A Framework of IS / Business Alignment Management Practices to Improve the Design of IT Governance Architectures

This research aims to identify specific management practices that can help to improve the process of IS/business alignment and the design of ITG architecture that supports those processes. To this end the authors propose a framework that is used as a reference to classify relevant management practices in the process of IS/business alignment and design of ITG architectures. The analysis was carried out in a large leading international food and beverage company. Findings show that at operational and tactical levels, improving the coordination of the IT investment management process and enabling structures that strengthen the connection of budgetary controls are core structural capabilities that can positively improve the process of IS/business alignment and impact significantly the design of ITG architectures.


Introduction
IS/Business alignment is seen as a necessary management practice that can enable information systems (IS) to adapt to the changing business environment (Tarhini et al., 2015a,b；Abbasi et al., 2015).Over more than two decades, practitioners and academics have continuously demonstrated interest on IS/business alignment and ranked it as a top management need.However, solutions to achieve IS/business alignment are still vague due to its complexity and holistic understanding.Despite this fact, several business benefits appear as the main justification to support its implementation.Empirical studies demonstrate that the alignment in organizations help to enhance organizational performance (Teo & King, 1996;Chan, Sabherwal, & Thatcher, 2006;Masa'deh & Kuk, 2009;Yayla & Hu, 2012;Walter et al., 2013;Wagner, 2014) and enables IT/business value (Melville, Kraemer, & Gurbaxani, 2004;Shannak et al., 2010;Chiang & Nunez, 2013;Siurdyban, 2014).Considering these organizational benefits, there is imminent and recurrent question that practitioners aim to answer: what do organizations need to positively advance the process of IS/business alignment?Despite several efforts to answer this question, there is still perennial work to contribute into the IS/business alignment research agenda.Literature in IS/business alignment is diverse, well-supported and ongoing research still is looking to establish its relevance in the context of IS use.Different approaches, dimensions and paradigms have characterized its progress (Chan & Reich, 2007;Gutierrez et al., 2009;Masa'deh et al., 2014).In the way to better understand IS/business alignment, literature has provided rich but theoretical research that lacks of pragmatic approaches.Particularly, few attempts advance pragmatically on the process of assessing, maintaining or sustaining IS/business alignment (Avison et al., 2004;Chan & Reich, 2007;Masa'deh & Shannak, 2012) and even fewer studies specify punctual management capabilities towards the consolidation of an IS/business alignment process (Luftman, 2004).
IT Governance (ITG) is a more recent area of research with approximately a decade of age.Despite ITG has been defined in different ways; most definitions stress how management needs to make decisions rather than what decisions to be made.It could be argued that ITG has an older history as it has been considered within corporate governance research; however the current IT-driving era supports the ITG's own personality.ITG, as area of research, has evolved over the past years from an IT-oriented into a more business-oriented practice.The implementations of ITG have gained relevance either to promote efficient organizational IT performance (Simonsson, Johnson, & Ekstedt, 2010;Wraikat, 2012;Curry et al., 2014, Alenezi et al., 2015;Tarhini et al., 2015c) or accomplish legal regulations (ISO/IEO, 2014).Researches have agreed that ITG is a control-based system that includes internal and external management practices that enable and impact IS/business alignment (Peterson, 2004).According to Peterson (2004) and Weill and Ross (2004), ITG mechanisms or capabilities should be divided into three sets [process, relations, structures] in order to understand their scope and effect.The setting up of such mechanisms or capabilities constitutes a baseline to support making-decision processes and make valid organizational rules and procedures.Only then, the resulted ITG architecture can enable the IS/business alignment process and enhance organizational IT/business value.
Researchers and practitioners have identified tight relationships between ITG, IS/business alignment and business value (De Haes & Van Grembergen, 2009;Buchwald, Urbach, & Ahlemann, 2014).However there are few studies that link those studies to identify their relationships.This research aims to identify those management practices that can positively moderate and improve the process of IS/business alignment and the design of ITG.In order to identify these management practices, the management capabilities from the strategic alignment maturity (SAM) model proposed by Luftman (2000) were mapped against the structure of the ITG assessment process (ITGAP) model defined by Peterson (2004).The resulted mapping framework was used as a reference to classify management practices and analyze relevant management practices in the process of IS/business alignment and design of ITG architectures.The analysis was carried out colleting management practices from a leading and large food and beverage company.Findings show that at operational and tactical levels, improving the coordination of the IT investment management process and enabling structures that strengthen the connection of budgetary controls are core structural capabilities that can positively improve and moderate the process of IS/business alignment and impact significantly the design of ITG.By promoting program management practices towards a unified understanding of IT and business knowledge, the collaboration between strategic and operational levels would be positively influenced.This paper is divided in five sections.The following section outlines the research in IS/business alignment and its links with ITG.In section three, both SAMM and ITGAP are discussed and the proposed framework is introduced.Section four includes the case study analysis.In the last section, the results and conclusions are presented.

IT Governance and IS/Business Alignment Antecedents
IS/business alignment has been researched as a phenomenon that focuses on the complexity of organizational relationships given by the integration of IT and business strategies (Broadbent & Weill, 1993;Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993;Ciborra, 1997, Smaczny, 2001), plans (Kearns & Lederer, 2000;Reich & Benbasat, 2000;Cragg, King, & Hussin, 2002;Balocco, Ciappini, & Rangone, 2013), or structures (Weill, & Ross, 2004).In more than two decades, these different approaches have revealed several loci research in IS/business alignment (Chan & Reich, 2007;Coltman, Sharma, & Tallon, 2013;Tarhini et al., 2015d) and also contributed marginally subscribing its broad and complex understanding.A specific challenge that IS/business alignment research agenda faces is its holistic scope.To conceptualize IS/business alignment, several dimensions have been indicated to portray its understanding.Four dimensions have been commonly referenced and cited: strategic or intellectual (Kearns & Lederer, 2000), operational (Papp & Luftman, 1995;Chan, 2002), informal structural (Chan, 2001;Chan, Sabherwal, & Thatcher, 2006) and cultural (Pyburn, 1983).These dimensions have been traditionally isolated approaches to understand and approach IS/business alignment research.However, a new organic and co-evolutional view suggests integrating these IS/business alignment dimensions in order to consolidate new IS/business alignment theory foundations.Benbya and McKelvey (2006) propose that IS/business alignment is the result of a series of adjustments at three levels of analysis: individual, operational and strategic.Most important in this view, they justify causal dynamics rather than cause-effect logic of managerial actions to impact all organizational levels and their performance.Empirically, the business characteristics of ITG have been a justification to consider their implementations as an alternative to develop such managerial actions along organizations.For instance, the adoption of frameworks such as COBIT, ITIL or ISO/IEC 38500-2008 exemplifies the relevance of different mechanisms to enhance an organizational platform to achieve tight IS/business alignment and higher IS/business value.

Linking IS/Business Alignment and IT Governance
Literature has shown that similar outcomes can result of either achieving IS/business alignment or implementing ITG practices.Empirical studies evidence that higher organizational performance can be the result of tight IS/business alignment (Kearns & Lederer, 2003;Masa'deh & Kuk, 2009) but also consequence of effective implementations of ITG practices (Weill & Ross, 2004;Tallon et al., 2013).Both IS/business alignment and ITG areas have been researched independently and few studies indicate mechanisms that link their consequences or antecedents (Chaudhuri, 2011;Buchwald et al., 2014;Thompson et al., 2014).For instance, literature disagrees to show how both areas are related.The IT Governance Institute (ITGI) considers IS/business alignment as one out of five areas of concern within ITG [strategic alignment, value delivery, risk management, resource management and performance management].Conversely, SAM includes ITG as one out of six IS/business alignment maturity factors [communication, value measurement, IT governance, partnership, scope & architecture and skills] to assess IS/business alignment maturity.Researchers have called for studies that look for those relationships between IT/business value, IS/business alignment and ITG but have anticipated that ITG is an antecedent and enabler for achieving IS/business (De Haes & Van Grembergen, 2010;Schlosser et al., 2010;Wagner, Beimborn, & Weitzel, 2014).The implementation of ITG practices builds up a baseline that should include processes, structures and relational capabilities.These managerial abilities enable people to execute their responsibilities in support of IS/business alignment and the creation of IT/business value (Peterson, 2004).To achieve higher organizational performance, those capabilities need to be identified and then amalgamate an enterprise management system that facilitates controls along different information systems (Peterson, 2004;Beimborn, Schlosser, & Weitzel, 2009;Tiwana, 2012;Wagner & Weitzel, 2012;Zolper, Beimborn, & Weitzel, 2014).
The authors of this paper coincide with the notion that the relationship between IS/business alignment and ITG is important but additional research will clarify their relationships.The relationships between IS/business alignment and ITG and the identification of their common management practices would help to focus efforts on specific managerial actions and impact organizational performance significantly.In the literature, the identification of these practices has been rarely discussed.

The Role of Management Practices in IS/Business Alignment and ITG
Managing IT also means meeting business objectives while targeting strategic, tactical and operational levels and handling a complex number of organizational assets and factors (Gutierrez et al., 2008;Gutierrez, Orozco, & Serrano, 2009).Benbya and McKelvey (2006) have considered theoretically the co-evolutionary dynamics of these organizational levels as a function of IS/business alignment.They propose an emergent nature that underpins IS/business alignment "as a continuous coevolutionary process that reconciles top-down 'rational design' and bottom-up 'emergent process' of consciously and coherently interrelating all components of the IS/business alignment at three levels of analysis [strategic, operational and individual]".This contemporary view innovates the integration of different alignment dimensions to consolidate a new IS/business alignment theory.For instance, the operational level of analysis includes social and structural or operational components.The dynamics at this level offers insights into how ITG mechanisms influence business process performance (Beimborn, Schlosser, & Weitzel, 2009).In addition, decision-making processes and relationships of stakeholders also contribute in such dynamics.However, operational performance also depends on structures and capabilities to establish making-decision mechanisms (Hirschheim & Sabherwal, 2001).To this end, decisions to develop what capabilities to implement and how they should be arranged are the result of strategic management decisions to realize IS/business value (Weill & Ross, 2004).ITG has been conceptualized as "the distribution of IT decision-making rights and responsibilities among different stakeholders in the enterprise, and defines the procedures and mechanisms of making and monitoring strategic IT decisions" (Peterson, O'Callaghan, & Ribbers, 2000).In this notion, managerial abilities play an important organizational role to coordinate activities related to IT plans, organization and controls.Peterson (2004) groups them in three sets according to their key mechanisms and also calls them capabilities.Each set embraces lateral structures, processes and relational capabilities.Process capability refers to the coordination of strategic IT monitoring and IT decision-making process.Relational capability comprises the collaboration of active business and IT partnership and shared learning.Structural capability involves the connection of formal mechanisms such as positions, roles and organizational structures to build liaisons between IT and business (see Table 1).The SAMM model was selected to provide IS/business alignment management practices for this study.The rationale to select this model was based on two main arguments.Firstly, existing IS/business alignment assessments are either theoretical conceptualizations or particular studies that cannot be applied generically in several organizations (Gutierrez, Orozco, Papazafeiropoulou, & Serrano, 2008).Hence, SAMM, on the contrary, is a practical method for analyzing organizational maturity of IS/business alignment by means of ranking management practices within five levels of maturity [initial, committed process, established focused, improved and optimized process].Each of these levels is subdivided into six factors [communication, value, governance, partnership, scope & architecture, and skills] and each factor is also subdivided in a set of management practices, also called attributes.SAMM has recently been tested and validated (Sledgianowski & Luftman, 2005).Their findings show that the SAMM can be used as reliable diagnostic tool to improve the maturity levels of IS/business alignment.Gutierrez et al. (2009) also validates SAMM's reliability.The authors analyze the significance of its factors against organization size and indicate that the six factors are significant for either large, medium or small organizations.Secondly, the SAAM has been enriched from previous research and is still generating research interests.The SAMM is originally based on the strategic alignment model (SAM) but, in comparison to the latter, it covers additional factors, for instance organizational value creation.
The management practices proposed by SAMM were taken as sources of ITGAP mechanisms.In total 26 management practices were identified and categorized according the capabilities' structure in ITGAP.The selected management practices were categorized in three key mechanisms, process, relational and structure.To do this categorization, descriptions of each attribute (management practices) in SAMM as well as definitions of components in ITGAP were taken as the main reference.This categorization was used as a reference for the case study analysis presented in the following section (see Figure 1).
Since the ITG mechanisms can be elements of analysis in different IS/business alignment dimensions, it was decided to map ITG capabilities against different IS/business alignment dimensions.In practice, the implementation of ITG mechanisms might impact one or more organizational levels but also they might have been subject of analysis at different IS/business alignment dimensions.In this mapping, it was considered three sets of ITG capabilities [structure, process and relational] and four IS/business alignment dimensions [social, operational, informal structural and intellectual].This mapping aimed to analyze the impact of different ITG capabilities at different IS/business alignment dimensions.The scope of each IS/business alignment dimension depicted in our mapping was based on definitions provided by Chan and Reich (2007) and Gutierrez et al. (2008).This mapping is also addressed the relationships between the three integration key mechanisms in order to indicate their management actions [coordination, collaboration and connection] and how they enable ITG integration.The final mapping is shown in figure 2.

Qualitative Analysis: A Case Study
A case study approach was selected as a method of study as this research is focused on the context of managerial actions and their making decisions processes.One case study was conducted as a pilot to identify relevant IS/business alignment management practices that can moderate the design of ITG architectures.The framework proposed in Figure 2 was applied on one the snack food business unit (BU) of a large leading international food and beverage company, hereafter called CompX in 2010.Some positions at top management provide share services to other business units also within the snack food sector.Traditionally, business units have been independent and autonomous, as management identifies noticeable differences in their business rationale.However, the implementation of share services for both business units have been the cause of structural and functional changes over the past years.Although data from two business units in the same family business could limit the findings of this research, this attempt had an objective to test and present initial results from the proposed framework.For further enhancements, additional data from other two large organizations will be integrated to enrich the results presented in this paper.

Data C
The metho into accou research co total, twen All intervi manageria hold either director or implement managers subsets of (see Table Table 2 project implementation and achieving benefit) (Sherer, 2007).All results discussed in this section are presented and mapped in the proposed framework in Figure 5.

Discussions and Conclusions
The results from this research indicate that at operational and tactical levels, improving the coordination of the IT investment management process and enabling structures that strengthen the connection of budgetary controls will impact the integration of additional formal capabilities and consequently moderate positively the process of IS/business alignment and enable mechanisms to design effective ITG architectures (see Figure 4).For example, between strategic and operational levels, promoting program management practices would influence collaboration towards a unified understanding of IT and business knowledge.From a practitioner's point of view, these results suggest that management should concentrate and put special emphasis in control mechanisms to support and monitor the IT investment management process and consolidate it by means of improved structural costing schemas.Specially, there is a need to permeate balanced practices between stakeholders.In our case study, several issues related to IT investments were caused by the lack of standardize procedures since the diversity of informal practices were caused of conflicts and misalignment.At strategic level, positions found that the business understanding of IT affects their strategic relational and process integration capabilities.Conversely, operational positions evidenced that the IT understanding of business influences their tactical relational, process and structure capabilities.