Strategic Information Systems Analysis
Information systems that are developed in response to the corporate plan are called Strategic Systems. The main goal is to give the organisation a competitive lead. Strategic Systems can provide products or services that are less expensive, varied and focused on particular market segments or pioneering. Business strategies are implemented by strategic information systems as they have the systems in which resources are applied to information services and strategic business opportunities with an intention of company’s computer system to perform well. Strategic information systems are always systems that have evolved in response to the corporate initiative. In other cases, the idea came from business people and Operational Information Services supplied the technological potential to realize profitable results. Most systems seemed to support activities such as business. They mechanize the operations of greater efficiency, control and efficiency, but they are not in themselves to increase business profitability. They are easy to use, more than enough reliable information to management in order to keep the business running smoothly, and they are used in the analysis plan for new directions. Strategic Information Systems, on the other hand, is an integral and necessary part of business, and directly affect the market share, profits and all other aspects of the Market Square to profitability. They can even bring in new products, new markets, new ways of doing business. They directly affect the organization’s competitive stance, which gives him an advantage against competitors.
ISSUES
‘In 1980, the number of frameworks have appeared analyzing information systems from a’ strategic perspective. General problems in a dozen of their strategic information systems frameworks (frameworks SIS), has been described, including the following. Most of the frameworks of the SIS is American (and thus may be culturally related).Since there are a large number of frameworks available, each is at the best of a relative benchmark. Also, because of the variety it can be costly to find a suitable framework, and even more expensive one to find inappropriate. SIS frameworks are usually post-hoc requests for global strategic framework and so do not contain any special features of the computer world, where it was not clear if the frameworks were developed. It has been argued that,the SIS frameworks are externally imposed, meanings and restrain creativity, focus away from the bright ideas and are generated internally, creates the conditions for a power struggle over its meaning, and move the focus of control of the SIS from the outside. Finally, even the simplest framework can be understood in more ways than one, creating the possibility to the hidden divisions.
SONY CORPORATION
Sony Corporation announced the creation of Corporate IS Solutions (ISS), by April 1, 1998. The new organization will prepare for Sony in the emerging digital age by strengthening the management information system. Sony Corporation has a number of corporate structural changes in recent years. Sony divisional company structure was first introduced in 1994, and was further strengthened in 1996. Sony has also reorganized its board of directors and corporate executive officer positions created in 1997.
In response to changes in business environment due to digitization and the growth of a networked society, the Sony Group has diversified its business to digital satellite broadcasting, electronics, entertainment, insurance and finance to take. Sony hopes to use the ISS for further information systems capabilities to enhance the speed and flexibility of management decisions to improve. The purpose of the ISS will be to increase the efficiency of the management of Sony’s information systems (MIS) to improve the infrastructure and the role of MIS in the strategic planning and business promotion to increase.
ISS proposes an advisory committee will consist of people from outside consultants and IS representatives of the worldwide operations of Sony. The Advisory Committee will counsel the president on technology issues for the strategic planning of information systems from Sony. In addition, ISS representatives are located in each of the ten divisions of corporate companies to implement projects that contribute in the firm.
Sony Corporation is a leading manufacturer of audio, video, communications and information technology for the consumer and professional markets. Its music, pictures and computer entertainment operations make Sony one of the most comprehensive entertainment companies in the world.
Business Strategy
The company’s competitive strategy can be featured as a hybrid strategy where the low cost(cost leadership), invested in a low price with a differentiation aggregated on the basis of quality, reliability, flexibility, innovation and create sustainable value for all key stakeholders. The company’s current business strategy can be featured as a sales strategy that the company’s acquisition and subsequent integration of these followed in MNE SBU structures. The turnaround strategy is not driven by poor financial performance but by the desire of the new shareholders to increase productivity and change organisational culture and structure, the required measures to claim dependable competitive advantage at a low cost, lean and entrepreneurial enterprise.
IS Strategy
From a strategic perspective, the problem is the extent to which improvements in information processing power can help improve the way the knowledge is created and shared both in and around the organisation. Competitive pressures have resulted in the maintaining high quality the strategic IS is developed centrally so the approach to corporate strategic planning information can be regarded as an incremental. Overall, the strategy aimed at integrating existing IS as external integration with broader chain partners in order to support both cost leadership and differentiation strategy.
STRATEGIC INFORMATION AND PLANNING METHODOLOGIES AT SONY –
‘The role of strategic information systems planning is difficult and often time organizations’ ‘do not know how to do it. Strategic information systems planning are a big change for’ ‘organizations, from planning for information systems based on the needs of users based on’ ‘business strategy. Also, strategic information systems planning changes planned features in’ ‘major ways. Thus, the time horizon for planning changes from one year to three years or’ ‘more and development driven by current and future business needs rather than incremental’ ‘needs of the user. Increasing the time horizon is a factor that results in poor response from’ ‘the top management to the strategic information systems planning process is difficult to keep’ ‘their attention for a long period. Other questions related to strategic information systems ‘planning on the scope of the planning study, the focus of the planning exercise – corporate ‘organization against strategic business unit, the number of studies and their’ sequence, ‘choosing a strategic information planning systems or develop a methodology if’ one is not ‘suitable, the target of planning and deliverables. Because of the complexity of’ strategic ‘information systems planning process and the uniqueness of each organization,’ there is no ‘one best way to address. Vitale et al. (1986) classify SISP methodologies into two’ ‘categories: impact and alignment. Impact methodologies help create and justify new ‘uses of ‘IT, while the methods in the “adaptation” category placing IS objectives with organizational ‘goals.
Business systems planning:
This method, developed by SONY, which combines top-down bottom-up implementation planning. This methodology focuses on business processes, which in turn is derived from the organization’s business mission, objectives and tasks. Business process analysis of the data needs and then determine the data classes. Similar data for the classes are combined to develop databases. BSP final plan describes the general architecture of information systems, as well as a timetable for the installation of individual systems.
Following are the strength and weaknesses of BSP –
Strengths –
Because BSP combines a top-down business analysis approach with a bottom-up strategy for implementation, it represents an integrated approach. In it stop-down strategy, BSP is similar to CSF method in that it develops a general understanding of the business plans and supporting IS needs through joint discussions. SONY the supplier of this method has the advantage of better known to top management than other methods.’
Weaknesses:
BSP requires a clear commitment of senior management and their great commitment.
requires a high degree of IT experience within the BSP schedule team
There is a problem of the gap between top down and bottom-up planning
implementation.
Does not have a software design methodology.
The main weakness of BSP is the considerable time and effort required for the successful implementation.
Strategic systems planning –
‘Also known as PROplanner and developed by Robert Holland, this method is similar toBSP. A business functional model is defined by analyzing major functional areas of acompany. Data architecture is derived from the business function model by combining information requirements in the generic data entities and subject databases. New systems and their implementation schedules are derived from this architecture. This architecture is then used to new systems and the implementation schedule to be identified.
Although the steps in the SSP process are similar to those in the BSP, a major difference between SSP and SSP’s BSP is automated processing of the data collected during the SISP process
Information Engineering –
This method was developed by James Martin (1982) and provides techniques for building enterprise, data, and process models. These models combine a comprehensive knowledge base that is used to create and maintain information systems to form. Basic concept of this technique is the use of structured techniques in all tasks related to planning, analysis, design and construction of enterprise wide information systems. Such structured techniques are expected to result in well integrated information systems. IE is based on a pyramid for an information systems company. The pyramid has three sides by the organisation to display the activities the organisation performs using the data and the technology used in the implementation of information systems.
Value chain analysis –
‘The concept of the value chain is examined at length by Michael Porter (1984).According to him “every company is a collection of activities performed to design, produce, market, deliver and support its product. All these activities can be represented using a value. “Porter goes on to explain that information technology is one of the major activities supporting the value chain.”Information technology system is a particular role in the value, since every value activity creates and, uses information. .. The recent, rapid technological changes in information systems are having a major impact on competition and competitive advantage due to the decisive role of information in the value chain. Change in the way office functions can be executed one of the main types of technological trends that today many companies, but few devote substantial resources to it. Thus, value chain analysis:’
(A) Is a form of economic activity, an analysis firm in its entirety falls apart. Information derived from this analysis.
(B) Helps to develop information systems that the total profits of an enterprise to increase.
(C) Helps to identify the potential for mutual business benefits of the constituent companies in the same or related industries, available from information exchange.
(D) Focuses on value added activities and is independent of the organizational structure.
‘Strengths: The main strength of value chain analysis is that it concentrates on direct value adding activities of an enterprise and therefore places information right in the realm of value rather than cost cutting.’
‘Weaknesses: Although a very useful and intuitively appealing, value chain analysis suffers from several weaknesses, namely’
‘Only provides a higher level information model for a firm and not the address to the design and implementation issues.’
‘Because of its focus on internal operations instead of data, not to define a data structure for the company’.
‘The basic concept of a value chain is difficult to apply to non-industrial organizations where the product is not tangible and there is no obvious commodity.’
‘Does not provide automated support for performing analysis. Value chain analysis, therefore, must be used in combination with some other method that addresses the development and implementation issues and define a data structure.’
Critical success factors
‘Critical success factors analysis can be considered both an impact as well as adjustment methodology. Critical Success Factors (CSF) in the context of SISP are used to interpret more clearly the objectives, tactics and operations in terms of key information needs of an organization and its managers and strengths and weaknesses of the existing systems of the organization. Rockart (1979) defines critical success factors as a company’s limited number of areas where the results, if satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive performance for the organization. CSFs exist on a’ ‘number of levels. They represent the few key areas where things have to go for business to flourish. Consequently, critical success factors are areas of activity that should receive constant and careful attention from management. The CSF approach originally developed as a means of understanding the information needs of CEOs. The approach is then applied to the overall business and has expanded into a broader plan methodology. It is made from the root of much consultation practices and has achieved significant results in which the property is used. CB can exist on a number of levels, i.e., industry, organizational, business unit or manager. CBs at a lower level are derived from the preceding level. The CSF approach introduces information technology in the first stages of the planning process and helps a realistic assessment of the IT contribution to the organization’.
‘Strengths: CB-analysis provides a very powerful method for focusing on key information requirements of an organization, a business unit, or a manager. This allows management to focus resources on developing information about these requirements.CSF analysis is also easy to perform and can be performed with few resources’.
‘Weaknesses: (a) although a useful and widely used technique, CSF analysis alone is not enough to carry out comprehensive SISP – it’s not data architecture to define or provide automated support for analysis. To be of value, the CSF analysis easily and directly be related back to the objectives of the business unit under review. It is the experience of people using this technique in general loses its value when used in the third level in a hierarchy’
BARRIERS:
Analysis of IS practices and procedures
‘Porter and Miller (1985) argue that the management information systems can no longer be the sole province of EDP work such as accounting and bookkeeping, which focuses on control and reduce costs. Advanced information systems in the value chain of activities can help companies improve the competitiveness of differentiation as well as to achieve cost leadership and thus obtain a sustainable competitive advantage. In other words, the ability to pursue cost reduction and differentiation at the same time justify the use. Earl (1998) argues that the IS has the potential to be a strategic weapon, at least one of the following: (1) gain a competitive advantage, (2) improve productivity and performance, (3) create new ways to manage and organize; (4) developing new businesses. These views show that the utilization of strategic and coherent action is more important than their use in operational situations (Soo 2002). The following part of the study will analyze and critically evaluate the company’s practices in the treatment of low-and intra- external integration of its information systems and its negative effects on the production value’.
‘The company has always tried its business efficiency and increase effectiveness by reassessing the internal operations such as purchasing, warehousing, materials management and distribution. It has used techniques such as Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRPII) and Just-In-Time (JIT) to the internal value chain effectiveness and efficiency. The company has exported its major ERP system in the early 1990’s. The company achieved a relatively high internal integration processes within the value chain of the company. The situation for the company a step back in their internal integration efforts for the sake of uniformity of the group. The major obstacle towards full integration of internal information systems of the company therefore represents the diversity of applications used for different processes. This shows poor strategic information system planning (SISP) at a multinational level, in the context of a rapidly growing group (through external acquisitions) is true is not seen as a strategic weapon, but rather an operational information processing tool. The cost versus the value quantification of the IS integration is problematic (subject multinational had group has the extra dimension of intra-SBU / corporate integration, which is considered a major problem at the corporate level. The firm decision on the main platform for integration is still not considered, but a feasibility study conducted by a team of internal and external experts showed that the most viable solution in the medium term lies in building the data warehouses at the top existing applications to ensure the collection, integration, storage and sharing of information available to users. Moreover, historically strong focus on internal integration reduces the potential value of the whole value which the company operates and the cost leads to duplication, maintenance of redundant systems, and investment in inefficient processes, such as manual data entry and machine sources are available’.
‘The company is in today’s highly competitive global market place obligated to review its business operations and explore both internal processes and external relationships with business partners to meet the changing needs of their customers, to respond to the initiatives and new business models of their competitors and opportunities as new technologies (Chaffey’ ‘2002).
CONCLUSION
‘Information-based companies should be planned in an integrated manner, involving all ‘stages of the lifecycle implemented to bring about the skill, quality and productivity. This ‘integration is similar in nature to the integration of the product life cycle of an enterprise. ‘Current methods, however, tend to support planning information as an island separated from ‘the wealth of information resources. A new approach would require tapping into these resources to capture and characterize the company to allow for the integration of information’ systems planning stages of development and support of adaptive and a shortened cycle. This’ approach is a small first step to a great task: to develop a framework and a theory for strategic, planning of information systems. The need for such a framework is established by the problems in implementing SISP methods and also because of what these methods themselves lacking.
‘The company was part of a multinational competing in global markets within the global industry value chain with strong competition. The funds are used by competitors are very similar (technology, people, money); the difference is how these resources are used / managed. Today, financial markets are looking for a broader view to the prospects of the companies that often do not clearly understand the accounts. Intellectual capital management business information systems skills are often the distinguishing factor of perspective and profitable businesses and encourage the companies’ value (Couger 1995). At the Company has traditionally focused on supporting internal efficiency. Companies need trust relationships with each other and the B2B market is to allow members to penetrate this deep in each other’s internal business processes. Has potential to generate value in inspiration, creation and support of collaborative value networks rather than reducing the internal data processing costs. The company realized the challenge and is a step in the right direction in terms of their integration in the evolving industry value chain to provide value to all stakeholders to generate.’