8th International Conference of Modeling and Simulation - MOSIM’10 - May 10-12, 2010 - Hammamet - Tunisia “Evaluation and optimization of innovative production systems of goods and services”

A METHOD FOR THE COMPLETE ALIGNMENT OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Oscar AVILA, Virginie GOEPP, François KIEFER

INSA de Strasbourg – LGECO 24, Boulevard de la Victoire

67084 – STRASBOURG Cedex - France oscar.avila@insa-strasbourg.fr, virginie.goepp@insa-strasbourg.fr, francois.kiefer@insa-strasbourg.fr

ABSTRACT: Nowadays, the industrial and technological context is characterised by the uncertainty and the complexity of its evolutions. In this boarder, companies, particularly in the manufacturing and product design fields, need flexible and adaptable Information Systems (IS) to support their business strategies as well as to facilitate their adaptation to the evolutions of the external environment. In these fields, the so called technical IS enables the integration between the infrastructures, the support of design and production management activities. To address these specific requirements the “classical” alignment of the technical IS, with the organisation's strategy has to be completed with the alignments with its environment and uncertain evolutions. Thus, in order to support complete alignment of Technical IS we propose in this paper a method that couples an extension of the Strategic Alignment Model (E-SAM) to the Multi-Screen Model. Then, in order to operationalise the use of these models, four phases are suggested. KEYWORDS: Technical information system, information system alignment, E-SAM, Multi-Screen, alignment method.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the actual complex and uncertain context, companies have, in order to remain competitive and to survive, to evolve introducing internal changes as a response to ex-ternal forces and pressures. These internal changes should impact, in most of cases, several levels of the organisation.,. These related to the information system (IS), are tackled in the IS alignment field. It consists in making evolve the IS in coherence with all the evolution constraints. According to several authors (Chan et al. 1997, Ciborra 1997, Croteau and Bergeron 2001, Gal-liers 1991) this alignment increases organisation per-formance. In this context, three levels of alignment are suggested in (Camponovo and Pigneur 2004) to enable a global and complete IS alignment. The first alignment level, strate-gic alignment, corresponds to the “classical” -internal- alignment. It exists when the IS is in concordance with business organisation's goals and activities (McKeen and Smith 2003). The second level, alignment with the envi-ronment, takes into consideration the external environ-ment and assumes that the IS has to integrate features for assessing this environment. Finally, the third level, alignment with uncertain evolutions, copes with evolu-tions over time and emphasises the necessity to design IS able to evolve according to future changes in the organi-sation and its environment. From this point of view, IS alignment is not only the alignment of the different "internal" components of the organisation and requires to take into consideration, dur-ing the preliminary stages of IS design, the constraints linked to the environment and the evolutions. The under-

lying objective is to design a reactive and evolutionary IS. In this boarder, this paper deals with the complete alignment, in the sense of Camponovo and Pigneur, of Technical IS, i.e. IS support to product design and manu-facturing processes. For this type of IS, these three alignment levels take a specific form (Goepp and Kiefer 2006b). Indeed, these IS are characterized by: • The heterogeneity of the activities (purchase, meth-

ods, R&D, etc.) involved in product design and manufacturing processes, impacting the alignment with the strategy.

• Particular application domains (product design and manufacturing) where the users are various and not experts in Information Technologies (IT); and for which the links between the IS and the manufactur-ing facilities and design infrastructures are strong, impacting the alignment with the environment;

• An desynchronisation between evolutions of IT (1 year lifespan), manufacturing facilities and product design infrastructures (5-10 years lifespan), impact-ing the alignment with uncertain evolutions.

An analysis, in terms of alignment level contributions, was carried out for the nine IS alignment approaches in (Avila et al. 2009). This analysis was amplified and put in perspective for technical IS in (Avila 2009). As a re-sult we show that alignment with the external environ-ment and uncertain evolution are not sufficiently sup-ported yet. Moreover, supporting and operationalising complete alignment of technical IS requires proposing: 1. Models making the strategic alignment easier, i.e.,

taking into account the heterogeneity of activities involved in product conception and manufacturing;

MOSIM’10 - May 10-12, 2010 - Hammamet - Tunisia

2. Models supporting the whole external environment, i.e., allowing the integration of firm’s activities with those of the partners; to manage the multiplicity of user profiles; and to take into account new technolo-gies.

3. Models supporting the temporal dimension, i.e., taking into account the desynchronisation between evolutions of IT and technical facilities.

4. An approach integrating these models to accomplish complete alignment.

In order to fulfill point 1 and 2, it is proposed, in section 2, to exploit the E-SAM (Extended Strategic Alignment Model) presented in (Avila et al. 2008). The E-SAM extends the Strategic Alignment Model (SAM) of (Hen-derson and Venkatraman 1993) by adding the specific application domain for Technical IS (product design or manufacturing). In order to considerate the temporal dimension (point 3) needed to support the alignment with uncertain evolutions, it is suggested to operational-ise the Multi-Screen Model proposed in (Goepp and Kiefer 2007). It is a bidimensional diagram which en-ables to visualise the evolutions of the organisation sub-systems over time. This model is presented in section 3. To support an efficient use of these models (point 4), it is proposed, in section 4, to couple the E-SAM and the Multi-Screen Model. And then Section 5 presents a set of steps exploiting both models. The paper concludes with perspectives and further researches in section 6.

2 THE E-SAM (EXTENDED STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT MODEL)

Managing technical IS alignment with the strategy and with the environment requires to cope with various stakeholders by assessing numerous expectations, and integrating numerous uses; while managing the strong links existing between the IT to be implemented and the design and manufacturing processes. Therefore, it is pro-posed to exploit the E-SAM (Avila et al. 2008), which adds to the Strategic Alignment Model (SAM) of (Hen-derson and Venkatraman 1993) an additional domain: the application domain. This enables to emphasize and integrate the dimensions linked to product design and manufacturing infrastructures, heterogeneity of activities and variety of actors. We choose the “original” SAM as basis for the extension because: • It draws a distinction between the external perspec-

tive of information technologies (IT strategy) and the internal focus of IT (IT infrastructure and process). It elevates IT strategy from the traditional role of IT as an internal support mechanism (Henderson and Venkatraman, 1999). In this sense it does not only tackle the strictly speaking alignment with strategy but provides the premises to tackle the alignment with the environment.

• Its conceptual elements provide both: (i) components for structuring and formalising domains to be aligned and (ii) building blocks, (strategic fit and functional

integration) to build alignment sequences to be veri-fied.

The proposed extension concerns the static view (struc-ture of the E-SAM) and the dynamic view (extended alignment sequences). 2.1 E-SAM static view: definition of the structure

The structure of the application domain of the E-SAM (cf. figure 1) is derived, by analogy of concepts, from the original SAM, which is structured in terms of three classes of concepts: • Domains: Business and Information Technologies

(IT); • Perspectives or levels (that split domains): external

(strategy) and internal (structure) , • Components (that characterize and compose each

level): scope, competencies and governance in the external level; infrastructure, skills and processes in the internal level.

Thus, in the application domain, a distinction between the external level (strategy) and its internal focus (struc-ture and processes) is proposed (cf. figure 1). In an analogous way, each level of the application domain includes three components: scope, competencies and governance at the external level; and infrastructure, skills and processes at the internal level. To complete the instanciation of each component of the application domain, it is proposed to exploit works in the application domain field (design and manufacturing) and to accomplish a mapping of concepts. The result of the mapping, for each application domain (manufacturing and design), is detailed in the following sub-sections.

2.1.1 Components of the product design domain To detail the design domain, works in the field of prod-uct design strategy, practices and methods like (Cross 1989, Hsu 2006, Stoll 1999) have been exploited. In these works, the product design domain is defined as the set of the decisions and activities enabling the organisa-tion to define the main physical, composition, function-ality and quality features of its products. So, the most widespread design decisions have been defined and allo-cated, in (Avila 2009), to the design components struc-turing the external and internal levels of the E-SAM. As a result, the components are described as follows: Product design External Components: • Product design Scope: this component consists in

two types of choices: (i) product features related to specific client requirements of a specific market segment (ii) new product design technologies that could support current business strategy or shape new business strategy initiatives.

• Competencies in design: design capabilities and knowledge enabling to address specific client re-quirements (e.g. custom product design, modular de-sign, etc) which could contribute to create competi-tive advantages.

MOSIM’10 - May 10-12, 2010 - Hammamet - Tunisia

Figure 1. Structure of the E-SAM (Extended Strategic Alignment Model) (Avila et al. 2008)

• Governance in design: this component consists in two types of choices: (i) design product policies and guidelines defined by design top executives aiming at increasing competitive/profitability in the company (ii) decisions about partnership and subcontracting of the different stages of the product design processes.

Product design Internal Components: • Product design structure: choices that define the

structure or organisation chart of the product design department. Examples of organisation chart are: Hi-erarchical, Matrix, Flat.

• Processes of design: choices about procedures, ac-tivities and methods, defining the product design processes, such as the creative methods (brainstorm-ing, synectics method, etc.) and the rational methods (recommending a design approach in team with well defined stages).

• Human Resources: this component consists in two types of choices: (i) choices pertaining to the acquisi-tion, training, and development of knowledge and capabilities of the individuals required to carry out the product design process (ii) acquisition of compe-tences by the team of designers regarding new design technologies.

2.1.2 Components of the manufacturing domain To detail the manufacturing domain, works in the field of manufacturing strategy like (Hayes and Wheelwright 1984, Hill 1995) have been exploited. In these works, the manufacturing strategy is defined through a set of deci-sions that, over time, enables an organisation to achieve a desired manufacturing structure, infrastructure, and specific capabilities. So, in (Avila et al. 2008) the main categories of deci-sions have been defined and allocated, to the manufac-turing components structuring the external and internal levels of the E-SAM. As a result, the components are described as follows: Manufacturing External Components: • Manufacturing Scope: this component consists in two

types of choices: (i) manufacturing technologies that could support current business strategy initiatives or

shape new business strategy initiatives; (ii) part of products scopes concerning directly their manufac-turing processes.

• Competencies in production: those attributes of manufacturing strategy (e.g. production capability, size and localisation of plants, levels of reliability and flexibility, etc) which could contribute to a dis-tinctive, comparative advantage of the firm over its competitors.

• Governance in production: decisions about partners and type of cooperation with these partners for the whole manufacturing process.

Manufacturing Internal Components: • Facilities and manufacturing equipment: choices that

define the needs for facilities and plants as well as the configuration of manufacturing technologies.

• Processes of production and support: choices of manufacturing approaches that define the activities to ensure the product or service searched. Decision on the processes of support (e.g. quality control, mainte-nance) is also taken into account.

• Human Resources: choices pertaining to the acquisi-tion, training, and development of knowledge and capabilities of the individuals required to manage and operate the manufacturing infrastructure.

2.2 Dynamic View of the E-SAM: definition of ex-

tended Alignment Sequences

The dynamic view of the original SAM suggests four alignment sequences which set potential paths between the involved domains in order to align them. They are built by linking two buildings blocks: strategic fit (rela-tionship between external and internal levels of the same domain) and functional integration (relationship between external or internal levels of two different domains) (Henderson and Venkatraman 1993) (cf. figure 2). A specific sequence can be characterized through the posi-tion of each domain in the sequence: anchor domain (first domain of the sequence), pivot domain (intermedi-ate domain of the sequence) and impacted domain (last domain of the sequence) (Luftman et al. 1993) (cf. figure

MOSIM’10 - May 10-12, 2010 - Hammamet - Tunisia

2). The first and more common and widely understood sequence suggested in the SAM is the “Strategy Execu-tion”. It corresponds to the “classical” top-down ap-proach of strategic management. This sequence starts at the Business strategy (anchor domain) that drives change at the Business structure and processes (pivot domain) that in turn impact the IT infrastructure and processes (impacted domain). Different enterprise modelling methods are available to operationalise this sequence such as, for instance, the TOGAF (TOGAF 2009). This architectural method is based on an 8 phase’s iterative process model called TOGAF Architecture Development Method –ADM. This one is supported by best practices. Using the TOGAF enables to describe the SAM Busi-ness domain with the TOGAF Architecture Vision (for the external level) and with the TOGAF Business Archi-tecture (for the internal level). In the same way, the IT internal level of the SAM can be detailed by the TOGAF Data, Application and Technology Architectures as well as the IT external level can be described by the TOGAF Technology architecture. In the same way, a set of extended alignment sequences are proposed for the E-SAM. These are based on under-lying alignment mechanisms worked out from the se-quences proposed in the original SAM.

Figure 2. Domain classification and alignment building

blocks As a results, ten potential extended alignment sequences for the E-SAM are discussed and detailed according to the anchor domain in (Avila et al. 2008) (cf. Figure 3).

3 THE MULTI-SCREEN MODEL

In order to support alignment with uncertain evolutions, the time dimension has to be taken into account. There-fore it is proposed to exploit and develop the Multi-Screen Model. It is a two dimensional diagram that or-ganises relevant concurrent evolutions of company sub-systems along time (cf. Figure 4). This model has been partially operationalised, in the boarder of IS architec-tures design, in (Goepp et al. 2008), for working out a

coarse IS alignment. Similarly to the E-SAM the static and dynamic views of this model are detailed in the fol-lowing sub-sections. 3.1 Static view of the Multi-Screen Model

A Multi-Screen Model consists of two dimensions: the time scale and the systemic scale. At the intersection of these dimensions, so called screens are drawn. Contents and descriptions of screens are opened in semantics and syntaxes. The time scale is structured according to time pitches. A time pitch corresponds to the time span between two releases of the studied sub-system of the company: here the Technical IS of the company. The last time pitch corresponds to the longest time at which evolutions can be imagined. Between the as-is time and the longest time at which evolutions can be imagined, the Multi-Screen Model aims, at least, to identify the next release of the system. Therefore, there are at least: (1) As-is, (2) Next-Step and (3) To-Be pitches. However their number is not limited (cf. Figure 4). The systemic scale corresponds to levels at which the organisation and its environment could be observed. Ac-cording to the works on the Multi-Screen Model for IS alignment in (Goepp and Kiefer 2008) and to the devel-opments performed in the E-SAM, it is necessary to take into account at least, three organisational levels on this scale. The upper one corresponds to the Business level and describes the company and its relationships with the market. This level is required to ensure, for the studied Technical IS, the alignment with the business strategy. The lower level should be at least the level of Functional Units of the organisation. Indeed, this level is under-standable by all design and technical IS users and there-fore can help in the alignment with the environment. The intermediate level, namely IT and IS, describes the stra-tegic vision of IT as well as its operational deployment by IS development and evolution (cf. Figure 4). 3.2 Dynamic View of the Multi-Screen Model: de-

fining Evolution Sequences

Similarly to the dynamic view of the E-SAM, it is pro-posed to formalise the dynamic view of the Multi Screen Model by the concept of “evolution sequence”

Figure 3: Alignments sequences for the E-SAM

MOSIM’10 - May 10-12, 2010 - Hammamet - Tunisia

Figure 4. Structure of the Multi-Screen Model

Indeed, the issues of the alignment of Technical IS with uncertain evolutions are similar to these of alignment with strategy or with the external environment. As alignment with the strategy and external environment deals with alignment sequences, alignment with uncer-tain evolutions will deal with evolution sequences. Such a sequence corresponds to the successive alignment of screens. It represents the fit of decisions between differ-ent time pitches, or between different organizational lev-els. Thus, an evolution sequence can be represented by drawing a line throw the involved screens. The potential evolution sequences can be constructed by linking two building blocks (cf. Figure 5). • Systemic Fit: corresponding to the alignment of two

organizational levels (Business, IS or application domain) at a same time pitch.

• Temporal Synchronisation: corresponding to the alignment of two time pitches (As-Is, Next-Step, To-Be) at the same organizational level.

In the same way, by analogy with the domain classifica-tion of alignment sequences, a screen can be classified, according to its role in an evolution sequence, as (cf. Figure 5): • Anchor Screen: it describes the initial conditions of

the organizational level driving organisational change. It is the starting point of the evolution se-quence.

• Pivot Screen: it describes constraints related to the evolutions of the involved organizational levels. It is a transition point of the evolution sequence.

• Impacted Screen: it is the screen affected by evolu-tions. It is the finish point of the evolution se-quence

Figure 5. Screen classification and evolution building

blocks From these conceptual elements, evolution mechanisms have been suggested in (Avila 2009). These are neces-sary to work out evolution sequences. A synthesized description of them is as follows:

• Evolution mechanism A: the anchor screen takes al-ways place at the “as-is” time pitch (first column). Indeed, it enables the analysts to find out evolution constraints related to the current state.

• Evolution mechanism B: the impacted screen corre-sponds to the screen describing the Technical IS, at the “next step” time pitch. Indeed, its complete alignment is the main goal of the proposed method.

• Evolution mechanism C: potential pivot screens cor-respond to: Business/Next-Step, Business/To-Be, ap-plication domain/Next-Step, application domain/ To-Be, IT-IS/ To-Be.

• Evolution mechanism D: the first temporal synchro-nization is carried out between the time pitches “As-Is” and “To-Be”.

• Evolution mechanism E: this alignment mechanism operates on the whole of evolution sequences and can be split up in two sub-mechanisms: (E1): the screen corresponding to “Business/Long-Time” is an obliga-tory pivot screen. In fact, long-time Business objec-tives have a direct influence making decisions in the other domains; (E2): there is at least a time pitch in which the screens of the three organisational levels are connected by two systemic fits. These systemic fits could not belong to the same evolution sequence.

4 COUPLING THE E-SAM AND THE MULTI-SCREEN MODEL

In order to deal with the complete alignment of Techni-cal IS, it is suggested to couple the Multi-Screen Model (supporting the alignment with the evolutions) and the E-SAM (supporting the alignment with the strategy and the environment). Thus, three principles of joint use are de-scribed in the next sub-sections. 4.1 Instance sharing

This principle consists in identifying the relationship between the instances of the elements structuring the static views of both the E-SAM and the Multi-Screen Model. It allows information sharing between both mod-els. The following instances can be shared: • E-SAM domain – Multi-Screen organizational level:

on the systemic scale of the Multi-Screen Model, an “organizational level” represents an abstraction level, an organisational viewpoint or an organisational sub-system. In the E-SAM, the concept of “domain” is re-lated to a conceptual framework that delimits a sector or field of the organisation in which administration and operation rules or actions are defined and ap-plied. The later definition is consistent with the defi-nition of subsystem. Thus, it is proposed to associate “organisational level” instances with “domain” in-stances.

• E-SAM component – Multi-Screen screen: a compo-nent of the E-SAM is a set of decisions related both to: (i) the firm positioning at the "external" level; (ii) the firm structure and capacities at the "internal" level. In the E-SAM, each component is described

MOSIM’10 - May 10-12, 2010 - Hammamet - Tunisia

Figure 6. Use cases of the E-SAM and the Multi-Screen Model

and has a clear semantic. So, it is proposed to use these components in order to instantiate, from a semantic point of view, contents of screens. Screens of the Multi-Screen Model are open in semantics and syntax, thus, they can contain descriptions of decisions in syntaxes and abstrac-tion levels adapted for Technical IS users. 4.2 Static view instantiation for information elicita-

tion

This principle consists in identifying the contributions of each model to the information elicitation. Because the actors involved in the alignment process are various, this principle would enable to better exploit the model / ac-tors. Indeed, the instantiation of the support models (SAM and Multi-Screen) enables information elicitation related to the specific points of view of Technical IS alignment

4.2.1 Model/actor correspondence The E-SAM and the Multi-Screen Model include fea-tures adapted to the different actors involved in the alignment: • The E-SAM would be the main and natural support

for the elicitation of information related to business managers and application domain top executives. In-deed, these stakeholders are concerned with high level decision making linked to the company posi-tioning on the market. In this boarder, the E-SAM is interesting because of its component structure en-compassing decisions related to the external level and the internal level of the Business domain.

• The Multi-Screen Model would be the main and natural support for the elicitation of information re-lated to IS users. Indeed, these users correspond to the various specialists working at the application do-main level such as: design and manufacturing engi-neers, designers, technicians, operators, etc. Usually, these specialists do not have a global view of the company. They have a vision of the application do-main and perceive alignment in terms of action plans and resource allocation. In this case, the Multi-Screen Model is interesting because it allows the representa-tion, in a contingent and synthetic way, of the user domain knowledge as well as their alignment vision.

4.2.2 Model contributions to information elicitation To describe the correspondence between the information required for alignment and the suggested models, we propose the UML use case diagram of Figure 6. In addi-tion to the actors “business manager” and “application domain specialist”, the actor “IT analyst” has been in-cluded. This actor represents the various IT analysts in-volved in the alignment process such as IT top execu-tives, IT project managers, IT architects, software engi-neers, developers, etc. The use case diagram (cf Figure 6) represents the spe-cific elicitation needs of each actor. These are linked to the specificities of technical IS alignment argued in the introduction. The proposed use cases represent speciali-zation cases of the three alignment levels of (Campo-novo and Pigneur 2004). A color has been assigned to each use case in order to pinpoint the model which could better support each information elicitation need. The used code of colors is the following:

MOSIM’10 - May 10-12, 2010 - Hammamet - Tunisia

• White: for the use cases describing information elici-tation needs, covered by the E-SAM.

• Light gray: for the use cases describing information elicitation needs, covered by the Multi-Screen Model.

• Dark gray: for the use cases describing information elicitation needs, covered by both the Multi-Screen Model and the E-SAM.

4.3 Instanciation and exploitation of dynamic views

Once the required information elicited through the in-stanciation of the two proposed models, the main objec-tive is to guide the IT analysts in the construction of alignment and evolution sequences. These sequences enable to limit the research field when the alignment vision is not clear and to check the consistency between the objectives and strategies formulated in the different domains. In this way, misalignments and desynchronisa-tions can be identified and addressed. Therefore, it is proposed, in the two following sub sec-tions, several guidelines allowing the construction of pertinent alignment and evolutions sequences.

4.3.1 Building alignment sequences The activities required to work out an alignment se-quence are presented in the UML activity diagram of Figure 7. The first activity consists in identifying and describing the involved domains. To do this, the analyst has to exploit the E-SAM components that have been instantiated and the information gathered in the Multi-Screen Model. Then, taking into account our objectives, the IT internal domain is a mandatory involved domain. Indeed, it corresponds to the impacted domain of the alignment sequence.

Choosing the anchor domain consists in identifying the starting domain which will drive change throughout the sequence. Once the anchor domain identified, the nature of the sequence is defined. Indeed, when the anchor do-main takes place at the external level, the alignment se-quence will have a “planned” nature. When the anchor domain takes place at the internal level, the alignment sequence will have an “emergent” nature. In case of a planned alignment sequence, the pivot do-mains correspond to those instantiated by the managers and the users. Then, to define the alignment order of these domains, it is proposed to choose among the ten extended alignment sequences proposed in the E-SAM (cf. Figure 7). In case of an emergent alignment sequence, a prelimi-nary sequence including an undefined number of func-tional integrations between the business, IT and applica-tion domains takes place at the internal level. Then, a “reverse” strategic fit is fulfilled to align external and internal levels. At last, a planned sequence has to be car-ried out in order to complete the preliminary sequence and to impact the internal IT domain . The planned se-quence identification uses the same stepping as the one described in the previous paragraph.

4.3.2 Building evolution sequences The activities required to build a specific evolution se-quence are presented in the UML activity diagram of Figure 8. Usually several evolution sequences, stemming from different organisational levels, are drawn. We de-scribe how to build a specific sequence at a given organ-isational level. The first activity consists in identifying and describing the anchor screen, which takes place at the temporal pitch “as-is”. The anchor screen can be described from information supplied by domain application specialists

Figure 7. Activity diagram for building alignment sequences

MOSIM’10 - May 10-12, 2010 - Hammamet - Tunisia

(using the Multi-Screen Model) as well as business man-agers and IT and application domain executives (using the E-SAM). Taking into account the objectives of our research, the “IT and IS” level at “next-step” time pitch corresponds to the impacted screen. A temporal synchronisation, for the addressed organisa-tional level, has to be carried out in order to describe the objectives and strategies projections in the “to-be” time pitch. This enables to identify future requirements in-volving new IS functionalities. In this way, the “to-be” screen, for the organisational addressed level, becomes the pivot screen role. Here there are two possibility to continue the evolution sequence: (i) a systemic fit allow-ing an alignment with long term evolutions between other organisational levels; or (ii) a temporal synchroni-sation allowing descriptions concerning evolutions at the “next-step” time pitch in connection with the “as-is” time pitch. In order to choose the next pivot screen, it is necessary to consider the existence of other evolution sequences. Indeed, for the first evolution sequence, both possibilities remain and the alignment order has to con-siderate only the evolution mechanism C. In the other cases, the alignment order has to considerate the evolu-tions mechanisms C and E. The last step consists in instanciating the impacted screen by carrying out the descriptions of the “technol-ogy infrastructure and IS processes” (IT-IS/“next-step”) in alignment with the descriptions of the other screens.

5 ALIGNMENT APPROACH

Several alignment approaches, in conformity with the principles exposed in the previous section, can be sug-gested. We propose here a minimal set of activities adapted to the specificities of the complete alignment of

technical IS. These activities are structured in four phases (cf. Figure 9). 5.1 As-Is Analysis

The first phase consists in finding out information con-cerning the current state (“As-Is” time pitch) of the or-ganisation and its environment. This phase includes two activities: • First activity deals with the elicitation of “alignment

information” stemming from the business managers as well as from the IT and application domain top executives. This activity can be carried out directly through instanciation of the E-SAM components.

• Second activity deals with the elicitation of of “alignment information” stemming from application domain specialists. This activity can be carried out directly through instantiation of the pertinent screens of the Multi-Screen Model.

During this stage, the information exchange between the E-SAM and the Multi-Screen Model, to complete the both models, is possible by using the “instance sharing” principle of section 4.1. 5.2 Misalignment detection

The second phase, which contains only one activity, con-sists in detecting misalignments, at the “as-is” time pitch, between the E-SAM components instantiated during the phase 1. Therefore, it is proposed to build the alignment sequence between these components by exploiting the second principle of joint usage “Instantiation and exploi-tation of dynamic views” (section 4.3.1). This operation makes easy misalignment detection because it allows the analyst to verify the consistence and coherence of deci-sions instantiating E-SAM components.

Figure 8. Activity diagram for building evolution sequences

MOSIM’10 - May 10-12, 2010 - Hammamet - Tunisia

5.3 Long term projection

The third phase, that includes two activities, consists in finding out information related to the potential long-term state (To-Be time pitch) of the organisation and its envi-ronment. Based on this elicitation the related evolution sequences can be built in order to connect the evolutions of the different organisational levels. The two activities of this phase are synthesized as follows: • The first activity consists in gathering and formalis-

ing information concerning long-term evolutions of Business, IT and application domain components. This information is provided by the three actors of the alignment process: Business manager, application domain specialist and IT analyst. Both models, the E-SAM and the Multi-Screen are involved in this activ-ity. Indeed, the joint use principle “information elici-tation” argues that both the E-SAM and the Multi-Screen Model enables information elicitation regard-ing “technology forecasting” and “application do-main evolution”. As well as for the two first activities of the approach, information exchange between the E-SAM and the Multi-Screen Model is possible to complete both models.

• The second activity consists in the creation of the evolution sequences l. This activity is carried out by the analyst thanks to the information collected in both models and following the guidelines to build evolution sequences suggested in the joint use princi-ple “Instantiation and exploitation of dynamic views” (section 4.3.2).

5.4 Building the “next step” alignment sequence

The fourth phase, which includes one activity, consists in building, in the E-SAM, an alignment sequence impact-ing the internal IT domain at the Next-Step time pitch. The construction of the sequence is carried out by the analyst, through the information collected during phase 2 (misalignment detection), and during phase 3 (the evolu-tion sequence construction) . This activity is carried out by following the guidelines to build alignment sequences suggested in the joint use principle “Instantiation and exploitation of dynamic views”.

6 CONCLUSION

This paper takes place in the context of complete align-ment of technical IS. The underlying objective is to de-sign reactive and flexible IS by taking into account not only the existing situation and its strategic concerns but by integrating these linked to the external environment and to the evolution of all these concerns. Existing approaches do not integrate the environment and evolution dimensions and are not adapted to the spe-cific context of technical IS. In this boarder, we suggest a method to perform the complete alignment of such IS. To succeed in two models are suggested and detailed from their static and dynamic points of views.

Figure 9. Activity diagram of the alignment approach First, the E-SAM, extension of the Strategic Alignment Model, integrates the application domain and ten ex-tended alignment sequences. In this way, it enables to tackle alignment with the strategy and with the environ-ment. A particular focus is given to the domain applica-tion because it has a big impact on the technical IS de-sign. Secondly, the Multi-Screen Model consists in different time pitches and organisational levels as well as evolu-tion sequences. By adding the “to-be” time pitch and deriving the IS to be designed from the constraints stemmed, both, from the “as-is” and the”to-be”, align-ment of uncertain evolution can be approached. The principles of joint use and the related approach en-able to operationalise the use of the models. The main idea is to propose an open browsing tool between the models in order to fit to the features of the various stake-holders involved in the alignment. The proposed method is a first step to deal with the complete alignment of technical IS. However, some perspectives remain open. Firstly, additional modelling techniques could be cou-pled to the method in order to support the instantiation of the models. For example, the architecture development method TOGAF(TOGAF 2009) can fit out the suggested alignment approach in order to enables the description of corresponding architectures at each E-SAM domain. However TOGAF supports only the classical “top-down” sequence of “strategy execution” and does not support alternative paths. To support them an activity granularity level should be identified in the TOGAF ADM process in order to fit tips of TOGAF activities in modules, and in this way, be able to support any align-ment sequence.

MOSIM’10 - May 10-12, 2010 - Hammamet - Tunisia

Second, to better support the elicitation of information related to the potential long-term state of the organisa-tion and its environment, the Contradiction Based Elici-tation (CBE) approach of (Goepp and Kiefer 2006a) could be exploited. Then, alignment work, using the E-SAM and the Multi-Screen, will allow the limitation and filtering of information to converge towards the most potential long-term target scenario. Thus, constraints and requirements linked to this long-term scenario allow a more robust description of the IT domain at the Next-Step time pitch. Third, the misalignment detection could be improved with works like the INSTAL method of (Thevenet and Salinesi 2007). This method proposes to characterise formally the possible alignment links. The nature of the links (required, contradictory, etc.) and the associated metrics could be useful to better detect the misalignment and to analyse and understand it in order to better built and lead the identified alignment sequence. Last but not least the suggested method tackles the alignment of one IS to be designed. The mutual align-ment in the boarder of several projects (project porto-folio) remains an open question. REFERENCES Avila, O. (2009) Contribution à l'alignement comple des

Systèmes d'Information (SI) Techniques. Thèse en Ingénierie et Technologie, INSA Strasbourg, Strasbourg.

Avila, O., V. Goepp and F. Kiefer (2009) Understanding and Classifying Information Systems Align-ment Approaches. Accepted with modifications in the Journal of Computer Information Systems (JCIS).

Avila, O. J., V. Goepp and F. Kiefer (2008) Towards an Extended Alignment Model for a Complete Alignment of Manufacturing Information Sys-tems. International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS'08) Barcelona, Spain,

Camponovo, G. and Y. Pigneur (2004) Information Sys-tems alignment in uncertain environments. IFIP International Conference on Decision Support System DSS'2004: Decision Support in an Un-certain and Complex World. 134-146. Prato, Tuscany

Chan, Y., S. L. Huff, D. W. Barclay and D. G. Copeland (1997) Business strategic orientation, informa-tion systems strategic orientation, and strategic alignment. Information Systems Research, 8(2): 125-147.

Ciborra, C. (1997) De profundis? Deconstructing the concept of strategic alignment. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 9 (1): 67-82.

Cross, N. (1989) Engineering Design Methods: Strate-gies for Product Design, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Croteau, A.-M. and F. Bergeron (2001) An information technology trilogy: business strategy, technolo-

gical deployment and organizational perfor-mance. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 10(2): 77-99.

Galliers, R. D. (1991) Strategic information systems planning: myths, reality and guidelines for suc-cessful implementation. European Journal of Information Systems, 1(1): 55–64.

Goepp, V. and F. Kiefer (2006a) KEY-PROBLEM AND GOAL DRIVEN REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING - Which complementarities for manufacturing information systems? 6th Inter-national Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - ICEIS'06. Paphos, Cyprus

Goepp, V. and F. Kiefer (2006b) Outils d'analyse dialec-tique pour la conception de système d'informa-tion. Application aux systèmes d'information de production. Ingénierie des systèmes d'informa-tion - RSTI série ISI, 11(1): 9-37.

Goepp, V. and F. Kiefer (2007) Key-Problems and Mul-ti-Screen View: A Framework to Perform the Aligment of Manufacturing IS. ICEIS. 521-524. Madeira, Portugal

Goepp, V. and F. Kiefer (2008) Multi-Screen View and GRAI GRIDS to model decisional process of manufacturing IS alignment. IFAC'08 - 17th IFAC World congress. Seoul - Korea

Goepp, V., F. Kiefer and O. Avila (2008) Information system design and integrated enterprise model-ling through a key-problem framework. Com-puters in Industry, 59(7): 660-671.

Hayes, R. H. and S. C. Wheelwright (1984) Restoring Our Competitive Edge, Wiley, New York.

Henderson, J. C. and N. Venkatraman (1993) Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1): 4-17.

Hill, T. (1995) Manufacturing Strategy: Text and Cases, Macmillian Business, UK.

Hsu, Y. (2006) Comparative study of product design strategy and related design issues. Journal of Engineering Design, 17(4): 357–370.

Luftman, J., P. Lewis and S. Oldach (1993) Transform-ing the Enterprise: The Alignment of Business and Information Technology Strategies. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1): 198-221.

McKeen, J. D. and H. A. Smith (2003) Making IT Hap-pen: Critical Issues in IT Management, Chiche-ster: Wiley.

Stoll, H. W. (1999) Product design methods and practic-es, Marcel Dekker, New York.

Thevenet, L. H. and C. Salinesi (2007) Aligning IS to organization\'s strategy: the INSTAL method. International Conference on Advanced informa-tion Systems Engineering (CAISE) Trondheim, Norway, 13 June 2007.

TOGAF (2009) The Open Group Architecture Frame-work-Version 9 http://www.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/.