Tags
According to Maes et al. (2000), critiques to alignment are twofold; it has no clarity of definition and no handles for management practices. Ciborra (1997) argues that strategic control is unachievable because of unavoidable factors and influences an organization experiences. Ciborra (1997) stated that alignment is not easy to implement because technology and business drifts apart due to constant change. Instead of using models that lack practicality he proposed three views: care of the business and work activity; hospitality towards acceptance of IT by an organisation; and cultivation of future technology alongside current needs. Also Brown & Magill (1998) and Ciborra (1997) stated that alignment is not measurable and has different context in different organisations. Variables exist in every organisation in as much as change is constant, there seems to be majority accepting the existence of business – IT/IS strategic alignment. Added to the benefits that accrue from its adoption, strategic alignment in an organization seems valid.
Reference
1.Brown, C. V., & Magill, S. L. (1998). Reconceptualizing the context-design issue for the information systems function. Organization Science, 9(2), 176-194
2. Ciborra, C. U. (1997). De profundis? Deconstructing the concept of strategic alignment. Scandinavian journal of information systems, 9, 67-82
3. Maes, R. E., Rijsenbrij, D., Truijens, O., & Goedvolk, H. (2000). Redefining business-IT alignment through a unified framework.