Difference between revisions of "IT Strategy (Information Technology Strategy)"
m |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''IT strategy''' ('''information technology strategy''') is an organization's | + | '''IT strategy''' ('''information technology strategy''') is an organization's plan for turning business goals and objectives into priorities for technology capabilities, investments and action. It defines the role technology will play, the choices that guide its use and development, and the commitments needed to put those choices into practice. This gives business and IT leaders a shared basis for directing resources and reviewing results. |
| − | + | A written IT strategic plan records these priorities, choices and commitments. IT strategic planning is the activity of developing and reviewing those choices. Usage varies: a document called an IT strategy may contain both strategic direction and implementation detail. | |
| − | IT strategy can | + | In practical terms, IT strategy connects what the organization wants to achieve with decisions about systems, data, services, people and investment. Business needs can compete for limited funding, skills and capacity for change, making priorities and tradeoffs central to [[Strategy]]. Its scope may span an enterprise, a business unit or a technology domain. Public and nonprofit organizations use IT strategy to pursue mission and service objectives as well as operational needs. |
== Scope and characteristics == | == Scope and characteristics == | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
IT strategy concerns [[IT Capability|IT capabilities]]: the abilities an organization develops or uses through combinations of information, people, processes, services and technology. Examples include coordinating information across business units, providing dependable digital services, or supporting a different way of delivering a product. Hardware, applications and networks contribute to these capabilities, alongside skills, responsibilities and working practices. | IT strategy concerns [[IT Capability|IT capabilities]]: the abilities an organization develops or uses through combinations of information, people, processes, services and technology. Examples include coordinating information across business units, providing dependable digital services, or supporting a different way of delivering a product. Hardware, applications and networks contribute to these capabilities, alongside skills, responsibilities and working practices. | ||
| − | A choice becomes strategically significant through its implications for organizational direction and commitments. | + | A choice becomes strategically significant through its implications for organizational direction and commitments. For example, an organization seeking consistent service across business units may make shared customer information a priority. That choice can affect applications, data responsibilities and subsequent investments across several services. The significance comes from these relationships and consequences; the price or novelty of a technology alone does not establish its strategic role. |
Scope can vary along several dimensions. An enterprise strategy may establish common priorities and constraints, while business-unit strategies address particular services or markets. A domain strategy, such as a data or infrastructure strategy, concentrates on a narrower set of capabilities. These scopes can coexist, provided their decisions are reconciled where resources, information or services are shared. They are useful descriptions of scope rather than a universal classification of strategy types. | Scope can vary along several dimensions. An enterprise strategy may establish common priorities and constraints, while business-unit strategies address particular services or markets. A domain strategy, such as a data or infrastructure strategy, concentrates on a narrower set of capabilities. These scopes can coexist, provided their decisions are reconciled where resources, information or services are shared. They are useful descriptions of scope rather than a universal classification of strategy types. | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
=== Strategy, planning, plans and roadmaps === | === Strategy, planning, plans and roadmaps === | ||
| − | Distinguishing the | + | Distinguishing the overall plan from the activities and documents associated with it makes the organizational roles clearer. A written IT strategic plan records the strategy and can include implementation detail; these distinctions do not require separate documents in every organization. |
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| IT strategy | | IT strategy | ||
| − | | The | + | | The overall plan, priorities and connected choices for using [[Information Technology (IT)|information technology]] to achieve business goals and objectives. |
|- | |- | ||
| [[IT Strategy Process|IT strategic planning process]] | | [[IT Strategy Process|IT strategic planning process]] | ||
| Activities through which participants investigate conditions, consider alternatives, formulate direction, and revisit their choices. | | Activities through which participants investigate conditions, consider alternatives, formulate direction, and revisit their choices. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | [[IT Strategic Plan (Information Technology Strategic Plan)|IT strategic plan]] | + | | [[IT Strategic Plan (Information Technology Strategic Plan)|Written IT strategic plan]] |
| − | | | + | | The document recording the strategy and associated commitments. It can also specify priorities, responsibilities, resources and implementation arrangements. |
|- | |- | ||
| [[IT Roadmap|IT roadmap]] | | [[IT Roadmap|IT roadmap]] | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | A schedule can show when a system will change without explaining why that change matters. Conversely, a stated strategic direction can leave its implementation arrangements unresolved. Reading | + | A schedule can show when a system will change without explaining why that change matters. Conversely, a stated strategic direction can leave its implementation arrangements unresolved. Reading the strategy alongside its supporting documents helps distinguish the rationale, the commitment, and the work needed to realize it. |
== Relationship to business strategy and organizational management == | == Relationship to business strategy and organizational management == | ||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
Routine operations and strategic direction interact. Operations supply evidence about service needs, costs, weaknesses and dependencies. Strategic choices can change which services are provided, how they are supported, and where responsibilities sit. Operational continuity remains a consideration during change; a strategy can include decisions about maintaining and simplifying existing capabilities. | Routine operations and strategic direction interact. Operations supply evidence about service needs, costs, weaknesses and dependencies. Strategic choices can change which services are provided, how they are supported, and where responsibilities sit. Operational continuity remains a consideration during change; a strategy can include decisions about maintaining and simplifying existing capabilities. | ||
| − | == | + | == What does an IT strategy cover? == |
| − | + | An IT strategy connects business goals and objectives with priorities for technology capabilities, investment and change. Its content depends on scope, but it can identify the capabilities to retain or develop and the principles guiding consequential choices. These priorities inform decisions about resources and action across the organization. | |
The following areas illustrate the range of choices that a strategy can address. They are explanatory categories, rather than a mandatory outline or an exhaustive component standard. | The following areas illustrate the range of choices that a strategy can address. They are explanatory categories, rather than a mandatory outline or an exhaustive component standard. | ||
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
Strategic principles can express a preferred approach, such as the use of shared capabilities where there is a common need. Their meaning depends on scope, rationale and the treatment of exceptions. A principle that leaves every consequential choice open provides little direction; one applied without regard to context can impose avoidable constraints. | Strategic principles can express a preferred approach, such as the use of shared capabilities where there is a common need. Their meaning depends on scope, rationale and the treatment of exceptions. A principle that leaves every consequential choice open provides little direction; one applied without regard to context can impose avoidable constraints. | ||
| − | An IT strategy framework can organize concepts and relationships used in formulation or explanation. Its function differs from that of a valuation technique, a project-sizing method, an architecture description or a prioritization tool. Such techniques can inform particular decisions without constituting a complete strategy or prescribing its content. | + | An [[IT Strategy Framework|IT strategy framework]] can organize concepts and relationships used in formulation or explanation. Its function differs from that of a valuation technique, a project-sizing method, an architecture description or a prioritization tool. Such techniques can inform particular decisions without constituting a complete strategy or prescribing its content. |
| − | == | + | == How IT strategy is developed, implemented and reviewed == |
| − | + | IT strategy is developed by relating business goals and objectives to existing capabilities, constraints and opportunities. Implementation puts the resulting commitments into action, while review uses evidence to reconsider the direction and its execution. Participants can consider business priorities, service experience, architecture, resources, risks, external developments and lessons from previous commitments. These inputs can influence one another: a technical constraint may change a proposed business option, while a revised business priority may change which technical constraint deserves attention. | |
| − | The direction can be articulated through a strategic plan, principles, investment decisions and related roadmaps. The chosen form depends on how an organization makes and communicates decisions. A written plan provides a record that can be discussed and revisited, but its existence is separate from whether participants share its interpretation or act consistently with it. | + | The direction can be articulated through a written IT strategic plan, principles, investment decisions and related roadmaps. The chosen form depends on how an organization makes and communicates decisions. A written plan provides a record that can be discussed and revisited, but its existence is separate from whether participants share its interpretation or act consistently with it. |
Implementation connects commitments with changes in systems, services, responsibilities and working practices. Depending on the strategy, this can involve programmes, projects, ongoing product development or changes to service operation. Technical delivery may need complementary changes in training, processes, data stewardship or business responsibilities. Deploying a system establishes a delivery result; its use and organizational contribution remain separate questions. | Implementation connects commitments with changes in systems, services, responsibilities and working practices. Depending on the strategy, this can involve programmes, projects, ongoing product development or changes to service operation. Technical delivery may need complementary changes in training, processes, data stewardship or business responsibilities. Deploying a system establishes a delivery result; its use and organizational contribution remain separate questions. | ||
| Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
Review uses evidence to interpret those consequences. Information about delivery, service use, costs, risk and organizational results can support continuation, adjustment or withdrawal of a commitment. A favorable result does not by itself establish that the strategy caused it; other changes may contribute. Equally, a delivery delay can arise from implementation conditions without invalidating the underlying direction. The appropriate review arrangements depend on the commitments, uncertainty and governance context. | Review uses evidence to interpret those consequences. Information about delivery, service use, costs, risk and organizational results can support continuation, adjustment or withdrawal of a commitment. A favorable result does not by itself establish that the strategy caused it; other changes may contribute. Equally, a delivery delay can arise from implementation conditions without invalidating the underlying direction. The appropriate review arrangements depend on the commitments, uncertainty and governance context. | ||
| − | == | + | == Benefits and limitations of IT strategy == |
IT strategy can support coordination by giving participants a common account of priorities and the intended role of information and technology. It can make competing resource commitments visible and help relate decisions made in different parts of an organization. These contributions depend on communication, decision authority and behavior, and do not follow automatically from producing a document. | IT strategy can support coordination by giving participants a common account of priorities and the intended role of information and technology. It can make competing resource commitments visible and help relate decisions made in different parts of an organization. These contributions depend on communication, decision authority and behavior, and do not follow automatically from producing a document. | ||
| Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
Selected publications show how researchers have examined the strategic role of information and technology from different perspectives. | Selected publications show how researchers have examined the strategic role of information and technology from different perspectives. | ||
| − | In 1985, Porter and Millar's ''How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage'' examined | + | In 1985, Porter and Millar's ''How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage'' examined information technology in relation to the value chain. The publisher's account treats IT as encompassing information and the technologies used to process it, extending the discussion beyond computers as equipment.<ref name="porter1985">Porter, M.E. and Millar, V.E. (1985), [https://store.hbr.org/product/how-information-gives-you-competitive-advantage/85415 'How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage'], ''Harvard Business Review'', July 1985. Public publisher catalogue description, dated 1 July 1985. Accessed 29 October 2026.</ref> |
Henderson and Venkatraman's 1993 ''IBM Systems Journal'' article addressed strategic alignment and organizational transformation through IT.<ref name="venkat-publication">Venkatraman, N. (2020), [https://questromapps.bu.edu/faculty/uploadFiles/cvUploadsProfile/IS_Venkatraman_N_CV.pdf ''Academic Vita''], June, p. 3. Publication record for 'Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations', ''IBM Systems Journal'', 32(1), 1993. Accessed 29 October 2026.</ref> The model's relationships, summarized above, placed strategic direction alongside organizational and information-systems structures and processes.<ref name="mit-alignment" /> | Henderson and Venkatraman's 1993 ''IBM Systems Journal'' article addressed strategic alignment and organizational transformation through IT.<ref name="venkat-publication">Venkatraman, N. (2020), [https://questromapps.bu.edu/faculty/uploadFiles/cvUploadsProfile/IS_Venkatraman_N_CV.pdf ''Academic Vita''], June, p. 3. Publication record for 'Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations', ''IBM Systems Journal'', 32(1), 1993. Accessed 29 October 2026.</ref> The model's relationships, summarized above, placed strategic direction alongside organizational and information-systems structures and processes.<ref name="mit-alignment" /> | ||
| Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
| − | + | * [[IT Operating Model|IT operating model]] — how people, responsibilities, processes and resources are organized to deliver IT capabilities. | |
| − | * [[IT Operating Model|IT operating model]] | + | * [[IT Value|IT value]] — the contribution of information technology to organizational outcomes. |
| − | * [[IT Value|IT value]] | ||
| − | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 20:18, 29 October 2026
IT strategy (information technology strategy) is an organization's plan for turning business goals and objectives into priorities for technology capabilities, investments and action. It defines the role technology will play, the choices that guide its use and development, and the commitments needed to put those choices into practice. This gives business and IT leaders a shared basis for directing resources and reviewing results.
A written IT strategic plan records these priorities, choices and commitments. IT strategic planning is the activity of developing and reviewing those choices. Usage varies: a document called an IT strategy may contain both strategic direction and implementation detail.
In practical terms, IT strategy connects what the organization wants to achieve with decisions about systems, data, services, people and investment. Business needs can compete for limited funding, skills and capacity for change, making priorities and tradeoffs central to Strategy. Its scope may span an enterprise, a business unit or a technology domain. Public and nonprofit organizations use IT strategy to pursue mission and service objectives as well as operational needs.
Scope and characteristics
IT strategy concerns IT capabilities: the abilities an organization develops or uses through combinations of information, people, processes, services and technology. Examples include coordinating information across business units, providing dependable digital services, or supporting a different way of delivering a product. Hardware, applications and networks contribute to these capabilities, alongside skills, responsibilities and working practices.
A choice becomes strategically significant through its implications for organizational direction and commitments. For example, an organization seeking consistent service across business units may make shared customer information a priority. That choice can affect applications, data responsibilities and subsequent investments across several services. The significance comes from these relationships and consequences; the price or novelty of a technology alone does not establish its strategic role.
Scope can vary along several dimensions. An enterprise strategy may establish common priorities and constraints, while business-unit strategies address particular services or markets. A domain strategy, such as a data or infrastructure strategy, concentrates on a narrower set of capabilities. These scopes can coexist, provided their decisions are reconciled where resources, information or services are shared. They are useful descriptions of scope rather than a universal classification of strategy types.
Strategic direction also concerns the continued operation of existing capabilities. Decisions to maintain a service, retire a system, retain a supplier relationship or reduce technical complexity can be as consequential as decisions to introduce a new technology. Different commitments can have different time horizons. The duration of a contract, the useful life of an asset, organizational uncertainty and the time needed to develop skills can all affect the period a strategy addresses.
The distinction between stated intentions and actual behavior is relevant to understanding strategy. In general strategy research, Mintzberg examined strategy through patterns of decisions and distinguished intended from realized strategies.[1] Applied to IT, this perspective draws attention to how repeated investment and operating decisions may reinforce or depart from a declared direction. An apparent pattern still needs interpretation; its existence does not establish coherence or effectiveness.
Related strategy terms
Information technology strategy is the expanded form of IT strategy. Other labels require attention to context. ICT strategy explicitly includes communications technology. Technology strategy can refer to a wider range of technologies than organizational information systems. The label alone does not determine whether a document covers enterprise capabilities, the IT function, a particular technology domain, or a business offering.
Information systems strategy is closely related to IT strategy, although definitions and scope vary. Chen, Mocker, Preston and Teubner's 2010 review identified three conceptions in the literature: using information systems to support business strategy, the IS function's master plan, and a shared organizational view of the role of IS. The authors developed the third perspective in their own conceptualization.[2] These differences help explain why an IS strategy can mean more than a systems-development plan. They also make a rigid, universal separation between IS strategy and IT strategy difficult to sustain.
Digital strategy can overlap with both technology direction and business direction. A specific formulation is digital business strategy: Bharadwaj, El Sawy, Pavlou and Venkatraman proposed it in 2013 as a fusion of IT strategy and business strategy.[3] This proposal does not establish a universal meaning for digital strategy or imply that separate IT strategies have become unnecessary.
Strategy, planning, plans and roadmaps
Distinguishing the overall plan from the activities and documents associated with it makes the organizational roles clearer. A written IT strategic plan records the strategy and can include implementation detail; these distinctions do not require separate documents in every organization.
| Concept or artifact | Relationship to IT strategy |
|---|---|
| IT strategy | The overall plan, priorities and connected choices for using information technology to achieve business goals and objectives. |
| IT strategic planning process | Activities through which participants investigate conditions, consider alternatives, formulate direction, and revisit their choices. |
| Written IT strategic plan | The document recording the strategy and associated commitments. It can also specify priorities, responsibilities, resources and implementation arrangements. |
| IT roadmap | A representation of intended changes, their sequence and dependencies. It shows how intended changes relate to one another over time. |
| Operational plans | Arrangements for delivering and running services, managing resources, and carrying out work. They put relevant strategic commitments into practice at greater operational detail. |
A schedule can show when a system will change without explaining why that change matters. Conversely, a stated strategic direction can leave its implementation arrangements unresolved. Reading the strategy alongside its supporting documents helps distinguish the rationale, the commitment, and the work needed to realize it.
Relationship to business strategy and organizational management
Business strategy and alignment
Business strategy establishes organizational purposes and choices about activities, services, markets or ways of creating value. IT strategy addresses the information and technology implications of those choices. The relationship can also operate in the other direction: an available capability can make a different service or organizational arrangement feasible. The extent to which business and technology direction are developed together depends on the organization and the role technology plays in its activities.
Business–IT alignment concerns the relationships among these strategic and operating domains. MIT's Center for Information Systems Research describes Henderson and Venkatraman's Strategic Alignment Model in terms of four domains: business strategy, IT strategy, organizational infrastructure and processes, and information-systems infrastructure and processes. Its account identifies strategic fit and integration between business and functional domains as central dimensions.[4]
This relational view helps explain why agreement between two strategy documents can be insufficient. A proposed service may depend on changes to responsibilities, information or working processes as well as technology. Alignment therefore concerns what the organization can do and how its parts work together, alongside the intentions recorded in its plans.
Governance and responsibility
IT governance concerns direction, accountability and oversight for the organization's use of IT. IT strategy supplies substantive choices that governance arrangements can consider, authorize and monitor. ISO/IEC 38500:2024 addresses governing bodies and those supporting them, and covers governance of both current and future IT use across different organizational types and sizes.[5]
The allocation of responsibilities varies. A chief information officer or other technology leader may coordinate formulation and implementation, while business and service leaders contribute objectives, constraints and responsibility for organizational change. Governing bodies or delegated forums exercise authority according to the organization's arrangements. Finance, architecture, security, workforce, sourcing and operating participants contribute information that can affect feasible choices.
Governance frameworks can help organize these relationships. For example, ISACA describes COBIT's governance and management objectives in relation to alignment goals and enterprise goals.[6] That framework relationship does not make COBIT a mandatory IT strategy method, and formal oversight alone does not establish that a strategic commitment will succeed.
Architecture and operating arrangements
Enterprise architecture makes relationships among organizational and technical structures explicit. Architecture descriptions can reveal how a proposed direction depends on existing information, applications, interfaces or organizational arrangements. They can also describe target relationships and transitions. Strategy informs the direction of architectural change, while architecture can expose constraints and options that affect strategy.
The IT operating model concerns how people, responsibilities, processes and resources are organized to provide IT capabilities and services. A strategic commitment to shared services, for example, has implications for decision authority and service ownership as well as technical integration. Architecture and operating arrangements contribute to realizing the direction, but their descriptions are distinct from the work of implementation and the outcomes it produces.
Routine operations and strategic direction interact. Operations supply evidence about service needs, costs, weaknesses and dependencies. Strategic choices can change which services are provided, how they are supported, and where responsibilities sit. Operational continuity remains a consideration during change; a strategy can include decisions about maintaining and simplifying existing capabilities.
What does an IT strategy cover?
An IT strategy connects business goals and objectives with priorities for technology capabilities, investment and change. Its content depends on scope, but it can identify the capabilities to retain or develop and the principles guiding consequential choices. These priorities inform decisions about resources and action across the organization.
The following areas illustrate the range of choices that a strategy can address. They are explanatory categories, rather than a mandatory outline or an exhaustive component standard.
| Area | Strategic considerations |
|---|---|
| Information and applications | The information the organization depends on; where it needs shared or specialized applications; and how information quality, access and interoperability affect its activities. |
| Infrastructure and technical architecture | The platforms and integration arrangements needed to support capabilities; choices about reliability, flexibility, standardization and existing technical constraints. |
| Services and operating arrangements | Which services are provided, how they are organized, and how responsibility is distributed across central teams, business units and external providers. |
| People, skills and sourcing | Capabilities to retain, develop or obtain externally; the skills and organizational knowledge required; and dependencies created by supplier or partnership arrangements. |
| Investment and change | Commitments needed to maintain or develop capabilities, interactions among initiatives, capacity for change, and the implications of selecting or deferring work. |
| Risk and resilience | Exposure associated with the chosen direction, the services or information that require protection, and the continuity and recovery capabilities relevant to organizational needs. |
These areas interact. Greater standardization can simplify shared services while reducing local discretion. External sourcing can provide access to capabilities while creating dependencies on a provider and its contractual arrangements. A strategy gives those choices an organizational context; it cannot determine their suitability from a technology label alone.
Strategic principles can express a preferred approach, such as the use of shared capabilities where there is a common need. Their meaning depends on scope, rationale and the treatment of exceptions. A principle that leaves every consequential choice open provides little direction; one applied without regard to context can impose avoidable constraints.
An IT strategy framework can organize concepts and relationships used in formulation or explanation. Its function differs from that of a valuation technique, a project-sizing method, an architecture description or a prioritization tool. Such techniques can inform particular decisions without constituting a complete strategy or prescribing its content.
How IT strategy is developed, implemented and reviewed
IT strategy is developed by relating business goals and objectives to existing capabilities, constraints and opportunities. Implementation puts the resulting commitments into action, while review uses evidence to reconsider the direction and its execution. Participants can consider business priorities, service experience, architecture, resources, risks, external developments and lessons from previous commitments. These inputs can influence one another: a technical constraint may change a proposed business option, while a revised business priority may change which technical constraint deserves attention.
The direction can be articulated through a written IT strategic plan, principles, investment decisions and related roadmaps. The chosen form depends on how an organization makes and communicates decisions. A written plan provides a record that can be discussed and revisited, but its existence is separate from whether participants share its interpretation or act consistently with it.
Implementation connects commitments with changes in systems, services, responsibilities and working practices. Depending on the strategy, this can involve programmes, projects, ongoing product development or changes to service operation. Technical delivery may need complementary changes in training, processes, data stewardship or business responsibilities. Deploying a system establishes a delivery result; its use and organizational contribution remain separate questions.
Formulation and implementation can overlap. Experience during delivery or operation can reveal that an assumption was incomplete, a dependency was missed, or an alternative is more suitable. A strategy can retain a stable organizational purpose while changing the means used to pursue it. Reconsideration can concern the direction itself, the sequence of changes, or the implementation arrangements, with different consequences in each case.
Review uses evidence to interpret those consequences. Information about delivery, service use, costs, risk and organizational results can support continuation, adjustment or withdrawal of a commitment. A favorable result does not by itself establish that the strategy caused it; other changes may contribute. Equally, a delivery delay can arise from implementation conditions without invalidating the underlying direction. The appropriate review arrangements depend on the commitments, uncertainty and governance context.
Benefits and limitations of IT strategy
IT strategy can support coordination by giving participants a common account of priorities and the intended role of information and technology. It can make competing resource commitments visible and help relate decisions made in different parts of an organization. These contributions depend on communication, decision authority and behavior, and do not follow automatically from producing a document.
Its intended contribution also depends on organizational purpose. A commercial enterprise may emphasize revenue, differentiation or cost; a public body may emphasize service outcomes, accessibility or stewardship. Reliability, continuity and the responsible use of information can matter alongside innovation. The presence of a strategy does not establish that these outcomes have been achieved or that every objective can be maximized simultaneously.
Several limitations follow from the nature of strategic commitments. Evidence about future conditions is incomplete. Objectives can conflict, and resources committed to one capability are unavailable for another use. Choices can create dependencies that are expensive to change. Different participants can interpret the same direction differently, especially when responsibilities and constraints remain implicit.
A strategy can also become disconnected from the organization that must act on it. A target capability may require skills that have not been developed, information that is unreliable, or business changes that no participant is able to authorize. Repeated revision can create disruption, while refusing to revisit assumptions can preserve an unsuitable direction. The issue is the relationship between commitments, operating conditions and evidence, rather than the mere frequency of change.
These limits distinguish intended contribution from demonstrated effectiveness. They also explain why strategy, governance, architecture, operating arrangements and implementation remain related areas of management rather than interchangeable labels for a guaranteed outcome.
Development of the concept
Selected publications show how researchers have examined the strategic role of information and technology from different perspectives.
In 1985, Porter and Millar's How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage examined information technology in relation to the value chain. The publisher's account treats IT as encompassing information and the technologies used to process it, extending the discussion beyond computers as equipment.[7]
Henderson and Venkatraman's 1993 IBM Systems Journal article addressed strategic alignment and organizational transformation through IT.[8] The model's relationships, summarized above, placed strategic direction alongside organizational and information-systems structures and processes.[4]
The 2010 study by Chen and colleagues examined the different meanings attached to IS strategy and proposed a shared-perspective formulation.[2] In 2013, Bharadwaj and colleagues proposed the digital-business-strategy formulation described above, bringing IT and business strategy together in a single research perspective.[3] Together, these contributions illustrate continuing questions about the scope of strategy, its organizational role, and its relationship to technology-enabled business activity.
See also
- IT operating model — how people, responsibilities, processes and resources are organized to deliver IT capabilities.
- IT value — the contribution of information technology to organizational outcomes.
References
- ↑ Mintzberg, H. (1978), 'Patterns in Strategy Formation', Management Science, 24(9), pp. 934–948. Publisher abstract and publication metadata. Accessed 29 October 2026.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Chen, D., Mocker, M., Preston, D.S. and Teubner, A. (2010), 'Information Systems Strategy: Reconceptualization, Measurement, and Implications', MIS Quarterly, 34(2), pp. 233–259. Journal abstract and citation. Accessed 29 October 2026.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O.A., Pavlou, P.A. and Venkatraman, N. (2013), 'Digital Business Strategy: Toward a Next Generation of Insights', MIS Quarterly, 37(2), pp. 471–482. Journal abstract and citation. Accessed 29 October 2026.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 MIT Center for Information Systems Research (n.d.), 'MIT CISR 50th—50 Facts', Strategic Alignment entry. Institutional account of the model. Accessed 29 October 2026.
- ↑ ISO/IEC (2024), ISO/IEC 38500:2024: Information technology — Governance of IT for the organization, third edition. Public abstract and publication status. Accessed 29 October 2026.
- ↑ ISACA (n.d.), 'COBIT', public description of COBIT 2019 Framework: Governance and Management Objectives. Accessed 29 October 2026.
- ↑ Porter, M.E. and Millar, V.E. (1985), 'How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage', Harvard Business Review, July 1985. Public publisher catalogue description, dated 1 July 1985. Accessed 29 October 2026.
- ↑ Venkatraman, N. (2020), Academic Vita, June, p. 3. Publication record for 'Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations', IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 1993. Accessed 29 October 2026.