Measuring the correspondence between business-IT alignment and employee alignment of a

79 Pages·2012·4.08 MB·English

Measuring the correspondence between business-IT alignment and
employee alignment of a company
Thierry Stamper (164IK)
Supervisors: Marko van Eekelen, Erik Proper & Julien Erens (external)
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
May 26, 2012
Abstract
Inthisthesis,thefollowingresearchquestionisdiscussed: Isthereameasurableconnectionbetweenthelevelofbusiness-
IT alignment of a company and the level of employee alignment of the company? First, the concept of business-IT
alignment is discussed and the method in which it can be measured best is determined. Next, the concept of employee
alignment in a company is discussed and the method in which this can be measured best is determined. Following the
discussion of the concepts of business-IT alignment and employee alignment, correspondence is discussed. After this,
a case study is presented. The case study is described, the results of the measurements of business-IT alignment and
employee alignment are presented and explained and conclusions and suggestions for improvement are put forward,
basedontheresults. Finally,inthelastchapter,implicationsandlimitationsofthisthesisarediscussedandsuggestions
for other and/or further research are made. At the end of this thesis, an appendix is added which contains the survey
questions used for the case study.
Contents
1 Introduction 4
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Research question. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Analysis of the research question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Subquestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 Research goal & result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.6 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.7 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.8 Document structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 The concept of business-IT alignment 9
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Business and IT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1 business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.2 IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.3 business-IT relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.1 de(cid:28)nitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.2 divisions of alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.3 general remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Added value of business-IT alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5 Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6 Factors in(cid:29)uencing alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1
2.6.1 factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6.2 available options for improving alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6.3 considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.7 Criticism on alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.8 Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3 Measuring business-IT alignment 19
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2 Guidelines, tips and remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3 Overview of models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4 Analysis of the overviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.5 SAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.6 SAMM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.7 The punctuated equilibrium model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.8 The coevolution model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.9 Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.10 The assessment model & method of choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4 The concept of employee alignment 31
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2 Employee alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2.1 company goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2.2 contribution of employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3 LOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.4 General remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5 Measuring employee alignment 34
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.2 The concept of employee alignment and LOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.3 Operationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.4 Comparing business-IT alignment and employee alignment levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2
6 Correspondence between business-IT alignment and employee alignment 37
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.2 Background story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.3 Support in literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7 Case study 39
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7.2.1 theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7.2.2 positioning of this case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.3 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
7.3.1 introduction of the case: the pension provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
7.3.2 organizational structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
7.3.3 setup of the survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.3.4 choices made regarding the survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.4 Testing the hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.5 Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.6 Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.6.1 evaluation of the survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.6.2 general results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
7.6.3 business-IT overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
7.6.4 strategic/tactical/operational level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7.6.5 hypothesis test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7.6.6 discussion of results with review panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7.7 Focus points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
8 Implications, limitations and suggestions for future research 60
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
8.2 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
8.3 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
8.4 Suggestions for further research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Companies make use of IT when performing their business activities. Within the business sector, there are di(cid:27)erent
assignments for the role of the business part of an organization and the IT part of an organization. In order to
accomodate this (cid:29)exibility and variation in role allocations, it is desirable to have a situation where the ’business’
within an organization can explain the IT what it needs and that the IT understands the (needs of the) business. IT
and business are needed to achieve the goals of a company. Ideally, a company would like to have them ’on the same
level’. The term associated with this situation is ’alignment’. Business and IT are embodied by people. Making sure
thatthesepeopleareworkingtowardsthesamegoal(s)isimportantforacompanyinordertobesuccessful. Theterm
associated with this is employee alignment. In my thesis, the problem of how to assess the extent to which business
and IT and employees are aligned within a company, will be studied. The problem area associated with the research
subject, is the business sector. However, the business sector (as a whole) is a large scope. Therefore, this scope has
been reduced to the (cid:28)nancial sector and speci(cid:28)cally one company within that sector. A case study will be performed
1
at a large pension provider .
1.2 Research question
As mentioned in the previous section, both the business and IT part of a company contribute to the goals of the
company. They work together to achieve those goals. To determine to what extent they collaborate, an assessment of
the alignment between business and IT in a company is necessary. However, only part of the collaboration is covered
this way. It is interesting to (cid:28)nd out whether a certain level of alignment between business and IT can also be found
in employee alignment. The research question that covers all mentioned elements is stated below:
Is there a measurable connection between the level of alignment of a company and the level of employee
alignment of the company?
The steps that have been taken to deal with this research question, will be discussed in the section ’Approach’. My
personal opinion is that a certain level of alignment of a part of a company translates into a similar level in employee
alignment of the company. Below I have formulated my opinion as a hypothesis:
H0: The level of business-IT alignment measured in a company is also found in the employee alignment
1termadoptedfromhttp://dut.proz.com/kudoz/dutch_to_english/(cid:28)nance_general/748635-puo.html,visitedinFebruary2012
4
1.3 Analysis of the research question
The research question is complex: it contains several elements that need to be discussed. At (cid:28)rst glance, the following
elements are derived:
(cid:46) connection
(cid:46) alignment
(cid:46) level of alignment
(cid:46) measurable
(cid:46) employee alignment
When one takes a better look, the elements can be divided into two groups: one relating to ’application’ and one
related to ’theory’:
theory alignment, level of alignment, employee alignment
application measurable, employee alignment, connection
From this information, it can be derived that theory needs to be discussed and that an application of the theory is
necessary. Someoftheelements containboththetheoryandapplicationaspect. Thediscussion oftheorywillbedone
by performing a literature study. The application of the theory will be done by performing a case study.
1.4 Subquestions
From the analysis of the research question, it has become clear what elements need to be discussed to be able to
provide an answer. Using this information, it is now possible to formulate subquestions that will be used to gather the
necessary information about the elements. Below, these subquestions are formulated and the reasoning behind them
is provided.
(cid:46) How can business-IT alignment be of added value to a company?
(cid:21) Whattheresearchquestionassumes,isthatitisdesirableforacompanytolookintobusiness-ITalignment.
However, if the research question is to be answered, (cid:28)rst it should be clear why it is desirable. What can a
company gain? In what way? Before any of the other elements can be discussed, this needs to be explained
(cid:46) What information is available about the level of alignment or norms for companies regarding alignment?
(cid:21) The element ’level of alignment’ indicates that there is a way to express the degree of alignment. What’s
interesting about this, is if there is information about this in scienti(cid:28)c literature. If this is the case, then a
company would like to know if there are norms for the degree of alignment in companies. This can be used
by companies to not only assess their current alignment, but also develop a plan to change their alignment
based on the norm
(cid:46) How can a company in(cid:29)uence the level of alignment?
(cid:21) Measuring the alignment is one thing, but a company needs to know more than just the current state.
How can the alignment be in(cid:29)uenced? What factors are involved? What actions are available to change
the level of alignment? This subquestion provides the answer. This information is useful for the research
questionbecauseacompanywantstobeabletoadapttoit’schangingenvironmentandifacertainmeasured
alignment level, view and goal is not su(cid:30)cient, the company needs to know how this can be changed
5
(cid:46) In what way can business-IT alignment best be measured?
(cid:21) When it’s clear why a company would like to assess their alignment, another question is how this needs to
be done. There are methods mentioned in the scienti(cid:28)c literature. However, a comparison of methods is
needed to decide which method is best suited for use in the case study
(cid:46) In what way can employee alignment best be measured?
(cid:21) As for the alignment, employee alignment will be captured (measured) and used to answer the research
question. First of all, information is needed about the scienti(cid:28)c perspective on employee alignment. As
with the business-IT alignment measurement, it needs to be clear in what way employee alignment can be
measuredatbest. Iftherearemethods,theseneedtobefoundanddescribed. Ifthesemethodsaredi(cid:27)erent,
they need to be compared and a decision needs to be made about which one to use for the case study. In
the case that literature does provide information but no concrete methods, one needs to be developed.
(cid:46) What is the current situation regarding business-IT alignment at the pension provider?
(cid:21) As mentioned in the analysis section of this chapter, a case study is performed at a pension provider. In
ordertoanswertheresearchquestion,resultsofanassessmentofthealignmentareneeded. Theassessment
provides these results
(cid:46) What is the current situation regarding employee alignment at the pension provider?
(cid:21) In order to answer the research question, results of an assessment of employee alignment, as perceived by
the di(cid:27)erent parts of the company, are needed. The answer to this subquestion (the assessment of employee
alignment at the pension provider) provides this information
(cid:46) Isacertainlevelofalignmentrequiredtoexploreotherconceptsregardingbusiness-ITalignment(likeITFusion)?
(optional)
1.5 Research goal & result
Theresearchgoalofthisthesisisto(cid:28)ndoutwhetherthereexistsameasurableconnectionbetweenlevelsofalignment
of a company and employee alignment of the company. The result of this thesis is comprised of some focus points
derived from the measured business-IT alignment and employee alignment and the answer to the research question.
Basedonthesemeasurements, theanswertotheresearchquestionisgivenandthehypothesisiseitherrejectedornot.
1.6 Motivation
There are di(cid:27)erent reasons why the research question is relevant and worth looking into:
(cid:46) The problem statement section already mentioned the fact that companies assign di(cid:27)erent roles to business and
IT. It should be noted that within a company there might be di(cid:27)erences in the role allocation of business and
IT too. It is interesting to (cid:28)nd out if this a(cid:27)ects the alignment level and employee alignment of the company.
Answering this question will provide some insights
(cid:46) Another reason is the di(cid:27)erence between theory and practice. As usual, in theory, theory and practice are the
same, but in practice (real life) this might not be the case (at all). Thus, a ’realitycheck’ of the theory is always
useful to assess the usefulness of the theory. This research question lends itself for this realitycheck
(cid:46) ItismypersonalopinionthatbusinessandITaretwodi(cid:27)erentworldsandbothofthemhavedi(cid:27)erentcharacters.
ThebusinessjustwantstoperformtheirtasksandtheITwantstoautomate,standardizeand/ororganizetasks,
processes and so on. This introduces some tension between the two. I’m interested whether this tension is also
apparentwhenconsideringalignmentofthetwoinacompany. Mypersonalviewonthisisthatperfectalignment
isnotpossible,duetothisdi(cid:27)erenceincharacterofbusinessandIT.Theresearchquestionofthisthesisprovides
me with a possibility to assess my opinion
From the above, one can conclude that the research question is worth looking into.
6
1.7 Approach
Asexplainedintheanalysissection,aliteraturestudyandcasestudyneedtobeperformed. Basedonthisinformation
andthederivedsubquestions,adivisionintostepswasmade. Thefollowingstepswereperformedtoachievetheresults
of this thesis:
(cid:46) Literature study
In this step, the subquestions about the added value, norms, factors of in(cid:29)uence & ways of in(cid:29)uencing alignment
and methods for measuring alignment and employee alignment were answered. This step was (cid:28)nished before the
case study was performed
(cid:46) Case study
Themethodtoassessthealignmentandthemethodtoassessemployeealignmentareusedinthecasestudy. This
case study provides the answers to the subquestions about the current situation regarding business-IT alignment
and employee alignment at the pension provider. The following division in substeps was made:
(cid:21) A: preparation
In this step, the basic information about the pension provider and any decisions that were made concerning
the measurement of business-IT alignment and employee alignment were collected and put into the case
study chapter. A survey was developed to assess the alignment and employee alignment
(cid:21) B: assessment of business-IT alignment and employee alignment
In this step, the survey was put online and made available to employees at the pension provider. Interviews
were held with di(cid:27)erent people in the company to improve the response
(cid:21) C: analysis
After step B, the results were processed and analyzed. The subquestions about the current situation re-
garding business-IT alignment and employee alignment at the pension provider were answered
(cid:46) Finalization
Afterthesubquestionsaboutthecurrentsituationregardingbusiness-ITalignmentandemployeealignmentwere
answered, the answers to those questions were used to answer the research question. The results were discussed
with the supervisors from the university and the supervisor at the pension provider and with two review panels
with employees of the pension provider. Also, the thesis was assessed: any inconsistencies or missing parts were
identi(cid:28)ed and added, adjusted or completed.
(cid:46) Presentation
Finally, a presentation of the results was given at the pension provider and university
1.8 Document structure
In Figure 1.1, the reader can see how this thesis is organized. At the end of this thesis, an appendix has been added.
This appendix contains the questionnaire that was used to assess the alignment & employee alignment.
7
Figure 1.1: Document structure of this thesis
8