The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Measuring the Linkage Between Business and Information Technology Objectives
Abstract
The establishment of linkage between business and information technology objectives has consistently been reported as one of the key concerns of information systems (IS) managers. The two objectives of this paper are: (1) to clarify the nature of the linkage construct, and (2) to report on a project that developed and tested measures of the social dimension of linkage. According to our research, the linkage construct has two dimensions: Intellectual: the content of information technology and business plans are internally consistent and externally valid.Social: the IS and business executives understand each others' objectives and plans. We conducted a study of measurement issues associated with the social dimension of linkage. The following candidate measures of linkage were examined: Cross references between written business and information technology plans;IS and business executives' mutual understanding of each other’s current objectives;Congruence between IS and business executives' long-term visions for information technology deployment;Executives’ self-reported rating of linkage. Data were collected from 10 business units in three large Canadian life insurance companies. In addition to examining written documents such as strategic plans and minutes of steering committee meetings, extensive interviews were conducted with information systems and business unit executives. Based on this data, understanding of current objectives and shared vision for the utilization of information technology are proposed as the most promising potential measures for short- and long-term aspects of the social dimension of linkage, respectively. With some precautions, self-reports may also be used as a surrogate measure for short-term linkage.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148626 · Cited by 2,822
Tallon, P. P., & Pinsonneault, A. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/23044052 · Cited by 1,187
Borges, A. F. S., Laurindo, F. J. B., Spínola, M. M., Gonçalves, R. F., & Mattos, C. A. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102225 · Cited by 760
Kearns, G. S., & Sabherwal, R. (2006) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222230306 · Cited by 573
A review of dashboards in performance management: Implications for design and research
Yigitbasioglu, O. M., & Velcu, O. (2012) · International Journal of Accounting Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.accinf.2011.08.002 · Cited by 398
Looking Toward the Future of IT–Business Strategic Alignment Through the Past: A Meta-Analysis1
Gerow, J. E., Grover, V., Thatcher, J., & Roth, P. L. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38.4.10 · Cited by 277
Beyond the organizational ‘container’: Conceptualizing 21st century sociotechnical work
Winter, S., Berente, N., Howison, J., & Butler, B. (2014) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.10.003 · Cited by 178
The alignment of information systems with organizational objectives and strategies in health care
Bush, M., Lederer, A. L., Li, X., Palmisano, J., & Rao, S. (2009) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.02.004 · Cited by 99
The Business Value of IT: A Synthesis and Framework of Archival Research
Masli, A., Richardson, V. J., Sanchez, J. M., & Smith, R. E. (2011) · Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.2308/isys-10117 · Cited by 98
Mishra, D., Luo, Z., Hazen, B., Hassini, E., & Foropon, C. (2019) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-03-2018-0324 · Cited by 87
Amado, A., & Belfo, F. P. (2021) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.205 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Reich, B. H., & Benbasat, I.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 1996-03-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 55-81
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W2141898774
- Cited by
- 898
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.