strategic pianning the literature of management ... sp for mis.pdfmis strategic planning ments of...

MIS Strategic Planning

Strategic Pianningfor Managementinformation Systems

By: William R. King

AbstractPlanning for the information systems in anorganization generally has not been closely relatedto the overall strategic pianning processes throughwhich the organization prepares for its future. AnMIS strategic planning process is conceptuaiizedand illustrated as one which iinks the. organiza-tion's "strategy set" to an MiS "strategy set."

Keywords: MIS planning, MIS design and implementationCategories: 2.4, 2.41

The literature of management informationsystems (MiS) concentrates largely on thenature and structure of MIS's and on processesfor designing and developing such systems. Theidea of "planning for the MIS" is usually treatedas either one of developing the need and thegeneral design concept for such a system, or inthe context of project planning for the MISdevelopment effort.

However, strategic planning for the informa-tional needs of the organization is both feasibieand necessary if the MIS is to support the basicpurposes and goals of the organization. Indeed,one of the possible explanations [6] for thefailure of many MIS's is-that they have beendesigned from the same "bottom up" point ofview that characterized the development of thedata processing systems of an earlier era. Suchdesign approaches primarily reflect the pursuitof efficiency, such as through cost savings,rather than the pursuit of greater organizationaleffectiveness.^

The modern view of an MIS as an organizationaldecision support system is inconsistent with thedesign/development approaches which areappropriate for data processing. The organi-zation's operating efficiency is but one aspect forconsideration in management decision making.The achievement of greater organizationaleffectiveness is the paramount consideration inmost of the management decisions which theMiS is to support; it also must be of paramountimportance in the design of the MIS.

There is an intrinsic iinkage of the decision-supporting MIS to the organization's purpose,objectives, and strategy. While this conclusionmay appear to be straightforward, it has not beenoperationalized as a part of MIS designmethodology. There are those who argue thatthe MIS designer cannot hope to get involved insuch things as organizational missions, objec-tives, and strategies, since they are clearlybeyond his domain of authority.

This article describes an operationally feasibleapproach for identifying and utiiizing theeiements of the organization's "strategy set" topian for the MiS. Whether or not written state-

"Efficiency" may be thought of in terms of a ratio of outputto input. "Effectiveness" reiates output to the goais whichare being sought.

MiS Quarteriy I March 1978 27


ments of these strategic elements — e.g..missions, objectives, etc. — exist, it stiii often willbe necessary to perform the identification phaseof the anaiysis, since such written statements arefrequentiy outdated, or may be of the variety thatare commoniy produced for public relationspurposes rather than for strategic managementpurposes. If credible statements of organiza-tionai purpose and strategy do exist, only thatportion of the process which deais with trans-forming organizationai strategy into MISstrategic parameters need be impiemented.

MIS Strategic Planning —An OverviewFigure 1 abstractiy shows the overaii process forperforming MiS strategic pianning. This figureshows an "MiS Strategic Planning" processwhich transforms an "Organizationai StrategySet," made up of organizationai mission, objec-tives, strategy, and other strategic organizationaiattributes, into an "MiS Strategy Set," made up ofsystem objectives, constraints, and designprinciples.

Figure 1 describes an information-basedapproach to strategic pianning forthe MiS in thatit identifies an information set — the "MiSStrategy Set" — which will guide the design anddevelopment of the MiS. While the elements ofthis MiS Strategy Set — system objectives,constraints, and design principies — are notusuaily thought of in this context, they aregenerally recognized to be the guiding

considerations in deveioping the MIS design(e.g.. [10]).

However weil recognized the eiements of the MiSStrategy Set are. Figure 1 shows the MISStrategy Set as emanating directiy from anotherinformation set, the "Organizational StrategySet." This direct relationship between the twoinformation sets is neither weii recognized noroperationalized. It is this iinkage which is theprovince of MiS Strategic Pianning and it is onthe operationalizing of the transformationprocess between these two information sets thatthis article focuses.

It wiil prove useful to describe both the "Organi-zational Strategy Set" and the "MIS StrategySet" in some detail, before describing an opera-tional process for accomplishing the MISStrategic Pianning function which is describedconceptually in Figure 1.

The OrganizationalStrategy SetThe "Organizationai Strategy Set" is composedof those elements of organizational purpose anddirection which are deveioped as a resuit of theorganization's strategic pianning process — theorganization's mission, objectives andstrategy — as weii as certain other strategicorganizationai attributes which are of particularrelevance to the MIS.

Since the terminoiogy which is applied to thesestrategic pianning outputs generaiiy varies from

ORGANiZATiONALSTRATEGYSET

MISSTRATEGYSET

MissionObjectivesStrategyOther Strategic Organizationai

Attributes

MiSStrategic

PianningProcess

System ObjectivesSystem ConstraintsSystem Design Strategies

FIGURE 1. Overaii MIS Strategic Pianning Process

28 MIS Quarterly I March 1978


company to company and between businessfirms and public agencies, it is useful to defineand illustrate the elements of the organizationalstrategy set used in this article. No inferenceshould be drawn that these are proposed as the"correct" descriptions, or that the definitionsused here are universally appropriate; rather,the delineations are useful for fully developingthe MIS Strategic Planning process.

The organization's missionThe broadest strategic planning which must bedone by an organization is that of its mission. Anorganization's mission statement tells what it is,why it exists, and the unique contribution it canmake. The mission answers the organization'sbasic question, "What business are we in?"Some people consider such questions idleacademic nonsense; to them, their mission —thebusiness that they are in — is clear: "We makewidgets," or "We run railroads."

It became increasingly apparent during the196O's that such thinking was too limited.Organizations which felt that they knew theirbusiness disappeared in vast numbers from thescene. Today's business, however bright itsgrowth prospects may appear, may not exist inits current form in only a few years.

Conversely, during the 197O's, it also becameapparent that firms which slavishly followedexpansive views of their mission could encounterserious problems. Broad mission statementswere open invitations to get into new businessessolely on the criterion of "potentialprofitabiiity."Such a criterion does not take into account vitalfactors such as expertise — technological,market, and otherwise; neither does it take intoaccount the uncertainty which is inherent inpotential profit. Many of the companies whichgot into new "growth" businesses on this basisin the 196O's found themselves in the position ofselling off unprofitable ventures in the 197O's[12j. These problems have led to the conclusionthat the mission statement for an organizationmust carefully define what it does not do, as wellas what it does.

The values of such a clearly defined missionstatement can be illustrated with the "businessstatement" of one medium-sized firm:

We are in the business of supplying systemcomponents and services to a woridwide, non-residentiai air conditioning maricet. Air condi-tioning is defined as heating, cooiing, cleaning,humidity control, and air movement.

While such a statement may at first seem to bethe same as "We make widgets," it clearlyspecifies by exclusion many things that the firmdoes not do: it does not supply air conditioningsystems — rather it focuses on systemcomponents, it does not address itself to theresidential market for air conditioners; etc.

The organization's objectivesOnce the organization's mission has beendetermined, its objectives — desired futurepositions or "destinations" that it wishes toreach — should be selected. These destinationsmay be stated in either quantitative or qualitativeterms, but they should be broad and timeiessstatements, as opposed to specific, quantitativegoals, or targets.

For instance, among the stated objectives ofPPG Industries are:

"1) . . . to increase earnings per share toattain a continuing return of 14.5%or moreon stockholder's equity and to provideconsistently increasing dividends [theprime objective].

"2) . . . to employ the least number andhighest quality of people necessary toaccomplish the prime objective and toprovide them with the opportunities todevelop and apply their fullest abilities.

" 3 ) . . . to have the company accepted as adynamic, responsible, professionallymanaged, profit oriented corporationengaged in exciting and important fields ofbusiness, with the ability to meetsuccessfully the economic and socialchallenges of the future." [5]

While such statements may at first appear to be"motherhood and sin," they say very importantthings about the company. For instance, the"image" objective, #3, says that PPG caresgreatly how it is thought of in society. This servesto clearly constrain other choices which must bemade in the planning process, e.g., strategieswhich may be followed to attain the primeobjective.

MiS Quarteriy I March 1978 29


The organization's strategyThe organization's strategy is the generaldirection in which it chooses to move in order toachieve its goais and objectives. For instance,one company has stated that it:

" . . . has heavy investment, a good reputa-tion, great skills and experience, a viabieorganization, and, in some instances, a

.special situation in the . . . industries."and that it wili:

". . . exploit these strengths and, . . . notdiversify at the present time, into unrelatedindustries."

A more detaiied strategy for another firminciudes the foilowing:

". . . increase U.S. market penetrationthrough the development of a regionaimanufacturing capabiiity and the deveiop-ment of secondary distribution channeis."

Another company's strategy cails for a:" . . . low-price, low-cost product achievedthrough product standardization . . . "

together with:" . . . the development of new products on asimiiar basis in a posture of defensiveinnovation against the technologicaiprogress of competitors."

Again, as with a mission statement, the strategyis as important for what it does not say. as whatit does say. By exciuding numerous, possiblyvalid ways of achieving a stated objective, itensures a focusing of organizational resourcesand precludes a "scatter-gun" apprpach whichis iikeiy to be ineffective and which is iikeiy toresult if numerous managers are permitted tomake decisions without strategy guidance.

Other strategicorganizationai attributesother strategic attributes of the organizationshould also infiuence the strategic pianning forthe MIS. These "miscellaneous" attributes aredifficuit to categorize, but they may beextremely important. For instance, if thesophistication of management is low and theirfamiiiarity with computers, models, and inter-active systems is limited, such factors mustobviously be explicitly taken into account in

planning for the MIS. if they are not accountedfor, an MiS better suited for sophisticatedcomputer-skilled managers might be developedby technicians who naturally desire the systemsthat they develop to be as "modern" andsophisticated as is possibie.

Admittedly, such organizationai attributes asthe sophistication of management, the readinessof the organization to accept change, and thefamiliarity of management with the vaiues andiimitations of computer systems are difficuit tomeasure. However, if strategic MIS planning is tobe performed, such strategic organizationaiattributes must be incorporated into the organi-zational strategy set and used as a basis fordeveioping the MiS strategy set.

The MIS Strategy SetThe MiS strategy eiements, which are thesubstance of strategic pianning for the MIS, aresystem objectives, system constraints, andsystem design strategies.

System objectivesSystem objectives define the purpose which theMIS is to serve. For instance, system objectivesmay be stated in terms that are simiiar to, butmuch more specific than, organizationaiobjectives — e.g., "to permit the payment of 98%of invoices by the due date" is a system objectivestated in activity terms. Also, system objectivesmay be stated in direct information and commu-nication terms —e.g., "to collect, and process aiirouting and cost information and provide it in atimely fashion to the dispatcher." The mostsophisticated variety of system objectives arestated in decision-oriented terms — e.g., "topermit the determination of the best routing nomore than one hour after the tentative routingchoice has been implemented."

System constraintsBoth internal and external constraints must beidentified if MiS planning Is to be effective. Theseconstraints will emanate both from outside andwithin the organization.



The most obvious forms of external MISconstraints are government and industryreporting requirements and the need for the MISto interface with other systems, such as theordering and billing systems of suppliers andcustomers.

Internal constraints emanate from the nature ofthe organization, its personnel, practices, andresources. The most obvious internal constraintis the MIS budget; however, many otherorganizational characteristics serve to limit theMIS's scope and nature. For instance, the degreeof complexity with which the system is incor-porated may be constrained because of thelimited sophistication of management, the lackof experience within the management group withcomputers, or demonstrated distrust of sophisti-cated information systems.

System design strategies

The strategies which guide the MIS designeffort are important MIS strategy elements, asare the organizational strategies which guide itsprogress. While many design strategies appearto be of the "motherhood and sin" variety, theirvalue may be demonstrated by virtue of thenumber of unsuccessful systems which havebeen developed in the abscence of such under-lying strategic principles.

Among the strategies which might guide an MISdesign effort Is one dealing with parsimony —e.g., "the system should be designed so that theuser is provided with the minimum amount ofrelevant information which is necessary toachieve his managerial objective." Anotheroften useful design strategy deals with the natureof the system — e.g., "the system shouldoperate primarily in an exception-reportingmode in accomplishing Its credit monitoringobjective." Other possible design strategies haveto do with the criteria which will be used toevaluate the system — e.g., "the system will beevaluated both in terms of its perceived utility tousers as well as its technical capability." [9]

The MIS StrategicPlanning ProcessThe process for MIS strategic pianning is one oftransforming the Organizational Strategy Setinto an appropriate, relevant, and consistent MISStrategy Set.

Explicating the organization'sstrategy setThe first step in MIS strategic planning is theidentification and explication of the organiza-tionai strategy set. Some elements of the organi-zationai strategy set may exist in written form.The organization's strategic, or long-range, planis the most obvious source of such material. Sotoo are various pronouncements made by chiefexecutive officers in reporting to their variousconstituencies: stockholders, unions, govern-ment, etc.

However, existing plans may be deficient if theplanning process is not a sophisticated onewhich explicitly gives consideration to suchbroad choices as that of the organization'sobjectives. Other documentary evidence may bedeficient in that it is prepared for a "publicrelations" purpose ratherthan for the purpose ofguiding manageriai choice. If so. an explicitprocess of identifying strategy set elements willbe required of the MiS designer.

Such a process may be thought of in terms of anumber of steps:1. delineating the claimant structure of the

organization.2. identifying goals for each claimant group,

and3. identifying the organization's purposes and

strategy relative to each claimant group.

Delineating the organization's claimantstructureThe organization's purpose, objectives, andstrategy must necessarily relate to its variousclientel. or claimants — those who have a claimon it. These claimants, sometimes referred to as"stakeholders" to distinguish them from the legalowners of corporations, have a stake in theactivites and future of the organization. Thus,most business firms will delineate its owners.

MIS Quarterly I March 1978 31


managers, employees, suppliers, customers, andcreditors as claimant groups. Other claimantswhose views and desires wiil form a basis for theorganization's purpose and strategy may belocal governments, local communities, com-petitors, other firms in the same industry, and thegenerai public.

Identifying the goals for claimantsThe goals of each claimant group must beaccounted for in the organization's mission,objectives, and strategy. King and Cleland (8]have shown an approach for doing this whichinvolves the qualitative description of the natureof each ciaimant's claim and the specification ofmeasures, direct or proxy, of the degree to whichthe claim is being satisfied.

Identifying the organization's goals andstrategies for each claimant groupOnce the nature of each claimant group's claimhas been Identified, the organization's goaisand strategies reiative to each group must beidentified. Sometimes these iinkages wiii bequite simpie, as in linking a desire for a 15% ROIto the stockholders' desire for investmentreturn. "Per share earnings" objectives reiate tothe goals of stockholders as well as to those ofcreditors, who wish the firm to remain financiallystable. "Social responsibility" objectives can betraced directiy to the goals of the general pubiicand local communities, as can strategiesinvolving the construction of poliution-freeproduction facilities and the empioyment ofminority group members. "Product quality"objectives and strategies are traceabledirectly to the interests of customers, govern-ment regulatory agencies, and the industry.

Methodologies for furtherexplication and validation ofthe organization's strategy setOnce tentative statements of organizationaimission, objectives, and strategy have beendeveloped either from written documents, ananalytic process such as that just described, ormore commoniy some combination of the two,the organization's top managers may be askedto critique the statement. This feedback stepessentially says, "Here is what MIS analysts caninfer about the organization's MIS-reievant

missions, objectives, and strategies. Please giveus your opinion as to the validity of theseinferences."

These queries may be presented to top manage-ment either as overall statements on which tocomment or in the form of Likert scalestatements [11] with which top managers mayagree or disagree to various degrees. The overallstatement format allows for more substantivefeedback, but the use of the Likert scaiepermits easier aggregation of judgments into anoverall priority evaluation of the strategyelements. This latter approach also is conduciveto assessing the "other" organizationai strategyattributes. For instance, Likert scaie itemsrelated to the "wiiiingness of top management toaccept change," and the "familiarity of manage-ment with the use of decision models" permit theassessment of these factors as they areperceived to be important by the managers whowili ultimately be the users of the MIS [11].

Transforming the organizationalstrategy set into the MISstrategy setThe heart of MIS strategic planning is theprocess through which the organizationalstrategy set is transformed Into a set of systemobjectives, system constraints, and systemdesign principles which comprise the MISstrategy set.

Figure 2 shows the overali process. The top of thefigure shows various claimant groups which mayhave been identified. The upper wide rectangle isthe "Organizational Strategy Set" whichdelineates qrganizational objectives, strategies,and other strategic attributes. The lower widerectangle is the "MIS Strategy Set" entailingsystem objectives, constraints, and designstrategies.

An Illustration of the processFigures 3 and 4 illustrate in specific terms howthe overaii process of Figure 2 operates. Figure3 is an Illustrative explosion of the OrganizationaiStrategy Set. The organizational objectives,strategies, and other attributes which are shownthere are each related to those eiements of theclaimant structure from which it is primarily



MA

NA

GE

-M

EN

T(M

)

EM

PLO

YE

ES

(E)

COccO1- -CLU """CCO

GO

VE

RN

-M

EN

T(G

)

STO

CK

-H

OLD

ER

S(S

)

CU

STO

ME

RS

(Cu)

IE 10 (

P)

Tl-

PU

BL

10 ATT

RIB

UTE

S

K <

STR

AG

AN

iZA

TiO

N

ccO

TEG

iES

ZA

TIO

NA

L S

TRA

OR

GA

N

COlU

AL

OB

JEC

TI

g

OR

GA

NIZ

Al

o>u

sa.CD"caEu*

0>

O

moco

<gN C3

iJ oc Ic I- mO CO CO



ORGANIZATIONALOBJECTIVES

C-J: to increase earnings by10% per year (S, Cr, M)

C2: to improve cash flow(G, S, CD

C3: to maintain a high levelof customer good will(Cu)

C4: to be perceived associally responsible(G, P)

O5: to produce high quality,safe products (Cu, G)

Cg: to eliminate vulnerabilityto the business cycle(S, Cr)

ORGANIZATIONALSTRATEGIES

S^: Diversification into newbusinesses (O1, Cg)

S2: Improvements in creditpractices (P^, C2. C3)

S3: Product redesign(C3, O4, Cg)

Ai

A2

A3:

A4:

A5:

STRATEGICORGANIZATIONAL

ATTRIBUTES

: highly sophist icatedmanagement (M)

: poor recent performancehas fostered a recogni-tion of the need forchange (S, M)

most managers are ex-perienced users of com-puter services (M)

high degree of decentral-ization of managementauthority

organization must beresponsive to regulatoryagencies

FIGURE 3. Organizational Strategy Set

derived. For instance, the earnings objective (0^)derives from the goals of stockholders (S),creditors (Cr), and management (M). The"recognition of the need for change" attribute(A2) reflects both stockholder (S) andmanagerial (M) goals.

The organization's strategies are related to itsobjectives. This is also shown in Figure 3. ForInstance, the diversification strategy (S-j) isderived from two objectives (Cf and Og) — adesire for earnings and a need to eliminatevulnerability to the business cycle.

Figure 4 shows the MIS Strategy Set and how it isderived from the Organizational Strategy Set. Itshows how system objectives, constraints, anddesign strategies are delineated and related tovarious elements of the Organizational StrategySet as well as to other elements of the MISStrategy Set. For instance, the MIS objective ofimproving the speed of billing (MO1) is directlyreiated to the organization's credit strategy (82)-The constraints and environmental information

(C2 and C3) are related respectively to variousorganizational attributes (A^ and A3) andspecific MIS objectives (MC2. MO3, MO4).The design strategy involving the systemsinquiry capability (D5) is derived from the MISobjective of providing quick response tocustomer inquiries (MC7) which is, in turn,derived from the organizational objective ofmaintaining a high level of customer good will(O3).

Figures 2,3 and 4 also show how the "poor recentperformance" strategic organizational attribute(A2) leads to a system constraint that recognizesthe possible future unavailability of necessarydevelopment funds (C-j), which in turn dictatesboth a modular design strategy {D•^) and a designstrategy which recognizes that the system maynever be finished and may therefore be requiredto operate effectively at each stage of partialcohnpletion

It is impractical to demonstrate all of the rela-tionships which exist among the elements of the

34 MIS Quarteriy I March 1978


MIS OBJECTIVES

to improve speed ofbiliing (S2)

to provide informationon product faiiures (S3)

to provide informationon new business oppor-tunities

MO2:

MO3:

MO4: to provide informationwhich will permit theassessment of the levelof organizational objec-tives (O)

MO5: to provide timely andaccurate information onrecent performance(A2)

MOg: to produce reportsdesired by regulatoryagencies (A5)

MO7: to produce informationwhich will permit quickresponse to customerinquiries (O3)

MIS CONSTRAINTS

C-j: Avaiiabiiity of funds forMiS development may bereduced (A2)

C2: System must incorporatebest available decisionmodels and managementtechniques (A^, A3)

C3: System must incorporateenvironmentai informa-tion as well as internalinformation (MO2, MO3,MO4)

C4: System must provide fordifferent reports involvingvarious levels of aggrega-tion {A4)

C5: System must be capabieof producing informationother than managementinformation (MOg)

MIS DESIGN STRATEGIES

D-J: Design on modular basis

D3:

D5:

Modular design mustproduce viable system ateach stage of completionC)

System must be orientedto differential usage byvar ious c iasses ofmanagers (A4, C4)

System should beresponsive to the per-ceived needs of it's user-managers (A.), A3, A4)

System should have realtime inquiry capability(MO7,03) — use COBOL

FIGURE 4. MIS Strategy Set

two strategy sets — one for the overail organi-zation and one for the MIS. However, the figuresshow sufficient detaii to iiiustrate the myriad ofreiationships as weil as how they can be opera-tionaily developed from a claimant anaiysis.

The methodology of the processThe methodoiogy which may be used for devel-oping the MIS Strategy Set as shown in Figure 2is one in which anaiysts make inferences, basedon their experience and knowledge of informa-tion systems: the range of system objectives,characteristics, and design principles are shownto be consistent with the elements of the Organi-zationai Strategy Set. For instance, a statedobjective of one bank was " . . . to provideknowledgeable counseling on all of the

customers' financial matters." This combinedwith a precise statement of the "businesses" that'the bank is in allows the MIS anaiyst to define arange by interpreting "aii" the work iiteraiiy asweli as in a more iimited, but still reasonable,fashion. A range of system objectives is createdin this way extending from:

"Provide basic data and reference infor-mation on stocks, bonds, options, reaiestate, etc. — a predefined range of finan-cial alternatives that extends beyond thosethat form the 'business' of the bank."

to:"Provide data on ail of those financiaiaiternatives which are the 'business' of thebank — e.g., savings accounts, treasurybiiis, trusts, certificates of deposit, etc."



Ranges such as this can be derived from manydifferent elements of the Organizational StrategySet and used to construct alternative generaldesigns for the MIS. In principle, this is a com-binatorial problem. For instance, one MISgeneral design is represented by the combina-tion of the most ambitious extremes in the rangefor each objective, constraint, and design prin-ciple; another one Is made up of the leastambitious extreme for each element, etc. Theanalyst, in practice, will wish to construct only areasonable number of alternative reasonabledesigns for presentation to management.

This process gives management the opportunityto select an MIS general design as well asprovides the basis for understanding the alter-native designs. This is because the designs havebeen generated from "business raw materials" —the elements of the Organizational StrategySet — rather than on more typical, but lessunderstandable, technical bases.

This process therefore provides both an intrinsiclink between the organization's guidinginfluences and those which will guide thedetailed design and implementation of the MIS. Italso provides a basis for effective manager/analyst communication about the MIS — one ofthe most important, but least developed, aspectsof MIS design.

ConclusionsThe MIS Strategic Planning process involves theidentification and assessment of an "Organiza-tionai Strategy Set" — an informational setwhich delineates the organization's mission,objectives, strategies, and other strategicattributes. This set can be transformed intoanother information set. an "MiS Strategy Set,"which delineates system objectives, constraints,and design strategies.

The outputs of MiS strategic planning becomethe inputs to the subsequent systems develop-ment process. In many organizations these plan-ning outputs have been arbitrary starting pointsfor system deveiopment. The process describedhere derives these inputs to system deveiop-ment from the organization's most basic tenets.Such a process is much more likely to produce a

system which is closely related to the organiza-tion. Its strategy, and its capabilities.

The MIS strategic pianning process describedhere cannot be delineated in algorithmic formbecause the relevant aspects of the Organiza-tional Strategy Set will be vastly different invarious organizations. However, the process ofidentifying and assessing the OrganizationalStrategy Set has been systematically outlinedusing the concepts of claimants and measurableclaimant goals. Once organizational strategicelements have been identified, they can bevalidated through the structured queries of theorganization's top management.

Once the Organizational Strategy Set has beendelineated, its various elements can be trans-formed into MIS Strategy Set elements byanalysts who are familiar with the avaiiabiesystem alternatives, configurations, andattributes. This is a process which analystsperform in any case, but it is usually done withonly the most vague reference to the elements oforganizational purpose and strategy. Theprocess described here necessitates an explicitand rational consideration of these relationships.

An important aspect of the MIS strategic plan-ning process is that it ensures that the MIS isdeveloped as an integral part of the organiza-tion and not merely appended to it. The processinherently requires manager/analyst interac-tion of the variety as specified by King andCleland [7] and others [2. 4]; it would be fool-hardy for the MIS analyst to attempt this processin isolation from management. This approachalso provides for specific feedback frommanagement, even in those cases where theOrganization's Strategy Set is already wellexplicated. Such interaction has been identifiedas one of the primary requirements for success-ful MIS implementation.

This process further presents an operationalframework within which the "informationanalyst" — a job title which resulted from anACM educationai study [3] — can operate in asystem planning role. Previously, the role of theinformation analyst has been prescribed, buthas been given no operational guidance thatrelates directly to the MIS field. The MISstrategic planning framework presented in thisarticle provides such guidance.



The process does not explicitly deal with theassessment of priorities for a number of systemswhich might be a part of an overall MIS masterplan. It does, however, provide a basis forexpiicating individual systems in afashion whichfaciiitates choice and priority setting. Forinstance, a system which is not closely related tomany elements of the Organizational StrategySet may inevitably be assigned a iow prioritysince limited funds are best spent on thosesystems which most directiy address thoseobjectives that the organization as a whole istrying to achieve.

One objection to the described process can beraised in terms of its superficial circularity. TheMIS design is to be based on organizationalmission, objectives, and strategy which arethemselves the product of management choice.Thus, a system which is meant to supportmanagement decision making is, in fact,designed on the basis of choices which havealready been made. This difficulty is inherent inany systems design effort. Unfortunately manysuch systems are designed without knowledge ofprevious strategic organizational choices andare therefore obsoiete before they aredeveloped.

The relatively great longevity and enduringnature of organizationai strategy, objective, andmission choices suggest that this planningapproach is surely valid for the support ofmiddle-level organizational decisions, amanagement level which Anthony has classifiedas the management control level [1]. Moreover,the approach is even vaiid for an MIS which isdesigned to support strategic choice, sincethere must be some starting point at which asystem is deveioped to feed back information onthe validity and degree of attainment ofstrategies already chosen. Such a system candirectly support the selection of new futurestrategies, and it can be adapted to permit theirassessment as weil.

References

[1] Anthony. R. N. Planning and Control Systems: AFramework lor Analysis, Harvard Business Schooi,Division of Research, 1965.

[2] Argyris. C. "Management information Systems: TheChaiienge to Rationaiity and Emotionaiity,"Management Science, Vol. 17. No. 6, February 1971,pp. B275-B292.

[3] Ashenhurst. R. L. (ed.). "Curriculum Recommenda-tions for Graduate Professionai Programs in Infor-mation Systems: A Report of the ACM CurriculumCommittee on Computer Education for Manage-ment," Communications ol the ACM, Vol. 15. No. 5.May 1972. pp. 363-398.

[4] Churchman, C. W. and Schainblatt. A. H. "TheResearcher and the Manager A Dialectic of Imple-mentation," Management Science, Voi. 11, No. 4,February 1965. pp. B69-B87.

[5] "Corporate Objectives," PPG industries, Pittsburgh,PA, undated, p. 13.

[6] Dearden, John. "MiS is a Mirage." Harvard BusinessReview, January-February 1972.

(7) King, Wiiliam R. and Cleiand. D.i. "The Design ofManagement information Systems: An InformationAnalysis Approach," Management Science, Vol. 22,No. 3, November 1975, pp. 286-297.

[8] King, W. R. and Cleiand, D. I. "A New Approach toStrategic Systems Planning," Business Horizons,August 1975.

(9) King, W. R. "Methodologicai Optimality in OR,"OMEGA, Vol. 4, No. 1. February 1976.

[10] Murdick, R. G. and Ross. J. E. inlormation Systems lorModern Management (2nd ed.). Prentice Haii, 1975.

(11] Schuitz. R. L. and Slevin, D. P. "Implementation andOrganizational Validity: An Empiricai investigation,"implementing OR/MS, Elsevier, 1975. Chapter 7.

112] "You Can Be Sure, If It's Industriai-Westinghouse,"iron Age, March 3, 1975, pp. 20-25,

About the Author

William R. King Is Professor of BusinessAdministration In the Graduate School ofBusiness at the University of Pittsburgh. He isthe author of eight books and more than 60technical papers In the fields of MIS, Planning,and Systems Analysis. His most recent book.Marketing Management Information Systemswas published In 1977.


strategic pianning the literature of management ... sp for mis.pdfmis strategic planning ments of...

Documents