As the above section shows, the role that IS/IT has within an organization is likely to influence the decision making. The role of IS/IT however, is not the only factor that influences decision making of IS/IT integration. Mehta and Hirschheim [36] looked at the decision making process of IS/IT integration in M&As. They propose three different lenses that can be used to interpret the decision making. These lenses are (1) the Wall Street effect, which focuses on meeting the external expectations, (2) the organizational power differences, and (3) the Business-IT strategic alignment. The Wall Street effect and the power differences will have a high influence in early phases of the merger, whereas Business- IT strategic alignment is more influencing in later stages of the process. Besides the identification of the lenses, Mehta and Hirschheim provided a framework to analyse and understand why and when IS/IT integration decisions are made.
An important aspect of IS/IT integration is planning. Alaranta and Henningsson [37, 38] adapted six dimensions of strategic IS planning in the post-merger IS/IT context to relate them to planning effectiveness. The six dimensions of strategic IS planning are comprehensiveness, formalization, creativity focus, flow, participation and consistency. Planning effectiveness is summarized into alignment, analysis, cooperation and improvement. Figure 12 contains a conceptual overview of the relationship between strategic IS/IT planning and planning effectiveness.
Strategic IS planning Comprehensiveness Formalization Creativity focus Flow Participation Consistency Planning effectiveness in M&A Alignment Analysis Cooperation Improvement Planning profile
Figure 12: Effective IS/IT integration planning [38]
Comprehensiveness can be high or low, and refers to the intensity of information gathering. The formalization of the strategic IS/IT planning can be high (more efficient) or low (more flexible). Furthermore, strategic IS/IT planning can have a creativity or control focus. A creativity focus implies an external focus, whereas a control focus looks at the internal organization. Flow can be top-down or bottom up. Participation can be broad, which involves many organizational groups, or narrow by having a small group of key actors. Consistency, referring to the rigidness of the planning, can be high or low.
Alignment means whether the IS/IT strategy is well aligned with the overall integration plan. Analysis refers to the understanding of the information needs and required changes in the organizational processes. Cooperation is about agreeing on boundaries, risks and trade-offs. Improvement refers to learning for future M&As.
The research of Alaranta and Henningsson has some important findings. Most important is that there is not one single best way to achieve effective planning. Rather, IS/IT integration planning should take the characteristics of the M&A in consideration to be effective [37]. However, Alaranta and
Henningsson argue that in M&As in which operational synergies are sought, a top-down approach and a control focus is desirable.
Brunetto [39] distinguishes two integration approaches in terms of planning and decision making. The first approach is prescribed integration which can be classified as top-down. In this approach the key actors, which are the project manager and the consultants, have a more or less closed vision. The key actors construct a future IS vision and based on this vision the new IS is/are installed. After the installation, other actors will make attempts to modify the new IS because they have a different vision. The project leader will set up negotiation sessions in which a selection is made from all initiatives. After the initial integration, the project leader allows more autonomous initiatives of IS employees. In summary this approach follows the pattern of retention-selection-variation.
The second approach is constructed integration, which can be classified as bottom-up. This
approach is assumes that formulating a precise future IS vision on forehand is infeasible. Therefore the project leader has an open vision and wants to solve issues as a collective. In this approach, different actors have more influence when forming the new IS situation. Various views from stakeholders are collected in an inter-hierarchical and interdisciplinary setting. A selection is made from this set of ideas to refine and form the future IS vision. The final step is the collective learning of new practices. In summary, this approach follows the pattern of variation-selection-retention.
In the post-merger integration IT Governance plays an important role. Becker et al. [40] designed a framework that can be used to specify organizational units and their decision fields in the integration phase. This framework can be found in Figure 13. In the framework seven sub-aspects of IT
governance in the post-merger integration phase are identified, which can be found in the middle of the “house”. Each of these sub-aspects has its own team and all teams are coordinated by the IT Post-Merger Integration Office. The IT Post-Merger Integration Steering board makes the strategic decisions about the overall IS/IT transformation. Since the post-merger phase does not only involve IS/IT integration, there are the more general integration office and committee which are on top of the roof of the house. The IT Post-Merger Integration Steering Committees (in the figure on the right side of the house) are used for making specific IT decisions in which department levels should be involved. Finally, on the operational there are the Business Liaison Managers who form the link between the different integration teams and the different departments.
Becker et al. [40] argue that the framework can serve as a blueprint for deciding on decision rights and accountabilities, which is important in an unstable environment such as an M&A. On the other hand, the applicability might be limited for small or medium-sized organizations.