Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:Information and Management:Authorlist G:

Information & Management 36 (1999) 77±91

Research

Implementation predictors of strategic information systems plans
Petter Gottschalk1
Department of Technology Management, Norwegian School of Management, Box 580, 1301, Sandvika, Norway
Received 11 February 1998; revised 19 August 1998; accepted 21 January 1999

Abstract
This research complements the existing knowledge on implementation by addressing previous research from three sources: (i)
empirical evaluation of the plan implementation link in the theory of strategic information systems planning; (ii) integration of
research literature on organisational practices in¯uencing the implementation; and (iii) application of validated instruments to
measure potential predictors of the implementation. A survey was conducted in Norway. When exploratory factor analysis was
applied to ten potential predictors, two factors were identi®ed. Five predictors had signi®cant loadings on each factor. The
resource factor was signi®cant in the testing of hypotheses, including descriptions of responsibility and of user involvement.
# 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Implementation; Predictors of implementation; Information systems plans; Information technology strategy; Survey research;
Exploratory factor analysis

1. Introduction

The need for improved implementation of strategic
IS plans has been emphasised in both, empirical [13,
33, 35, 36, 49] and prescriptive studies [18, 34, 37].
These studies show that implementation is important
for four reasons. Firstly, the failure to carry out the
strategic IS plan can cause lost opportunities, duplicated efforts, incompatible systems, and wasted
resources [34]. Secondly, the extent to which strategic
IS planning meets its objectives is largely determined
by implementation [13, 37]. Further, the lack of
implementation leaves ®rms dissatis®ed with, and
reluctant to continue their strategic IS planning [18,
35, 36, 49]. Finally, the lack of implementation creates

1
Tel.: +47-67-55-73-38; fax: +47-67-55-76-78; e-mail:
petter.gottschalk@bi.no; http://www.bi.no/people/fgl98023.htm

problems establishing and maintaining priorities in
future strategic IS planning [33].
This paper adds to the body of empirical implementation research by evaluating the plan implementation link suggested by Lederer and Salmela [34]. The

research question is presented in the next section,
followed by review of research literature on implementation problems and implementation de®nitions,
the research model, and the research method. Signi®cant implementation predictors and factors leading to
implementation are identi®ed and discussed.

2. Research question
The theory of strategic information systems planning (SISP) by Lederer and Salmela [34] contains a
link between plan and implementation which suggests
that a more useful IS plan produces greater plan

0378-7206/99/$ ± see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S - 0 3 7 8 - 7 2 0 6 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 0 8 - 7

78

P. Gottschalk / Information & Management 36 (1999) 77±91

implementation. This link inspired the following
research question: What content characteristics of
formal IT strategy predict the extent of plan implementation? IT strategy is de®ned as a plan comprised

of projects for application of information technology
to assist an organisation in realising its goals. The term
plan refers to a written document. In this research, the
terms strategic IS plan [37] and IT strategy [17] are
treated as synonyms. The research question was initially based on the following two observations:
(a) Organisations engage in strategic IS planning.
Galliers [18], Finnegan et al. [15] and Kearney [30]
found that 75 percent, 76 percent and 80 percent,
respectively, of those surveyed had a strategic IS
plan. However, as discussed later in this article, the
survey in this research was conducted in Norway
where organisations are generally smaller than
those in previous studies, leading to an initial
expectation that there would be a lower percentage
of organisations with a formal IT strategy. This
expectation was given weight by an Australian
survey, where the number of respondent organisations that claimed to undertake strategic IS planning
ranged from 58 percent in large organisations to 29
percent in medium-sized organisations and 19 percent in small organisations [14].
(b) Strategic IS plans are not implemented very

extensively. Lederer and Sethi [35] found that, after
more than two years into the implementation horizon, only 24 percent of the projects in the strategic
IS plans surveyed had been initiated. In a study of
four Norwegian organisations, 42 percent of the
projects in the formal IT strategy had been implemented after ®ve years [23]. Ward and Grif®ths
([63], p. 97) state that ``despite a belief in its
importance, in the past decade many organisations
have developed perfectly sound IS strategies that
have been left to gather dust, or have been implemented in a half-hearted manner''. Taylor ([60],
p. 336), too, found that ``all too often strategies
remain `on the page' and are not implemented.''
Content characteristics of formal IT strategy as
implementation predictors is an important research
topic for two main reasons. Firstly, there is a lack of
empirical work on content [34]. Empirical research
focusing speci®cally on the implementation of strategic information systems plans is relatively sparse.

Previous empirical research has included implementation as only one of several issues in strategic IS
planning research [37]. Secondly, the strategic information systems plan is one of the main concerns of IS
practitioners today [65]. In a survey conducted by

Stephens et al. [58], 80 percent of the chief information of®cers (CIOs) reported that they had responsibility for IT strategy. Nevertheless, the documentation
process is challenging for CIOs. Writing the IT strategy document takes time [23], and content of the plan
as written by the CIO may itself in¯uence the extent of
plan implementation [34].

3. Research literature on implementation
problems
The literature containing references to implementation problems for SIS plans is steadily growing. In
Table 1, research related to the implementation of SIS
plans is listed. For each study in the table, four
characteristics were chosen to de®ne the study: the
research problem stated, implementation issues discussed, ®ndings on implementation problems and the
research methodology used. `Research problem' lists
the main topic of each study. It can be seen that none
has as its main focus the implementation of IT strategy. Those studies which represent research on implementation tend to be primarily concerned with either
the implementation of planning, such as strategic IS
planning, or the implementation of IT directly, without
mention of plans. Those studies discussing planning are
only secondarily concerned with the implementation
of the SIS plan. `Implementation issue' on the chart

refers to the implementation-related subject discussed
in each study. `Implementation ®nding' lists the main
implementation-related issue in each study, whereas
`Research methodology' notes the research technique
used in each study. Column four, `Implementation
®nding', is the most signi®cant for this research as
it lists important determinants for implementation.
It is important to note that the analysis is limited to
the main problem as identi®ed in the column
`Research problem' on Table 1; similarly, only the
central implementation issue and the primary implementation ®nding are listed in their respective columns. The table lists research from a broad ®eld. Some
of the studies in the literature do not explicitly focus

Table 1
Research studies related to the implementation of SIS plans
Study
*

Implementation issue

Implementation finding

Research method

implementation of decision support
system implementation
IT use in large organisations
re-engineering failures
IS planning performance
strategic IS planning
IS planning performance
expert systems implementation
MIS implementation
BPR implementation
IS planning
IT implementation
IT innovation implementation
IS planning performance
theory of SISP
IS planning implementation

prescriptions for SISP
IT implementation
IS planning performance
IS planning model
management practice of strategic IS
IS planning in turbulent environment
IT implementation
business and IS planning integration

implementation success
user involvement
IT management practice
functionality and political risks
planning method performance
guidelines for implementation
executive workshops
systems adoption
factor analysis of implementation
implementation problems
steering committees

users' resistance to change
middle managers' contribution
shifting priorities over time
effect of plan on implementation
root causes of problems
planning completion
human threats
quality of implementation
fulfilment of planning objectives
implementation of strategic IS
planning methodology
predictors of success
practices for problems

user-situational variables
perceived user control
managerial IT knowledge
strategies-in-use over strategy espoused
management involvement
difficulty of recruiting

project champion
job design
commitment to the project
need for change not recognised
steering committees' control
process to assess change
use of support functions
duration of systems development
more useful plan
commitment for implementation
plan fit to organisation
politics of implementation
organisational characteristics
enhancing management
management action program
SISP better than emergent ISP
manage momentum of project
management commitment

meta-analysis of studies

field study
sample survey
case studies
case studies
sample survey
case studies
sample survey
sample survey
sample survey
sample survey
proposed theory
field studies
field study
proposed theory
sample survey
sample survey
case study
sample survey
sample survey
case studies and survey
sample survey
case studies
sample survey

P. Gottschalk / Information & Management 36 (1999) 77±91

[1]
[6]*
[7]*
[11]*
[13]
[18]
[19]0
[20]*
[22]*
[26]*
[27]0
[29]*
[32]*
[33]'
[34]
[36]
[37]
[40]*
[49]
[51]'
[52]*
[55]0
[59]*
[61]0

Research problem

Note: Studies marked with an asterisk (*) and a prime (0 ) are excluded from further review.

79

80

P. Gottschalk / Information & Management 36 (1999) 77±91

on SISP. These studies, marked with an asterisk (*),
are excluded from further review. Furthermore, some
of the SISP studies, marked with an apostrophe ('),
primarily treat issues related to SIS planning. These
studies are also excluded from further review. As such,
six studies out of the original 24 remain for further
analysis.
Since this literature review is concerned with the
implementation of SIS plans, practices in¯uencing
implementation are of key importance for this
research. From the six remaining research studies,
practices in¯uencing implementation are identi®ed
and listed in Table 2. The thirty-®ve practices derived
from the six research studies analysed constitute a
comprehensive list of practices for the implementation
of IT strategy. The work of Lederer accounts for three
of the studies. The main reason for this selection is the
gestalt view. While the substantial body of literature
on IS/IT implementation is concerned with single
systems or single projects, the gestalt view represents
the implementation of plan philosophy, attitudes,
intentions, and ambitions associated with IT use in
the organisation and is a particularly helpful view for
this study.
Lederer and Salmela [34] have developed a theory
of strategic information systems planning. The theory
consists of an input±process±output model, seven
constructs, six causal relationships and six hypotheses.
The input±process±output model provides the initial
bases for the theory. The seven constructs are (i) the
external environment, (ii) the internal environment,
(iii) planning resources, (iv) the planning process, (v)
the strategic information systems plan, (vi) the implementation of the strategic information systems plan,
and (vii) the alignment of the strategic information
systems plan with the organisation's business plan.
Lederer and Salmela demonstrate that the seven constructs exhibit causal relationships among each other.
For this research on the implementation of strategic IS
plans, the most important relationship in the theory is
the effect of the plan on its implementation.

4. Research literature on definition
of implementation
There is a need in this research to de®ne implementation and dimensions thereof. According to Mon-

Table 2
Practices influencing IT strategy implementation
[13]: Implementation problems
E1
E2
E3
E4

Resources were not made available
Management was hesitant
Technological constraints arose
Organisational resistance emerged

[18]: Implementation barriers
G1 Difficulty of recruiting
G2 Nature of business
G3 Measuring benefits
G4 User education resources
G5 Existing IT investments
G6 Political conflicts
G7 Middle management attitudes
G8 Senior management attitudes
G9 Telecommunications issues
G10 Technology lagging behind needs
G11 Doubts about benefits
[34]: Effect of plan on implementation
S1 Contents of the plan
S2 Relevance of proposed projects in the plan to organisational
goals
S3 Sections of the plan
S4 Clarity and analysis of presentation of the plan
[36]: Implementation problems
L1 Difficult to secure top management commitment
L2 Final planning output documentation not very useful
L3 Planning methodology fails to consider implementation
L4 Implementing the projects requires more analysis
L5 Planning methodology requires too much top management
involvement
L6 Output of planning is not in accordance with management
expectations
[37]: Prescriptions for SISP
X1 Prepare migration plan
X2 Identify actions to adopt plan
X3 Identify resources for new tools
X4 Avoid/dampen resistance
X5 Specify actions for architecture
X6 Identify bases of resistance
[49]: Implementation mechanisms
P1 Monitoring system to review implementation and provide
feedback
P2 Resource mobilisation for implementation
P3 User involvement in implementation
P4 Top management monitoring of implementation

tealegre [46], the term implementation is given a
variety of meanings in the literature. According to
Nutt [47], implementation is a procedure directed by a
manager to install planned change in an organisation.

81

P. Gottschalk / Information & Management 36 (1999) 77±91
Table 3
Stages of implementation completion

Table 4
Dimensions of IT strategy implementation

Stage

Implementation completed when:

Reference

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

system is installed
system is put to use
programmes are adopted
organisation acts on new priorities
changes are installed
not abandoned or expensively overhauled
adoption has occurred
innovation is adopted and used
systems are installed and used
change is accepted
systems are accepted
innovation is accepted and used
systems are accepted and used
control rests with users
change process completed
committed use occurs
post-application phase is consolidated
satisfaction with system is achieved
intended benefits are realised

[41]
[9]
[5]
[16]
[47]
[43]
[42]
[39]
[57]
[6]
[21]
[2]
[8]
[3]
[29]
[31]
[53]
[25]
[1]

According to Klein and Sorra [31], implementation is
the process of gaining targeted organisational members' appropriate and committed use of an innovation.
In Table 3, the reviewed research literature on implementation is listed according to their particular de®nition of implementation. The ®rst references in the
table represent de®nitions, where implementation is
completed at an early stage, while those that follow
represent de®nitions where implementation is completed at a later stage. The numbers may, therefore,
represent a scale of stages at which authors place their
de®nition of implementation. Some authors ®nd
implementation to be completed when change is
occurring, while others ®nd it continues until intended
bene®ts have been realised.
The purpose of using the stages in Table 3 is not to
defend a certain rank order of the authors along the
axis of implementation completion; the purpose is
rather to indicate that the authors have different opinions about when implementation is considered completed. The dimensions of IT strategy implementation
may be summarised as illustrated in Table 4. The
purpose of the table is to develop alternative measures
of IT strategy implementation.
In Table 4, there are two dimensions of IT strategy
implementation: the time dimension and the detail
dimension. The time dimension is the implementation

Plan
Project
System

Installed [13]

Completed [34]

Benefits [49]

3
1

4

2

stage derived from Table 3, where the two extreme
stages of implemented are `installed' and `bene®ts',
while the middle stage is `completed'. Bene®ts may be
considered as the effect of the changes; that is, the
difference between the current and proposed way that
work is done [64]. The detail dimension refers to the
implementation content which may be the whole plan,
one or more projects in the plan, or one or more
systems in one project. Implementation content thus
refers to a plan consisting of one or several projects
[10, 14], and a project consisting of one or several
systems. The term project is de®ned as the means by
which the organisation's technological, organisational, and external assets are mobilised and transformed ([66], p. 36): ``Projects, or initiatives as termed
in this study, then, are the vehicles through which an
organization's competitive and technology strategies
are operationalized into organizational outputs.'' For,
according to Gupta and Raghunathan ([27], p. 786),
``the ultimate success of systems planning depends on
the success of the individual projects covered by the
plan.'' Both the time dimension and the detail dimension may certainly be challenged. The detail dimension, for example, may in an organisation be such that
a large system is broken down into several projects,
and a project may itself consist of several phases or
stages. The main purpose of Table 4, however, is to
develop a de®nition and measures of implementation
suitable for this research. As such, IT strategy implementation is here de®ned as the process of completing
the projects for application of information technology
to assist an organisation in realising its goals. As
such, the column `completed' is essential for this
research.
Implementation is measured in four different ways
in this research based on the two dimensions of time
and detail discussed above. The ®rst plan implementation measurement (#1 in Table 4) is concerned with
completion of projects in the plan which were to be
completed to date. The second plan implementation

82

P. Gottschalk / Information & Management 36 (1999) 77±91

Table 5
Four potential measurements of the implementation
Construct

Measurement of construct

1 Implementation rate to date [35]

divide projects actually implemented to date by projects scheduled to be implemented to
date

2 Implementation rate to end [35]

divide projects actually implemented to date by projects in the IT strategy and divide by
percent of expired time horizon

3 Implementation extent ([10, 22, 55, 64, 66])

IT strategy has been implemented as planned
IT strategy implementation has been completed on time
IT strategy implementation has been completed within budget
IT strategy implementation has been completed as expected
IT strategy implementation has achieved the desired results
deviations from the IT strategy have occurred during implementation
you are satisfied with the IT strategy implementation

4 Contribution to organisational performance
(Scale adopted from [61], p. 121,  ˆ 0.87;
one item added from [56], p. 154)

contribute to improved organisational performance
contribute to increased Return on Investment (ROI)
contribute to increased market share of products/services
contribute to improved internal efficiency of operations
contribute to increased annual sales revenue
contribute to increased customer satisfaction
contribute to alignment of IT with business needs

measurement (#2 in Table 4) is concerned with completion of projects in the plan which are expected to be
completed, or at least installed, by the end of the
implementation horizon. The third implementation
measurement (#3) measures completion of the whole
plan, while the fourth IT strategy implementation
measurement (#4) is concerned with improved organisational performance from plan implementation.
According to Ward and Grif®ths ([63], p. 102), the
impact of an IT strategy implementation is not instantaneous; ``it may, in fact take some time ± two or more
years ± between embarking on strategic IS/IT planning
for the ®rst time and demonstrating any consequent
impact on business practices and results.'' The operationalisation of these alternative measurements of the
dependent variable implementation is listed in Table 5.

5. Research model
Thirty-®ve organisational practices of importance
for SIS plan implementation were identi®ed in the
research literature as listed in Table 2. Ten predictor
constructs were derived from these practices using
[24]. These are illustrated in the research model in

Fig. 1 and listed in Table 6 in the ®rst column. For
each of the ten predictors, one hypothesis was formulated stating that the greater the extent of description of the content characteristic, the greater the extent
of plan implementation.

6. Research method
This research is concerned with prediction.
Research and theory as described above are suf®ciently advanced to allow the construction of a survey
[48, 50]. Furthermore, this research is concerned with
generalisability of research results which suggests a
large sample size, subjected to rigorous statistical
analysis. Given the researcher's own experience in
the area, both as a CIO and a CEO [23], which
provided some additional context in the form of ad
hoc historical data to aid the research, a survey
approach was selected for this research.
Four related issues must be addressed regarding the
population sample studied. First, unit of analysis is the
organisation. Second, the population of cases had to be
determined. Given the context of the research and its
focus on IT strategy implementation, organisations

83

P. Gottschalk / Information & Management 36 (1999) 77±91

Fig. 1. Conceptual research model.

Table 6
Items for measurement of implementation predictor constructs
Construct

Measurement of construct



Resources needed for the implementation [38],  ˆ 0.68

financial resources needed for implementation
technical abilities needed for implementation
human resources needed for implementation
project team time needed for implementation
external consultants needed for implementation (new)
a `project champion' needed for the implementation (new)

0.87

User involvement during implementation [12],  ˆ 0.82

degree of systems-related training received by information
systems users
users' understanding of systems' functional and technical features
users' participation in systems projects
users' involvement in the operation of information systems
participation in the ongoing development of information systems
users' support for the implementation (new)

0.86

Analyses of the organisation [56],  ˆ 0.86

information needs of organisational sub-units
how the organisation actually operates
a `blueprint' which structures organisational processes
changing organisational procedures
new ideas to reengineer business processes through IT
dispersion of data and applications throughout the firm
organisation of the IT function (new)

0.87

Anticipated changes in the external environment
[56],  ˆ 0.82

anticipated
anticipated
anticipated
anticipated
anticipated
anticipated

0.83

changes
changes
changes
changes
changes
changes

in
in
in
in
in
in

competitors' behaviour
suppliers' behaviour
customers' behaviour
information technology
government regulations (new)
the economy (new)

84

P. Gottschalk / Information & Management 36 (1999) 77±91

Table 6 (Continued )
Construct

Measurement of construct



Solutions to potential resistance during the
implementation [38],  ˆ 0.64

solutions
solutions
solutions
solutions
solutions
solutions

0.93

Information technology to be implemented (New)

hardware to be implemented
communications technology to be implemented
databases to be implemented
applications software to be implemented
operating systems to be implemented
a data architecture for the organisation

0.89

Projects' relevance to the business plan (New)

projects in accordance with the expectations of management
organisational goals for the projects
benefits of the projects to the organisation
projects that contribute to new business opportunities
competitive advantage from IT
strategic applications of IT

0.88

Responsibility for the implementation (New)

responsibility for the implementation on time
responsibility for the implementation within budget
responsibility for the implementation with intended benefits
responsibility for the stepwise implementation of large projects
responsibility for the implementation of high priority projects
responsibility for short-term benefits from initial projects
personnel rewards from successful implementation

0.91

Management support for the implementation (New)

management
management
management
management
management
management

0.93

Clear presentation of implementation issues (New)

evaluation of progress clearly
change management clearly
a list of projects clearly
a schedule for the implementation clearly
alignment of IT strategy with business strategy clearly

with experience in IT strategy in Norway were identi®ed as suitable target population for this research.
Third, a sample of these organisations, consisting of
corporate members of the Norwegian Computing
Society which has been active in the area of strategic
information technology planning for many years, was
studied. Fourth, a ®nal important issue to be addressed
is the selection of informants in the organisations. The
decision to use the CIOs as informants in this research

to
to
to
to
to
to

resistance caused by job security
resistance caused by change in position
potential resistance caused by new skills requirements
potential resistance caused by scepticism of results
potential resistance caused by a unit's interests
potential resistance caused by our customers

expectations of the implementation
participation in the implementation
monitoring of the implementation
knowledge about the implementation
time needed for the implementation
enthusiasm for the implementation

0.83

®nds support in previous research conducted by Stephens et al. [58], Earl [13], Sabherwal and King [54],
and Teo and King [62]. In a survey conducted by
Stephens et al. [58], 80 percent of the CIOs said that
they had responsibility for IT strategy. Earl [13]
interviewed stakeholders in his survey. The IS director
or IS strategic planner was interviewed ®rst, followed
by the CEO or general manager, and ®nally a senior
line or user manager. His research results show no

85

P. Gottschalk / Information & Management 36 (1999) 77±91

Cronbach s for all multiple item scales were between
0.73 and 0.93 as listed in Table 6. The starting point
for hypothesis testing is a null hypothesis of no
relationship between the two variables being examined. The hypothesis testing was carried out using
multiple regression analysis [28].
All observations with missing values were
excluded, reducing the sample from 190 to 151 valid
cases, to make research results obtained using multiple
regression comparable with research results obtained
using structural equation modelling [24]. Table 7 lists
the results of multiple regression analysis between the
ten independent variables and the dependent-variable
implementation.
The full multiple regression equation with all ten
independent variables explains 19% of the variation in
implementation, that is, the adjusted R-square is 0.19.
The F-value of 4.505 is signi®cant at p < 0.001,
indicating that the null hypothesis is rejected and that
there is a signi®cant overall relationship between
content characteristics and IT strategy implementation. However, none of the content characteristics are
individually signi®cant implementation predictors.
Stepwise multiple regression is a method of selecting variables for inclusion in the regression model that
starts by selecting the best predictor of the dependent
variable. It is an objective method for selecting variables that maximises the prediction with the smallest
number of variables employed. When stepwise regression was applied, two of the 10 predictors have signi®cant coef®cients in the multiple regression

signi®cant differences between stakeholder sets. Sabherwal and King [54] decided to use the CIOs as
informants because of their ability to answer questions
related to IT strategy. According to Teo and King [62],
the use of a single key informant avoids the problem of
potential perceptual differences between key informants.

7. Significant implementation predictors
In all, 1108 questionnaires were mailed to CIOs of
member organisations of the Norwegian Computing
Society. 471 questionnaires were returned, providing a
satisfactory response rate of 43%. Out of 471 subjects,
190 (40%) con®rmed that they had a written IT
strategy and provided information on content characteristics. Ten content characteristics of formal information technology strategy were measured in the
questionnaire through sixty-two items as listed in
Table 6.
Formal IT strategy was de®ned as `a written plan
comprising projects for application of information
technology to assist an organisation in realising its
goals', while IT strategy implementation was de®ned
as `the process of completing the projects'. The
implementation extent scale (#3 in Table 4) was found
to be the most suitable measure for this construct
based on statistical, methodological and theoretical
considerations [24]. Based on the collected survey
data, all ten hypotheses were tested in this research.

Table 7
Multiple regression analysis between implementation and predictors
Content characteristics as
implementation predictors

Full
regression 

Full regression
t-test

Resources
Users
Analyses
Changes
Resistance
IT
Relevance
Responsibility
Management
Issues

0.078
0.158
0.019
0.138
ÿ0.065
0.015
0.048
0.189
ÿ0.071
0.145

0.766
1.665
0.170
1.407
ÿ0.628
0.173
0.449
1.672
ÿ0.599
1.408

a
b

The statistical signi®cance of the t-values for p < 0.05.
The statistical signi®cance of the t-values for p < 0.01.

Stepwise
regression 

Stepwise
regression t-test

0.233

2.892** b

0.298

3.692** b

86

P. Gottschalk / Information & Management 36 (1999) 77±91

equation. Firstly, the description of responsibility for
the implementation was associated with the highest
explanatory power since it achieved the highest coef®cient. Next, the description of user involvement
during the implementation proved to be the other
signi®cant predictor. The adjusted R-square of the
stepwise model is 0.19. None of the remaining eight
potential predictors is signi®cant.
`Responsibility' was the ®rst hypothesis to be supported in this research: the greater the extent of
description of responsibility for the implementation,
the greater the extent of plan implementation. Implementation participants must accept responsibility [44],
responsibility is a positive duty, and tasks should be
assigned to speci®c individuals. Responsibility was
measured by responsibility for implementation on
time, responsibility for implementation within budget,
responsibility for implementation with intended bene®ts [64], responsibility for stepwise implementation
of large projects, responsibility for implementation of
high priority projects [23], responsibility for shortterm bene®ts from initial projects, and personnel
rewards from successful implementation.
`User involvement' was the second hypothesis to be
supported in this research: the greater the extent of
description of user involvement during the implementation, the greater the extent of plan implementation.
User involvement during the implementation is the
engagement of people who will employ the technology and the systems after the implementation. User
involvement was measured by a multiple item scale
adopted from Chan [12].

8. Significant implementation factor
The presence of so many signi®cant correlations
between the variables as listed in Table 8 suggested
that an exploratory analysis would be useful. Speci®cally, exploratory factor analysis was performed to
identify common dimensions of predictors [28].
Varimax rotation was used to identify factors. The
result of the exploratory factor analysis is exhibited in
Table 9. Each factor represents the underlying dimension that summarises or accounts for the original set of
independent variables.
Two factors were identi®ed. Five of the independent
variables load heavily on the ®rst factor, while the

other ®ve independent variables load on the second
factor. The ®rst factor consists of analyses of the
organisation, anticipated changes in the environment,
solutions to potential resistance, management support
and documentation issues. The second factor consists
of resources for the implementation, user involvement
during the implementation, IT needed for the implementation, relevance of the projects and responsibility
for the implementation. All these factor loadings are
signi®cant since they are higher than the requirement
of 0.45 at a sample size of 152 [28]. An interpretation
of these two factors is possible. The ®rst factor
represents general organisational issues which have
to be resolved in order to facilitate implementation.
The factor covers soft (qualitative) issues which may
represent constraints for the implementation. There
are both, the organisational and general management
issues in this factor. The second factor represents
speci®c implementation issues which are required
to perform the implementation itself. The factor covers hard (quantitative) issues which may represent
requirements for the implementation. There are both,
IT management and resource issues in this factor. The
reliability of the factors is measured by Cronbach `'.
The two factors have satisfactory s of 0.85 and 0.78.
These two factors require naming. Variables with the
highest loadings on the ®rst factor are solutions to
resistance (0.81 in Table 9), anticipated changes in the
environment (0.77) and analyses of the organisation
(0.75). An interpretation of these variables is the
general, strategic nature of these variables. Hence,
the ®rst factor was labelled `implementation strategy'.
Variables with the highest loadings on the second
factor are information technology needed for the
implementation (0.80 in Table 9), relevance of projects (0.74) and resources for the implementation
(0.66). The word `implementation resources' may
be used to cover also information technology needed.
Hence, the second factor was labelled `implementation resources'.
Two research hypotheses were developed based on
the exploratory factor analysis described in the previous section. For each of the factors, one hypothesis ±
A and B, respectively ± were formulated.
Hypothesis A: The greater the extent of description
of implementation strategy, the greater the extent of
plan implementation.

Resources
Resources
Users
Analyses
Changes
Resistance
IT
Relevance
Responsibility
Management
Issues
a
b

Users
0.531**

Analysis
b

Changes
b

0.386**
0.413** b

Resistance
b

0.359**
0.265** b
0.544** b

The statistical signi®cance of the correlation coef®cient for p < 0.050.
The statistical signi®cance of the correlation coef®cient for p < 0.01.

b

0.403**
0.356** b
0.560** b
0.588** b

IT

Relevance
b

0.333**
0.283** b
0.234** b
0.230** b
0.251** b

b

0.454**
0.414** b
0.517** b
0.350** b
0.319** b
0.411** b

Responsibility
b

0.564**
0.400** b
0.380* a
0.333* a
0.474** b
0.293** b
0.588** b

Management
b

0.505**
0.510** b
0.631** b
0.502** b
0.598** b
0.282** b
0.518** b
0.630** b

Issues
0.470** b
0.423** b
0.529** b
0.386** b
0.434** b
0.160* a
0.505** b
0.560** b
0.621** b

P. Gottschalk / Information & Management 36 (1999) 77±91

Table 8
Correlation matrix for predictor variables

87

88

P. Gottschalk / Information & Management 36 (1999) 77±91

Table 9
Exploratory factor analysis of predictor scales

Resources
Users
Analyses
Changes
Resistance
IT
Relevance
Responsibility
Management
Issues

Table 10
Multiple regression between implementation and factors

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor



t-test

0.39
0.41
0.75
0.77
0.81
ÿ0.05
0.35
0.48
0.74
0.66

0.66
0.53
0.27
0.12
0.14
0.80
0.74
0.61
0.41
0.38

Strategy
Resources

0.161
0.338

1.627
3.425** b

The ®rst factor represents general organisational
issues which have to be resolved in order to facilitate
implementation. The factor covers soft (qualitative)
issues which may represent constraints for the implementation. There are both organisational and general
management issues in this factor. The ®rst factor
consists of analyses of the organisation, anticipated
changes in the environment, solutions to potential
resistance, management support and documentation
issues [36, 37, 56].
Hypothesis B: The greater the extent of description
of implementation resources, the greater the extent of
plan implementation.
The second factor represents speci®c implementation issues which are required to perform the implementation itself. The factor covers hard (quantitative)
issues which may represent requirements for the
implementation. There are both IT, management
and resource issues in this factor. The second factor
consists of resources for the implementation, user
involvement during the implementation, IT needed
for the implementation, relevance of the projects and
responsibility for the implementation [13, 18, 49].
Research hypotheses were tested using multiple
regression analysis. Table 10 exhibits the results of
multiple regression between the two factors and the
dependent variable implementation.
The multiple regression equation with both factors
explains 20% of the variation in the implementation,
that is, the adjusted R-square is 0.20. The F-value of
20.301 is signi®cant at p < 0.001, indicating that the
null hypothesis is rejected and the theory hypothesis

a
b

The statistical signi®cance of the t-values for p < 0.05.
The statistical signi®cance of the t-values for p < 0.01.

supported. One of the two factors has a signi®cant
coef®cient in the multiple regression equation, that is,
description of implementation resources.

9. Discussion
Though there exists an extensive range of literature
on strategic information systems planning e.g., [33,
35] and on information systems implementation (e.g.
[1, 20]), speci®c literature on plan implementation has
been relatively sparse. While the literature on strategic
information systems planning treats implementation
only as one of many phases, the literature on information systems implementation lacks the gestalt perspective which is needed when plan implementation is to
be studied. Furthermore, much of the reviewed
research literature is in the main theoretical, often
lacking empirical evidence. It was nevertheless possible to apply ideas from the existing literature to the
speci®c issue in question: what content characteristics
of formal IT strategy predict the extent of plan implementation? Research revealed that description of
responsibility for the implementation and description
of user involvement during the implementation are the
content characteristics of formal IT strategy of signi®cance as implementation predictors. As the IT
management literature seems to have no de®nition
of implementation at all, and the implementation
management literature seems to disagree on the de®nition without actually discussing it, one of the major
contributions of this research may prove to be the
`implementation extent' de®nition based on the gestalt
view developed and measured by a multiple item
scale.
As expected, further exploration of the database
revealed additional insights into the link between plan
and implementation. Exploratory factor analysis and
multiple regression analysis were used to identify the

P. Gottschalk / Information & Management 36 (1999) 77±91

signi®cance of the resource factor. The resource factor
includes both descriptions of responsibility and user
involvement, thereby suggesting consistency between
signi®cant predictors and signi®cant factor results.
The most surprising result of this study, both from a
theoretical and practical perspective, is the relative
lack of importance of management support. All the
leading research studies on which this research is
based [13, 18, 34, 36, 37, 50] as well as all the general
business literature (e.g. [4]) seem to share a strong
belief in the importance of management support for
the implementation of IT strategy. It is interesting that
management support, as re¯ected in management
expectations, participation, monitoring, knowledge,
time and enthusiasm, is of no signi®cant importance
in this study. Several explanations, however, may be
offered. Firstly, there is the distinction between planning and implementing to be considered. Some argue
that management is primarily involved in strategymaking, not in plan implementation [45]. Secondly, as
long as responsibility for the implementation is
de®ned, management support becomes less important
[23]. Since responsibility is, relatively speaking, the
most important predictor in this research, the latter
explanation may well carry weight. Next, the role of
management is often to take on responsibility [4],
suggesting that management is important through
responsibility. Furthermore, the top management turbulence in recent years in Norway may also represent
some explanatory power for the relative non-importance of management support for the IT strategy
implementation [23]. Finally, the existence of a plan
may serve to reduce the importance of management
support [34].
The evidence presented in this paper leads to the
belief that there is a relationship between plan and
implementation, as suggested by Lederer and Salmela
[34] in their theory of strategic information systems
planning. However, all of the statistical models developed and tested in this research provide limited explanation of the variation in implementation. The
multiple regression analysis resulted in an adjusted
R-square of 0.19 which implies that 81 percent of the
variation in the implementation is unexplained by the
theory. Hence, there must be other ± possibly more
important ± in¯uences on plan implementation.
The three main suggestions for future research are
concerned with weaknesses of the presented research.

89

Firstly, the research model suggested a connection
between implementation of an IT strategy and the
content of the strategy. Previous research has identi®ed, as Table 2 indicates, that much more complicated
causal relationships might exist. Secondly, the importance of various implementation predictors may vary
depending on contingency issues such as organisation
size, implementation horizon and environmental turbulence [55]. Finally, future research may widen the
focus by including both, factors and processes in the
planning phase as well as in the implementation phase.
An important practical contribution can be derived
from the conducted research. In practice, the CIO is
often responsible for the IT strategy process, as well as
the IT strategy topics and the IT strategy plan [23, 58].
When the CIO sits down to produce the formal IT
strategy, this research provides clear priority on what
to include in the plan document to increase the likelihood of its implementation. Description of responsibility for the implementation is important.
Description of responsibility should include responsibility for implementation on time, within budget,
intended bene®ts, stepwise implementation of large
projects, high priority projects and short-term bene®ts
from initial projects. Description of user involvement
during the implementation is the other important
factor. User involvement description should include
user training, understanding, participation, operation,
development and support.

References
[1] M. Alavi, E.A. Joachimsthaier, Revisiting DSS implementation research: a meta-analysis of the literature and suggestions for researchers, MIS Quarterly 16(1), 1992, pp. 95±116.
[2] M. Alavi, J.C. Henderson, An evolutionary strategy for
implementing a decision support system, Management
Science 27(11), 1981, pp. 1309±1323.
[3] S. Alter, M. Ginzberg, Managing uncertainty in MIS
implementation, Sloan Management Review 20(1), 1978,
pp. 23±31.
[4] L.M. Applegate, F.W. Mcfarlan, J.L. Mckenney, 1996.
Corporate Information Systems Management, Irwin, Chicago, USA.
[5] V.E. Baier, J.G. March, H. Saetren, Implementation and
Ambiguity, Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies,
May, 1986, pp. 197±212.
[6] A.M.K. Baronas, M.R. Louis, Restoring a sense of control
during implementation: how user involvement leads to
system acceptance, MIS Quarterly 12(1), 1988, pp. 111±124.

90

P. Gottschalk / Information & Management 36 (1999) 77±91

[7] A.C. Boynton, R.W. Zmud, G.C. Jacobs, The in¯uence of IT
management practice on IT use in large organizations, MIS
Quarterly 18(3), 1994, pp. 299±318.
[8] J.H. Bradley, R.D. Hauser, A framework for expert system
implementation, Expert Systems with Applications 8(1),
1995, pp. 157±167.
[9] J.C. Brancheau, L. Schuster, S.T. March, Building and
implementing an information architecture. DATA BASE,
Summer, 1989, pp. 9±17.
[10] J.M. Bryson, P. Bromiley, Critical factors affecting the
planning and implementation of major projects, Strategic
Management Journal 14(5), 1993, pp. 319±337.
[11] E.K. Clemons, M.E. Thatcher, M.C. Row, Identifying
sources of reengineering failures: a study of behavioral
factors contributing to reengineering risks, Journal of
Management Information Systems 12(2), 1995, pp. 9±36.
[12] Y.E. Chan, Business strategy, information systems strategy,
and strategic ®t: measurement and performance impacts,
unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Western
Ontario, Canada, 1992.
[13] M.J. Earl, Experiences in strategic information planning,
MIS Quarterly 17(1), 1993, pp. 1±24.
[14] D.J. Falconer, R.A. Hodgett, Participation in information
systems planning and development in Australian companies.
Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Information
Systems, 19±21 June, Ireland: Cork, vol. I, 1997, pp. 14±41.
[15] P. Finnegan, R. Galliers, P. Powell, Investigating interorganisational information systems planning practices in
Ireland and the UK. Proceedings of the 5th European
Conference on Information Systems, 19±21 June, Cork,
Ireland, 1997, pp. 281±294.
[16] S.W. Floyd, B. Wooldridge, Managing strategic consensus:
the foundation of effective implementation, Academy of
Management Executive 6(4), 1992, pp. 27±39.
[17] R.D. Galliers, IT strategies: beyond competitive advantage,
Journal of Strategic Information Systems 2(4), 1993, pp.
283±291.
[18] R.D. Galliers, Strategic information systems planning:
myths, reality and guidelines for successful implementation,
in: R.D. Galliers, B.S.H. Baker (Eds.), Strategic Information
Management, Butterworth±Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 1994,
pp 129±147.
[19] R.D. Galliers, E.M. Pattison, T. Reponen, Strategic information systems planning workshops: lessons from three cases,
International Journal of Information Management 14(1),
1994, pp. 51±66.
[20] T.G. Gill, Expert systems usage: task change and intrinsic
motivation, MIS Quarterly 20(3), 1996, pp. 301±329.
[21] M.J. Ginzberg, An organizational contingencies view of
accounting and information systems implementation, Accounting, Organizations and Society 5(4), 1980, pp. 369±
382.
[22] M.J. Ginzberg, Early diagnosis of MIS implementation
failure: promising results and unanswered questions, Management Science 27(4), 1981, pp. 459±478.
[23] P. Gottschalk, Technology Management (in Norwegian:
Teknologiledelse), Fagbokforlaget, Bergen, Norway, 1995.

[24] P. Gottschalk, Content Characteristics of Formal Information
Technology Strategy as Implementation Predictors, Tano
Aschehaug publishing, Norway, 1998.
[25] T.L. Grif®th, G.B. Northcraft, Cognitive elements in the
implementation of new technology: can less information
provide more bene®ts? MIS Quarterly 20(1) (1996) 99±110.
[26] V. Grover, S.R. Jeong, W.J. Kettinger, J.T.C. Teng, The
implementation of business process reengineering, Journal of
Management Information Systems 12(1), 1995, pp. 109±144.
[27] Y.P. Gupta, T.S. Raghunathan, Impact of information systems
(IS) steering committees on IS planning, Decision Sciences
20(4), 1989, pp. 777±793.
[28] J.F. Hair, R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, W.C. Black, Multivariate Data Analysis, ®fth edn., Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, USA, 1998.
[29] K. Joshi, A model of users' perspective on change: the case
of information systems technology implementation, MIS
Quarterly 15(2), 1991, pp. 229±242.
[30] A.T. Kearney, Breaking the barriers ± IT effectiveness in
Great Britain and Ireland. Report by A.T. Kearney for The
Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, A.T.
Kearney Limited, London, UK, 1990.
[31] K.J. Klein, J.S. Sorra, The challenge of innovation
implementation, Academy of Management Review 21(4),
1996, pp. 1055±1088.
[32] T.J. Larsen, Middle managers' contribution to implemented
information technology innovation, Journal of Management
Information Systems 10(2), 1993, pp. 155±176.
[33] A.L. Lederer, A.L. Mendelow, Information systems planning
and the challenge of shifting prio