PLANNING TOOLS FOR POST-MERGER INFORMATION SYSTEMS

INTEGRATION
By
Sampson-Orji COURAGE
1.0

Introduction

Planning is a fundamental management activity, especially its strategic application by top management.
Numerous reasons abound for the need to plan and do so effectively to reduce uncertainty, co-ordinate
organizational efforts, communicate effectively between organizational groups, search and discover
opportunities within the business environment, and many others.
In the project management discipline, planning exists as one of 5 process groups providing traditional,
proven processes for developing and improving a workable scheme to accomplish the business needs
that a project was undertaken to address (Duncan, 1996:28). It comprises 24 processes applied in a
related fashion to deliver an integrated project management plan to key stakeholders.
Further analysis into the nature and applicability of this subject has also led to development of theories
and methodologies for ensuring planning efficiency. Zwikael and Globerson (2006) discover that
project planning efficiency varies across industries based on the level of organizational support
provided within that industry, and that the degree of uncertainty avoidance links project planning
quality to project success.
Bendoly et al. (2010) use theoretical perspectives of psychological ownership to establish that selfefficacy (i.e. the competency level of a project manager for executing a project's task) plays a critical
role in resource-sharing in a project environment, both at the organizational and project manager levels.
The above studies reveal that project success is only achievable when there is high efficiency inherent
in project planning practices which in turn vary across cultures and as a result determine among other
factors the extent to which project managers communicate and share resources in project execution
across different industries.
1.1 Project Management Planning Tools
The essence of effective project planning is to initiate and develop strategic management strategies.
Therefore, planning approaches and the result of such efforts vary (Hart, 1992). These variations may
be observed when planning approaches are developed from a risks management perspective in the bid
to increase planning efficiency by avoiding uncertain.
Tools used for project planning depend on the project's nature, which is determined by the project's
environment (i.e. its application domain); some of these tools are unique to project management,
serving as inputs to other methodologies for project management. For example, the work breakdown
structure (WBS) is a standard tool for project scope definition and control as well as input to other
models for project plan development (Duncan, 1996).

Zwikael and Globerson (2004) developed the project management planning quality (PMPQ) model to
evaluate the overall quality of project planning based on processes executed during project planning.
This tool is later applied in their study of project planning approaches and success attained across four
selected industries (Zwikael and Globerson, 2006).
Using the PMPQ model reveals that industries and their relative projects success are associated by
comprehensiveness in developing content for any of the phases of the project development.
In an information systems (IS) integration context, being subsumed in a post-merger acquisition
exercise, using the PMPQ model would require identifying any of its 33 planning products that are
results of each stage of the project planning process for IS integration in a merger and acquisition
context.
However, because IS integration is contextual subsumed in the entire merger and acquisition exercise
and requires intricate attention to a diverse set of processes directly and indirectly related to systems
integration, the PMPQ model lacks in delivering benefits such as strategic fit, preferred management
approach, and degree of formalization although, this model manages to provide a planning process and
associated product for learning and documentation of process experience to continued use.
1.2

Planning Tools for Systems Integration in Mergers and Acquisitions

Mergers and Acquisitions, though different in approach, share a common objective of corporate growth
either through synergy-seeking or increased-domination. However, failure in their application as a
strategy for corporate growth has been attributed to many factors chief among which is poor strategic
alignment between business and I.T perspectives (Bohlin et al., 2000; Carleton and Lineberry, 2004;
Alaranta and Parvinen, 2005; Alaranta, 2006; Alaranta, 2012).
Studies in information systems (IS) integration planning present two major approaches: a one-shot,
straight-forward approach (McKiernan and Merali, 1995; Giacomazzi et al., 1997), and a continuous,
evolving approach (Segars and Grover, 1999; Alaranta and Henningsson, 2007).
While the straight-forward approach is most likely to apply in a stable and predictable organizational
and/or external environment, and the other applicable otherwise, both approaches are feasible as their
theoretical frameworks are based on mature strategic IS planning concepts.
Strategic planning in the information systems context, though a less explicit and evolving discipline
compared to strategic management planning, deals with emergent planning profiles and the
differences in effectiveness among them (Segars and Grover, 1999:200).
This is more inclusive in its approach since it first considers both merging entities (firmA and firmB) in
isolation, taking cognizance of the six dimensions of the IS planning process, before considering and
attempting to predict outcomes of the merger of the resultant entity (CompanyAB).
Segars and Grover (1999) develop the planning profile as a tool for effective information systems
planning in a merger and acquisition using the six IS planning dimensions (comprehensiveness,
formalization, focus, flow, participation, and consistency) as well as the four dimensions of strategic IS
planning effectiveness (alignment, analysis, co-operation, and capability-improvement).

Alaranta and Henningsson (2007) build on this study, acknowledging the theory that planning profiles
for IS integration traverses two extremities of rationality and adaptability creating three templates
strategic information systems planning profiles: two extremes, written-formal (rational and structured),
and personal-informal (adaptable and unstructured); and one neutrality personal-formal (a blend of
both profiles) (Segars and Grover, 1999:206).
The case studies presented by Alaranta and Henningsson (2007) present the differences between both
IS planning approaches, further affirming the facts and revealing the discrepancies in previous studies.

An Information Systems (IS) Integration Planning Profile. (Source: Alaranta and Henningsson, 2007)
1.3

Implications of Planning Dimensions on IS Integration.

The case companies (telecommunications, and production) were observed in a shifting business
environment typical with traditional merger and acquisition environments. Presented below is an
illustration of the extents to which dimensions of IS planning was observed in each case .

(Source: Alaranta and Henningsson, 2007:7)

Both companies followed a top-bottom strategy in the flow dimension suggesting a standard approach
to post-merger information systems (IS) integration. This recommends the top-down approach (a
situation where top-management is initiates the goals of the IS plan) and is consistent with the
recommendation that top-management should buy into, support, and be actively involved in IS
integration.
Again, both case companies follow a controlled focus approach in the focus dimension. This implies
the extent to which analysis is carried out to determine the influence domains of stakeholders as well as
what is within operating level. This goes to show that the more defined an IS integration plan is, the
more likely its execution will be effective and project success can be achieved. A creativity focus

approach during execution of the IS plan can disrupt the flow, leading to unprecedented outcomes.
In the participation dimension, in once case, narrow participation led to misinformation of topmanagement to think that investing in middleware to integrate their disparate information systems was
overkill, only to realize afterwards the falsehood of such advice in their case. However, for the other,
broad participation was sought initially following the top-down flow of the planning process and
evolved as both entities successfully merged into a new unit.
This trend can be attributed to the expanding nature of a merger and acquisition exercise where as days
- and the 100-day mark pass, more processes spawn involving more participation and skilled staff
with special knowledge on integration subjects as IS requiring lesser formal authority to make
decisions to facilitate proper alignment between business and I.T strategies.
In this dimension lies a classic example of how time affects and/or changes the IS environment,
demanding lesser extents of any of the planning dimensions to be applied to suit the organizational and
external environment.
In the dimension of comprehensiveness, while various systems migration paths were developed
beforehand in one case, the other simply followed a straight approach to integration. The former has
been recommended as the preferable case for the extent of applicability of this dimension.
1.4

Conclusions

Both Segars and Grover (1999) and Alaranta and Henningsson (2007) agree to the use of planning
profiles as a framework for information systems planning in a merger context, basing theoretical
underpinnings for their IS planning framework on mature strategic management and IS planning
literature.
However, while the former limits effectiveness in the extent to which certain dimensions for IS
planning are sought, the latter establishes that for some of these dimensions, especially focus and flow,
certain configurations are routine and desirable in a merger context where synergy-seeking is the
ultimate purpose. This is further buttressed by the dynamic nature of typical merger and acquisition
exercises and its innate ability to influence IS Integration planning in unforeseen ways.
REFERENCES
Alaranta, M., (2006) 'Managing the change process of the post-merger enterprise systems integration: a
case study', International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management. , 62.
Alaranta, M., (2012) 'A Framework for Understanding Post-Merger Information Systems Integration',
Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 13(1), pp.530.
Alaranta, M., & S. Henningsson, (2007) 'Shaping the post-merger information systems integration
strategy', Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp.110.
Alaranta, M., & P. Parvinen, (2005) 'Contribution of Governance Theories of the Firm to the Analysis
of M&A and Post-Merger Integration of the Information Systems', The ICFAI Journal of Mergers &
Acquisitions, 2(1), pp.2438.

Bendoly, E., J. E. Perry-Smith, & D. G. Bachrach, (2010) 'The perception of difficulty in project-work
planning and its impact on resource sharing', Journal of Operations Management, Elsevier B.V. 28(5),
pp.385397.
Bohlin, N., E. Daley, & S. Thomson, (2000) 'Successful Post-Merger Integration: Realizing the
Synergies', Handbook of Business Strategy, 1(1), pp.225231.
Carleton, J. R., & C. Lineberry, (2004) 'Achieving Post-Merger Success: A Stakeholders Guide to
Cultural Due Diligence, Assessment, and Integration (Google eBook)', pp.240.
Duncan, W. R., (1996) A GUIDE TO THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE, .
Giacomazzi, F., C. Panella, B. Pernici, & M. Sansoni, (1997) 'Information systems integration in
mergers and acquisitions: A normative model', Information & Management, 32(6), pp.289302.
Hart, S. L., (1992) 'An integrative framework for strategy-making processes', Academy of management
review, 17(2), pp327-351.
McKiernan, P., & Y. Merali, (1995) 'Integrating information systems after a merger', Long Range
Planning, 28(4), pp.462.
Pyster, A., D. H. Olwell, N. Hutchison, S. Enck, J. F Anthony Jr., & D. Henry, (2012) Guide to the
Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) v. 1.0. 1.Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of
Knowledge (SEBoK).
Segars, a. H., & V. Grover, (1999) 'Profiles of Strategic Information Systems Planning', Information
Systems Research, 10(3), pp.199232.
Zwikael, O., & S. Globerson, (2006) 'Benchmarking of project planning and success in selected
industries', Benchmarking: An International Journal, 13(6), pp.688700.