Discussion

The discussion can be used to answer the sub-research question, “What are the efforts and experiences of organisations regarding reaching strategic alignment?”. There is not one answer to this sub-research question since there are multiple findings which are answering this question together. The following findings provide the answer.

The analysed data from the Strategic Alignment survey, described in the previous paragraphs, provide some interesting findings. From the analysed data can be seen that only a few organisations experience strategic alignment; they did not experience any problems during both strategy development and strategy implementation. This is coherent with the findings from the literature review since strategic alignment is according to the literature an ideal state in which there are no difficulties with both strategy development and strategy implementation. Strategic alignment is defined as an ongoing process with continuous adaptation and change. Remarkable is that a much larger part of the organisations experience problems during both strategy development and strategy implementation. This suggests that organisations should improve their strategy process before they can reach some form of strategic alignment.

The analysed data shows that there are more problems experienced during strategy implementation than during strategy development. Developing a strategy might be a daunting task, but implementing that strategy is even more challenging. The literature confirms that many problems occur during strategy implementation since this is when the ideas formulated in the development stage have to become reality. A different finding shows that management is more optimistic about the situation of the organisation during strategy development and strategy implementation. Especially during strategy implementation a smaller part of the management experience problems compared to the other function categories. There could be several reasons for this distinction between the function categories. In the literature review is identified that management is often not involved during the implementation stage which could explain that they experience less problems. Another reason could be that management is not directly affected by each problem while the other function groups are affected, which will lead to management experiencing the problems less seriously. Interesting is that the analysed data shows that only a small part of the organisations have a management which is uninvolved during strategy implementation, which contradicts the first reason for the distinction. What the actual reason is for this distinction is not identified in this literature review or in the Strategic Alignment survey. Corresponding to this finding the architects are most pessimistic about the situation of their organisation since a large part of them experience problems during strategy development and even a larger part during strategy implementation. The cause of this finding is not found in the literature review or the survey.

According to the literature review an organisation must involve the interests of the entire organisation in both strategy development and strategy implementation to avoid challenges and to come closer to strategic alignment. The findings of this research suggest that most of the organisations fail to involve the interests of the majority. Program and Project management becomes involved after the strategy is developed, thus in the implementation

phase. The same applies for the IT which is less involved during strategy development than during strategy implementation. Consequently, the disciplines mainly responsible for implementing a strategy are excluded during the development of a strategy. Strategic alignment is among others about the fit between the business and the IT. When IT does not get involved during strategy development there can hardly be a fit. Organisations should make sure that IT among others has an input in the strategy development phase, which could lead to fewer difficulties during the implementation phase.

Another finding has to do with the involvement during strategy development and implementation. The respondents who were uninvolved during strategy development and implementation experience more problems during development and implementation than those who were involved. This is especially the case for the respondents uninvolved during strategy implementation; they experience much more problems than those involved. This finding also leads back to the fact that an organisation should involve the interests of the entire organisation to be able to reach strategic alignment. A possible reason for this finding could be that the interests of the uninvolved respondents were not considered which will lead to more difficulties for them since the strategy is developed without considering their capacities and capabilities. The literature review suggests that one of the most important pitfalls is that the organisation fails to consider the necessary involvement of personnel in the strategy development phase.

Organisations can support their strategy process by the use of several techniques, methods, tools or models. From the Strategic Alignment survey can be seen that the efforts of organisations towards reaching strategic alignment do not include the use of strategy techniques. Only a small part of the organisations use strategy techniques or methods frequently. A larger part uses techniques and methods sporadically or even never. When the organisations do use strategy techniques or methods (sporadically or frequently) the largest part use the SWOT analysis, followed by the business case as second most used. In the literature SWOT analysis is frequently mentioned as a tool used to support strategic decision making. Even though strategic techniques are not frequently used the respondents are willing to use a software tool (when a good one is available) to support strategy development and strategy implementation.

The final sub-research question, “Why do organisations struggle or experience difficulties when trying to reach strategic alignment?”, can also be answered with the use of this discussion. This research tests hypotheses to see whether certain constructs have a relationship with strategic alignment. These constructs are: strategic alignment indicators, culture and shared beliefs, organisational capabilities, and communication. The data from the Strategic Alignment survey shows that there is a significant relationship between each construct and strategic alignment. It is safe to say that these constructs have an actual relationship with the strategic alignment of an organisation. However, these constructs are main categories which each consist of several indicators. Therefore nothing is said yet about which variable is experienced by multiple organisations as a problem during the strategy process or which variable is a negative influence on strategic alignment. The five variables which are identified by the largest part of the organisation as problems during the strategy process are as follows:

1. Priorities regarding reaching strategic goal(s) are conflicting.

2. Strategy development and implementation are not seen as one process. 3. The strategy is supported by existing information systems.

4. The majority of organisation is not represented during development. 5. Responsibilities for reaching strategic goal(s) are unknown.

These above mentioned problems are present for organisations with or without strategic alignment and provide no additional information about whether they influence strategic alignment. The following five aspects negatively influence strategic alignment:

1. The impact of the strategy on the employees is not known. 2. Priorities regarding reaching strategic goal(s) are conflicting.

3. Long-term goals are unsuccessfully translated into short-term objectives. 4. The majority of the organisation does not understand the strategy.

5. Employees have no understanding of the expected actions.

The five main problems and five main influences have an overlap in one variable but for the others they differ. In the literature review an assessment is made of the variables constraining strategic alignment. Through this assessment was expected that the following variables had a large influence on strategic alignment:

• A poor or vague strategy.

• Reluctance to change or resistance to strategic plans.

• Monitoring and measuring of strategic change is not adequate.

• Management does not clarify strategic decisions.

• Failure of translating long-term strategic goal(s) into short-term objectives or actions.

• Poor or inadequate communication.

While the six described variables from the literature review assessment do present problems for the organisations, they are not the main variables influencing strategic alignment. Only the variable about translating strategic goal(s) is identified in both the literature review and in the survey as an important variable negative influencing strategic alignment. Since some of the literature is dated from several years ago this might provide an explanation for the differences between the findings in the literature and the findings from the survey. The variables that were previously considered in the literature as a main problem are now managed better which results in other problems being the main problem.

The last findings from the Strategic Alignment survey are concerned with the way organisations move from strategy development to strategy implementation. These findings are not discussed in the literature review from this research but still provide useful insights and therefore will be mentioned here. Organisations do not frequently use a controlled language to communicate the strategy. They also do not frequently set the boundaries of strategic transformations. However, when the organisations do set the boundaries they are determined by the budget, the scope of the strategy, time, management, and objectives. The intent behind strategic plans is by almost half of the organisations frequently communicated. They use several communication channels such as intranet, presentations, e-mail, newsletters, or video’s. Usually some kind of meeting is held in which management communicates the intent. A larger part of the organisations, near 50%, aligns different values and goals to one common (strategic goal). These personal values and goals are aligned by defining personal target objectives or by defining values. Training and education are also used to make sure that the values and goals are aimed towards one common (strategic) goal. Organisations do frequently recognise the need for collaboration between stakeholders. However, they are not that successful in tracing interdependencies between stakeholders. When organisations do recognise interdependencies it is mostly done ad-hoc or informal with the use of common knowledge and understanding. Some organisations use formal methods like the stakeholder interdependencies matrix, stakeholder analysis, Project and Portfolio management, or mapping. Necessary changes and actions are frequently defined by organisations through Project and Program management, usually by the management. Several tools are used to 56

define changes and actions such as roadmaps, discussions, and gap analyses. A large part of the organisations have no vertical traceability of how strategic goals are translated into operations. The contribution of each project to reaching strategic goals is also not frequently communicated. When the contribution is communicated it goes through several channels like intranet, newsletters, e-mail, and presentations. Meetings are often held to communicate the contribution and the contribution is determined by the contribution to the KPIs or through project plans or milestones.