A Design of Business-Technology Alignment Consulting Framework

  • Kecheng Liu
  • Lily Sun
  • Dian Jambari
  • Vaughan Michell
  • Sam Chong
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6741)


Current work on applying scientific methods to capture the cultural values as requirements for business-IT alignment has been scarce, even though organisations acknowledge its significant impact. This paper introduces a Business-Technology Alignment Consulting Framework that adopts an Organisational Semiotics approach to capture cultural values from both formal norms and informal hidden social norms that can significantly impact the actual vs perceived alignment. A set of techniques in the framework are described for its use in conducting consulting analysis. Business Service Analysis is the core analysis that provides the holistic structure of the business services. Business Service Valuation calculates the service cultural values to complement the Business Service Analysis. Business Service Norms Analysis captures the business norms that govern the business service. A case study example is used to illustrate the analysis templates to holistically represent the business services. The significance of the consulting framework and future work are also discussed.


business-technology alignment consulting framework socio-technical approach consulting requirements analysis norm analysis 


  1. 1.
    Chan, Y.E., Reich, B.H.: IT alignment: what have we learned? Journal of Information Technology 22, 297–315 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tallon, P.: The Alignment Paradox. CIO Insight (2003),
  3. 3.
    Campbell, B.: Alignment: Resolving ambiguity within bounded choices. In: Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Bangkok, Thailand (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lagerström, R., et al.: Enterprise Meta Modelling Methods - Combining a Stakeholder-Oriented and A Causality-Based Approach. In: 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modelling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design 2009, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gartner: Gartner Says Worldwide IT Spending On Pace to Surpass $3.4 Trillion in 2008 (2008),
  6. 6.
    Gartner: Gartner Says Worldwide IT Spending to Grow 5.3 Percent in 2010 (2010),
  7. 7.
    Luftman, J., Kempaiah, R., Rigoni, E.H.: Key Issues for IT Executives 2008. MIS Quarterly Executive 8(3), 151–159 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu, K.: Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ulrich, W., McWhorter, N.: Defining Requirements for a Business Architecture Standard, B.A.S.I.G. Technical Report, The OMG (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Versteeg, G., Bouwman, H.: Business architecture: A new paradigm to relate business strategy to ICT. Information Systems Frontiers 8(2), 91–102 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luftman, J., Brier, T.: Achieving and Sustaining Business-IT Alignment. California Management Review 42(1), 109–122 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Trist, E.L., Bamforth, K.W.: Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-Getting. Human Relations 4(1), 3–38 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baxter, G., Sommerville, I.: Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering. Interacting with Computers, Corrected Proof (2008) (in press, Corrected Proof )Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walker, G.H., et al.: A review of sociotechnical systems theory: a classic concept for new command and control paradigms. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 9(6), 479–499 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mumford, E.: A Socio-Technical Approach to Systems Design. Requirements Engineering 5(2), 125–133 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chan, Y.E.: Why Haven’t We Mastered Alignment? The Importance of the Informal Organization Structure. MIS Quarterly Executive 1(2), 97–112 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zacarias, M., et al.: Adding a Human Perspective to Enterprise Architectures. In: Wagner, R., Revell, N., Pernul, G. (eds.) DEXA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4653, pp. 840–844. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zachman, J.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal 26(3), 276–292 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jonkers, H., et al.: Concepts for Modeling Enterprise Architectures. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 13(3), 257–287 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    TOGAF: TOGAF version 9 Enterprise Edition. The Open Group Architecture Framework, TOGAF (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buckl, S., et al.: Using Enterprise Architecture Management Patterns to Complement TOGAF. In: IEEE International on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brahe, S.: BPM on Top of SOA: Experiences from the Financial Industry. Business Process Management 96–111 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hagel Iii, J., Singer, M.: Unbundling the Corporation. Harvard Business Review 77(2), 133–141 (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Iansiti, M., Levien, R.: The Keystone Advantage. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Erl, T.: SOA: Principles of Service Design. The Prentice Hall Service-Oriented Computing Series from Thomas Erl. Prentice Hall/PearsonPTR (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bieberstein, et al.: Impact of service-oriented architecture on enterprise systems, organizational structures, and individuals. International Business Machines 44(18) (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Orriens, B., Yang, J., Papazoglou, M.P.: A Rule Driven Approach for Developing Adaptive Service Oriented Business Collaboration. In: Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Traverso, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3826, pp. 61–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cherbakov, L., et al.: Impact of service orientation at the business level. IBM Syst. J. 44(4), 653–668 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reich, B.H., Benbasat, I.: Factors that Influence the Social Dimension of Alignment between Business and Information Technology Objectives. MIS Quarterly 24(1), 81–113 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kilpeläinen, T.: From Genre-based Ontologies to Business Information Architecture Descriptions. In: 17th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Adelaide, Australia (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Luftman, J., Papp, R., Brier, T.: Enablers and inhibitors of business-IT alignment. Commun. AIS, 1(3es) (1999)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Grant, K., Hackney, R., Edgar, D.: Strategic Information Systems Management. Thomas Rennie (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hull, E., Jackson, K., Dick, J.: Requirements Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kotonya, G., Sommerville, I.: Viewpoints for requirements definition. Software Engineering Journal 7(6), 375–387 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liu, K., Sun, L., Tan, S.: Modelling complex systems for project planning: a semiotics motivated method. International Journal of General Systems 35(3), 313–327 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Coughlan, J., Macredie, R.D.: Effective Communication in Requirements Elicitation: A Comparison of Methodologies. Requirements Engineering 7(2), 47–60 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Neill, C.J., Laplante, P.A.: Requirements engineering: the state of the practice. IEEE Software 20(6), 40–45 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Samuel, R., et al.: A pattern-based method for building requirements documents in call-for-tender processes. Technical Report. Technomathematics Research Foundation (2009)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Toro, A.D., et al.: A Requirements Elicitation Approach Based in Templates and Patterns. In: WER 1999, pp. 17–29 (1999)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stamper, R., et al.: Understanding the Roles of Signs and Norms in Organisations. Journal of Behaviour and Information Technology 19(1), 15–27 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stamper, R.K.: Knowledge as action: a loci of social norms and individual affordances. Social Action and Artificial Intelligence (1985)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stamper, R., et al.: Signs plus norms - one paradigm for organisation semiotics. In: The First International Workshop on Computational Semiotics, Paris, France (1997)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hall, E.T.: The Silent Language. Doubleday and Company, New York (1959)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    CEAR: Business Aligned IT Strategy (BAITS) - Methodology and User Guide. Capgemini Enterprise Architecture Research (2009)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Osterwalder, A.: The Business Model Ontology - a proposition in a design science approach. In: Institu d’Informatique et Organisation. University of Lausanne, Lausanne (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kecheng Liu
    • 1
  • Lily Sun
    • 2
  • Dian Jambari
    • 2
  • Vaughan Michell
    • 1
  • Sam Chong
    • 3
  1. 1.Informatics Research CentreUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
  2. 2.School of Systems EngineeringUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
  3. 3.CTO Emerging Solution GroupCisco APACCapital TowerSingapore

Personalised recommendations