Information Systems Alignment
/Released: March 2019
Updated: September 2023
Information Systems Alignment Research Curation Team:
Hind Benbya (Deakin Business School, Deakin University)
Dorothy E. Leidner (University of Virginia)
David Preston (Texas Christian University)
Download the PDF: IS Alignment Curation
Download the Infographic: IS Alignment Infographic
Download the References: IS Alignment References
1. Focus of the Research Curation
The alignment of Information Systems (IS) with the business (i.e., hereafter IS alignment) has been a top managerial concern for over 30 years and remains an ongoing research stream of key interest to the IS discipline. IS alignment [1] represents an emergent process of dynamic interactions and continual adjustments between business and IS across multiple organizational dimensions (e.g., strategic, operational and social) and also organizational levels (e.g., the organization itself, group level, and the individual level) that collectively can potentially result in greater organizational performance (Benbya & McKelvey 2006) (See Figure 1). The goal of this curation is to provide a state of the art perspective on IS alignment research published in MIS Quarterly in order to offer a reference point and platform for future research on IS alignment.
Given the established plurality of meanings embedded in the term ‘alignment’ and multiple ways in which researchers have employed this term to date, in this curation we apply a general selection requirement for our initial pool of research studies. In order to maximize the inclusion of all potentially relevant studies, we used multiple keywords to identify relevant articles for inclusion including: alignment, misfit/fit, linkage/linking, gestalt, congruence, and harmony. This inclusive approach for the search process resulted in 67 articles. The researchers then reviewed the abstracts of each paper for relevance in order to distinguish between articles that focus on “IS alignment” from articles that merely mention the word “alignment” or “fit” in what would be considered a colloquial fashion. For papers where there was some question whether the paper fell under of the umbrella of the IS alignment research stream, the authors collectively made the judgment to reach a decision about inclusion/exclusion of the papers. We sought to include all papers where IS alignment plays an essential role in the study, even if alignment was not necessarily the primary focal point, provided alignment was either a key component of the overall model (e.g., independent, dependent, mediating or moderating variable) or the study clearly suggested a proposition/hypothesis or implications related to IS alignment (please refer to Table 1). Upon conclusion of the screening process, there were 34 articles from the relevant literature base that were determined to be related to the IS alignment research stream published in MISQ from the journal’s inception through July 2023, inclusive.
For the coding process, each researcher proceeded with a detailed examination and coding of approximately 11/12 of the 34 articles. Beyond collecting basic article information (e.g., author, year, title), we coded for type of alignment, level of analysis, perspective or theory used, research method applied, and key findings/insights (please see Table 2). To ensure consistency in the coding process, each researcher began by coding a common set of 3 papers with a discussion of results among the research team. Any deviations in coding were discussed and assessed among the coders, with the coding heuristics updated to address any such inconsistencies. After this step, consistencies in the coding process were fine-tuned and an inter-coder reliability of 0.95 was achieved. Each researcher subsequently proceeded with coding a designated set of approximately 10 papers.
Of the 34 articles reviewed, we observed the following: a) the vast majority of the papers (27) examined alignment at the organizational level; b) four papers examined alignment at the business unit level (e.g., Reich & Benbasat 2000); c) two papers examined alignment at the group level (e.g., Kane & Borgatti 2011); and d) one study examined multiple units and entities (Leonardi, et al. 2016). We note that there is a diversity of IS alignment research that is reflected both in the methodologies used to study IS alignment as well as the perspectives/theories used to investigate different forms of alignment. As Table 2 outlines, researchers have drawn from a wide spectrum of methodologies: quantitative, including industry surveys (15), qualitative case studies (13), multi-method mixed-studies (2), conceptual studies (2) and meta-analyses (2).
Figure 1: The Alignment Process
2. Progression of Research in MISQ
The researchers evaluated the temporal progression of IS alignment research in MISQ via three time periods: 1) Prior to 2000, 2) 2000-2010, and 3) 2011-to July 2023.
The earliest research on IS alignment in MISQ appeared in the early to mid-1980s and was largely based on industry reports and surveys. A key finding from the early alignment research was the discovery that alignment was considered by IS executives to not just be merely a relevant concern, but to be among the leading issues facing IS executives (e.g., Cartog & Herbert 1986). The importance of IS alignment to practitioners would remain a perennial issue in later industry studies (e.g., Niederman, Brancheau & Wetherbe 1991). Researchers initially focused on the relationship of strategic IS planning to IS strategic alignment and investigated multiple dimensions of planning success (e.g., Segars & Grover, 1998). The recognition that IS strategy alone did not create effective alignment subsequently prompted researchers to advocate a shift in focus from exclusively examining the IS strategic dimension to also integrating IS structure (e.g., Tavakolian, 1989; Brown & Magill 1994) and culture (Reich & Benbasat, 1996). To accommodate this shift and investigate different IS structures, strategies, and social dimensions, researchers relied both on quantitative matched pair samples of questionnaires from IS and top business managers, as well as qualitative case studies, starting a trend that would continue to the present.
The study of IS alignment in MISQ has evolved appreciably between 2000-2010. Three main shifts characterize this development of the IS alignment literature in this time frame. First, there was a shift in focus from alignment drivers into the business-IT performance implications of alignment which was demonstrated theoretically (Chen et al., 2011), empirically (Oh & Pinsonneault 2007), and through case studies (Davidson & Chismar 2007). Second, there was recognition that the misalignment of IT capabilities and social structures can result in a failure to realize expected organizational outcomes (Strong & Volkoff 2010). Third, researchers questioned the conception of IS alignment as a linear relationship in which alignment links a set of antecedents to organizational consequences (i.e., Antecedents à Alignment à Consequences) thus recognizing the necessity to embrace a more complex perspective on IS alignment.
Starting 2011, researchers have gradually devised ways to account for the complexity of IS alignment in both their theoretical and empirical work. For numerous years, researchers have tended to emphasize the strategic dimension of alignment (i.e., as an outcome or state), relying mostly on contingency theories in which IS strategy profiles are developed to conform to a particular business strategy type from which a stable alignment state is derived. However, this view can lead to excessive rigidity and conditions of misalignment, because it does not substantially account for the possibility of a complex, dynamic and unpredictable competitive environment (e.g., Tallon & Pinsonneault, 2011; Chen et al., 2010; Gerow et al., 2014). To account for this increased awareness, IS alignment researchers gradually started to include contextual factors in their studies, including environmental characteristics (e.g., environmental volatility, dynamism, munificence and complexity) (Xue, Ray & Sambamurthy, 2012), and the firm’s ability to adapt and respond to environmental change (e.g., IT flexibility, agility) (Tallon & Pinsonneault, 2011). This recognition has also resulted in the adoption of a richer application of theories (e.g., typological theory, configurational theory, and complex adaptive systems) to help explain the development of IS alignment and other related outcomes such as IS appropriation and IT business value (e.g., Banker, Pavlou & Luftman, 2011; Guillemette & Paré 2012; McMaren, Yuan & Chan 2011; Leonardi et al. 2016). In more recent years, there has also been specific focus examining the nature of how different dimensions and subcomponents of alignment influence firm performance (Sabherwal & Jeyaraj, 2015; Sabherwal, et al, 2019; Chau, 2020).
3. Thematic Advances in Knowledge
Three main themes emerge from our analysis of the articles: (1) IS alignment conceptualization, (2) IS alignment antecedents, and (3) IS alignment/misalignment consequences. We note that alignment has been defined via various terms such as: the degree of fit and integration, linking IT and business, etc. (see table 1). This breadth of definitions pertaining to alignment implies that alignment can assume multiple forms. Researchers have gradually converged toward three main dimensions: a) strategic, b) operational, and c) social.
Research on strategic alignment is overall the most dominant perspective and focuses on how to align IS strategy with the organization’s business strategy to derive a greater strategic use from IS and thereby generate greater organizational performance (e.g., Oh & Pinsonneault 2000; Gerow et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2015). This sub-theme has advanced knowledge with regard to the role of strategic planning styles (e.g., Pyburn, 1983; Cartog & Herbert, 1986), the dimensions of planning success (Segars & Grover, 1998), and the development of different IS strategy profiles, typologies and configurations to better align IS and business strategy (e.g., Chen et al., 2010). Despite the progress made within this research theme, it has been critiqued based on several issues. First, the assumption that IS strategy should have to conform to the organization’s business strategy has been questioned and has since gradually given way to a bidirectional and co-evolutionary perspective between IS and business strategy in which both strategies develop iteratively and reciprocally over time. Second, the conception of IS strategy as a planned or intended strategy has evolved towards that of a realized strategy or an assessment of both planned and realized strategies (e.g., McLaren et al., 2011). Third, the conception of IS alignment as a static outcome has gradually shifted towards that of a dynamic emergent process (See Figure 1 above).
Research on operational alignment has focused on the ability of management to integrate IS infrastructures with the business processes within the organization. Research within this sub-theme has specifically examined the way to best align different IS structures with specific organizational contexts (e.g., Brown & Magill 1994), the interplay between structural change and alignment (e.g., Majchrzak et al., 2000), and the formal organizational structural mechanisms that need to be incorporated in order to reduce cases of misalignment (e.g., Wu et al., 2015).
Finally, the social alignment sub-theme focuses on values, communications, and shared understanding among business and IT executives (Reich & Benbasat, 1996). The few existing studies in MISQ in this domain have advanced knowledge relevant to the effects of shared domain knowledge on communication between IS and business executives and its influence on short- and long-term social alignment (Reich & Benbasat 2000). The studies on social alignment, however, have not investigated the impact of social alignment on downstream performance.
These advances in construct conceptualization – as we move from planned to actual strategies for a range of different strategies and dimensions (operational and social) – have been accompanied by the development of theories to account for the complexity of IS alignment, whether at a single level of analysis (e.g., at the individual, group, or organizational level) or across-levels of analysis. Research has also recognized the necessity to move from a single or dyadic relationship towards multi-level research to understand the non-linear interactions between alignment dimensions that might be operating simultaneously over time.
The IS alignment/misalignment antecedents theme has contributed a myriad of factors believed to influence alignment. For instance, Wu et al. (2014)’s study proposes a series of governance mechanisms (e.g., decision-making structures, formal processes, and communication approaches) that act as antecedents to the intellectual dimension of alignment and also mediate the relationship between alignment and organizational performance. In addition, Banker et al. (2011) demonstrate that the alignment between the firm’s CIO reporting structure and its strategic positioning affects firm performance. Furthermore, Leonardi et al. (2016) found that social and financial rewards encouraged actors to appropriate system elements allowing for local alignment in multiple settings. Other studies have focused instead on misalignment between an organization’s social structures with its technology capabilities. Such studies document discrepant events and show how changes to structures reduce misalignment over time (Majchrzak et al., 2000; Davidson & Chismar 2007).
Finally, research on the consequences of IS alignment/misalignment have advanced knowledge regarding how to cultivate alignment between business and IT dimensions resulting in such key organizational outcomes as competitive advantage, business performance, quality improvement, cost reduction, and revenue growth (e.g., Daniel et al., 2010; Oh & Pinsonneault, 2007; Rai et al., 2015). Findings within this stream have extended our understanding of how misalignment occurs and in turn shapes a variety of other IT related phenomena such as IT organizational awareness (Spears & Barki, 2010) and outsourcing performance (Mani, Barua & Whinston, 2010). Despite these advances in the literature, no universal evidence concludes to date that alignment has direct or positive performance implications. To help flesh out the alignment-performance ‘paradox’, Gerow et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analysis of empirical papers on the IS alignment-performance relationships. This research concluded that the alignment—performance relationship is positive across studies; however, the relationship between strategic alignment and firm performance was found to be negative in some situations. This may occur, for example, when an organization diverts such extensive resources into the strategic planning process that it inadvertently loses focuses on actual performance or when an organization only aligns strategy at the highest managerial level and fails to engage middle and operational managers in the strategy. These results suggest that a complex relationship exists between alignment dimensions and business value.
4. Cross-Cited References Across MISQ Curations
We examined each of the cross-cited references in each of the 14 other MISQ curations – summarized in Table 3. For the IS Alignment curation, we found that there were only limited cross-cited refences in the other curations to date: IS Use (4 cross-citations); IS Control & Governance (2 cross-citations); Health IT, IS Development, IS Sourcing (1 cross-citation). The remaining nine curations do not currently share any cross-citations with the IS Alignment curation. The references within the IS use curation generally address the need for alignment of IS to maximize its effectiveness while the references within IS Control & Governance generally tap into the need for management to facilitate and guide practices to yield benefits from IS alignment. As noted, there are limited cross-cited references to date; however, we expect cross-cited references to expand with time as each of these research streams evolves. It is essential to track the cross-citations across curations as a whole to better understand the intersections with IS alignment.
5. Conclusion
The alignment research has converged to suggest three major conclusions – that there are various forms of alignment, that alignment is dynamic, and that periods of misalignment are beneficial on account of adjustments made. Alignment is of practical importance for organizations wishing to achieve superior performance with IS. Alignment is also becoming a theory in its own right, with the potential to serve as a useful lens through which to view manifold IS phenomenon in the digital age.
Note: [1] We draw on diverse IS research in conceptualizing and defining IS alignment including Benbya, H. & McKelvey, B. (2006). Using Coevolutionary and Complexity Theory to improve IS Alignment: A multi-level Approach. Journal of Information Technology, 21(4), 284-298 and Benbya, H. & Leidner, D. (2018). How Allianz UK Used an Idea Management Platform to Harness Employee Innovation, MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(2), 141-157.
Please cite this curation as follows: Benbya, H., Leidner, D. and Preston, D. “Information Systems Alignment,” in MIS Quarterly Research Curations, Ashley Bush and Arun Rai, Eds., https://www.misqresearchcurations.org/blog/2019/3/14/information-systems-alignment, September 2023.
Curated References
Banker, R. D., Hu, N., Pavlou, P. A., and Luftman, J. 2011. “CIO Reporting Structure, Strategic Positioning, and Firm Performance,” MIS Quarterly (35:2), pp. 487–504. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol35/iss2/13/.
Brown, C. V, and Magill, S. L. 1994. “Alignment of the IS Functions With the Enterprise : Toward a Model of Antecedents,” MIS Quarterly (18:4), pp. 371–403. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol18/iss4/4/.
Chau, D. C. K., Ngai, E. W. T., Gerow, J. E., and Thatcher, J. B. 2020. “The Effects of Business-IT Strategic Alignment and IT Governance on Firm Performance: A Moderated Polynomial Regression Analysis,” MIS Quarterly (44:4), MIS Quarterly, pp. 1679–1703. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol44/iss4/9/.
Chen, D. Q., Mocker, M., Preston, D. S., and Teubner, A. 2010. “Information Systems Strategy: Reconceptualization, Measurement and Implications,” MIS Quarterly (34:2), pp. 233–259. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol34/iss2/4/.
Davidson, E. J., and Chismar, W. G. 2007. “The Interaction of Institutionally Triggered and Technology-Triggered Social Structure Change: An Investigation of Computerized Physician Order Entry,” MIS Quarterly (31:4), pp. 739–758. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol31/iss4/6/.
Francalanci, C., and Galal, H. 1998. “Information Technology and Worker Composition : Determinants of Productivity in the Life Insurance Industry,” MIS Quarterly (22:2), pp. 227–241. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol22/iss2/5/.
Gerow, J. E., Grover, V., Thatcher, J., and Roth, P. L. 2014. “Looking Toward the Future of IT-Business Strategic Alignment through the Past: A Meta-Analysis,” MIS Quarterly (38:4), pp. 1159–1185. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol38/iss4/12/.
Gregory, R. W., Kaganer, E., Henfridsson, O., and Ruch, T. J. 2018. “IT Consumerization and the Transformation of IT Governance,” MIS Quarterly (42:4), pp. 1225–1253. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol42/iss4/12/.
Guillemette, M. G., and Paré, G. 2012. “Toward a New Theory of the Contribution of the IT Function in Organizations,” MIS Quarterly (36:2), pp. 529–551. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol36/iss2/11/.
Hartog, C., and Herbert, M. 1986. “1985 Opinion Survey of MIS Managers: Key Issues,” MIS Quarterly (10:4), pp. 351–361. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol10/iss4/4/.
Kane, G. C., and Borgatti, S. P. 2011. “Centrality–IS Proficiency Alignment and Workgroup Performance,” MIS Quarterly (35:4), pp. 1063–1078. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol35/iss4/14/.
Leifer, R. 1988. “Matching Information Systems with Organizational Structures Categorizing Computer-Based,” MIS Quarterly (12:1), pp. 63–73. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol12/iss1/5/.
Leonardi, P. M., Bailey, D. E., Diniz, E. H., Sholler, D., and Nardi, B. 2016. “Multiplex Appropriation in Complex Systems Implementation: The Case of Brazil’s Correspondent Banking System,” MIS Quarterly (40:2), pp. 461–473. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol40/iss2/13/.
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., King, N., and Ba, S. 2000. “Technology Adaption: The Case of a Computer-Supported Inter-Organizational Virtual Team,” MIS Quarterly (24:4), pp. 569–600. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol24/iss4/2/.
Mani, D., Barua, A., and Whinston, A. 2010. “An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Information Capabilities Design on Business Process Outsourcing Performance,” MIS Quarterly (34:1), pp. 39–62. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol34/iss1/5/.
Mclaren, T. S., Head, M. M., Yuan, Y., and Chan, Y. E. 2011. “A Multilevel Model for Measuring Fit Between a Firm’s Competitive Strategies and Information Systems Capabilities,” MIS Quarterly (35:4), pp. 909–929. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol35/iss4/7/.
Mithas, S., and Rust, R. T. 2016. “How Information Technology Strategy and Investments Influence Firm Performance: Conjecture and Empirical Evidence,” MIS Quarterly (40:1), pp. 223–246. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol40/iss1/12/.
Niederman, F., Brancheau, J. C., and Wetherbe, J. C. 1991. “Information Systems Management Issues for the 1990s,” MIS Quarterly (15:4), pp. 475–501. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol15/iss4/4/.
Oh, W., and Pinsonneault, A. 2007. “On the Assessment of the Strategic Value of Information Technologies: Conceptual and Analytical Approaches,” MIS Quarterly (31:2), pp. 239–265. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol31/iss2/3/.
Pyburn, P. J. 1983. “Linking the MIS Plan with Corporate Strategy: An Exploratory Study,” MIS Quarterly (7:2), pp. 1–14. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol7/iss2/1/.
Rai, A., Arikan, I., Pye, J., and Tiwana, A. 2015. “Fit and Misfit of Plural Sourcing Strategies and IT-Enabled Process Integration Capabilities: Consequences of Firm Performance in the U.S. Electric Utility Industry,” MIS Quarterly (39:4), pp. 865–885. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol39/iss4/8/
Reich, B. H., and Benbasat, I. 1996. “Measuring the Linkage Between Business and Information Technology Objectives,” MIS Quarterly (20:1), pp. 55–81. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol20/iss1/3/.
Reich, B. H., and Benbasat, I. 2000. “Factors That Influence the Social Dimension of Alignment Between Business and Information Technology Objectives,” MIS Quarterly (24:1), pp. 81–113. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol24/iss1/4/.
Sabherwal, R., and Jeyaraj, A. 2015. “Information Technology Impacts on Firm Performance: An Extension of Kohli and Devaraj (2003),” MIS Quarterly (39:4), pp. 809–836. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol39/iss4/6/.
Sabherwal, R., Sabherwal, S., Havakhor, T., and Steelman, Z. 2019. “How Does Strategic Alignment Affect Firm Performance? The Roles of Information Technology Investment and Environmental Uncertainty,” MIS Quarterly (43:2), pp. 453–474. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol43/iss2/7/.
Segars, A. H., and Grover, V. 1998. “Strategic Information Systems Planning Success : An Investigation of the Construct and Its Measurement,” MIS Quarterly (22:2), pp. 139–163. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol22/iss2/2/.
Slaughter, S. A., Levine, L., Ramesh, B., Pries-heje, J., and Baskerville, R. 2006. “Aligning Software Processes with Strategy,” MIS Quarterly (30:4), pp. 891–918. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol30/iss4/7/.
Soh, C., Markus, M. L., and Goh, K. H. 2006. “Electronic Marketplaces and Price Transparency: Strategy, Information Technology, and Success,” MIS Quarterly (30:3), pp. 705–723. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol30/iss3/9/.
Spears, J. L., and Barki, H. 2010. “User Participation in Information Systems Security Risk Management,” MIS Quarterly (34:3), pp. 503–522. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol34/iss3/8/.
Strong, D. M., and Volkoff, O. 2010. “Understanding Organization–Enterprise System Fit: A Path to Theorizing the Information Technology Artifact,” MIS Quarterly (34:4), pp. 731–756. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol34/iss4/8/.
Tallon, P. P., and Pinsonneault, A. 2011. “Competing Perspectives on the Link Between Strategic Information Technology Alignment and Organizational Agility: Insights from a Mediation Model,” MIS Quarterly (35:2), pp. 463–486. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol35/iss2/12/.
Tavakolian, H. 1989. “Linking the Information Technology Structure With Organizational Competitive Strategy: A Survey,” MIS Quarterly (13:3), pp. 309–317. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol13/iss3/5/.
Wu, S. P.-J., Straub, D. W., and Liang, T.-P. 2015. “How Information Technology Governance Mechanisms and Strategic Alignment Influence Organizational Performance: Insights from a Matched Survey of Business and IT Managers,” MIS Quarterly (39:2), pp. 497–518. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol39/iss2/12/.
Xue, L., Ray, G., and Sambamurthy, V. 2012. “Efficiency or Innovation: How Do Industry Environments Moderate the Effects of Firms’ IT Asset Portfolios,” MIS Quarterly (36:2), pp. 509–528. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol36/iss2/10/.
Table 1. MIS Quarterly Papers on IS Alignment
|
ID |
Author(s) |
Title |
Year, Vol. (I.) |
Keyword |
|
1 |
Philip J. Pyburn |
Linking the MIS Plan with Corporate Strategy: An
Exploratory Study |
1983, 7(2) |
Linking |
|
2 |
Curt Hartog and Martin
Herbe |
1986, 10(4) |
IS Alignment |
|
|
3 |
Richard Leifer |
Matching Computer-Based Information Systems with
Organizational Structures |
1988, 12(1) |
Fit |
|
4 |
Hamid Tavakolian |
Linking the Information Technology Structure with
Organizational Competitive Strategy: A Survey |
1989, 13(3) |
Linking |
|
5 |
Fred Niederman, James C.
Brancheau, and James C. Wetherbe |
Information Systems Management Issues for the 1990s |
1991, 15(4) |
IS Alignment |
|
6 |
Carol V. Brown and Sharon
L. Magill |
Alignment of the IS Functions with the Enterprise:
Toward a Model of Antecedents |
1994, 18(4) |
IS Alignment |
|
7 |
Blaize Horner Reich and
Izak Benbasat |
Measuring the Linkage Between Business and
Information Technology Objectives |
1996, 20(1) |
Linkage |
|
8 |
Chiara Francalanci
and Hossam Galal |
1998 22(2) |
IS Alignment,
IT-organizational alignment |
|
|
9 |
Albert H. Segars and Varun
Grover |
1998, 22(2) |
IS Alignment |
|
|
10 |
Blaize Horner Reich and
Izak Benbasat |
2000, 24(1) |
IS Alignment |
|
|
11 |
Ann Majchrzak, Ronald E.
Rice, Arvind Malhotra, Nelson King, and Sulin Ba |
Technology Adaption: The Case of a
Computer-Supported Inter-organizational Virtual Team |
2000, 40(2) |
IS Alignment |
|
12 |
Sandra K. Slaughter, Linda
Levine, Balasubramaniam Ramesh, Jan Pries-Heje, and Richard Baskerville |
2006, 30(4) |
IS Alignment |
|
|
13 |
Christina Soh, M. Lynne
Markus, and Kim Huat Goh |
Electronic Marketplaces and Price Transparency:
Strategy, Information Technology, and Success |
2006, 30(3) |
IS Alignment, Strategic
Alignment |
|
14 |
Wonseok Oh and Alain Pinsonneault |
2007, 31(2) |
Strategic Alignment |
|
|
15 |
Elizabeth J. Davidson and
William G. Chismar |
2007, 31(4) |
IS Alignment |
|
|
16 |
Daniel Q. Chen, Martin
Mocker, David S. Preston, and Alexander Teubner |
Information Systems Strategy: Reconceptualization,
measurement and Implications |
2010, 34(2) |
Strategic Alignment |
|
17 |
Deepa Mani, Anitesh Barua, and Andrew Whinston |
2010, 34(1) |
Fit/misfit |
|
|
18 |
Diane M. Strong and Olga
Volkoff |
2010, 34(4) |
Fit/misfit |
|
|
19 |
Janine L. Spears and Henri
Barki |
User Participation in Information Systems Security
Risk Management |
2010, 34(3) |
IS Alignment |
|
20 |
Rajiv D. Banker, Nan Hu, Paul
A. Pavlou, and Jerry Luftman |
CIO Reporting Structure, Strategic Positioning, and
Firm Performance |
2011, 35(1) |
IS Alignment |
|
21 |
Paul P. Tallon and Alain
Pinsonneault |
2011, 35(2) |
Strategic Alignment |
|
|
22 |
Gerald C. Kane and Stephen
P. Borgatti |
Centrality–IS Proficiency Alignment and Workgroup
Performance |
2011, 35(4) |
IS Alignment |
|
23 |
Tim S. McLaren, Milena M. Head,
Yufei Yuan, and Yolande E. Chan |
A Multilevel Model for Measuring Fit
Between a Firm's Competitive Strategies and Information Systems Capabilities |
2011, 35(4) |
Fit |
|
24 |
Manon G Guillemette and Guy
Pare |
Toward a New Theory of the Contribution of the IT
Function in Organizations |
2012, 36(2) |
IS Alignment |
|
25 |
Ling Xue, Gautam Ray, and
Vallabh Sambamurthy |
2012, 36(2) |
IS Alignment |
|
|
26 |
Jennifer E. Gerow, Varun
Grover, Jason Thatcher, and Philip L. Roth |
Looking Toward the Future of IT-Business Strategic
Alignment through the Past: A Meta-Analysis |
2014, 38(4) |
Alignment, Business–IT Strategic Alignment, alignment paradox |
|
27 |
Shelly Ping-Ju Wu, Detmar
W. Straub, and Ting-Peng Liang |
2015, 39(2) |
Strategic Alignment |
|
|
28 |
Arun Rai, Ilgaz Arikan, Jessica Pye, and
Amrit Tiwana |
2015, 39(4) |
Fit/misfit |
|
|
29 |
Rajiv Sabherwal
and Anand Jeyaraj |
Information Technology Impacts on Firm Performance: An Extension of Kohli and Devaraj (2003) |
2015, 39(4) |
Linkage |
|
30 |
Paul M. Leonardi, Diane E.
Bailey, Eduardo H. Diniz, Dan Sholler, and Bonnie Nardi |
|
2016, 40(4) |
Fit and misfit |
|
31 |
Sunil Mithas
and Roland T. Rust |
2016, 40(1) |
Linkage |
|
|
32 |
Robert Wayne Gregory,
Evgeny Kaganer, Ola Henfridsson, and Thierry Jean
Ruch |
2018, 42(4) |
Alignment and linkage |
|
|
33 |
Rajiv Sabherwal,
Sanjiv Sabherwal, Taha Havakhor,
and Zach Steelman |
2019, 43(2) |
Alignment and congruence |
|
|
34 |
Dorothy C. K. Chau, Eric W.
T. Ngai, Jennifer E. Gerow, and Jason Bennett Thatcher |
2020, 44(4) |
Alignment and linkage |
Table 2. Coding Results for MISQ IS Alignment papers
|
Articles |
Alignment type |
Level of analysis |
Theory used |
Method |
Key Insights on Alignment |
|
Pyburn, 1983 |
Strategic IT alignment |
Firm level |
Strategic planning literature |
Qualitative (Comparative case study approach
whereby the senior IS executive and the top management team (four to six
individuals) were interviewed in depth) |
Identifies three strategic IS planning
styles – personal informal, personal-formal, and written-formal and shows how
the success of these approaches depended on 5 factors – the status of the IS
manager, the volatility of the business, the complexity of the IS
environment, the senior managers’ personal styles, and the physical proximity
of the IS manager to the senior managers.
Suggests that strategic IS planning is the key to alignment, but
planning need not be formal and/or written and in some cases, the latter can
militate against effectiveness (e.g., highly volatile environments or
environments with complex IS). |
|
Cartog and Herbert, 1986 |
Aligning the MIS organization (MIS must
closely support corporate business goals rather than pursuing an Independent "support"
role) |
Firm level |
Survey of key issues. |
100 responses from 63 different companies
(IS managers and CSDP managers). 14 interviews |
Planning and aligning MIS with the business
goals were the top two issues rated of highest importance. Findings suggest
that planning is closely tied to aligning MIS with the business goals.
Alignment is one-way (from business to IS and not vice versa). Evidence for the corporate orientation of
MIS management can be seen in the low rankings for newer or more technical
issues, such as expert systems and decision support systems. The results also
reveal that MIS management is closely attuned to the broader corporate
context. |
|
Leifer, 1988 |
IT Structural Alignment |
largest organizational unit |
organizational forms as defined by Mintzberg
(1979): simple structures, machine bureaucracies, professional bureaucracies,
divisionalized forms, adhocracy |
Conceptual |
Suggests
that CBIS should fit the existing structure and should not change structure.
Natural matches exist between predominant CBIS configuration and organization
structure. But in some cases, it may be best to
implement a system that is not matched to the organization, resulting in new
organizational activities that yield increased strategic or competitive
advantages. |
|
Tavakolian, 1989 |
Fit of IT structure to organization’s
competitive strategy |
Firm level |
Miles & Snow’s typology of
organizational strategy – defenders, prospectors, reactors, analysers. |
Quantitative (52 matched pairs of questionnaires from IT
managers and presidents of large companies (500 employees or more) in a
single industry (computer-components industry) |
Suggests that the IT structure is strongly
related to competitive strategy, and specifically that the degree of
centralization of IT activities is significantly related to competitive
strategies. Different IT structures seem to fit different competitive
strategies in current practice: a conservative competitive strategy exerts
pressure for the centralization of IT responsibilities, while an aggressive
competitive strategy exerts pressure for the decentralization of IT
responsibilities. |
|
Niederman, Brancheau, and Wetherbe, 1991 |
IS organization alignment and IS structure
alignment, mainly centralized and decentralized |
Firm level |
Survey of key issues |
Descriptive (reports on the SIM key issues Delphi survey) |
Finds that aligning the IS org with the
Enterprise was ranked the 7th most key issue in IS management
whereas strategic planning ranked 3rd so there was not necessarily
a connection between the two. Suggests
that inappropriate alignment can impede effective IS strategic planning and classify
alignment as a management, not technology issue, as a control, not a
planning, function and as external, not internal, to the IT function. |
|
Brown and Magill, 1994 |
IS structural alignment with the
organization |
Firm level |
Contingency theory and gestalt theory. |
Qualitative (Case study research in six large Fortune
500) |
Suggests antecedents for a firm’s IS
structure classified according to two factors based on gestalt theory –
external environment and overall organization and two characteristics of the
IS infrastructure: IS organization and IS investment. Uncover the antecedents for highly
decentralized and highly centralized IS structures; for changing from a
centralized to a hybrid IS structure; for recentralizing from a hybrid IS
structure. Findings provide evidence
that the majority of IS structure changes are made to better align
responsibilities for the IS functions with characteristics of the overall
organization. |
|
Reich and Benbasat,
1996 |
The social dimension of linkage |
Business Unit |
Draws on Horovitz’s (1984) distinction
between the intellectual and social dimensions of the process of strategic
business planning |
Qualitative (10 business units within 3 large Canadian
life insurance companies. 57 interviews with 45 informants). |
Suggests
measures for short and long-term social linkage including understanding of
current objectives" and "congruence in IT vision plus
“self-reports”. It concludes that shared vision for IT is a good potential
measure for long-term linkage and that some organizations can operate quite satisfactorily
without high levels of both long- and short-term linkage. |
|
Francalanci and Galal, 1998 |
Alignment of IT investment with worker
composition |
Firm level |
Organizational imperative view, information
processing and agency theory |
Quantitative (multiple datasets including compustat, a company database and data on publicly traded
companies). |
Suggests
three hypotheses linking IT investments and increases in productivity and
finds that increases in IT investments alone have a negative impact on
productivity. That is, companies that increase their IT expenses without
simultaneously altering their workforce composition are likely to obtain a
negative impact on productivity. |
|
Segars and Grover, 1998 |
Planning alignment as a first order
construct of SISP effectiveness |
Firm level |
IS strategic management literature |
Quantitative (survey of 550 individuals listed in the
East Edition of the Directory of Top Computer Executives) |
Suggests that planning objectives associated
with (1) aligning IS strategies with organizational strategies, (2)
understanding the processes, procedures, and technologies of the business,
and (3) gaining the cooperation of various management and end-user groups provide
a useful framework for structuring desired outcomes of strategic IS planning.
Therefore, the study suggests a multidimensional
conceptualization of planning success. |
|
Reich & Benbasat,
2000 |
Social Dimension of Alignment Short-term alignment Long-term alignment |
Business Unit |
Extracted constructs from prior research. |
Qualitative (10 business units studied using interviews
over 12 months). |
Suggests social antecedents of alignment and
their effect on short-term and long-term alignment. Shared domain knowledge influences
long-term alignment. Shared domain
knowledge and implementation success influence communication between IT and
business execs, which in turn influences short-term alignment. |
|
Majchrzak, Rice, Malhotra, King and Ba, 2000 |
Alignment between organizational
environment, group structure, and new technology spirit and features |
Group level |
Structuration Theory |
Qualitative (Case study of a virtual team over the
course of 10 months; private interviews with each of the 8 team members at 7
points in time). |
Investigates how a team experienced
significant misalignment. The process was not one of initial misalignment
gradually reduced to alignment and successful performance, but of initial
misalignment, immediately reduced to (presumed) alignment, followed by
discrepant events creating modifications to structures that created new
misalignments, followed by further changes to structures to reduce
misalignments |
|
Slaughter, Levine, BalasubramaniJan
Pries-Heje, and Baskerville, 2006 |
Alignment in a firms’ strategies and
production processes in software development. |
Business Unit |
No overarching theory applied. |
Qualitative (case studies were conducted in 9 firms various industries). |
Develops concept maps for the firms that are
in alignment and provide explanations on why some firms are misaligned. The
concept maps provide insight on how managers can configure specific product
and process dimensions to derive alignment. The findings also outlined the
potential reasons some firms are misaligned. |
|
Soh, Markus, and Huat Goh, 2006 |
Alignment among strategy, price
transparency, and performance of Electronic Marketplaces (EMPs) |
Organizational level (EMP) |
Porter's theory of competitive advantage;
and the resource-based view. |
Quantitative
(19 EMPs in the electronic components
industry) |
Examines the nature of two differentiated
EMPs (one high price transparency and one low price transparency) – and how these two
different EMPs achieved strategic alignment of activities and resources and
provided compensatory benefits for their customers. |
|
Oh and Pinsonneault, 2007 |
Strategic
Business–IT Alignment (represented by alignment between business strategy and
the portfolio of IT systems) 1) Cost
Reduction; 2) Quality Improvement; 3) Revenue Growth |
Organizational Level |
1) The Resource-Centered Perspective of the Strategic Value of IT 2) The Contingency Perspective of the Strategic Value of IT |
Quantitative (Matched survey
data collected from the CEOs and CIOs of 110 Canadian small and medium-size
firms in the manufacturing industry). |
Compares two conceptual (resource-centered
and contingency-based) and two analytical (linear and nonlinear) approaches
to assess the strategic value of IT. Suggests that the contingency approach
is better at explaining the impact of cost related IT applications on firm
performance. On the other hand, the resource-centered perspective has a
stronger predictive ability of IT impact on firm revenue and profitability. |
|
Davidson and Chismar, 2007 |
Alignment is conceptualized in terms of
aligning an organization’s social structures with its technology capabilities |
Organizational Level (single firm study) |
Barley’s (1990) model for the alignment of
technology and social structure |
Qualitative (Interpretive field study of a single
hospital’s experiences with a Computerized Physician Order Entry CPOE system) |
Examines how institutionally triggered and
technology-triggered change interacted in complementary processes to engender
alignment. Social structure changes
included increased interdependency among clinical departments, multidisciplinary
cooperation across clinical disciplines, and standardization in clinical
decision-making. Organization members also enacted institutionalized
interaction patterns with physicians by deferring to their preferences for
CPOE use. |
|
Chen, Mocker, Preston, and Teubner, 2010 |
3 concepts of IS strategy as it relates to
the organization (1) IS strategy as the use of IS to support
business strategy; (2) IS strategy as the master plan of the IS
function; and (3) IS strategy as the shared view of the IS
role within the organization |
Organizational Level (concepts also
potentially apply to Business Unit) |
1) Strategic Management Literature 2) IS Strategy Literature 3) IS Strategic Alignment Literature |
Conceptual |
Develops
propositions to link 3 conceptualizations to strategy and IS strategic
alignment. Proposition 2a: For IS
innovators, IS strategy is well positioned to drive business strategy. Proposition 2b: For IS conservatives, business
strategy is well positioned to drive IS strategy. |
|
Mani, Barua and Whinston,
2010 |
Fit between information requirements and design of information capabilities across
business process outsourcing (BPO) exchanges |
Organizational level |
Information Processing View (IPV) of the
firm |
Quantitative (Survey data on 127 active BPO relationships) |
Suggests that the degree of alignment (i.e.,
fit) between design of information capabilities and information requirements
leads to heterogeneous performance effects within BPO exchanges. |
|
Strong and Volkoff, 2010 |
Alignment in terms of “fit” or actually
misfit” of enterprise systems (ES) with their organizational use |
Organizational and subunit level |
1) Venkatraman’s Fit Taxonomy 2) Sia and Soh’s Misalignment Assessment Framework |
Qualitative (Grounded theory and Critical
realism) |
Suggests that misfits were due to system
deficiencies or system impositions, leading to the conclusion that Org–ES fit
should be conceptualized
as: 1) coverage (extent to which the ES meets the requirements of the
organization); 2) enablement (extent to which the ES enables the organization
to operate efficiently and effectively).
|
|
Spears and Barki, 2010 |
Alignment between IS security risk management (SMR) and the business
environment. |
Organizational Level (even end user
questions pertain to the users overall in the organization) |
IS development literature - IS user participation literature - buy-in theory of participation - system quality theory - emergent interactions theory |
Multi-Method Design (Interviews followed by
quantitative Survey data collection). |
Suggests alignment is a mediator between
user participation and organizational awareness. The findings show: 1) User Participation à Business SRM Alignment 2) Business SRM Alignment à Organizational Awareness |
|
Tallon and Pinsonneault,
2011 |
Strategic IT alignment |
Firm level |
Strategic alignment
literature, knowledge and resource-based view of the firm |
Quantitative (Matched
survey of IT and business executives in 241 firms) |
Investigates whether alignment helps or hurts agility. By embedding alignment and agility in a
nomological network in which agility mediates the link between alignment and
firm performance, the results show that alignment enables rather than hinders
agility. It also indicates that IT
flexibility provides an added boost to agility in volatile settings, thus
highlighting the options value of designing flexible IT in an uncertain
market. |
|
Banker, Hu, Pavlou and
Luftman, 2011 |
Strategic IT alignment |
Firm level |
Chandler’s
Strategy-structure theory and Porter’s typology of strategic positioning,
configurations |
Quantitative (Compustat survey on 200 firms for 1990-1993 period and 58
firms for the 2006 period) |
Proposes different
configurations demonstrates that the alignment between the firm’s CIO
reporting structure and its strategic positioning helps positively affect
firm performance across industries (measured with abnormal stock returns and
future cash flow from operations). |
|
Kane and Borgatti, 2011 |
IS-proficiency alignment |
Group level |
Social Network Analysis concepts |
Quantitative (Data from 468 employees in
32 workgroups) |
Suggests that the alignment between IS
proficiency and users’ centrality in the group is likely to be positively
related to performance at the group level and offers a way of testing it that
is not limited to an inventory of group capabilities. |
|
McLaren, Head, Yuan and
Chan, 2011 |
Strategic fit of a firm’s
IS (fit between a firm’s realized competitive strategies and IS capabilities |
Firm level |
Design science
Configurational theory |
Qualitative (Multi-case study based on
five firms located in Canada) |
Uses the design science
research to explicate the requirements and theoretical principles for a new
model for measuring the strategic fit of a firm’s IS referred to as
multilevel strategic fit measurement model that could be used in practice to
improve the strategic fit of a firm’s IS. |
|
Guillemette and Paré, 2012 |
Alignment of the IT
function with IT-based capacities at the organizational level |
Firm level |
Typological theory,
configurations |
Qualitative (Systematic review + Field
study in 24 large Canadian companies) |
Develops and tests a new
theory of the contribution of the IT function and offers a typology of five
ideal profiles: partner, systems provider, architecture builder, technological
leader, project coordinator. Such
profiles are based on different dimensions: critical activities carried out
by IT specialists, knowledge and abilities of IT professionals, nature of the
relationship between the IT function and other business units or external
partners, and finally, governance of the IT function. Suggests that the IT
function that perfectly or closely matches a partner profile contributes
greatly to improved organizational productivity |
|
Xue, Ray and Sambamurthy, 2012 |
Strategic alignment |
Firm level |
Contingency perspective and
organizational learning theory in particular exploitation and exploration
processes |
Quantitative (Multi-industry panel data) |
Suggests that firm’s IT
investment behaviors can enhance strategic alignment through their IT asset
portfolios. It extends this idea by linking IT to two performance outcomes:
efficiency and innovation and examines how environmental characteristics in
terms of dynamism, munificence and complexity (as a moderator) influence this
impact |
|
Gerow, Grover, Thatcher and
Roth, 2014 |
Business-IT strategic
alignment and its three dimensions: intellectual, operational and cross
domain alignment |
Firm level |
No overarching theory, uses
the SAM of Henderson and Venkatraman (1999) |
Review (meta-analysis) |
Investigates the alignment-performance
relationship and finds it positive across studies. First, intellectual
alignment has a weaker relationship with customer benefit than operational
alignment while cross-domain alignment takes the middle ground. Second,
customer benefit has a stronger relationship with operational alignment than
financial performance while productivity falls somewhere in between. Third,
operational alignment has a somewhat weaker relationship with financial
performance compared to intellectual and cross-domain alignment |
|
Wu, Straub and Liang, 2015 |
Strategic alignment with a
focus on the intellectual dimension |
Firm level |
Resource-based view of the
firm |
Quantitative (uses dyadic
survey data collected from 131 Taiwanese companies, cross validated with
archival data from 72 firms. |
Investigates how the
intellectual dimension of strategic alignment can mediate the effectiveness
of IT governance on organizational performance. Finds that 1) IT governance
in the form of decision-making structure, formal processes, and communication
approaches is an important antecedent of strategic alignment, and (2) that
this intellectual dimension fully mediates the impact of IT governance
mechanisms on organizational performance. |
|
Rai, Arikan,
Oye and Tiwana, 2015 |
(mis)alignment between a
firm’s development of IT-enabled process integration capabilities and its
decision to increase/decrease MSI (Market sourcing intensity). |
Firm level |
Transaction-cost economics,
coordination costs, and IT capabilities and |
Quantitative (Panel dataset
from 342 utility firms in the US) |
Suggests that fit between
the development of interfirm process integration capability and increases in
MSI accrues performance benefits and misfit between the development of
intrafirm process integration capability and increases in MSI extracts
performance penalties. |
|
Sabherwal and Jeyaraj, 2015 |
IT alignment is considered
a subcomponent of IT potential which moderates the link between the consider
of IT investment and the derived business value of IT (BVIT) |
Firm level |
IT strategic alignment
literature |
Meta-analysis: 303 studies
(published between 1990 and 2013) on
firm-level BVIT, which yielded 336 observations. |
Considerations of IT
alignment strengthen the relationship between IT investment on BVIT. |
|
Leonardi, Bailey, Diniz,
Sholler and Nardi, 2016 |
Different actors’
appropriations in a dynamic ecosystem including system interactions with
policies, organizations, and institutions |
Multiple actors, user
groups in different setting |
Complex systems Adaptive structuration
theory |
Qualitative (case study
with primary interviews and secondary data in two settings: retail stores and
post offices) |
Develops a multiplex
perspective on appropriation of multiple elements by multiple actors in
multiple settings at the same time. Across the system, multiple actors in
multiple settings will appropriate multiple elements in different ways such
that the system is dynamic. This perspective allows for local alignments of
system elements that fit the local context. Social and financial rewards and
incentives encouraged actors to appropriate system elements. |
|
Mithas and Rust, 2016 |
IT strategy is viewed as an
expression of the firm’s dominant
strategic objective: 1) revenue expansion, 2) cost reduction, or 3) a dual
emphasis pursuing both goals. |
Firm Level |
IT strategic ambidexterity |
Secondary data was
collected from 300 U.S. firms. Independent and dependent variables were
obtained from Separate secondary sources
(InformationWeek CIO survey and Compustat). Analyses were conducted via
Tobins-Q. |
Firms with a dual IT
strategic emphasis have a higher market value than firms with a revenue or a
cost emphasis, but they have similar levels of profitability. IT strategic
emphasis plays a significant role in moderating the relationship between IT
investments and firm performance with dual-emphasis firms have a stronger
relationship than revenue-emphasis firms. Dual-emphasis firms also have a
stronger IT– profitability relationship
than either revenue- or cost-emphasis firms. The
study concludes that at low levels of IT investment, the firm may need to
choose between revenue expansion and cost reduction, but at higher levels of
IT investment, the firm should seek a dual-emphasis in IT strategy or IT
strategic ambidexterity. |
|
Gregory, Kaganer, Henfridsson and Ruch, 2018 |
Alignment of IT related activities with the
organization’s strategy and objectives |
Firm Level |
Punctuated equilibrium
theory |
Grounded theory method |
This study examines how IT
governance (i.e., decision rights and accountability framework) ensure the
alignment of IT related activities with the organization’s strategy and
objectives. The findings indicate that as the IT belief system in the firm
begins to alter the IT-related activities of workers, the result is IT
governance misalignments that ultimately lead to a punctuated transformation
of IT governance that dismantles functional IT governance. The establishment
of platform-based governance marks a new equilibrium period. |
|
Sabherwal, Sabherwal, Havakhor and Steelman, 2019 |
Strategic alignment with a
focus on the intellectual dimension |
Firm level |
Resource-based view |
Panel-data analyses of data
from 1999 –2008, including 758 firm-year observations from 242 firms. |
The findings show that IT
strategic alignment as a state directly improves firm performance even when
considering IT investment and its interaction with such alignment. In
addition, the effect of the interaction between IT strategic alignment and IT
investment on firm performance increases with an increase in environmental
dynamism or complexity and with a decrease in environmental munificence.
Furthermore, IT alignment enhances the positive effect of IT investment on
firm performance in dynamic or complex environments, but this effect is
reduced in stable or simple environments. |
|
Chau, Ngai, Gerow and
Thatcher, 2020 |
Strategic alignment with a
focus on the intellectual dimension |
Firm Level |
IT strategic alignment
literature |
Employed a survey to
develop a moderated polynomial model that predicts alignment and
misalignment’s effect on firm performance using data from 87 firms. |
The findings provide
empirical support that effective IT governance within proactive organizations
positively moderated the curvilinear relationship between alignment,
misalignment, and firm performance. |
Table 3. Cross-References with MIS Quarterly Curations
|
MIS Quarterly Curation |
Cross References |
|
Health
Information Technology |
Davidson, E. and Chismar, W. “The Interaction of Institutionally
Triggered and Technology-Triggered Social Structure Change: An Investigation
of Computerized Physician Order Entry,” MIS Quarterly (31:4), December 2007,
pp. 739-758. |
|
Information
Systems Development |
Slaughter, S., Levine, L., Ramesh, B., Pries-Heje, J. and
Baskerville, R. “Aligning software processes with strategy,” MIS Quarterly
(30:4), December 2006, pp. 891-918. |
|
IS
Control & Governance |
Gregory, R.W., Kaganer, E.,
Henfridsson, O. and Ruch, T.J. “IT Consumerization and the Transformation of
IT Governance,” MIS Quarterly (42:4), Dec 2018, pp. 1225-1253. Wu. S., Straub, D. and Liang T. P. “How Information Technology
Governance Mechanisms and Strategic Alignment Influence Organizational
Performance: Insights from a Matched Survey of Business and IT Managers,” MIS
Quarterly (39:2), June 2015, pp. 497-518. |
|
IS
Sourcing |
Mani, D. Barua, A. and Whinston, A.
“An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Information Capabilities Design on
Business Process Outsourcing Performance,” MIS Quarterly (34:1), March 2010,
pp. 39-62. |
|
IS Use |
Davidson, E. and Chismar, W. “The Interaction of Institutionally
Triggered and Technology-Triggered Social Structure Change: An Investigation
of Computerized Physician Order Entry,” MIS Quarterly (31:4), December 2007,
pp. 739-758. Leonardi, P., Bailey, D., Diniz, E., Sholler, D. and Nardi, B.
“Multiplex Appropriation in Complex Systems Implementation: The Case of
Brazil's Correspondent Banking System,” MIS Quarterly (40:2), June 2016, pp.
461-473. Majchrzak, A., Rice, D. Malhotra, A., King, N. and Ba, S.
“Technology Adaption: The Case of a Computer-Supported Inter-organizational
Virtual Team,” MIS Quarterly (40:2), December 2000, pp. 569-600. Strong, D. and Volkoff, O. “Understanding
Organization–Enterprise System Fit: A Path to Theorizing the Information
Technology Artifact,” MIS Quarterly (34:4), December 2010, pp.731-756. |
Figure 2. IS Alignment Infographic
