Реферат: Strategic Information Systems Essay Research Paper The

o the technology is not sufficiently mature; or

o the area is not conducive to the available technology;

? second-mover advantages will exist; or

? the organisation’s resources and/or focus are committed to other projects or programs, and could not be diverted, or could not be diverted with sufficient advantage.

A particularly surprising weakness of the existing literature is its inapplicability to organisations which are not subject to powerful market-based competitive forces, such as not-for-profit enterprises, public sector agencies, and associations which are intentionally monopolistic, including industry and professional associations. This is so marked that some definitions of the term ’strategic IS’ are restricted to systems that “confer a unique, sustainable, or otherwise significant advantage” (Ciborra 1991).

For organisations of this kind, it is important that strategic information systems theory be re-conceptualised to stress ’strategy’ rather than ‘competition’, and show strategy in a competitive environment as a special (if very important) case. Customers of not-for-profits, of the public sector and of associations have an interest in their efficiency and effectiveness. Incentives need to be expressed not in terms of revenue, market share and growth, but rather in terms of perceived performance against objectives, and benefits delivered to stakeholders. There are also many circumstances in which such organisations are actors in industry value-chains, or have the potential to have significant negative impact on corporations’ cost-profiles, or speed of supply. Cooperation and even outright collaboration are important in such areas as defence and aerospace purchasing, international trade, taxation, statistical and corporate registration returns (Clarke 1994a, 1994b).

It is contended that, even in corporations operating in free-market economies, organisational strategy should not be analysed exclusively in competitive terms. Other possible bases include:

? short-term survival (which is essentially concerned with being around long enough to be able to compete at all);

? medium-term survival (which is concerned with the establishment or re-establishment of a platform or infrastructure on which recovery from current difficulties can be based);

? service (”our clients need it”);

? the marketing imperative (”our customers want it”);

? the regulatory imperative (”if we don’t do it, we’ll be precluded from participating by some powerful legal or political authority”);

? corporate infrastructure (which is concerned with investing in an environment which will support future adaptability, and the conception and implementation of as yet unspecified – and probably unspecifiable – future strategic advantage); and

? the national strategic imperative (”the government has determined that it is essential to the nation’s competitiveness”). This is apparent as an important factor in such countries as Japan and Singapore, and is the subject of Porter (1989).

This last category (national competitive advantage) highlights the need for recognition of collaboration or cooperation at a level higher than a competitively-motivated alliance (Malone & Yeats 1987, Benjamin et al 1990, Swatman & Clarke 1990, Clarke 1991). Two important classes which can be readily identified are:

? industry sectors which are non-competitive, or in which competition through IT does not exist or is not feasible. This may be due to the existence of a ‘natural monopoly’, statutory constraints, or a company which has ’seen off’ its competitors. Examples exist in such sectors as education, health, research and social welfare;

? industry sectors in which competition does take place, but in which competition is suspended in relation to the IT infrastructure. A variety of possible motivations exist for such suspension:

o to maintain prices at a higher level than they would otherwise be, or for other purposes outlawed in some countries by anti-trust, anti-monopoly and unfair trade practices legislation;

o to provide a higher level of service to the sector’s clients (as occurs in the inter-operability of ATM and EFT/POS equipment);

o to share large establishment costs;

o to achieve something which could not otherwise be achieved; and/or

o to satisfy the instructions or urgings of an influential player or coalition, often a government, but in some cases a trade or other association.

The question of collaboration leads to the need to define what comprises public infrastructure, industry infrastructure and private investment, and the extent to which the responsibility for investment is public, private or dual. This issue poses particularly significant difficulties for nations whose traditions and ideology are in conflict with the very notions of collaboration and of publicly-funded infrastructural investment.

Some inferences from Scott Morton (1991) in relation to IT infrastructure are summarised in Exhibit 14.

Exhibit 14: Scott Morton on Attitudes to IT Infrastructure

(Scott Morton 1991)

Characteristic Emerging View

Focus IT platform NOT Isolated systems

Investment vision Business NOT Technological