Benefit Realization Model of Information System Strategic Planning

Success: A Proposed Model

Bernadus Gunawan Sudarsono

, A’ang Subiyakto

, and Aedah Binti Abd. Rahman

Universitas Bung Karno, Jakarta, Indonesia

Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta, Indonesia

Asia e University, Selangor, Malaysia

Keywords: Information System Strategic Planning, Benefits Realization Model, ISSP Success

Abstract: Information System Strategic Planning (ISSP) is an effort to build an organization or institution in

achieving and realizing success such as aligning information system (IS) with business strategy, competitive

advantage, effectiveness, capability, flexibility, improving performance, increasing competitive advantage

by planning multiple systems information that has a value of success in a certain time either short or long

term. In this study, we have tried to propose a model that adopts the successful of DeLone and McLean

information system model (DMSISM) to be adopted into a proposed model, namely the ISSP benefit

realization success model (ISSPBRM). The success of ISSP which is the goal of ISSPBRM contains the key

to PSSI's success, which includes formal methods and implementation so that it is very suitable to adopt

DMSISM which also includes conceptualization and operationalization of information system success.

1 INTRODUCTION

Information System Strategic Planning is a part

of information systems science that is very

instrumental (Maria Kamariotou 2016)for the

success of an organization (N.F. Dohertya 1999).

The role of ISSP for the organization is seen in

benefits (Earl, 1993) produced when the realization

of ISSP has been carried out (Arvidsson et al.,

2014). The benefit of this ISSP arises as a result of

the success of the ISSP realization itself. A lot of

literature related to ISSP benefits(Earl, 1993), (N.F.

Dohertya 1999).

Research on Information System Strategic

Planning is still ongoing. The success of the ISSP is

also being investigated because the variables and

indicators of ISSP's success continue to grow along

with the continued use of ISSP for the organization.

There was several success factors that are still not

much researched related to ISSP benefit realization,

namely the integration of the ISSP Product role,

Planning System, ISSP Service Delivery, ISSP

usage which will result in the satisfaction of ISSP

usage, and ultimately will result in ISSP benefits

which are the impact of successful realization ISSP.

The role of ISSP facilitators for the realization of

benefits has not been widely discussed and studied.

The role of cultural factors that have an impact on

ISSP benefits realization has also not been much

investigated related to the cultural influence on the

integration of Planning Systems, ISSP Products,

Services and Submission of ISSP Products and Use

of ISSP.

In this literature, authors try to resolve the

problem of the lack of research related to the

realization of ISSP benefits and determine two

questions related to our research, namely (1) What

the success factors and indicators that are needed

from the realization of ISSP benefits. (2) How to

assume this success factor is associated with the

ISSP benefit realization model.

In this study, a theoretical model is proposed,

namely the ISSP benefit realization model. This

model adopts the success DMSISM(DeLone and

McLean, 2002), by replacing and adding existing

variables to DMSISM and determining indicators

related to these variables. The steps taken in this

study were first explaining the literature review, the

second explaining the research methodology used,

and the third explaining the results and discussion,

and the fourth step was the overall conclusion of the

study.

3124

Gunawan Sudarsono, B., Subiyakto, A. and Binti Abd. Rahman, A.

Beneﬁt Realization Model of Information System Strategic Planning Success: A Proposed Model.

DOI: 10.5220/0009948331243134

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Recent Innovations (ICRI 2018), pages 3124-3134

ISBN: 978-989-758-458-9

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Research on ISSP has been carried out more than 30

years ago (Maria Kamariotou 2016)(Alamri et al.,

2016)(Osman et al., 2013, Harun and Hashim,

2017). ISSP plays a role in shaping information

system planning that has a competitive advantage

value (Segars, 1998) in the future. ISSP also has a

role in shaping a portfolio of computer-based

applications that are important in helping to run

business planning and also realize business

goals(N.F. Dohertya 1999). Business objectives are

related to the success of ISSP(N.F. Dohertya 1999)

which is felt in terms of benefits realization (Niemi

and Pekkola, 2009)(Chou, 2015), (Love et al., 2014).

Benefit realization that is successfully realized in

terms of aligning business strategies with IS / IT

strategy (Tallon and Kraemer, 1999)(Chan et al.,

2006), planning effectiveness (Premkumar,

1991)(Segars, 1998)(Newkirk and Lederer, 2006),

flexibility towards external environment (N.F.

Dohertya 1999), and capability for new

opportunities (RHYNE, 1987), (Zubovic et al.,

2014) strengthens competitive advantage (Segars,

1998)(Sakas, 2014) and increases organizational

performance due to IS usage (Premkumar,

1991)(Maria Kamariotou 2016)(Saravi and Dabirian,

2016).

Research related to the realization of the benefits

of a success has been done such as the realization of

ISSP benefits (Earl, 1993) and realization of

Enterprise Architecture (EA) benefits (Lange et al.,

2012)(Niemi and Pekkola, 2009). Generally,

research related to the realization of benefits is done

by making a model first. The benefits realization

model that has been carried out is adopting the

success model of DMSISM (DeLone and McLean,

2002) such as the EA benefit realization model

(Lange et al., 2012). DMSISM is a model that is

widely used by researchers, for example, it is also

widely adopted for the success of information

systems projects (Subiyakto et al., 2015, Subiyakto

et al., 2016, Subiyakto, 2017, Putra et al., 2016) and

The success of Hospital Information System

(Mukhtar and Mishleen, 2018). ISSP is closely

related to Information Systems. The success of the

information system can also be directed to the

success of ISSP. Many kinds of research that use of

DMSISM has been successful for the success of the

Information System, so it is also suitable for ISSP

related to the success of ISSP especially in terms of

benefits realization. In this research, a new model is

proposed, namely ISSPBRM which adopts

DMSISM. The success of ISSP which is the goal of

ISSPBRM contains the key to ISSP success because

it contains formal methods and implementation

(Earl, 1993) is very suitable for adopting DMSISM

which also contains conceptualization and

operationalization of information system success

(DeLone and McLean, 2002).

ISSPBRM is a model proposed for the success of

ISSP because it consists of variables that lead to the

key to the success of ISSP according to (Earl, 1993)

must apply the formal method and implementation.

ISSPBRM adopts DMSISM, where the variables

owned are almost the same as DMSISM with a little

variable name change and the addition of two

variables. Variables owned by ISSPBRM are ISSP

Product Quality variables, Quality Planning

Systems, ISSP Delivery Quality, ISSP Facilitators,

ISSP Culture, Use, Satisfaction, and ISSP Net

Benefit. Variables that are clearly replaced by names

are ISSP Product Quality (ISSPBRM) variable

replacing Information Quality (DMSISM) because

the ISSP output is an ISSP product in the form of

plan, an application portfolio, roadmap, and other

ISSP products, not the information contained in

DMSISM which is the output of IS. Another

variable is the Planning System Quality (ISSPBRM)

replacing the System Quality (DMSISM) because

Planning System Quality in ISSP is one of the

success factors of ISSP which contains the

functionality of ISSP which is applying the formal

method in the form of planning process quality and

planning method (Earl, 1993). Planning Quality

Systems contain activities that are involved in

planning (Lederer and Sethi, 1996). ISSP Service

Delivery Quality variable (ISSPBRM) replaces

Service Quality (DMSISM) because the ISSP

Product is a plan, not an application. variable Use,

Satisfaction, and Net Benefit (ISSPBRM) variables

have the same naming meaning as the Intention to

Use, User Satisfaction and Net Benefit (DMSISM).

Variables added when adopting DMSISM are ISSP

Culture variables which are external factors of ISSP

success that affect ISSP. The ISSP Culture variable

is used to accommodate People and Soft-Aspects of

ISSP (Lange et al., 2012). Other variables added are

Facilitators variables that have an impact on ISSP

increases. (Yang and Pita, 2014, Yang et al., 2015).

3 RESEARCH METHODS

The following in Figure 1 is the stage of the research

method carried out, consisting of 8 phases of

research activities ranging from P1 to P8.

Beneﬁt Realization Model of Information System Strategic Planning Success: A Proposed Model

3125

Figure 1.Research procedures

The activities carried out in research are denoted by

the letter P, namely Phase or phase of research

activity. In P1 of the study of literature produced

documents theories and The Plan model and The

research program. Each of these documents is linked

to two types of lines, namely the data flow line and

the control flow line. This data flow line will send

data in documents to P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7 and P8,

where each phase sequence produces documents.

The control line functions in controlling the

Research Program from P2 to P7.Efforts in the

Proposed Development Model are seen in P2 to P5.

The initial effort in developing the model can be

seen in P2, namely the activity in finding related

theories by assuming the model to be used and

analyzing the theory so that it produces a set of

assumptions theories that are very useful for P3.P3 is

an activity to adopt DMSISM. This DMSISM is then

combined with the renaming of the selected

variables in the adopted model and the addition of a

new variable that is variable Culture (P4).P5 is an

activity in integrating all selected variables whose

names are replaced with new variables, namely the

variable Culture and Facilitators into the proposed

model. Efforts to provide indicators into the

development of the proposed model are seen in P6

and P7. The final activity is Research Writing (P8) is

an effort to write research and will produce a

Research Report document. Table 1 shows the basic

theories and models and their references related to

the research methodology in constructing

ISSPBRM.

Table 1.The Theories and Basic Model

The Theories and basic

models

References

IS Success Model

and that realization.

(DeLone and McLean,

2002, Petter et al., 2008,

Lange et al., 2012)

Adopting,

Combining, and

Integrating Model

(Subiyakto, 2017,

Subiyakto and Ahlan, 2014,

Subiyakto et al., 2016,

Subiyakto et al., 2015)

4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The following in Figure 2 is the proposed model,

namely the ISSP benefit realization model.

Figure 2.The proposed Model

ISSPBRM is a model that can be made by an IPO

system (Input, Process, Output) using the IPO model

(Subiyakto and Ahlan, 2017, Subiyakto and Ahlan,

2014, Subiyakto et al., 2015, Subiyakto et al., 2014),

where the Input from ISSPBRM is the ISSP Product

Quality variable, Quality Planning System, ISSP

Product Delivery Quality, and ISSP Culture. The

process part of the IPO model for ISSPBRM is the

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

3126

ISSP Use and ISSP Satisfaction variable. The

Output part of the IPO model for ISSPBRM is the

Net Benefit variable. An explanation of the variables

and their definitions in the ISSPBRM is shown in

table 2. Each variable has several indicators.

Explanation of these indicators is explained in table

3. In table 4 is a list of definition statements from the

questionnaire on each indicator.

Table 2.List of Variables and Its Definitions

Variable

Name

Definition Reference

ISSP

Product

Quality

(IPQ)

The Degree of

quality from ISSP

output related to

Plans, IS/IT

Strategies, IS

Demand Statement,

Application

Portfolio

availability,

Roadmap.

(Jacobson and

Aaker,

1987)(Lederer

and Sethi,

1992)(Lin et al.,

2010)(Lange et

al., 2012, Ward

et al., 2002)

Planning

System

Quality

(PSQ)

The Degree of

Functionality of

ISSP that will

produce strategic

ISSP products

related to flow,

formality,

comprehensiveness,

Focus, Intensity,

Participation and

Horizon, and BP-

ISP Integration

(RHYNE,

1987)(Papke-

Shields et al.,

2002)(Craig et

al.,

2013)(Premkum

ar, 1991)(G.

Premkumar,

1992)(Premkum

ar 1994)(Wang,

2001)(Wolf and

Floyd, 2013)

(Maharaj and

Brown, 2015,

Osman et al.,

2013)

ISSP Service

Delivery

Quality

(SDQ)

The degree of

quality from the

submission of ISSP

products perceived

by users

(Culnan,

1985)(Pather

and Usabuwera,

2010)(Alamri et

al.,

2016)(Parasura

man et al.,

1988)

ISSP

Facilitators

(IFC)

The degree of

involvement of

Facilitators in ISSP

(Yang and Pita,

2014, Yang et

al., 2015)

ISSP Culture

(CUL)

The Degree of

adoption of People

and Soft-aspect

ISSP in influencing

the success of ISSP

related to

(Madon, 1992)

((Dellemijn,

2011)(Smit et

al., 2012, Craig

et al., 2013)

Leadership,

Strategy,

Adaptability,

Coordination, and

Relationships

USE

(USE)

The degree of

actual use of ISSP

by the user

associated with the

Amount of use,

Frequency of use,

appropriateness of

use, nature of use,

the extent of use

and purpose of use

(FLYNN and

GOLENIEWSK

1993)(Amami

et al., Rogerson

and Fidler,

1994)(Teo and

Ang, 2000,

DeLone and

McLean,

2002)(Petter et

al., 2008,

Arvidsson et al.,

2014)(Popovič

et al., 2014,

Subiyakto,

2018)

Satisfaction

(SAT)

The Degree of user

satisfaction with

ISSP products, use

of ISSP and

submission of ISSP

products related to

support provided to

ISSP user and

Fulfillment of ISSP

user needs

(DeLone and

McLean,

2002)(Petter et

al., 2008)(Lin et

al., 2010,

Subiyakto,

2018,

Subiyakto et al.,

2017)

ISSP Net

Benefit

(BEN)

Benefit ISSP which

contributes to ISSP

success, for

example,

Alignment IS with

Strategy Business,

Effective of

planning, gain

competitive

advantage, and

improve the

performance of the

organization

(Silvius and

Stoop,

2013)(N.F.

Dohertya

1999)(OConnor

, 1993)(Petter et

al.,

2008)(Bechor et

al., 2010, Lange

et al., 2012)

Table 3.List of Indicators and Its Definitions

Varia

ble

Indicators Definition of

Indicator

Reference

IPQ Plans (IPQ1) The output of

the ISSP is in

the form of a

plan

(Ward et

al., 2002)

IS/IT

Strategies

(IPQ2)

The output from

ISSP in the form

of IS or IT

(Ward et

al., 2002)

Beneﬁt Realization Model of Information System Strategic Planning Success: A Proposed Model

3127

strategy

IS Demand

Statement

(IPQ3)

The output from

ISSP is in the

form of a

statement of IS

needs

(Ward et

al., 2002)

Application

Portfolio

Availability

(IPQ4)

The degree of

the availability

of application

portfolio as an

ISSP product

(Ward et

al., 2002)

Roadmap

(IPQ5)

The degree of

the availability

of roadmap

(Ward et

al., 2002,

Lange et

al., 2012)

PSQ flow (PSQ1) The degree on

Locus of

authority for

strategic

planning

(Osman et

al., 2013,

Papke-

Shields et

al., 2002,

Maharaj

and

Brown,

2015)

Formality

(PSQ2)

The degree to

which the

planning process

was structured.

(Osman et

al., 2013,

Papke-

Shields et

al., 2002,

Maharaj

and

Brown,

2015)

Comprehens

iveness

(PSQ3)

The degree of

the extent to

which all

possible

strategic

alternatives are

identified and

considered

(Osman et

al., 2013,

Papke-

Shields et

al., 2002,

Maharaj

and

Brown,

2015)

Focus

(PSQ4)

The degree of

the extent to

which control or

efficiency,

usually seen as a

tight link with

budgets, rather

than creativity is

emphasized

(Osman et

al., 2013,

Papke-

Shields et

al., 2002,

Maharaj

and

Brown,

2015)

Intensity

(PSQ5)

The degree of

magnitude of

resources

committed to

planning as

evidenced by

frequency and

richness of

meetings

(Osman et

al., 2013,

Papke-

Shields et

al., 2002,

Maharaj

and

Brown,

2015)

Participation

(PSQ6)

The degree of

variety of

individuals

involved in

strategic

planning

(Osman et

al., 2013,

Papke-

Shields et

al., 2002,

Maharaj

and

Brown,

2015)

Horizon

(PSQ7)

The degree of

length of time

considered in

strategic

planning

(Osman et

al., 2013,

Papke-

Shields et

al., 2002,

Maharaj

and

Brown,

2015)

BP-ISP

Integration

(PSQ8)

The Degree of

Integration of

Business

Planning with

Information

strategic

planning

(Maharaj

and

Brown,

2015)

Rational-

Adaption

(PSQ9)

The degree of

strategic

planning with

the use of

rationality

(Maharaj

and

Brown,

2015)

SDQ Reliability

(SDQ1)

The degree of

strategic

planning

reliability

(Parasura

man et al.,

1988)

Responsiven

ess (SDQ2)

The degree of

strategic

planning

responsiveness

(Parasura

man et al.,

1988)

Assurance

(SDQ3)

The degree of

strategic

planning

Assurance

(Parasura

man et al.,

1988)

Empathy

(SDQ4)

The degree of

strategic

planning

empathy

(Parasura

man et al.,

1988)

Service

Recovery

(SDQ5)

The degree of

strategic

planning service

recovery

(Parasura

man et al.,

1988)

Systematizat

ion of

Service

Delivery

(SDQ6)

The degree of

strategic

planning

systematization

of service

delivery

(Parasura

man et al.,

1988)

IFC Top

management

participation

and support

The level of Top

management

participation and

support in ISSP

(Yang and

Pita,

2014,

Yang et

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

3128

(IFC1) al., 2015)

Active

communicati

on and

knowledge-

sharing

between

business and

IT sectors

(IFC2)

The level of

active

communication

and knowledge

sharing between

business and IT

sectors

(Yang and

Pita,

2014,

Yang et

al., 2015)

Consideratio

n of internal

and external

environment

s (IFC3)

The level of

consideration of

internal and

external

environments in

ISSP

(Yang and

Pita,

2014,

Yang et

al., 2015)

Appropriate

resource

allocation

for

undertaking

ISSP

exercise

(IFC4)

The level of

appropriate

resource

allocation for

undertaking

ISSP exercise

(Yang and

Pita,

2014,

Yang et

al., 2015)

Performing

organization

al learning

(IFC5)

The level of

performing

organizational

learning in ISSP

(Yang and

Pita,

2014,

Yang et

al., 2015)

CUL Leadership

(CUL1)

The degree of

the ability of

leaders to have

an influence on

the culture of

the organization

(Dellemij

n, 2011,

Smit et

al., 2012)

Strategy

(CUL2)

The degree to

which the

organization has

clarity about its

strategic

direction

(Dellemij

n, 2011,

Smit et

al., 2012)

Adaptability

(CUL3)

The degree of

the ability of the

organization

remain in

contact with and

respond to

change

(Dellemij

n, 2011,

Smit et

al., 2012)

Coordination

(CUL4)

The degree to

which the

systems within

the organization

is horizontally

and vertically

aligned

(Dellemij

n, 2011,

Smit et

al., 2012)

Relationship

(CUL5)

The degree of

the ability of

people and

teams in the

organization to

(Dellemij

n, 2011,

Smit et

al., 2012)

work together

USE Amount of

use

(USE1)

The degree of

the amount of

use ISSP

(Petter et

al., 2008)

frequency of

use

(USE2)

The degree of

frequency of use

ISSP

(Petter et

al., 2008)

appropriaten

ess of use

(USE3)

The degree of

appropriateness

of use ISSP

(Petter et

al., 2008)

nature of use

(USE4)

The degree of

nature of use

ISSP

(Petter et

al., 2008)

extent of use

(USE5)

The degree of

extent of use

ISSP

(Petter et

al., 2008)

The purpose

of use.

(USE6)

The degree of

the purpose of

use ISSP

(Petter et

al., 2008)

SAT Support

provided to

ISSP user

(SAT1)

The degree of

support

provided to

ISSP user

(Chen et

al., 2000)

Fulfillment

of ISSP user

needs

(SAT2)

The degree of

fulfillment of

ISSP user needs

(Chen et

al., 2000)

A Useful

Format of

ISSP

Product (

SAT3)

The degree of A

Useful Format

of ISSP Product

(Chen et

al., 2000)

Preciseness

Information

(SAT4)

The degree of

preciseness

information

(Chen et

al., 2000)

BEN Alignment,

Effectivenes

Flexibility,

Competitive-

advantage,

Improved-

performance

, and

Capability

The degree of

net benefit of

ISSP

(Bechor et

al., 2010,

Subiyakto

et al.,

2014,

Subiyakto

et al.,

2016)

Table 4.The List of Questionnaires Statement

Definitions

Indicator Statement of

Questionnaires

Reference

IPQ1

The institution

has the Plans

(Ward et al.,

2002)

IPQ2

The institution

has IS/IT Strategies

(Ward et al.,

2002)

IPQ3

Institution have

relations with

application portfolio

(Ward et al.,

2002)

Beneﬁt Realization Model of Information System Strategic Planning Success: A Proposed Model

3129

availability as the

product of ISSP

IPQ4

Institution have the

document of IS

Demand Statement

(Ward et al.,

2002)

IPQ5

Institution have

relations with

roadmap ISSP

availability

(Ward et al.,

2002, Lange

et al., 2012)

PSQ1

Institutions have

factors about the

privilege of authority

on strategic planning.

(Osman et al.,

2013, Papke-

Shields et al.,

2002,

Maharaj and

Brown, 2015)

PSQ2

A planner has the

element of formality

on strategic planning,

which planning

process was

constructed and

structured by written

procedures,

schedules, and other

documents, and also

make documentation

resulting from the

planning process

(Osman et al.,

2013, Papke-

Shields et al.,

2002,

Maharaj and

Brown, 2015)

PSQ3

Planners have the

comprehensive of all

strategic alternatives.

(Osman et al.,

2013, Papke-

Shields et al.,

2002,

Maharaj and

Brown, 2015)

PSQ4

Planners have the

elements of

efficiency and control

of the planning

process.

(Osman et al.,

2013, Papke-

Shields et al.,

2002,

Maharaj and

Brown, 2015)

PSQ5 A planner has proof

of frequency and

richness meeting as

the effort of the

determinate

magnitude of

resources committed

to planning.

(Osman et al.,

2013, Papke-

Shields et al.,

2002,

Maharaj and

Brown, 2015)

PSQ6 A planner has a

document of variety

individual involved

in strategic planning

(Osman et al.,

2013, Papke-

Shields et al.,

2002,

Maharaj and

Brown, 2015)

PSQ7 A planner has a

document of the

(Osman et al.,

2013, Papke-

length of time

considered in

strategic planning

Shields et al.,

2002,

Maharaj and

Brown, 2015)

PSQ8 A planner has a

document on BP-ISP

Integration

(Osman et al.,

2013, Papke-

Shields et al.,

2002,

Maharaj and

Brown, 2015)

PSQ9 A planner has a

document of

Rational-Adaption

(Osman et al.,

2013, Papke-

Shields et al.,

2002,

Maharaj and

Brown, 2015)

SDQ1 The institution should

have a document of

ISSP reliability

(Parasuraman

et al., 1988)

SDQ2 The institution should

have a document of

ISSP responsiveness.

(Parasuraman

et al., 1988)

SDQ3 The institution should

have the elements of

assurance.

(Parasuraman

et al., 1988)

SDQ4 The institution should

have a document of

ISSP empathy

(Parasuraman

et al., 1988)

SDQ5 The institution should

have a document of

ISSP service

recovery

(Parasuraman

et al., 1988)

SDQ6 The institution should

have a document of

systematization of

service delivery

(Parasuraman

et al., 1988)

IFC1 The institution should

have the document of

top management

participation and

support in ISSP

(Yang and

Pita, 2014,

Yang et al.,

2015)

IFC2 The institution should

have a document of

active

communication and

knowledge-sharing

between business and

IT sectors in ISSP

(Yang and

Pita, 2014,

Yang et al.,

2015)

IFC3 The institution should

have a document of

consideration of

internal and external

environments in ISSP

(Yang and

Pita, 2014,

Yang et al.,

2015)

IFC4 The institution should

have a document of

appropriate resource

(Yang and

Pita, 2014,

Yang et al.,

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

3130

allocation for

undertaking ISSP

exercise

2015)

IFC5 The institution should

have a document of

performing

organizational

learning in ISSP

(Yang and

Pita, 2014,

Yang et al.,

2015)

CUL1 ISSP should have

documented the

clarity of influence of

about its strategic

direction on the

ability of leaders

(Dellemijn,

2011, Smit et

al., 2012)

CUL2 ISSP should have

factors that

relationship with the

organization has

clarity about its

strategic direction

(Dellemijn,

2011, Smit et

al., 2012)

CUL3 ISSP should have

factors that relation

with the ability of

the organization

remain in contact

with and respond to

change

(Dellemijn,

2011, Smit et

al., 2012)

CUL4 ISSP should have

factors that relation

with alignment the

systems within the

organization is

horizontally and

vertically

(Dellemijn,

2011, Smit et

al., 2012)

CUL5 ISSP should have

factors that relate to

the ability of people

and teams in the

organization to work

together

(Dellemijn,

2011, Smit et

al., 2012)

USE1 ISSP used should

have factors that

relation with the

amount of use ISSP

(Petter et al.,

2008)

USE2 ISSP used should

have factors that

relation with the

frequency of use

ISSP

(Petter et al.,

2008)

USE3 ISSP used should

have factors that

relation with the

appropriateness of

use ISSP

(Petter et al.,

2008)

USE4 ISSP used should

have factors that

(Petter et al.,

2008)

relation with nature

of use ISSP

USE5 ISSP used should

have factors that

relationship with an

extent of use ISSP

(Petter et al.,

2008)

USE6 ISSP used should

have factors that

relation with the

purpose of use ISSP

SAT1 The institution should

have the document of

ISSP satisfaction that

can be valued on the

degree of support

provided to ISSP user

(Chen et al.,

2000)

SAT2 The institution should

have the document of

ISSP satisfaction that

can be valued on the

degree of fulfilment

of ISSP user needs

(Chen et al.,

2000)

SAT3 The institution should

have the document of

a useful format of

ISSP Product

(Chen et al.,

2000)

SAT4 The institution should

have the document of

Preciseness

Information

(Chen et al.,

2000)

BEN

ISSP has net-benefit

that contains success

factor, for example,

good alignment,

Effectiveness,

Flexibility,

Competitive-

advantage, Improved-

performance, and

Capability

(Bechor et al.,

2010)

5 CONCLUSION

This research is carried out to build and propose a

new model, namely the realization of the benefits

model of ISSP. This new model development

method is carried out with the adoption, integration,

and combination of the DMSISM model. This

proposed model is the ISSPBRM model formed

from several variables including ISSP Product

Quality variable, Planning System Quality, ISSP

Service Delivery Quality, ISSP Facilitators, ISSP

Culture, Use, Satisfaction, and ISSP Net Benefit.

The variables integrated into the DMSISM model

are the ISSP Product Quality, Planning System

Beneﬁt Realization Model of Information System Strategic Planning Success: A Proposed Model

3131

Quality, ISSP Service Delivery Quality, while the

variable added are ISSP Facilitators and ISSP

Culture. The relationship between variables in the

ISSPBRM model is conditioned to achieve benefit

realization from the ISSP. The success of ISSP

which is the goal of ISSPBRM contains the key to

PSSI success because it contains formal methods

and implementation is very suitable for adopting

DMSISM which also contains conceptualization and

operationalization of information system success.

REFERENCES

ALAMRI, S., ALMUTIRI, N., BALLAHMAR, H. &

ZAFAR, A. 2016. Strategic Information System

Planning: A Case Study of a Service Delivery

Company. Iarjset, 3, 78-84.

AMAMI, M., BEGHINI, G. & MANNA, M. L. Use of the

project management information system for planning

information-systems development projects.

International Journal of Project Management, 11.

ARVIDSSON, V., HOLMSTRÖM, J. & LYYTINEN, K.

2014. Information systems use as strategy practice: A

multi-dimensional view of strategic information

system implementation and use. The Journal of

Strategic Information Systems, 23, 45-61.

BECHOR, NEUMANN, ZVIRAN & GLEZER 2010. A

contingency model for estimating the success of

strategic information systems planning. Information &

Management, 47, 17-29.

CHAN, Y. E., SABHERWAL, R. & THATCHER, J. B.

2006. Antecedents and Outcomes of Strategic IS

Alignment: An Empirical Investigation. IEEE

TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING

MANAGEMENT, 53-1.

CHEN, SOLIMAN, MAO & FROLICK 2000. Measuring

user satisfaction with data warehouses: an exploratory

study. Information & Management, 37, 103-110.

CHOU, W., YANG 2015. Realizing IT Strategic

Alignment and Business Performance: An Integration

of Three Perspectives. PACIS 2015 Proceedings, 179.

CRAIG, DIBRELL & GARRETT 2013. Examining

relationships among family influence, family culture,

flexible planning systems, innovativeness, and firm

performance. Journal of Family Business Strategy,

109, 10.

CULNAN, M. J. 1985. The Dimensions of Perceived

Accessibility to Information: Implications for the

Delivery of Information Systems and Services.

Journal of The American Society For Information

Science, 36, 302-308.

DELLEMIJN, S. 2011. The Relationship Between

Information Systems Management and Organizational

Culture. Communications of the IIMA 11, 21-34.

DELONE & MCLEAN 2002. Information Systems

Success Revisited. IEEE-Proceedings of the 35th

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

EARL 1993. Experiences Strategic Place in Information

Systems Planning. MIS Quarterly, 7, 1-24.

FLYNN, D. J. & GOLENIEWSKA, E. 1993. A survey of

the use of strategic information systems planning

approaches in UK organizations. Journal of Strategic

Information Systems, 2.

G. PREMKUMAR, W. R. K. 1992. An Empirical

Assessment of Information Systems Planning and the

Role of Information Systems in Organizations.

Journal of Management Information Systems, 9:2, 99-

125.

HARUN, H. & HASHIM, M. K. 2017. Strategic

Information Systems Planning: A Review Of Its

Concepts, Definitions And Stages Of Development.

International Journal of Research In Science &

Engineering, Volume: 3 Issue: 2 March-April 2017.

JACOBSON & AAKER 1987. The Strategic Role of

Product Quality. Journal of Marketing, 51, 31-44.

LANGE, MENDLING & RECKER 2012. A

comprehensive EA benefit realization model – An

exploratory study. IEEE-Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences.

LEDERER & SETHI 1992. Root Causes of Strategic

Information Systems Implementation Planning

Problems. Journal of Management Information

Systems, 9, 25-45.

LEDERER, A. L. & SETHI, V. 1996. Key Prescriptions

for Strategic Information Systems Planning. Journal of

Management Information Systems, 13, 35-62.

LIN, WU & CHANG 2010. The critical factors impact on

online customer satisfaction. Procedia Computer

Science 3, 276-281.

LOVE, P. E. D., MATTHEWS, J., SIMPSON, I., HILL,

A. & OLATUNJI, O. A. 2014. A benefits realization

management building information modeling

framework for asset owners. Automation in

Construction, 37, 1-10.

MADON 1992. Computer-based information systems for

development planning: the significance of cultural

factors. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 1.

MAHARAJ, S. & BROWN, I. 2015. The impact of shared

domain knowledge on strategic information systems

planning and alignment. SA Journal of Information

Management, 17.

MARIA KAMARIOTOU, F. K. 2016. Strategic

Information Systems Planning: SMEs Performance

outcomes. 5th International Symposium and 27th

National Conference on Operation Research Piraeus

University of Applied Sciences (Technological

Education Institute of Piraeus)Aigaleo - Athens.

MUKHTAR, S. A.-H. & MISHLEEN, M. A. 2018.

Measuring the Success of Hospital Information

System across Multispecialty Hospitals in Bahrain. J.

of Health Science, 6.

N.F. DOHERTYA , C. G. M., A. SUHAIMIB 1999. The

relative success of alternative approaches to strategic

information systems planning: an empirical analysis.

Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8, 263-283.

NEWKIRK & LEDERER 2006. The effectiveness of

strategic information systems planning under

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

3132

environmental uncertainty. Information &

Management, 43, 481-501.

NIEMI & PEKKOLA 2009. Adapting the DeLone and

McLean Model for the Enterprise Architecture Benefit

Realization Process. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences.

OCONNOR, A. D. 1993. Successful strategic information

systems planning. J of info Systems, 3.

OSMAN, E., EL BELTAGI, I. M. & HARDAKER, G.

2013. The Impact of Leadership Orientation on

Strategic Information System Planning Processes, with

an Application to Libyan Organizations. Information

Technology for Development, 21, 601-627.

PAPKE-SHIELDS, MALHOTRA & GROVER 2002.

Strategic Manufacturing Planning Systems and Their

Linkage to Planning System Success. Decision

Sciences, 33.

PARASURAMAN, A., ZEITHAML, V. A. & BERRY, L.

L. 1988. Servqual: A multiple-item scale for

measuring consumer perc. Journal of Retailing, 64,

12.

PATHER, S. & USABUWERA, S. 2010. Implications of

e-Service Quality Dimensions for the Information

Systems Function. Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences.

PETTER, DELONE & MCLEAN 2008. Measuring

information systems success: models, dimensions,

measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of

Information Systems, 17, 236-263.

POPOVIČ, A., HACKNEY, R., COELHO, P. S. &

JAKLIČ, J. 2014. How information-sharing values

influence the use of information systems: An

investigation in the business intelligence systems

context. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,

23, 270-283.

PREMKUMAR, K. 1991. Assessing Strategic Information

Systems Planning. Long Range Planning, 24: 5, 41-58.

PREMKUMAR, K. 1994. The evaluation of strategic

information system planning Information &

Management 26, 327-340

PUTRA, S. J., SUBIYAKTO, A. A., AHLAN, A. R. &

KARTIWI, M. 2016. A Coherent Framework for

Understanding the Success of an Information System

Project. TELKOMNIKA (Telecommunication

Computing Electronics and Control), 14, 302.

RHYNE 1987. Contrasting Planning Systems In High,

Medium, And Low-Performance companies. Journal

of Management Studies, 24: 4.

ROGERSON & FIDLER 1994. Strategic Information

Systems Planning: Its Adoption and Use. Information

Management & Computer Security, 2, 12-17.

SAKAS, E. A. 2014. Modeling strategic management for

the development of competitive advantage, based on

technology. Journal of Systems and Information

Technology, 16, 187-209.

SARAVI & DABIRIAN 2016. The Effect of Strategic

Planning of Information Systems in Improving the

Performance of a Supply Chain. International Journal

Of Humanities And Cultural Studies, 1646-1660.

SEGARS 1998. Strategic Information Systems Planning

Success: An Investigation of the Construct and Its

Measurement. MIS Quarterly.

SILVIUS, A. J. G. & STOOP, J. 2013. The Relationship

between the Process of Strategic Information Systems

Planning and Its Success: An Explorative Study. 2013

46th Hawaii International Conference on System

Sciences, 4495-4501.

SMIT, DELLEMIJN & SILVIUS 2012. The Relationship

Between Organizational Culture, Information Systems

Management, And Change Readiness. PACIS 2012

Proceedings, 143.

SUBIYAKTO, A. 2017. Development of the Readiness

and Success Model for Assessing the Information

System Integration. ICOSAT.

SUBIYAKTO, A., AHLAN, A. R., KARTIWI, M. &

PUTRA, S. J. 2016. Measurement of the information

system project success of the higher education

institutions in Indonesia: a pilot study. Int. J. Business

Information Systems, 23.

SUBIYAKTO, A. A. 2018. Assessing Information System

Integration Using a Combination of the Readiness and

Success Models. Bulletin of Electrical Engineering

and Informatics, 7, 400-410.

SUBIYAKTO, A. A. & AHLAN, A. R. 2014.

Implementation of Input-Process-Output Model for

Measuring Information System Project Success.

TELKOMNIKA Indonesian Journal of Electrical

Engineering, 12.

SUBIYAKTO, A. A. & AHLAN, A. R. 2017.

Implementation of Input-Process-Output Model for

Measuring Information System Project Success.

TELKOMNIKA Indonesian Journal of Electrical

Engineering, 12, 5603-5612.

SUBIYAKTO, A. A., AHLAN, A. R., PUTRA, S. J. &

KARTIWI, M. 2015. Validation of Information

System Project Success Model. SAGE Open, 5,

215824401558165.

SUBIYAKTO, A. A., AHLAN, A. R. & SUKMANA, H.

T. 2014. An Alternative Method for Determining

Critical Success Factors of Information System

Project. TELKOMNIKA (Telecommunication

Computing Electronics and Control), 12, 665.

SUBIYAKTO, A. A., ROSALINA, R., UTAMI, M. C.,

KUMALADEWI, N. & PUTRA, S. J. 2017. The

Psychometric And Interpretative Analyses For

Assessing The End-User Computing Satisfaction

Questionnaire. 5th International Conference on

Information Technology for Cyber and IT Service

Management (CITSM).

TALLON & KRAEMER 1999. A Process-oriented

Assessment of the Alignment of Information Systems

and Business Strategy: Implications for IT Business

Value. the Fourth Americas Conference on

Information Systems (AIS), Baltimore, Maryland, A.

TEO & ANG 2000. How useful are strategic plans for

information systems? BEHAVIOUR &

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, 19, 275 - 282.

WANG, T. 2001. Factors Affecting Information Systems

Planning Effectiveness: Organizational Contexts and

Beneﬁt Realization Model of Information System Strategic Planning Success: A Proposed Model

3133

Planning Systems Dimension. Information &

Management, 40, 287-303.

WARD, J., GRIFFITHS, P. M. & WHITMORE, P. 2002.

Strategic planning for information systems, Wiley

Chichester.

WOLF, C. & FLOYD, S. W. 2013. Strategic Planning

Research: Toward a Theory-Driven Agenda. Journal

of Management, XX, 1-35.

YANG, J. & PITA, Z. 2014. Research Instrument For The

Measurement Of Facilitators For Enhancing SISP

Success And Dynamic Capabilities. PACIS 2014

Proceedings.

YANG, J., SINGH, M., PITA, Z. & STOREY, I. 2015.

The Relationship Between Strategic Information

Systems Planning Facilitators And The Success Of

South Korean Organizations. PACIS 2015

Proceedings.

ZUBOVIC, PITA & KHAN 2014. A Framework For

Investigating The Impact Of Information Systems

Capability On Strategic Information Systems Planning

Outcomes. PACIS 2014 Proceedings, 317.

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

3134