Eight to Late

Sensemaking and Analytics for Organizations

“Strategic alignment” – profundity or platitude?

with 6 comments

Introduction

Some time ago I wrote a post entitled, Models and messes in management, wherein I discussed how a “scientific” approach to management has resulted in a one-size-fits-all  approach to problem solving in organizations.  This is reflected in the tendency of organisations to  implement similar information technology (IT) systems, often on the  “expert” advice of carbon-copy consultancies that offer commoditized solutions.

A particularly effective marketing tactic is to advertise such “solutions” as being able to help organisations achieve  strategic alignment between IT and the business.  In this post I discuss how the concept of “strategic alignment” though seemingly sensible, makes no sense in the messy, real world of organization-land. My discussion is based on a brilliant paper by Claudio Ciborra entitled, De Profundis? Deconstructing the concept of strategic alignment.  The paper analyses the notion of alignment as it is commonly understood in the context of  IT– namely as a process by which IT objectives are brought in line with those of the organization it serves.

Background

The paper begins with a short chronology of the term strategic alignment, starting with this  highly cited paper  published by Henderson and Venkataraman  in 1993. The paper describes the need for alignment between business and IT strategies of companies.   More importantly, however, the authors detail a “Strategic Alignment Model” that purports to “guide management practice” towards achieving alignment between IT and the business. However, as Ciborra noted four years later, in 1997, it was still an open question as to what strategic alignment really meant and how it was to be achieved.

Fast forward 15 years to 2012, and it appears that the question of what strategic alignment is and how to achieve it still an open one. Here are some excerpts from recently published papers:

In the abstract to their paper entitled, Strategic Alignment of Business Processes, Morrison et. al. state:

Strategic alignment is a mechanism by which an organization can visualize the relationship between its business processes and strategies. It enables organizational decision makers to collect meaningful insights based on their current processes. Currently it is difficult to show the sustainability of an organization and to determine an optimal set of processes that are required for realizing strategies.” (italics mine)

Even worse, the question of what strategic alignment is is far from settled.  It appears that it means different things to different people. In the abstract to their paper entitled, Reconsidering the Dimensions of Business-IT Alignment, Schlosser et. al. state:

While the literature on business-IT alignment has become increasingly mature in the past 20 years, different definitions and conceptualizations have emerged. Several dimensions like strategic, intellectual, structural, social, and cultural alignment have been developed. However, no integrated and broadly accepted categorization exists and these dimensions are non-selective and do overlap…

This begs the question as to how meaningful it is for organizations to pursue “alignment” when people are still haggling over the fine print of what it means.

Ciborra dealt with this  very question 15 years ago. In the remainder of this post I summarize the central ideas of his paper,  which I think are as relevant today as the were at the time it was written.

Deconstructing  strategic alignment

The whole problem with the notion of strategic alignment is nicely summarized in a paragraph that appears in Ciborra’s introduction:

…while strategic alignment may be close to a truism conceptually, in the everyday business it is far from being implemented. Strategy ends up in “tinkering” and the IT infrastructure tends to “drift”. If alignment was supposed to be the ideal “bridge” connecting the two key variables [business and IT], it must be admitted that such a conceptual bridge faces the perils of the concrete bridge always re-designed and never built between continental Italy and Sicily, (actually, between Scylla and Charybdis) its main problem being the shores: shifting and torn by small and big earthquakes….

The question, then, is how and why do dubious concepts such as strategic alignment worm their way into mainstream management?

Ciborra places the blame for this squarely in the camp of academics who really ought to know better. As he states:

[Management Science] deploys careful empirical research, claiming to identify “naturally occurring phenomena” but in reality measures theoretical (and artificial) constructs so that the messiness of everyday reality gets virtually hidden. Or it builds models that should be basic but do not last a few years and quickly fall into oblivion.

And a few lines later:

…practitioners and academics increasingly worship simplified models that have a very short lifecycle….managers who have been exposed to such illusionary models, presented as the outcome of quasi-scientific studies, are left alone and disarmed in front of the intricacies of real business processes and behaviors, which in the meantime have become even more complicated than when these managers left for their courses. People’s existence, carefully left out of the models, waits for them at their workplaces.

Brilliantly put, I think!

Boxes, arrows and platitudes

Generally, strategic alignment is defined as a fit, or a bridge, between different domains of a business.  To be honest it seems the metaphor of a “bridge” seems to distract from reflecting on the chasm that is allegedly being crossed and the ever-shifting banks that lie on either side. Those who speak of alignment would do better to first focus on what they are trying to align. They may be surprised to find that the geometric models  that pervade their PowerPoint Presentations (e.g. organograms, boxes connected by arrows) are completely divorced from reality. Little surprise, then, that top-down, management efforts at achieving alignment invariably fail.

Why do such tragedies play out over and over again?

Once again, Ciborra offers some brilliant insights…

The messy world, he tells us, gives us the raw materials from which we build simplified representations of the organization we work in. These representations are often built in the image of models that we have learnt or read about (or have been spoon-fed to us by our expensive consultants). Unfortunately, these models are abstractions of reality – they cannot and must not be confused with the real thing.  So when we speak of alignment, we are talking of an abstraction that is not “out there in the world” but instead only resides in our heads; in textbooks and journal papers; and, of course, in business school curricula.

As he says,

…there is no pure alignment to be measured out there. It is, on the contrary, our pre-scientific understanding of and participating in the world of organizations that gives to the notion of alignment a shaky and ephemeral existence as an abstraction in our discourses and representations about the world.

This is equally true of management research programs on alignment: they are built on multiple abstractions and postulated causal connections that are simply not there.

If academics who spend their productive working lives elaborating these concepts make little headway, what hope is there for the manager who  to implement or measure strategic alignment?

Is there any hope?

Ciborra tells us that the answer to the question posed in the sub-heading is a qualified “yes”. One can pursue alignment, but one must first realize that the concept is an abstraction that exists only in an ideal world in which there are no surprises and in which things always go according to plan. Perhaps more importantly, they need to understand that implementations of technology invariably have significant unintended consequences that require improvised responses and adaptations. Moreover, these are essential aspects of the process of alignment, not things that can be wished away by better plans or improved monitoring.

So what can one do? As Ciborra states:

…we are confronted with a choice. Either we can do what management science suggests, that is “to realize these surprises in implementation as exceptions, build an ideal world of “how things should be” and to try to operate so that the messy world that in which managers operate moves towards this model….or we suspend  belief about what we think we know…and reflect on what we observe. Sticking to the latter we encounter phenomena that deeply enrich our notion of alignment… (italics mine)

Ciborra then goes on to elaborate on concepts of Care (dealing with the world as it is, but in a manner that is honest and free of preconceived notions), Cultivation (allowing systems to evolve in a way that is responsive to the needs of the organization rather than a predetermined plan) and Hospitality (the notion that the organization hosts the technology, much in the way that a host hosts a guest). It would take at least a thousand words more to elaborate on these concepts, so I’ll have to leave it here. However, if you are interested in finding out more, please see my summary and review of Ciborra’s book: The Labyrinths of Information.

…and finally, who aligns whom?

The above considerations lead us to the conclusion that, despite our best efforts, technology infrastructures tend to have lives of their own – they align us as much as we (attempt to) align them.  IT infrastructures are deeply entwined with the organizations that host them, so much so that they are invisible (until they breakdown, of course) and  even have human advocates who “protect” their (i.e. the infrastructure’s) interests! Although this point may seem surprising to business folks, it is probably familiar to those who work with information systems in corporate or other organizational environments.

A final word:  many other management buzz-phrases, though impressive sounding, are just as meaningless as the term strategic alignment.  However, I think I have rambled on enough, so I will leave you here to find and deconstruct some of these on your own.

Written by K

February 21, 2013 at 9:43 pm

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I work in a Fortune 500 company that produces enterprise middleware. My job is to help design and document one of these products. In my organization, it’s unfortunate but we use a simplistic model of how people interact with our software. “Users” sit at a computer and “use” our software. Our software takes inputs and generates outputs. The goal is to make this interaction as effortless for the user as possible.

    However, the model is too neat. To use one of your quotations from the Ciborra article, replacing “Management Science” with “Software design”, “[Software design] deploys careful empirical research, claiming to identify “naturally occurring phenomena” but in reality measures theoretical (and artificial) constructs so that the messiness of everyday reality gets virtually hidden.”

    While we understand that the people who install the software and maintain the systems that it runs on are not the same people as our “users,” we fail to take into account the fact that our software is involved in solving business problems that are worked on by teams who are in other corporations, with all of the baggage that “by teams” and “in other corporations” implies. To use another of your quotations from Ciborra, “People’s existence, carefully left out of the models, waits for them at their workplaces.”

    So, in sum, as software producers we are trying to align our products with the strategic goals of our customers. Yet, our simplistic model of user interaction with our products works against that alignment because our customers, in their complex environments, are having to work harder to make our solutions fit into those environments.

    To reuse your last quotation from Ciborra, “…we are confronted with a choice. Either we can do what management science suggests, that is “to realize these surprises in implementation as exceptions, build an ideal world of “how things should be” and to try to operate so that the messy world that in which managers operate moves towards this model….or we suspend belief about what we think we know…and reflect on what we observe. Sticking to the latter we encounter phenomena that deeply enrich our notion of alignment…” Observation is the key, here. I’ve been researching how to conduct design ethnography, which is essentially going to the place where people will use or are using your product, see the types of tasks they do with it, and find out how they coordinate and sequence the work, find out what artifacts they use, how they plan, how they determine when the goal has been met, who does what, and much more. In fact, design ethnography has been around for decades, but it just has not caught on in most software shops.

    I’m scheduled to visit a customer site soon. However, when I tell my colleagues what it is that I intend to do there and why, the most common reaction in puzzlement. As I’m guessing in most attempts at strategic alignment, the focus is usually on product or output, and not on process. I’m often asked which features I’ll be testing at the customer site. When I explain that I want to know the process better, it’s hard for them to see the value.

    Anyway, thank you very much for the post.

    Like

    RH

    February 22, 2013 at 5:03 am

    • Hi RH

      The focus on the output and not the process (I would say journey) is for me a huge problem and a massive attribution error made in organsiations all of the time. To that end, you might find this discussion that Kailash has been a part of interesting also…

      http://www.cleverworkarounds.com/2012/01/30/on-the-decay-or-remarkable-recurrence-of-knowledge/

      regards

      Paul

      Like

      Paul Culmsee

      February 22, 2013 at 5:38 am

      • Paul,

        Thanks for the comment and the link to the discussion on models and reality. Quoting from the last line of the post, Reality is multifaceted and cannot be captured in any particular model, so the finders of a new truth should take care that they do not get carried away by their own hyperbole. – excellent advice for those who might jump on to the strategic alignment bandwagon.

        Regards,

        K.

        Like

        K

        February 22, 2013 at 9:01 pm

    • Hi RH,

      Thanks for reading and for taking the time to share your experiences.

      I really like the analogy you’ve made between management/reality and software development/reality – Ciborra’s arguments do indeed apply to the latter just as well as they do to the former.

      After reading your comment, I had a look at some design ethnography sites This is interesting stuff indeed! I’m sure you are aware of this, but for the benefit of those who are following this thread, the Helsinki Design Lab: has published a short field guide to design ethnography. When I browsed through it, I was struck by the parallels between design ethnography methods and dialogue mapping using IBIS . Although they may differ in their details (eg: dialogue mapping sessions typically involve the whole group whereas ethnographic interviews could be done one on one), both are concerned with getting people to open up and share their viewpoints. I suspect IBIS would be a useful tool to capture knowledge gained in ethnographic studies.

      Thanks again for your informative comment.

      Regards,

      Kailash.

      Like

      K

      February 22, 2013 at 8:56 pm

  2. K,
    Much to think about in your article.
    Part of the phenomenon of ‘strategic alignment’, or ‘strategic’ anything, for that matter, is that the community of organisational pilots (business ‘leaders’ I’m referring to) tend, like any community, to refer to each other, and secondarily to the external world that they are, in fact, dependent upon.
    So, If company A strategically aligns its business and its IT, and of course talks it up, the rest of the alphabet will follow.
    Unless a company decides that its business will be built around its mission to its customers. By mission I mean not the wooly talk that often passes for mission, but the concrete reason the company exists for the benefit of its customers.
    Once this is in view, the company can be built as a ‘system of systems’ to deliver the mission, and the whole thing will then tend to ‘strategic alignment’ rather than trying to applique ‘strategic alignment’ onto something that is clearly strategically unalignable! Thus I liked Paul’s discussion in the linked page.

    Like

    David

    February 22, 2013 at 11:00 am

    • Hi David,

      Thanks for reading and commenting.

      True, managers tend to take their cues from their peers, who have similar backgrounds. It is therefore unsurprising that they do similar things (attempt to “align A with B” for example) and end up getting similar results. As you rightly point out, most attempts at alignment are done in a vacuum, i.e. without any appreciation of the organisational and external environments. It is no surprise, therefore, that such attempts fail.

      In the thread you refer to, Paul makes the important point that to one has to create the right conditions if one wants the right things to happen – in other words, a holding environment. .

      Thanks (as always) for your insightful comment.

      Regards,

      Kailash.

      Like

      K

      February 22, 2013 at 8:49 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: