Business-It Alignment in The Banking Sector: A Case From A Developing Country
Business-It Alignment in The Banking Sector: A Case From A Developing Country
Business-It Alignment in The Banking Sector: A Case From A Developing Country
Abstract
Business-IT Alignment (BITA), one of the widely explored topics in the IS research domain, remains to
be challenging. The extant literature provides a long list of factors that need to be managed appropri-
ately to achieve and maintain BITA. Among other things, both the intra-organisational as well as ex-
ternal factors, are found to determine whether organisations succeed to achieve BITA or not. Howev-
er, previous BITA studies have been criticised for focusing on investigating a few industries and con-
textual factors in developed countries. This case study is aimed at addressing the lack of BITA studies
in developing countries. The data was collected at a bank in Ethiopia through interviews with business
as well as IT leaders. The study employed thematic analysis, which revealed several barriers to BITA.
Business and IT leaders may find the result of the study invaluable to plan activities that might over-
come BITA barriers and improve BITA maturity.
1 Introduction
In the course of the past four decades, organisations have come a long way in recognising the vital role
of Information Technology (IT) and how it has become an inseparable part of their overall business
processes (Cline and Guynes, 2001). The literature provides several accounts of the decisive role of IT
in improving the overall organisational performance and realising the business value (Chan and Reich,
2007; Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993). Even though the use of IT has been found to contribute to
the performance of organisations, this development has also required organisations to be mindful of
the challenges of managing IT in such a way that it contributes to the achievement of the overall or-
ganisation objectives. This has brought the issue of strategic alignment, also referred to as business-IT
alignment (BITA) to the fore. Since the publication of the first article (Henderson and Venkatraman,
1993) articulating the phenomenon, the alignment between the business strategy and the strategic
choices of IT deployment has remained an important research topic in the IS domain. However, ac-
cording to Luftman and Brier (1999), the critical role of BITA for organisations has already been rec-
ognised since the late 1970s.
The continued interest in BITA among researchers in the IS and related research domains is justified,
given its relationship with improved organisational performance (Kafi and Kalika, 2005). Review of
The 13th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), Naples, Italy, 2019
Jonathan et al. /Business-IT Alignment Barriers
the literature indicates that the goal of BITA studies converges into three categories (Luftman, 2000;
Reich and Benbasat, 2000; Rusu and Jonathan, 2017). The first set of studies are set out to develop
and present BITA construct. Others attempt to develop ways of assessing BITA. The remaining stud-
ies focus on identifying the internal and external organisational factors, also referred to as the enablers
and inhibitors of BITA. However, despite the extensive empirical and conceptual studies, achieving
and maintaining BITA remains to be challenging. The debate among practitioner outlets also seems to
suggest the importance of BITA for many organisations. One of the most comprehensive IT trend
studies conducted across industries in 793 companies (Kappelman et al., 2019) reveals that BITA has
been consistently ranked to be among the top three concerns for IT executives for many years in a
row.
Even though researchers are credited for the extensive BITA studies in the past three decades, Karpov-
sky and Galliers (2015) argue that most of these studies disproportionally dwell on conceptual debates
while practical issues that could have helped organisations to achieve and maintain BITA are minimal-
ly attended. Empirical studies, on the other hand, are criticised for focusing on a few environmental
contexts. For instance, most of the BITA studies are conducted in developed countries and few sectors
(Jonathan and Rusu, 2018; Rusu and Jonathan, 2017; Yayla and Hu, 2009). Thus, Panda and Rath
(2018) caution against generalising based on BITA studies from developed countries due to the struc-
tural and cultural variations between the developed and developing countries. Dedrick, Kraemer and
Shih (2013) also found a disconnect between developed and developing countries in terms of the value
derived from IT. Even though the availability of resources is cited as the primary source of this dis-
crepancy, evidences suggest that country factors such as the cost and level of IT infrastructure, the
level and availability of human capital, the dynamism as well as the openness of economy are found to
determine how organisations manage IT and configure other resources (Dewan and Kraemer, 2000;
Yayla and Hu, 2009). The choices in IT management practices and the application of resources to
achieve the overall organisation goal is what determines BITA and its maturity (Chan, 2002; Luftman
et al., 2017). The findings of studies investigating BITA in developing countries (e.g., Burkina Faso,
India, Nigeria, and South Africa) also indicate that the intra-organisational barriers to BITA are related
to such environmental factors as the availability of competent IT service providers, skilled IT person-
nel, as well as dependable IT infrastructure (Gbangou and Rusu, 2016; Jonathan et al., 2018a; Kek-
waletswe and Mathebula, 2014; Singh and Desai, 2013). This paper, therefore, is set out to explore the
intra-organisational barriers to BITA in Ethiopia as a developing country. In line with the objective of
the study, the following research question is formulated:
What are the intra-organisational barriers to business-IT alignment for an organisation in a develop-
ing country?
The remainder of the paper is structured in five sections. First, a brief literature review of the extant
BITA studies is presented. Section 3 discusses the methodological approach—the research strategy as
well as data collection and data analysis methods along with the justification for the choices. Section 4
discusses the findings of the study. The final section presents the conclusion, limitations, as well as
suggestions for future research.
2 Background
IT is credited to have improved the efficiency of business processes and communication between dif-
ferent business units as well as between partner organisations (Cline and Guynes, 2001). Firms also
claim to have reduced their costs, production and service delivery time, and human errors when they
gradually introduce IT in their work. However, there is evidence suggesting, despite substantial in-
vestments in IT, many organisations fail to achieve the anticipated performance improvements. The
lack of BITA is often cited to be the reason for these organisations’ failure in their attempt to derive
value from their IT investment (Chan and Reich, 2007; Coltman et al., 2015).
The 13th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), Naples, Italy, 2019 2
Jonathan et al. /Business-IT Alignment Barriers
The 13th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), Naples, Italy, 2019 3
Jonathan et al. /Business-IT Alignment Barriers
BITA. However, according to Luftman et al. (2017), most of the BITA models, which are often specif-
ic to one industry, are not grounded in strong theories. Hussin et al. (2002) also argue that the BITA
models in the literature view BITA as a static position and fail to provide measures that can help or-
ganisations reach BITA. This study adopts the strategic alignment maturity model (SAMM) presented
in Figure 1. The SAMM (Luftman, 2000; Luftman et al., 2017) is constructed along six different di-
mensions with several attributes that are found to improve BITA. The model is chosen because it ad-
dresses the shortcomings of other models, which focus on particular aspects of BITA, such as social
alignment or structural alignment in specific industries. Moreover, SAMM is validated by a survey of
organisations across 16 different industries (Luftman et al., 2017).
Figure 1. Strategic Alignment maturity Model (Luftman, 2000, p. 12; Luftman et al., 2017)
As shown in Figure 1, the six dimensions of BITA capture the “scope and the level of activities
through which the IT function and business functions engage to enable or drive the firm’s business
value-adding activities when IT is recognised as a necessary component” (Luftman et al., 2017, P. 31).
These dimensions are communications, value analytics, IT Governance, Partnering, Dynamic IT
Scope, and Business and IT skills development.
Communication refers to how business and IT personnel exchange ideas, information and knowledge.
The significance of smooth communication between the IT and business domains is established in the
literature. For instance, Reich and Benbasat (2000) argue that good communications are found to re-
sult in the integration of IT and business plans, which in turn have a favourable influence on BITA.
Value Analytics refers to how organisations use metrics to measure the contribution of IT in such a
way that it is understood and accepted by both IT and business. The collaboration of both domains is
The 13th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), Naples, Italy, 2019 4
Jonathan et al. /Business-IT Alignment Barriers
necessary to come up with analytical tools that can provide comprehensible measures (Luftman,
2000). The third BITA dimension, IT governance refers to how the IT decisions are made in an organ-
isation. Appropriate IT governance activities are essential not only to establish the value of IT but also
to make well-articulated IT investment decisions. The relationship between effective IT Governance
arrangements and BITA is one of the widely researched sub-topics (Rusu and Jonathan, 2017; Jona-
than and Rusu, 2018). The level of relationship between IT and business is referred to as Partnering in
SAMM. Partnering relationship contrasted to a ‘customer-client relationship’ between business, and
IT was found to be critical for BITA (Rathnam, Johnsen and Wen, 2005). A partnership is considered
to be strong when, for instance, the important role and contribution of IT is acknowledged by the busi-
ness. Partnership often helps to create realistic expectations, results in mutual trust as well as the shar-
ing of risks and rewards (Luftman et al., 2017; Reich and Benbasat, 2000). Dynamic IT Scope assess-
es how well organisations provide a flexible and adaptable infrastructure capable of accommodating
standardised, customised as well as new and emerging IT solutions (Luftman, 2000). The last dimen-
sion, IT and Business Skills Development, is concerned with human resources practices. Skill devel-
opment is critical since the success of organisations in having robust human resources determines how
well the other BITA dimensions—communication, value analytics and partnering—are kept in check
(Luftman et al., 2017). The extant literature indicates the positive relationship between appropriate
human resources and BITA (Luftman et al., 2017; Yayla and Hu, 2009).
In collaboration with the business and IT units, SAMM is used to assess BITA maturity and identify
the areas that need to be addressed. An organisation is placed at one of the five BITA maturity levels
(i.e., initial/ad-hock process- level 1, committed process- level 2, established focused process- level 3,
improved/managed process- level 4, or optimised process- level 5) based on how well it has managed
the six dimensions. The BITA maturity level is the average of the sum of the score of the six dimen-
sions which are assessed using a 1 to 5 Likert scale. The scores are assigned for the set of attributes in
each of the BITA dimensions as shown in Figure 1, “where: 1 = does not fit the organisation, or the
organisation is very ineffective, 2 = low level of fit for the organisation, 3 = moderate fit for the or-
ganisation, or the organisation is moderately effective, 4 = fits most of the organisation, and 5 =
strong level of fit throughout the organisation, or the organisation is very effective” (Luftman (2000,
p. 21). Organisations at level 1 are characterised by their low level of understanding between the busi-
ness and IT domains as well as ad hock knowledge sharing and organisational learning. At level 2,
organisations have begun the process of BITA maturity by bringing the IT and business units together.
BITA maturity of level 3 indicates strong governance, processes and communications towards specific
business objectives. The organisation is in its early stage in implementing business applications to
cover the whole organisation. At level 4, organisations are considered to have demonstrated successful
management of all of the six dimensions of BITA. Organisations at level 5 have reached optimal BITA
maturity characterised by sustained governance processes that integrates the IT strategic planning pro-
cess with the strategic business process.
The 13th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), Naples, Italy, 2019 5
Jonathan et al. /Business-IT Alignment Barriers
partnership (Luftman, 2000; Luftman and Brier, 1999; Wagner and Weitzel, 2014), commitment
(Hussin et al., 2002), domain knowledge (Chan and Reich, 2007; Wagner et al., 2014), and
IT/business metrics (Gbangou and Rusu, 2016; Luftman et al., 2017). Review of the extant literature
also suggests that leaders’ support of IT contributes to improving BITA maturity (Jonathan et al.,
2018a). In the same vein, IT governance arrangements are found to influence BITA (Jonathan and
Rusu, 2018; Luftman et al., 2017; Rusu and Jonathan, 2017). For instance, Luftman and Barrier (1999)
argue that the steps organisations take demonstrating the priority given to IT by creating IT leadership
positions is associated with improved BITA maturity. The importance of a good relationship between
business and IT leaders is also recognised (Reich and Benbasat, 2000; Wagner et al., 2014). Moreover,
BITA is influenced by organisational structures in place (Chan, 2002; Jonathan, 2018, Jonathan, Rusu,
and Perjons, 2018), and previous IT implementation success (Chan and Reich, 2007; Jonathan et al.,
2018a).
3 Research Methodology
Review of the literature indicates that there is a lack of empirical studies that explore the different con-
textual factors that influence BITA. According to Luftman (2000), it is in organisations best interest to
maximise the factors that enable BITA while minimising those that hinder its achievement. Following
the recommendation of Karpovsky and Galliers (2015), this study attempts to explore the barriers to
BITA in an organisation from a developing country. The following paragraphs discuss the research
strategy as well as the data collection and analysis methods.
The 13th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), Naples, Italy, 2019 6
Jonathan et al. /Business-IT Alignment Barriers
The interviews were carried out in two rounds. The first round of interviews was conducted with the
help of the interview guide formulated using the literature review. The analysis of the data collected
from the first round of interviews was helpful for two reasons. First, the interviews provided the re-
searchers to familiarise themselves with Company A. Second, the data also is instrumental in formu-
lating the second-round semi-structured interviews. Moreover, the initial interviews were also intend-
ed to help interviewees familiarise themselves with the aim of the study. The full list of interviewees is
shown in Table 1.
The 13th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), Naples, Italy, 2019 7
Jonathan et al. /Business-IT Alignment Barriers
operates only from sixteen branches while heavily investing in increasing accessibility through the
deployment of improved online and mobile banking solutions. The company report released at the end
of last year also indicates that the bank has implemented a new organisational structure. Company A,
according to the publicly available reports, is working on formulating a new strategy for IT and human
capital.
The result of the analysis of the data collected indicates that the overall BITA maturity of Company A
currently stands at level 1 according to SAMM scale, with the overall average score of 1.68. A closer
look at the result shows that company A scores under 2 .0 of the maximum value of 5.0 on all of the
BITA dimensions— value analytics (1.65), communication (1.62), partnership (1.55), and dynamic IT
scope (1.5). The bank scored lowest on business and IT skills development (1.33) while the highest
point is for IT governance, which stands at 2.44. According to the BITA maturity scale based on
SAMM, company A has begun the steps to recognise the need for commitment to start the process of
BITA maturity. The BITA maturity at the bank is less than the average score of 2.0 for most compa-
nies (Luftman, 2000). The average figure in the financial sector stands at 2.9 (Luftman and Kempaiah,
2007). The following paragraphs discuss the identified factors found to influence BITA at company A
categorised under the six BITA dimensions.
4.2 Communication
The important role of communication between the business and IT departments to realise BITA is one
of the common findings in the extant literature (Chan and Reich, 2007; Luftman and Brier, 1999;
Reich and Benbasat, 2000; Wagner et al., 2014). Communication is also recognised to be invaluable in
creating a trusting and partnership-oriented relationships in an organisation. The responses from the
interviewees seem to suggest there is a lack of sufficient understanding between business and IT at
company A. According to most of the directors from the business side, the IT department has only
limited knowledge about the bank’s business. In one of the director’s own words, “Those in the IT de-
partment do not understand business at all. The communication protocol we have is not that much of
help. The communication between business and IT is one-way, coming only from us. I can also say
that the knowledge sharing between us is at ground level” (D-1). It was interesting, however, to note
that there were other respondents in the business side acknowledging business understanding of IT at
some level (for instance, D-4). On the other hand, one of the IT directors (D-9) also agrees there is a
lack of business understanding among the IT personnel. The perception of leaders regarding the
knowledge sharing arrangement in place to address the lack of understanding is varied. Even though
two of the respondents (D-6, D-9) consider the knowledge sharing between IT and other departments
is ‘structured well’, most of the remaining leaders find organisational learning problematic. For in-
stance, the effectiveness of the liaison and the communication protocol is debated. According to
SAMM, company A seems to have a long way to address the factors that hinder smooth communica-
tion between IT and business.
The 13th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), Naples, Italy, 2019 8
Jonathan et al. /Business-IT Alignment Barriers
tions”. However, respondents from the business side claim that the contribution of IT to the overall
business performance is weak. It is interesting to see that opinions are formed regarding IT’s value
with little agreement on how assessments are done. According to Luftman et al. (2017), organisations
with effective business and IT metrics are likely to succeed in their attempt to reach BITA. The result
of the analysis, according to SAMM, suggests that both IT and business at the bank need to move
away from the ad-hock informal evaluations towards consistent and formal metrics. The service level
agreements in place also need to be revised with participation from both sides.
4.4 Partnering
BITA is likely to be reached in organisations where IT is recognised as a partner (Luftman et al., 2017;
Reich and Benbasat, 2000). The level of understanding between the two domains at the bank is known
to influence the business/IT relationships. The other attribute to a partnership that is found to be trou-
bling and associated with BITA is the perception of IT value at company A. The respondents from
both sides (D-1, D-9, D-10) state that IT is seen as a cost of doing business at the bank. As D-9 puts it
“IT doesn’t have any role to shape new business strategies. Rather IT department’s task is delivering
services to the business departments”. This view is shared by other respondents on the business side as
well. For instance, even though the business side considers IT to be an important asset for the delivery
of services to the bank customers, it is not considered as an equal partner (D-1, D-6). The participants
from the business side also express their mistrust and frustration with IT. A closer look at the respons-
es seem to suggest a perceived lack of business understanding by IT staff and capture the IT needs of
the departments; inefficient use of IT personnel for the right task; and IT’s lack of good judgement on
business priorities have contributed to the unfavourable relationship between IT and the remaining
departments (D-4, D-6, M1). On the other hand, the participants from the IT domain acknowledge the
need for work towards improving the relationship they have with the business. However, they see two
main reasons for the tension (D-7, D-9). First, even though the IT initiatives have always had the C-
level sponsorship and are executed according to the requirement from the functional units, the busi-
ness side is not doing all it can to exploit the delivered IT solutions. Second, even though the business
requirements come from the business, IT is expected to take all the risks. The results, according to
SAMM, suggest that company A needs to improve the relationships between IT and business. BITA is
likely to be reached when IT is recognised as an equal partner to business sharing the goals, risks and
rewards.
4.5 IT governance
Several empirical and conceptual studies have shown that effective IT governance is instrumental in
organisations’ journey toward BITA (Jonathan and Rusu, 2018; Luftman et al., 2017; Rusu and Jona-
than 2017). One of the antecedents of BITA widely acknowledges the presence of executive-level IT
leadership position which is also found to be the case at company A. The result of this study shows
that company A’s highest score (2.44) comes from the IT governance dimension. However, most of
the participants (the business leaders) are not familiar with the IT governance arrangement. As far as
they are concerned, the IT decision making authority is the responsibility of corporate leadership (for
standard and shared IT services), and each of the departments makes the decision regarding IT to meet
their particular business needs (D-1, D-4). The IT leaders, on the other hand, argue that there are dif-
ferent IT governance mechanisms in place to make better IT investment decisions. For instance, D-7
and D-9 mention the steering committee as an example. The bank is currently in the process of imple-
menting COBiT. When asked about the business and IT strategies, and how these strategies are
planned at the bank, the response from the participants seems to indicate a lack of coordination. The
findings of previous studies are clear about the importance of joint participation in strategic planning
(Chan, 2000; Luftman 2000). However, even though the respondents agree there is one corporate
strategy outlining the overall plan for the bank, they are not aware of the planning process. For in-
stance, IT, as one of the departments, is mandated to formulate its own (sub)strategy. According to the
The 13th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), Naples, Italy, 2019 9
Jonathan et al. /Business-IT Alignment Barriers
IT director, “as the IT director, I have designed IT sub-strategy with my own will. And I already dis-
tributed and presented this IT sub-strategy to all departments’ directors. But they don’t have given
attention to it. … So, what I have seen from my practical experience is that most of us are working
without a stable strategy. We are working just like a fire brigade to work when some problem arises”
(D-10). On the other hand, three directors, one from the business and two from the IT department, rec-
ognise the need for better collaboration in business and IT strategic planning (D-6, D-7, D-9). Accord-
ing to the evaluation based on SAMM, company A seems to have acknowledged the importance of
good IT governance to reach BITA.
5 Conclusion
This study has assessed the level of BITA maturity at one of the banks in Ethiopia. The main objective
was to find a list of barriers to BITA for an organisation in a developing country. The results of the
study reveal various barriers—lack of business/IT understanding; unclear business/IT strategies; inef-
ficient use of available IT personnel for the right task; inadequate training of business personnel to
The 13th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), Naples, Italy, 2019 10
Jonathan et al. /Business-IT Alignment Barriers
use the existing IT systems; failure to capture opportunities to learn from outside providers; lack of
formal metrics and oversight to measure IT value; lack of time for personal skill development; and low
perception of value of IT—that contributed to the low level of BITA maturity at the case company.
Consistent with other studies in the developing countries, the findings indicate that the identified bar-
riers to BITA are found to be related to such environmental factors as the availability of skilled IT per-
sonnel and reliable IT infrastructure in the country. For instance, the inefficient use of available IT sys-
tems, lack of business/IT understanding, and the lack of formal metrics and oversight to measure the
value of IT point to the overall low level of IT/business skills among employees in the company. How-
ever, it is worth exploring further to find out whether these barriers reflect the level of IT/business
skills in the country or the current management practices at the case company. On the other hand, the
lack of organisational-wide skills development arrangement is one of the barriers that needs to be ad-
dressed. The remaining barriers to BITA, such as the low perception of the value of IT need to be
looked carefully. One might ask whether the bank has failed to foster better communication to im-
prove the understanding, collaboration and partnership relationship between the business and IT units,
which in turn affected the perceptions. An alternative explanation could be factors such as the availa-
bility of reliable IT infrastructure in the country. The provision of IT services when needed by the
business units might have contributed to the low perception of the value of IT, and lower BITA ma-
turity in the case company.
The findings of this study have important implications for research and practice. While the list of bar-
riers might be a starting point for further study to identify how country contexts can influence BITA,
practitioners will find the insights invaluable to optimise the use of their scarce resources in such a
way that the BITA barriers are addressed appropriately. However, a word of caution is in order when
interpreting the results of the study. The limitations of the study are related to the research strategy as
well as the data collection and analysis methods. Even though the case study provided with the benefit
of in-depth observations, the generalisability of the findings is limited. However, the authors argue
that each case study is a unique opportunity to capture an insight that might not be found in other set-
tings. Future studies might attempt to explore the different intra-organisational factors that influence
BITA in similar organisations in Ethiopia to validate the findings. Quantitative research approach
might also be applied to test the generalisability of the findings in Ethiopia and other developing coun-
tries. It is important to note that the results of the study identified a list of intra-organisational barriers
to BITA at one point. Since BITA is a process rather than an outcome, a longitudinal study might re-
veal other relevant factors in organisations’ journey to achieve and maintain BITA.
References
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). “Using thematic analysis in psychology.” Qualitative Research in
Psychology 3(2), 77-101.
Chan, Y. E. (2008). “Why haven't we mastered alignment? The importance of the informal organiza-
tion structure.” MIS Quarterly Executive 1(2), 97-112.
Chan, Y. E. and Reich, B. H. (2007). “IT is alignment. An annotated bibliography.” Journal of Infor-
mation Technology 22(4), 316–396.
Cline, M. K. and C. S. Guynes (2001). “A study of the impact of information technology investment
on firm performance.” Journal of Computer Information Systems 41(3),15–19.
Coltman, T. Tallon, P. Sharma, R. and Queiroz, M. (2015). “Strategic IT alignment. Twenty-five years
on.” Journal of Information Technology 1(10), 91-100.
Dedrick, J. Kraemer, K. L. and Shih, E. (2013). “Information technology and productivity in devel-
oped and developing countries.” Journal of Management Information Systems 30(1), 97-122.
Denscombe, M. (2014). The Good Research Guide. For Small-Scale Social Research Projects. Glas-
gow, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Dewan, S. and Kraemer, K. L. (2000). “Information technology and productivity. Evidence from
country-level data.” Management Science 46(4), 548-562.
The 13th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), Naples, Italy, 2019 11
Jonathan et al. /Business-IT Alignment Barriers
El Sawy, O. A. (2003). “The IS core IX. The 3 faces of IS identity. Connection, immersion, and fu-
sion.” Communications of the Association for Information Systems 12(1), 588-598.
Gbangou, L. P. D. and Rusu, L. (2016). “Factors hindering business-IT alignment in the banking sec-
tor of a developing country.” Procedia Computer Science 100, 280-288.
Gerow, J. E. Grover, V. Thatcher, J. B. and Roth, P. L. (2014). “Looking toward the future of IT-
business strategic alignment through the past. A meta-analysis.” MIS Quarterly (38(4), 1059-1085.
Gutierrez, A. and Lycett, M. (2011). IS alignment factors. Dynamic relationships at strategic, tactical
and operational level. In: UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings, pp.
11605-11616.
Henderson, J. C. and Venkatraman, H. (1993). “Strategic alignment. Leveraging information technol-
ogy for transforming organizations. IBM systems journal 32(1), 4-16.
Hussin, H. King, M. and Cragg, P. (2002). “IT alignment in small firms.” European Journal of Infor-
mation Systems 11(2), 108–127.
Jonathan, G. M. (2018). “Influence of organizational structure on business-IT Alignment. What we do
(not) know”. In: 17th International Conference Perspectives in Business Informatics Research
(BIR). Stockholm: Sweden, p.1.
Jonathan, G. M. Abdul-Salaam, A. Oluwasanmi, O. and Rusu, L. (2018a). “Business-IT alignment
barriers in a public organisation. The case of Federal Inland Revenue Service of Nige-
ria.” International Journal of Innovation in the Digital Economy (IJIDE) 9(1), 1-13.
Jonathan, G. M. and Rusu, L. (2018). “IT Governance in public organisations. A systematic literature
review.” International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and Governance (IJITBAG) 9(2), 30–52.
Jonathan, G. M. Rusu, L. and Perjons, E. (2018b). “Organizational structure's influence on business-IT
alignment. Looking back to look forward.” International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and
Governance (IJITBAG), 9(2), 15-29.
Kafi, H. and Kalika; M. (2005). “Survey of strategic alignment impacts on organizational performance
in international European companies.” In: Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Confer-
ence on Systems Sciences. IEEE, p. 230.
Kanellis, P. Lycett, M. and Paul, R.J. (1999). “Evaluating business information systems fit. From con-
cept to practical application.” European Journal of Information Systems 8(1),65-76.
Kappelman, L. Torres, Russell. McLean, E. Maurer, C. Johnson, V. and Kim, K. (2019). “The 2018
SIM IT Issues and Trends Study.” MIS Quarterly Executive 18(1), 51-84.
Karpovsky, A. and Galliers, R. D. (2015). “Aligning in practice. From current cases to a new agenda.”
Journal of Information Technology 30(2), 136-160.
Kekwaletswe, R. M. and Mathebula, P. C. (2014). “Aligning information systems strategy with the
business strategy in a South African Banking Environment.” In: Proceedings of the ISSN Confer-
ence for Information Systems and Applied Research. ESIG. Maryland: USA, p. 1508.
Luftman, J. (2000). “Assessing business-IT alignment maturity.” Communications of the Association
for Information Systems 4(1), 14.
Luftman, J. and Brier, T. (1999). “Achieving and sustaining business-IT alignment.” California Man-
agement Review 42(1), 109–122.
Luftman, J. and Kempaiah, R. (2007). “An update on business-IT alignment. " A line" has been
drawn.” MIS Quarterly Executive 6(3), 165-177.
Luftman, J. Lyytinen, K. and Zvi, T. B. (2017). “Enhancing the measurement of information technolo-
gy (IT) business alignment and its influence on company performance.” Journal of Information
Technology 32(1), 1-21.
Panda, S. and Rath, S. K. (2018). “Strategic IT-business alignment and organizational agility. From a
developing country perspective.” Journal of Asia Business Studies 12(4), 422-440.
Rathnam, R. G., Johnsen, J. and Wen, H. J. (2005). “Alignment of business strategy and IT strategy. A
case study of a fortune 50 financial services company.” Journal of Computer Information Sys-
tems 45(2), 1–8.
The 13th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), Naples, Italy, 2019 12
Jonathan et al. /Business-IT Alignment Barriers
Reich, B. H. and Benbasat, I. (1996). “Measuring the Linkage Between Business and Information
Technology Objectives.” MIS Quarterly 20(1), 55-81.
Reich, B. H. and Benbasat, I. (2000). “Factors that influence the social dimension of alignment be-
tween business and information technology objectives.” MIS Quarterly 24(1), 81-113.
Roulston, K. (2001). “Data analysis and 'Theorizing as Ideology.” Qualitative Research 1(3), 279-302.
Rusu, L. and Jonathan, G. M. (2017). IT alignment in public organizations. A systematic literature
review. In: Information Technology Governance in Public Organizations. Springer, Cham. pp. 27-
57.
Shams, R. and Wheeler, F. (2001). “Information-induced strategic alignment. Towards a semiological
analysis.” In: Creating Business Value with Information Technology. Challenges and Solutions. Ed.
by N. Shin. IGI Global, pp. 23-49.
Singh, A. and Desai, B. (2013). “Strategic business alignment. A study of role of IT in strategic busi-
ness alignment in banking sector of India.” Global Research Analysis 98-101.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). “The concept of fit in strategy research. Toward verbal and statistical corre-
spondence.” Academy of Management Review 14(3), 423–444.
Wagner, H. T. Beimborn, D. and Weitzel, T. (2014). “How social capital among information technol-
ogy and business units drives operational alignment and IT business value.” Journal of Manage-
ment Information Systems 31(1), 241-272.
Weill, P., and Broadbent, M. (1998). Leveraging the new infrastructure. How market leaders capital-
ize on information technology. Harvard Business School Press
Yayla, A. A., and Hu, Q. (2009). “Antecedents and drivers of IT-business strategic alignment. Empiri-
cal validation of a theoretical model. In: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Infor-
mation Systems, pp. 158-169.
Yin, R. K. 2014. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publication.
The 13th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), Naples, Italy, 2019 13