deutschland. Deloitte Consulting, München.

Deloitte Netherlands (2008). Operational strategy and the Target Operating Model Design. Available

from http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/section_node/0,1042,sid=184382,00.html [accessed 2008-09-10].

Farhoomand, A. (2005). Managing (e)business transformation: a global perspective. Palgrave

Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Fink, K. and Ploder, C. (2008). Decision Support Framework for the Implementation of IT-

Governance. In Proceedings of the 41th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System

Sciences (HICSS'08).

Gentle, C. (2004). Cracking the IT value code (Deloitte Research Report). Available from

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/de_consulting_crackingITvalue_181004.pdf

[accessed 2008-07-18].

Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly 30 (3), 611-642.

Henningsson, S. and Carlsson, S.A. (2007). The Dynamic Relation Between IS Integration and the

Merger and Acquisition Process. In Proceedings of the 13th Asia Pacific Management Conference,

Melbourne, 1106-1123.

Henningsson, S. and Svensson, C. and Vallén, L. (2007). Mastering the Integration Chaos Following

Frequent M&As: IS Integration with SOA Technology. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07).

Henning-Thurau, T. and Walsh, G. and Schrader, U. (2004). VHB-JOURQUAL: Ein Ranking von

betriebswirtschaftlich-relevanten Zeitschriften auf der Grundlage von Expertenurteilen.

Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 56 (9), 520-545.

Hevner, A.R. (2007). A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scandinavian Journal of

Information Systems, 19 (2), 87-92.

Hevner, A.R. and March, S.T. and Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information

Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28 (1), 75-105.


IT Governance Institute (2008). IT Governance Global Status Report 2008. Available from

http://www.itgi.org/AMTemplate.cfm?Section=ITGI_Research_Publications&Template=/Content

Management/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=39735 [accessed 2008-07-22].

IT Governance Institute (2007). CobIT 4.1. Available from

https://www.isaca.org/AMTemplate.cfm?Section=Downloads&Template=/MembersOnly.cfm&Co

ntentFileID=14002 [accessed 2008-07-22].

IT Governance Institute (2003). IT Governance für Geschäftsführer und Vorstände - Zweite Ausgabe.

Available from http://www.itgi.org/Template_ITGI.cfm?Section=Recent_Publications&CONTEN

TID=33261&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm [accessed 2008-06-09].

Johannsen, W. and Goeken, M. (2007). Referenzmodelle für IT-Governance. dpunkt, Heidelberg.

Luftman, J. (2003). IT Governance. In Competing in the information age : align in the sand (Luftman,

J.N. Ed.), p. 161-190, 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

March, S.T. and Smith, G.F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology.

Decision Support Systems, 15 (4), 251-266.

McKiernan, P. and Merali, Y. (1995). Integrating information systems after a merger. Long Range

Planning, 28 (4), 4-5.

Meckl, R. (2006). Organisation und Steuerung des Akquisitionsprozesses. In Handbuch Mergers &

Acquisitions Management (Wirtz, B.W. Ed.), p. 405-428, Gabler, Wiesbaden.

Mehta, M. and Hirschheim, R. (2004). A Framework for Assessing IT Integration Decision-Making in

Mergers and Acquisitions. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on

System Sciences (HICSS'04), 8 (8).

Meise, V. (2001). Ordnungsrahmen zur prozessorientierten Organisationsgestaltung. Kovac, Hamburg.

Picot, G. (2005). Personelle und kulturelle Integration. In Handbuch Mergers & Acquisitions (Picot,

G. Ed.), p. 449-490, 3rd Edition. Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart.

PwC (2004). Systems & Process Assurance - Operational Risk. Available from

http://www.pwchk.com/home/eng/oprisk.html#F [accessed 2008-11-26].

Ringlstetter, M. and Kaiser, S. and Schuster, M. (2006). Management des Wandels bei Mergers und

Acquisitions. In Handbuch Mergers & Acquisitions Management (Wirtz, B.W. Ed.), 885-908,

Gabler, Wiesbaden.

Rüter, A. and Göldner, A. and Schröder, J. (2006). IT-Governance in der Praxis. Springer, Berlin.

Schewe, G. and Lohre, S. and Genius, C. (2007). Integration Excellence: Referenzmodell zur IT-

Integration. In Arbeitspapiere des Lehrstuhls für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insb. Organisation,

Personal und Innovation der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität, Vol. 41, Münster.

Simonsson, M. and Johnson, P. (2006). Defining IT Governance - a consolidation of literature. In

Working Paper of the Department of Industrial Information and Control Systems, Royal Institute of

Technology (KTH), Vol. MS103, Stockholm.

Stolzenberg, K. and Heberle, K. (2006). Change Management. Springer, Heidelberg.

Vaast, E. and Levina, N. (2006). Multiple Faces of Codification: Organizational Redesign in an IT

Organization. Organization Science, 17 (2), 190-201.

Van Grembergen, W. (2002). Introduction to the Minitrack "IT Governance and its Mechanisms". In

Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'02), 240.

vom Brocke, J. (2003). Referenzmodellierung. Logos, Berlin.

Weill, P. and Ross, J.W. (2004). IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for

Superior Results. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Wijnhoven, F. and Spil, T. and Stegwee, R. and Fa, R.T.A. (2006). Post-merger IT integration

strategies: An IT alignment perspective. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 15 (1), 5-28.

Wirtz, B.W. and Wecker, R.M. (2006). Struktur und Ablauf des Post Merger Integrationsmanagement.

In Handbuch Mergers & Acquisitions Management (Wirtz, B.W. Ed.), 709-731, Gabler,

Wiesbaden.

WKWI (2008). WI-Orientierungslisten - WI-Journalliste 2008 sowie WI-Liste der Konferenzen,

Proceedings und Lecture Notes 2008. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 50 (2), 155-163.


developing a framework for it governance · pdf filedeveloping a framework for it governance...

Documents