to establish the relationship amongst these dimensions in order to better understand the interaction amongst them.
5. The gap survey
The objective of our research was to use the framework as the lens with which to examine both the business and IT organisation in relation to all aspects of IT deployment
and use in an organisation. The framework is used as a mechanism to diagnose and describe the ‘gap’ and following on from this to surface an agenda for dialogue and debate
with an organisation.
Instruments have been developed for user satisfaction surveys Doll and Torkzadeh, 1988; Davis, 1989 but these seek to establish the satisfaction which uses have with
applications developed by the IT organisation and to determine the factors of success. There are also IT service quality survey instruments Kettinger and Lee, 1997; Pitt et al.,
1995, 1997; Van Dyke, 1997 assessing the extent to which the IT organisation is delivering a quality service. As outlined above, service quality is just one aspect of the
framework.
In this regard we operationalised the framework in order to collect data and information relating to the dimensions, paying due regard to prior research. Items for inclusion in the
data collection instruments were determined from the literature. Appendix A contains the list of items, categorised under the dimensions of the framework. It was not the objective
to derive an individual metric for each of the four dimensions but to use the data collection instruments to provide data to construct as rich a picture as possible of the situation which
exists. A mixture of questionnaires and interviews were used, providing both quantitative and qualitative data Gable, 1994; Kaplan and Duchon, 1988; Lee, 1991.
We also wished to address the fact that even within the business there can also be gaps between organisational levels, for example there can be a gap between the CEO and the
front-line staff the actual business users, a situation which has been confirmed by Whyte et al. 1997. Therefore, rather than simply surveying a sample of personnel from ‘the
business’ side and personnel from the IT organisation, we also wished to discriminate between the various ‘levels’ in each group. We believe that this is necessary as different
levels in the organisations may have different views and perceptions on questions related to the gap. This occurs for a number of reasons, including the position of the incumbent
and role of IT in their day-to-day activities. In this regard, 6 distinct stakeholder groupings can be identified: CEO, business management, and usersfront-line staff on the business
side and IT director, IT managers and IT staff applications development, analysts, other support and helpdesk.
Notwithstanding the above comments, for this exploratory study, we decided to restrict the survey to CEO or equivalent, business management, IT director or CIO and IT
management. This was done for a number of reasons, including the complexity of organisation involvement; the risk of the research, particularly for the participating
organisation, as they must be seen to act on the results. We also wished to focus on the Keen’s 1993 thesis that it is the “management difference” which explains why some
organisations are better at leveraging IT opportunities than others. However, as is noted
J. Peppard, J. Ward Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8 1999 29–60 37
below, one of the study organisations afforded us the opportunity to interview staff in all six-stakeholder groupings. Fig. 2 illustrates the structure of the survey instrument
regarding key stakeholders. Different versions of the survey instruments were developed, each focusing on a
particular stakeholder group. Questions were essentially similar but were phrased to recognise the peculiarities and sensitivities of incumbents’ positions. The questionnaires
addressed the four dimensions of the framework plus some supplemental questions:
• background personal information; • personal preferences beliefs and values;
• views on IT in general; • views on how IT is managed in respective organisation;
• questions relating to role and function of IT organisation, role of IT director, relation-
ship between CEO and IT director. The questionnaire was a mixture of statements to be ranked on five-point Likert scales
for example, a scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree and open-ended questions.
1
Whilst the information collected from the four stakeholder groups was similar, the structure of the questionnaires were different to reflect the role, responsibility and
position of the respondents. The questionnaires were piloted by a structured walk-through, with respondents talking through their understanding of the questions posed and illustrat-
ing how they would respond to the questions. Any inconsistencies or ambiguities were subsequently addressed.
Interviews were also conducted in the survey organisations in order to gather further information, particularly contextual information, and also to elaborate on themes arising
from the analysis of questionnaires. These interviews were conducted after the question- naires had been administered.
The research process was that questionnaires were first administered in each of the three organisations to the CEO or equivalent, business management, the IT director and IT
management. The completed questionnaires were sent directly by the respondents to the authors and all were anonymously answered. Once the questionnaires had been analysed
interviews were conducted with key informants in order to determine contextual informa- tion and also to elaborate on some of the themes emerging from the analysis of the
questionnaires in order to provide a rich case database.
J. Peppard, J. Ward Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8 1999 29–60 38
Fig. 2. Structure of survey instruments: key stakeholders.
1
A copy of the questionnaire is available from the authors.
5.1. The survey organisations The research was undertaken in three organisations and given the sensitive nature of the
topic under study the confidentiality of their involvement was assured. The focus of the selection process was the study of theoretically useful cases. These cases were therefore
chosen for theoretical, not statistical reasons Glaser and Strauss, 1967. Selection was based upon three criteria: purposeful sampling Vail, 1989,
2
availability of multiple sources of information, and probably most important, a willingness to co-operate.
The first organisation, to be known as Distribution, is a distributor of magazines and newspapers and employs 1500 staff. The IT unit employs 90 people and is divided into
three main areas: the planning area, responsible for the medium and long-term planning of ISIT; the development area, where traditional software development takes place; and
support area, housing the local area network LAN team, PC team and the help desk. The second organisation, to be known as Manufacturing, is one of the world’s leading
providers of communications equipment, semiconductors, and advanced electronic systems and services. In the UK it employs more than 2000 staff, with 110 working
directly in the IT organisation. The third organisation operates in the financial services industry and is to be known as Finance. It is a leading global independent reinsurance
intermediary, with representative offices throughout the world. 28 staff work directly in the IT organisation.
5.2. Data collection The questionnaire was administered to the CEO, IT director and a sample of both
business management and IT management in each organisation. Details of number of questionnaires received and number of interviews undertaken with key informants are
detailed in Table 1. Note that a larger number of interviews were undertaken in Manu- facturing and Financial as both organisations are part of additional research studies being
undertaken by the authors. The IT director in all three organisation was also interviewed as was the CEO in manufacturing and financial.
J. Peppard, J. Ward Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8 1999 29–60 39
Table 1 Data collection details figures in parentheses indicate response rate
Questionnaires Interviews
Business mgmt IT management
Business mgmt IT management
Distribution 59 71
30 78 4
4 Manufacturing
62 65 29 60
19 23
Financial 34 74
22 89 12
6
2
This is a mixture of two ideas. Slightly more formal than ‘purposeful or purposive sampling…sample extreme cases, sampling typical cases, sampling for maximum variation, sampling critical cases, sampling for
important or sensitive cases’ Lincon, 1985, p. 146. And slightly less formal than theoretical sampling: ‘each case must be carefully selected so that it either a predicts similar results a literal replication or b produces
contrasting results but for predictable reasons a theoretical replication’ Yin, 1994, p. 46.
J. Peppard, J. Ward Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8 1999 29–60 40
Table 2 Summary comparisons between three survey organisations scores are mean values
Distribution Manufacturing
Financial Is the IT organisation delivering value to the business? 1 not at all; 5 to a large extent
CEO 3.0
a
3.5 5.0
Business management 2.7
3.5 4.5
IT director 5.0
3.0 4.0
IT management 4.0
4.2 4.0
Service provided by IT organisation 1 very poor; 5 excellent CEO
3.0
a
3.5 5.0
Business management 2.4
3.3 3.7
Performance of IT organisation versus competition 1 worse; 2 same; 3 better CEO
2.0
a
3.0 3.0
Business management 1.8
2.0 3.0
IT management 2.8
2.0 3.0
Assessment of the systems and applications developed by the IT organisation 1 very poor; 3 satisfactory; 5 excellent
CEO 4.0
a
2.0 5.0
Business management 2.9
2.8 4.2
Relationship between IT organisation and the business 1 adversarial; 5 harmonious CEO
3.0
a
2.5 5.0
Business management 3.1
3.0 3.7
IT director 2.0
3.0 4.0
IT management 3.0
3.5 4.0
Reputation of the IT organisation 1 very poor; 5 excellent CEO
2.0
a
2.0 5.0
Business management 1.7
2.3 3.7
CEO support of IT initiatives 1 not at all supportive; 5 very supportive IT director
3.0 3.0
5.0 IT management
2.9 4.0
4.5 CEO support of the IT director 1 not at all supportive; 5 very supportive
IT director 4.0
3.6 4.5
Reliability Respon’ness
Assurance Empathy
Service quality: distribution CEO
2.7
a
3.0
a
3.0
a
4.0
a
Business management 2.1
3.0 3.4
3.4 IT director
2.3 4.0
na na
IT management 2.4
3.3 na
na Service quality: manufacturing
CEO 2.3
3.3 3.2
2.5 Business management
2.9 2.6
3.5 3.0
IT director 2.7
3.0 na
na IT management
2.9 3.7
na na
6. Analysis and interpretation of the data
