Issues affecting the integration of emerging information technologies into corporate information technology strategy: a Delphi study.

Cegielski, Casey G. ; Reithel, Brian J. ; Rebman, Carl M. 等

ABSTRACT

The accelerating evolutionary pace of technology creates a heretofore-unseen dilemma for the information technology executive charged with the responsibility of developing an IT strategy. Specifically, an executive who plans an IT strategy using only currently available commercial technologies must accept the prospect that some, or perhaps all, of the technologies may become obsolete prior to implementation. A potential remedy for the aforementioned problem exists in the form of emerging information technologies. By considering emerging information technologies as potential components of IT strategy, executives may be able to minimize the impact of the rate of technological evolution on IT strategy. This process requires the executive to evaluate technologies earlier in the product development life cycle. Accordingly, there are additional issues that executives must address with respect to emerging information technologies and IT strategy planning. This paper reports the findings of a four round web-based Delphi Study designed to elicit a cohesive set of issues that affect an IT executive's decision to integrate emerging information technologies into corporate IT strategy.

INTRODUCTION

In the competitive business arena that is the global marketplace, a strategy may be the single discriminating factor between the success or failure of an organization. Information technology executives recognize the importance of an effective organizational information technology strategy (Brancheau & Janz, 1996; Niederman et al., 1991). However, the rapid evolution of information technology (IT) injects an additional degree of complexity into the formulation and implementation of corporate IT strategy (Gordon, 2002; Low, 2001; Varon, 2000). Specifically, the innovation rate of IT has reached such a frenzied pace that organizations face the dilemma of planning a technology-based strategy with currently available commercial technologies that are often obsolete by the time of implementation (Benamati & Lederer, 2001; Davenport, 2001). Using emerging information technologies, strategists may diminish the evolutionary effects of technology on IT strategy. However, research suggests most technology executives charged with the responsibility of developing and implementing corporate information technology strategies do not employ plans that rely on emerging information technologies and therefore detrimentally affect the useful life of newly crafted strategies (Cegielski, 2001).

The research described herein utilized a web-based Delphi method to solicit, from information technology executives, a cohesive set of issues that significantly affect the integration of emerging information technologies into corporate technology strategy. Additionally, an online chat session with the participating executives provided a forum through which the practitioners were able to express additional qualitative sentiments regarding the adoption of emerging information technologies into corporate strategy.

The general implications of the current study are two-fold. First, the findings of the study provide significant insights for practitioners attempting to develop more timely information technology strategies. More importantly, the issues elicited during the Delphi rounds of the study offer an initial perspective from which researchers may populate decision models such as the Theory of Planned Behavior or the Theory of Reasoned Action to explain the adoption-decisions of IT executives regarding emerging information technologies.

INNOVATION DIFFUSION AND EMERGING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES

The most appropriate theoretical perspective from which to extend the current study is the sociological research domain of innovation diffusion. For this reason, the following sections include a brief overview of the research tradition of innovation diffusion.

An innovation is an idea, practice, or an object perceived as new by an individual (Rogers, 1995). It is important to note that it does not matter whether the idea, practice, or object is new by the measure of time that has lapsed since its discovery (Katz, 1961). The perception of newness by the potential adopter determines the reaction to the idea, practice, or object. Thus, if an individual perceives an idea, practice, or object, as new, it is innovation. Generalized knowledge regarding an innovation is one common measure of newness (Katz & Levin, 1959).

In many instances, innovation assumes the form of technology. Technology is a design for action that reduces the level of uncertainty in the cause and effect relationship involved in achieving a desired result (Rogers, 1995). Technology has two potential forms--hardware and software (Rogers, 1995). In innovation diffusion research, hardware and software have much more encompassing definitions that those definitions popularly employed in information systems research. Hardware is the tool that embodies the technology in physical form. Software is the information basis of the tool. Examples of hardware as technology, like the airplane or the television, are very common, as they manifest in tangible form. Technology embodied as software may be less obvious to casual observation. Political theories like Marxism and religious ideologies such as Calvinism are examples of technologies that are composed exclusively of information, and thus described in innovation diffusion research as software. Most often, technology is a combination of hardware and software. Because generalized information technology is the artifact of interest in the current study it is important to understand that both information technology hardware (i.e. workstations, routers, servers, printers) and information technology software (any coded program) are, in the broader constructs of innovation diffusion research, forms of hardware.

Emerging information technologies (EIT) represent a distinct category of IT innovation. For the purposes of this discussion, EITs are innovations that are in the early stages of development. Defining characteristics of EITs often include incomplete product standardization and limited availability (i.e. beta versions of software and prototypes of hardware). There are two distinct categories of emerging information technologies: 1) evolutionary extensions of existing technologies or 2) revolutionary new technologies, heretofore, unknown. Regardless of how an EIT is classified, the explicit business application of the EIT is the same: the capability of achieving a practical purpose more effectively or more efficiently than an existing technology. During the past decade, organizations have integrated a multitude of emerging information technologies into the ordinary course of business. Currently pervasive business applications of information technology such as e-mail, data warehousing, and client/server computing were, at one time, emerging information technologies.

CORPORATE STRATEGY AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Corporate IT strategy derives direction from the overall organizational strategy (Segars, Gover & Teng, 1998; King, 1988). Many organizations have well-developed IT strategies that complement the organizational strategy (Segars & Grover, 1998). However, most corporate IT strategist base future IT strategies upon currently available information technologies (egielski, 2001; Satish & Ritu, 1999). Simply stated, information technology executives focus on integrating today's commercially available technologies into tomorrow's IT strategy. In doing so, most executives develop corporate IT strategies that dramatically lag behind the evolution of technology. To remedy the problem of dated IT strategy, IT executives should focus some attention on emerging information technologies. Examining EITs during strategy planning affords the IT executive the opportunity to anticipate tomorrow's business applications of IT today. The inclusions of EITs in corporate IT strategy planning results in the development of a proactive, forward-looking, IT strategy.

THE DELPHI METHOD

The qualitative nature of the current study dictated the use of a non-traditional information systems research methodology. Specifically, the current study utilized the Delphi Method, a survey research technique developed by the Rand Corporation in the early 1950s (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). Because of the unique characteristics (Table 1) of the methodology, the Delphi technique is applicable for highly multi-dimensional research questions that deal with uncertainty in a domain of imperfect knowledge (Churchman & Schamblatt, 1965; Paliwoda, 1983). The objective of the technique is to achieve consensus among experts regarding a specific topic (Taylor & Meinhardt, 1985). In previous comparative analysis of group survey techniques, Riggs, (1983) and Rohrbaugh (1979) reported that the Delphi technique achieved a greater level of accuracy than other group consensus techniques.

Operationally, the application of the Delphi Method involves three phases: 1) the selection of expert panelist, 2) the collection of topic-relevant issues, and 3) the ranking of reported issues. The term "expert" is subjective therefore, a researcher must quantify, in some measurable terms, exactly what constitutes an expert for the purposes of the study. Of the Delphi studies published in MIS journals, researcher typically quantify experts based upon factors such as years of professional experience, job or position title, level of education, and professional certifications. To collect topic-relevant issues, the initial round of the Delphi questionnaire is open-ended (Delbecq, Van de Ven & Gustafson, 1975). The purpose of the first questionnaire round is to aggregate information for subsequent the ranking rounds of the study (Brancheau & Wetherbe, 1987). In the first round, the panel of experts contribute input that they feel pertinent to the focus question of the study (Nambisan & Agarwal, 1999). In the second round of the study, the panelists rank each of the issues from the first round (Paliwoda, 1983). From the data gathered in the second Delphi round, the study administrator scores the issues (typically using weighted average method) and redistributes the results to the panelist (Nambisan & Agarwal, 1999). In the third round, as well as any subsequent rounds of the study, the experts review the group rankings and to re-rank the issues given of the aggregated responses of the group. The process of ranking and re-ranking continues until the panelist achieve a consensus (Delbecq, Van de Ven & Gustafson, 1975).

THE CURRENT STUDY

The current study utilized a Delphi process to aggregate and assess the relative importance of the issues that affect the integration of emerging information technologies into corporate information technology strategy. As part of the process, each potential panelist received an email solicitation for participation that included 1) the purpose of the study, 2) the definition of emerging information technologies advanced in the current study (EITs), and 3) three short summaries describing three different current emerging information technologies. Each of the three EITs used in the study is radically different--a telecommunications protocol, a programming language, and personal video technology. All three of the EITs chosen for the study meet the criteria of the definition of EIT advanced in this paper. Furthermore, the three EITs chosen for use in the study exhibit the property of generalizability--they are not technologies that are industry or application specific. For example, the telecommunications technology Bluetooth has as many potential applications in the automobile industry as it does in the financial services industry. Likewise, XML holds value for any organization with the desire to standardize web page applications, document transfer, or any number of other uses. Finally, virtual retinal display (VRD) is a technology that is applicable by end-users regardless of the industry or organization. The descriptions of the technologies selected for use in the current study, along with the aforementioned definition, provided the participants a common point of reference regarding EITs and the impact on IT strategy.

SUBJECTS

A review of Delphi studies published in MIS journals during the past 15 years revealed most studies utilize between 10 and 30 expert participants (Nambisan & Argarwal, 1996; Dekleva & Zupancic, 1996; Doke & Swanson, 1995; de Hann & Peters, 1993; Cougar, 1988). Only the SIM Delphi studies conducted by Brancheau et. al (1996, 1987) and a 1996 study by Malhota et al. included more than 50 participants throughout each round of the study. From the cursory analysis of previously published MIS Delphi studies, an initial number of 30 expert participants seemed appropriate for the current study. In order to obtain the desired number of participants, 212 CIOs from Fortune 1000 firms received the aforementioned email soliciting participation for the current study. Of the 212 individuals contacted, 75 individuals registered to participate in the current study.

Because of the diversity of the individuals who participated in the current study, it is important to report some associated information for the respondents. Geographically, there was representation from all major regions of the United States. Compared to 2000 census data, the South (46% of the respondents) was over-represented. This occurred mostly at the expense of the Midwest (11%). The West (19%) and Northeast (24%) were represented in proportions expected by their respective populations. The over-representation of the South is a function of the geographic proximity of the researcher conducting the current study. The Delphi respondents represented six industries. Information technology (25%) was the most represented industry followed by financial services (16%) and healthcare (16%). The employers of the respondents ranged in size from 3700 employees to over 65,000 employees. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents in the current study had 15 years of professional experience or more. Additionally, 81% of the respondents held the position of VP of Information Technology/Chief Information Officer/Chief Technology Officer. Finally, all respondents had an undergraduate degree and 35% had earned an advanced degree.

PARTICIPATION BY ROUND

The initial round of the study required the panelist to review the definition of EIT and read the three EIT summaries. Based on the definition and descriptions of the EITs, each participating executive submitted his or her perceptions of potential issues regarding the integration of each EIT into respective corporate strategy. In the first round, 37 of the 75 (49.33%) registered participants contributed 63 issues. After submitting comments regarding each of the three EITs, each executive classified the commonalities in his or her comments regarding the three EITs. Twenty-four of the original 63 issues were unique (Table 2). The unique issues provided the basis for the first ranking (round 2). In the second round of the study, 33 of the initial group of 75 (44%) registered participants ranked the issues (Table 3). All second round participants also participated in the first round of the study. Additionally, the computation of Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance was not significant therefore, a third round of the study was necessary to achieve a consensus.

For the next round of the study, the same 33 executives again responded. The computation of Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance proved to be significant. Thus, the group achieved a consensus of the relative importance among the issues with respect to the integration of an emerging information technology into corporate IT strategy (Table 4). To improve the degree of consensus among the panel, each of the 75 registered participants received an email solicitation for a final ranking round (round 4). Thirty-one of the panelist responded to the final call for participation. All were participants in the previous three round of the study. Analyses of the fourth round data resulted in the desired outcome--a stronger degree of consensus among the panelists (Table 5). Figure 1 provides a graphical representation of the movement of the issues by round.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

EVALUATION OF GROUP CONSENSUS

Following the completion the fourth round of the study, the computation of Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (W) revealed a consensus existed among the participants with respect to the round 4 rankings of the importance of the issues. Kendall's W is a measure designed to determine the degree to which a set of ranked scores agree (Sigel, 1956). A significant W indicates that the participants applied essentially the same standard in judging the importance of the issues and they are in consensus. The formula to compute W is:

W = s / 1/12[k.sup.2]([N.sup.3] - N)

In this expression, s is sum of squares of the observed deviations from the mean of [R.sub.j], k is number of sets of the rankings, N is number of issues ranked, and 1/12[k.sup.2]([N.sup.3] - N) is the maximum) possible sum of squared deviations, i.e., the sum s that would occur with perfect agreement among k rankings. For the final round rankings of the Delphi study, W was (W = 0.6103, p < .001) statistically significant.

Two additional estimates of consensus, the percentage of respondents whose issue rank matched the group rank and the percentage of respondents who ranked a given issue with a rank of 10 or higher (Table 5) provided an additional support to the assertion that the group is in accordance. Based on the Kendall's W and both of the aforementioned rank percentages, it is clear that the group achieved a consensus. Consequently, no additional Delphi rounds were necessary.

VALIDATION OF DELPHI FINDINGS

One limitation of the Delphi technique is the generalizability of the results. That is, the ranking of the issues is valid only with respect to the panel sampled. An exploratory survey utilizing the Delphi results provided a mechanism through which to validate the aforementioned findings The use of exploratory survey techniques are common in IS research (Pinsonneault & Kraemer, 1993), and one of the primary purposes of exploratory survey research is to define the dimensions of a construct within a population of interest. Given the exploratory nature of the current study, the utilization of an exploratory survey instrument is an appropriate research design by which to assess the Delphi findings.

The instrument developed served the single purpose of corroborating the findings of the Delphi process. Thus, the instrument did not solicit from the respondents additional issues that may affect the integration of EITs into corporate strategy. The data collected using the exploratory instrument provided a means to comparative analyze the findings of the Delphi rounds.

The membership of two international professional IT organizations, Society for Information Management (SIM) and the Association for Systems Management (ASM) participated in the exploratory survey round. One hundred and thirty-one members of the SIM and ASM groups received a solicitation for participation via email. Each individual received the same definition of EIT and technology examples presented to the Delphi participants. Jointly, 75 SIM and ASM members responded to a 24-question survey instrument. The instrument required the participants to rate, on a 7-point Likert scale, the importance the previously identified issues with respect to integration into corporate IT strategy. A comparative analysis of the results of round 4 of the Delphi process and the exploratory survey reveal a considerable level of agreement among both groups with respect to the ranking of the issues (Table 6). Specifically, 7 of the top 10 issues from the final Delphi round also appeared as top 10 ten issues in the exploratory survey rankings. Additionally, the first two issues in both rankings coincided. Given the concordance between the two sets of rankings, it is reasonable to assert that some level of generalizability exist regarding the findings in the study. However, additional testing is required to validate the assertion.

ANALYSIS

Qualitative feedback, obtained via an online chat session with the panel following the fourth Delphi round revealed that the overwhelming majority of the participating IT executives believe the EIT integration decision stratifies into two separate but interrelated assessment areas: business alignment issues and technical alignment issues (Table 7). Interestingly, alignment, in numerous facets, appears as a key issue in IT strategy in several previous research studies (Table 7). According to a CIO from a global information technology firm whose sentiments were widely supported by the group, the two areas differ in that, "business issues address the general ways and means that a particular technology will support an organization's objectives" while technical alignment issues focus on "the nuts and bolts of a particular technology like compatibility with existing systems." Generally, the panel agreed that business alignment issues reflect concerns that are universal to all organizations--competitive advantage, customer relationship management, and organizational fit. Interestingly, the study participants defined all of these issues in qualitative assessment measures. Conversely, the technical alignment issues are firm specific and, as the study group described, tend to focus on very quantifiable aspect of a technology. According to the panelist, the consensus rankings of the top 10 issues illustrates a clear distinction between these two areas. The feedback from the panelist provides the foundation for the Emerging Information Technology Assessment Model (Figure 2)

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

CONCLUSION

The results of the current study imply that the process through which EITs become part of corporate information technology strategy may center upon two distinct factors. The first, business alignment, represents the leveragability of an emerging information technology within the general context of the organization. The dimensions of business alignment include the competitive advantage offered by an EIT, the current and future compatibilities of an EIT, as well as the general usability of an EIT. Typically, all firms contemplating integrating an EIT into IT strategy must consider these aspects of the technology regardless of organizational scope or nature. The other factor, technical alignment, includes more firm-specific "nuts and bolts" concerns of an EIT. Reliability, security, and performance are some of the issues that comprise the technical alignment factor. Each firm must addressed, in specific IT context, the appropriateness of an EIT as a component of IT strategy. Finally, although two constructs emerged in the current study, additional research is necessary to frame the factors into a cohesive decision criteria.

REFERENCES

Benamati, J. & Lederer A. L. (2001). Coping with Rapid Changes in IT. Communications of the ACM. 44(8), August, 83.

Brancheau, J. & Janz, B. (1996). Key Issues in Information Systems Management: 1994-1995 SIM Delphi Results. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 20(2). June, 225-243.

Brancheau, J. & Wetherbe, J. (1987). Key Issues in Information Systems Management. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 11(1), 23-46.

Cegielski, C G. (2001). A Model of Factors that Affect the Integration of Emerging Information Technologies into Corporate Strategy. An unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Mississippi.

Churchman, C. & Schamblatt, A. (1965). The Researcher and Manager: A Dialect of Implementation. Management Science. 2(4), February,.69-88.

Cougar, J. (1988). Key Human Resource Issues in IS in the 1990s: Views of IS Executives versus Human Resource Executives. Information and Management. 14, 161-174.

Dalkey, N. & Helmer, O. (1963). An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts. Management Science. (April), 458-467.

Davenport, T. (2001). The New, New IT Strategy. CIO Magazine (May 1), http://www.cio.com/archive/050101/davenport.html.

De Hann, J. & Peters, R. (1993). Technology: Toys or Tools? Results of a Dutch Delphi Study. Information and Management. 25,. 283-289.

Dekleva, S. & Zupancic, J. (1996). Key Issues in Information Systems Management: A Delphi Study in Slovenia. Information and Management. 31(1), 1-11.

Delbecq, A., Van de Ven, A. & Gustafson, D. (1975). Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group And Delphi Processes. Glenview: Scott-Foresman.

Doke, E. & Swanson, N. (1995). Decision Variables for Selecting Prototyping in Information Systems Development: A Delphi study of MIS Manager. Information and Management. 29, 173-182.

Gordon, M. (2002). How to Succeed in Strategic Planning. CIO Magazine (March 15) http://www.cio.com/archive/031502/hs_succeed.html.

Katz, E. (1961). The Social Itinerary of Social Change: Two Studies on the Diffusion of Innovation, in W. Scharamm (Ed.), Studies of Innovation and Communication to the Public, Stanford CA, Stanford University

Katz, E. & M. Levin (1959). Traditions of Research on the Diffusion of Innovation, an unpublished paper presented at the American Sociological Association, Chicago, Ill.

King, W. (1988). How Effective is your Information System s Planning. Long Range Planning. 21(2), 103-112.

Low, L. (2001). Co-Evolving Business and IT Strategies. CIO Perspectives @ 25--Different Voices, Shared Visions: Getting Alignment Right. (Oct. 14-1 6, 2001); http://www2.cio.com/conferences/october2001/coverage33_content.html.

Malhotra, M., Steele, D. & Grover, V. (1996). Important Strategic and Tactical Manufacturing Issues in the 1990s. Decision Sciences. 25(2), 189-214.

Nambisan, S. & Agarwal, R. (1999). Organizational Mechanisms for Enhancing User Innovation in Information Technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 23(3). (September), 365-396.

Niederman, F., Brancheau, J. & Wetherbe, J. (1991). Information Systems Management Issues in the 1990s, Management Information Systems Quarterly. 15(4). (December), 474-500.

Paliwoda, S. (1983). Predicting the Future Using Delphi, Management Decision. 21(1), 31-38.

Pinsonneault, A & Kraemer, K. L. (1993). Survey research methodology in management information systems: An assessment, Journal of Management Information Systems. 10(2), 75-106.

Riggs, W. (1983). The Delphi Technique: An Experimental Evaluation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 23, .89-94.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Rohrbaugh, J. (1979). Improving the Quality of Group Judgments: Social Judgments Analysis and the Delphi Technique. Organization Behavior and Human Performance. 24, 73-92.

Satish, N. & Agarwal, R. (1999). Organizational Mechanisms for Enhancing User Innovation in Information Technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 23(3). (September), 365-396.

Segars, A. H. & Grover, V. (1998). Strategic Information Systems Planning Success: An Investigation of the Construct and Its Measurement. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 22(2), June, 139--164.

Segars, A. H., Gover, V. & Teng, J. T.C. (1998). Strategic Information Systems Planning: Planning System Dimensions, Internal Coalignment, and Implications for Planning Effectiveness. Decision Sciences. 29(2), Spring, 303--347.

Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Taylor, R. & Meinhardt, D. (1985). Defining Computer Information Needs for Small Business: A Delphi Method. Journal of Small Business Management. 23(2), 3-10.

Varon, E. (2000). Be Nimble, Be Quick. CIO Magazine (June 15, 2000); http://www.cio.com/archive/061500/nimble.html

Casey G. Cegielski, Auburn University Brian J. Reithel, The University of Mississippi Carl M. Rebman, The University of San Diego

Table 1: Characteristics of the Delphi Method

Characteristic Description

Anonymity By interacting only with the administrator,
 the panelist remain anonymous to one another.

Controlled feedback Information is gathered and redistributed via
 the administrator.

Group response Individuals contribute information to form a
 group response.

Expert opinion Panelists are selected based on knowledge of
 the topic.

Reduced cost/time There is no need for the to arrange costly and
 time-consuming face to-face meetings

Table 2: Unique Issues from Round One

1. Cost of the technology to deploy

2. Security of the technology

3. Ability to support the technology with current IT staff

4. Cost to maintain the technology

5. Acceptance of the technology by end-users

6. Current uses for the technology

7. Acceptance of technology by customers/clients

8. Reliability of the technology

9. Perceived future uses of the technology

10. Standardization of the technology

11. External support for technology

12. Use of technology by competitors

13. Commercial access to the technology

14. Training for users of technology

15 Compatibility with knowledge management practices

16. Performance aspects of technology

17. Potential measurable return on investment in technology

18. Technology development life cycle

19. Ability to integrate technology over time

20. Integration of technology with organizations outside the firm

21. Ability to gain competitive advantage through use of technology

22. Ability to sustain competitive advantage using technology

23. Compatibility of technology with current business operations

24. Compatibility of technology with future business operations

Table 3: Rank of Issues from Round Two

Issue Rank % of
 Participants
 who Ranked
 the Issue
 Equal to The
 Group Rank

Ability to gain competitive advantage through the 1 48.48
 use of technology
Ability to sustain competitive advantage using 2 39.39
 technology
Security of the technology 3 33.33
Acceptance of technology by customers/clients 4 36.36
Current uses for the technology 5 48.48
Perceived future uses of the technology 6 51.52
Reliability of the technology 7 30.30
Performance aspects of technology 8 33.33
Compatibility of technology with current business 9 27.27
 operations
Compatibility of technology with future business 10 39.39
 operations
Cost to maintain the technology 11 42.42
Integration of the technology with organizations 12 33.33
 outside the firm
Compatibility with knowledge management practices 13 36.36
Cost of the technology to deploy 14 54.55
Acceptance of the technology by end-users 15 36.36
Standardization of the technology 16 69.70
Ability to support the technology with current 17 54.55
 IT staff
Commercial access to the technology 18 42.42
Training for users of technology 19 60.61
Ability to integrate technology over time 20 69.70
Potential measurable return on investment in 21 63.64
 technology
External support for technology 22 69.70
Use of technology by competitors 23 81.82
Technology development life cycle time 24 87.88

Table 4: Rank of Issues from Round Three

Issue Round Round % of
 2 Rank 3 Rank Participants
 who Ranked
 the Issue
 Equal to The
 Group Rank

Ability to gain competitive advantage 1 1 60.61
 through the use of technology
Ability to sustain competitive 2 2 48.48
 advantage using technology
Security of the technology * 3 4 51.52
Acceptance of technology by customers/ 4 3 36.36
 clients *
Current uses for the technology 5 5 63.64
Perceived future uses of the 6 6 51.52
 technology
Reliability of the technology 7 7 57.58
Performance aspects of technology 8 8 63.64
Compatibility of technology with 9 9 45.45
 current business operations
Compatibility of technology with 10 10 63.64
 future business operations
Cost to maintain the technology 11 11 57.58
Integration of the technology with 12 13 51.52
 organizations outside the firm *
Compatibility with knowledge 13 14 54.55
 management practices *
Cost of the technology to deploy * 14 12 60.61
Acceptance of the technology by 15 17 48.48
 end-users *
Standardization of the technology * 16 15 66.67
Ability to support the technology with 17 16 36.36
 current IT staff *
Commercial access to the technology 18 18 51.52
Training for users of technology 19 19 48.48
Ability to integrate technology over 20 20 69.70
 time
Potential measurable return on 21 21 75.76
 investment in technology
External support for technology 22 22 75.76
Use of technology by competitors 23 23 87.88
Technology development life cycle time 24 24 90.91

* Italic Denotes Change in Rank from Previous Round

Table 5: Rank of Issues from Round Four

 3 Rank 4 Rank

Ability to gain competitive advantage through 1 1
 the use of technology
Ability to sustain competitive advantage using 2 2
 technology
Security of the technology * 4 3
Acceptance of technology by customers/clients * 3 4
Current uses for the technology 5 5
Perceived future uses of the technology 6 6
Reliability of the technology 7 7
Performance aspects of technology 8 8
Compatibility of technology with current 9 9
 business operations
Compatibility of technology with future 10 10
 business operations
Cost to maintain the technology 11 11
Integration of the technology with 13 13
 organizations outside the firm
Compatibility with knowledge management 14 14
 practices
Cost of the technology to deploy 12 12
Acceptance of the technology by end-users 17 17
Standardization of the technology 15 15
Ability to support the technology with 16 16
 current IT staff
Commercial access to the technology 18 18
Training for users of technology 19 19
Ability to integrate technology over time 20 20
Potential measurable return on investment in 21 21
 technology
External support for technology 22 22
Use of technology by competitors 23 23
Technology development life cycle time 24 23

 % of % of
 Experts Experts
 Ranking Ranking
 Issue Equal Issue in
 to Group Top Ten
 Rank

Ability to gain competitive advantage through 77.42 100.00
 the use of technology
Ability to sustain competitive advantage using 61.29 100.00
 technology
Security of the technology * 54.84 96.55
Acceptance of technology by customers/clients * 45.16 93.10
Current uses for the technology 70.97 93.10
Perceived future uses of the technology 51.61 86.21
Reliability of the technology 54.84 72.41
Performance aspects of technology 61.29 65.52
Compatibility of technology with current 64.52 55.17
 business operations
Compatibility of technology with future 74.19 51.72
 business operations
Cost to maintain the technology 64.52 44.83
Integration of the technology with 64.52 48.28
 organizations outside the firm
Compatibility with knowledge management 61.29 44.83
 practices
Cost of the technology to deploy 64.52 37.93
Acceptance of the technology by end-users 58.06 27.59
Standardization of the technology 67.74 27.59
Ability to support the technology with 51.61 17.24
 current IT staff
Commercial access to the technology 58.06 13.79
Training for users of technology 54.84 3.45
Ability to integrate technology over time 64.52 6.90
Potential measurable return on investment in 74.19 0.00
 technology
External support for technology 70.97 0.00
Use of technology by competitors 90.32 0.00
Technology development life cycle time 93.55 0.00

* Italics Denotes Change in Rank from Previous Round

Table 6: Comparison of Round 4 Delphi and Exploratory Survey Rankings

Issues Exploratory Round 4
 Survey Issue Issue
 Rank Rank

Ability to gain competitive advantage through 1 1
 the use of technology *
Ability to sustain competitive advantage using 2 2
 technology *
Security of the technology 14 3
Acceptance of technology by customers/clients 3 4
Current uses for the technology 4 5
Perceived future uses of the technology 5 6
Reliability of the technology 12 7
Performance aspects of technology 11 8
Compatibility of technology with current 6 9
 business operations
Compatibility of technology with future 7 10
 business operations
Cost to maintain the technology 13 11
Integration of the technology with 10 13
 organizations outside the firm
Compatibility with knowledge management 9 14
 practices
Cost of the technology to deploy 8 12
Acceptance of the technology by end-users 16 17
Standardization of the technology * 15 15
Ability to support the technology with current 17 16
 IT staff
Commercial access to the technology 20 18
Training for users of technology 18 19
Ability to integrate technology over time 22 20
Potential measurable return on investment in 21 21
 technology *
External support for technology 19 22
Use of technology by competitors * 23 23
Technology development life cycle time * 24 24

* Italics denotes a matching Issue rank between both study groups

Table 7: Stratification and Definition of EIT Integration Issues

Business Alignment Issues Technical Alignment Issues

Gain/Sustain Competitive Advantage Current/Future Uses of Technology
Internal/External Usefulness of Performance of Technology
 Technology Implementation Impact on Systems
Compatibility of Technology with
 Operations