Aligning corporate planning and business intelligence: a combined maturity model

Transcription

1 Aligning corporate planning and business intelligence: a combined maturity model Frederik Marx 1, Gerrit Lahrmann 1, Robert Winter 1 Abstract. Striving for planning effectiveness and efficiency, corporate planning is subject to change. On the one hand, changed business requirements demand necessary adjustments. On the other hand, new planning s promise to facilitate corporate planning. To support an aligned development of corporate planning and business intelligence (BI), an integrated maturity model is needed. Such a maturity model not only supports the assessment of strengths and weaknesses of a company's own efforts, but also provides an outlook on future developments in both domains. As current corporate planning maturity models do not address BI and existing BI maturity models lack a corporate planning functional perspective, this paper presents an integrated corporate planning and BI maturity model. Introduction Corporate planning typically consists of four major planning subsystems: strategic planning, long-term planning, operational planning, and forecasting [22, 25]. According to empirical studies, these subsystems change nearly every year regarding the planning content, models, and processes [3]. Corporate planners are striving for more efficiency in their field of work by reducing the partially large planning efforts and therefore modifying the subsystems. Furthermore, effectiveness is a major change driver: Changing context variables like economic situations, business models, technology development, and innovations in corporate planning itself demand adjustments of corporate planning in business practice [1, 21]. As corporate planning is heavily dependent on information technology (IT)-based planning s, these are subject to change as well [28, 35]. Furthermore, software vendors are pushing new planning s into the market, driven by new technology possibilities and improved user interfaces and self-administrable s [28, 35]. In this situation, corporate planners need orientation from functional corporate planning development and also from new BI possibilities. In addi- 1 University of St. Gallen, Institute of Information Management, St. Gallen, Switzerland, {frederik.marx, gerrit.lahrmann, robert.winter}@unisg.ch

2 2 tion, internal BI departments have to be aware of future corporate planning developments in order to support an adequate BI infrastructure. Maturity models are an established means to identify strengths and weaknesses of certain domains of an organization. They consist of multiple, archetypal levels of maturity of a certain domain and can be used for organizational assessment and organizational development. Our literature analysis shows that corporate planning maturity models do not or rarely address BI [16, 35]. Existing BI maturity models lack a corporate planning functional perspective [24]. Following the design science paradigm of information systems research [20, 29], this paper has the goal to bridge those gaps by outlining a combined corporate planning and BI maturity model. Such a model promises to assist aligned business and IT development. After setting the methodical foundations (cf. section 2), we describe what corporate planning and BI entail (cf. section 3). Subsequently, we focus on the maturity model itself by identifying maturity models of planning (cf. section 4.1) and allocating planning s on maturity levels (cf. section 4.2). We end with an evaluation of the aligned maturity model by using seven case studies (cf. section 5) and a final discussion of our results (cf. section 6). Research method According to March & Smith [26], design research is defined to produce and apply knowledge of tasks in order to create effective artefacts that serve human purposes. In contrast to natural sciences, which aim for developing and verifying theories that explain and predict behavioural aspects of the reality, design research intend to advance existing capability limitations [20]. Design research is therefore considered as a problem-oriented approach that aims for building and evaluating innovative artefacts which can take the form of constructs, models, methods, and implementations [26]. As the overall goal of this work is to draft an aligned corporate planning and BI maturity model, this paper adheres to the design research paradigm [20, 26]. Maturity describes a state of being complete, perfect or ready [33]. In order to reach a desired state of maturity, an evolutionary transformation path from an initial to a target stage needs to be progressed [12]. Maturity models are used to guide this transformation process. Typically, a maturity model consists of several levels (also called stages) of maturity and a number of structuring dimensions. Each level has its own distinguishing descriptor that provides a clear indication of the intent of the level and a detailed description or summary of its characteristics. Dimensions are specific capability areas structuring the field of interest. Each dimension is further specified and described by a number of elements or activities (or measures) at each maturity level [9, 12]. Several procedure models have been developed that support the construction of maturity models [4, 9], which are basically instantiations of the general design sci-

3 3 ence research process [26, 29]. The maturity model in this paper is constructed by using the procedure model by De Bruin et al. [9] (c.f. Fig 1). Fig. 1: Constructional process (adapted from De Bruin et al. [9]) As we have already outlined the scope of the maturity model in the introduction of this paper, we are focusing on the design and population phase of maturity model construction. As this paper represents research in progress, we focus on the construction of the maturity model itself, neglecting the assessment model and the maintenance in this first iteration. By means of a literature analysis, we identify and describe relevant subsystems of corporate planning and corresponding BI s. These define the solution space for the maturity model to be constructed. Then we design and populate the model by using an analytical top-down approach as proposed by De Bruin et al. [9]. A top-down approach at first specifies the maturity levels and their descriptions. In a second step, the corresponding characteristics are determined. 2 We use an existing life-cycle model of organizations as underlying meta-model [31]. Organizational life-cycle models are a form of maturity models which describe the development of organizations by discrete stages and characteristics such as corporate strategy and organizational structure [31]. Stages are seen as successful patterns of organizational design, due to their internal logic and integrity [34]. As a result of their superior organizational perspective, they not only influence the subsequent design of but also align corporate planning and BI [10, 16, 27]. To populate the meta-model, we use the result of the literature analysis by mapping corporate planning subsystems and BI to the maturity levels as proposed by IS design models [37]. For testing, we use seven qualitative case interviews evaluating the models at large organizations. According to Yin [39] case studies are an established means for explorative analysis and validation. Finally, we deploy the model within this article. Corporate planning and BI: an overview In this section, we first provide an overview of corporate planning by outlining relevant planning subsystems. Following, we identify corresponding BI s. 2 A bottom-up approach first defines dimensions and characteristics representing maturity and then descriptions are derived from it.

4 4 Corporate planning subsystems The planning system should support the systematic thinking and designing of the future of a corporation and its major business units by defining goals in terms of strategies and plans [23]. Furthermore, planning is integrative, as it sets aligned goals in order to coordinate the company's different activities and resource allocation [19, 23]. Addressing those different targets, planning in research and practice has developed different subsystems: operational planning/budgeting, forecasting, and long-term/strategic planning [5, 18]. Operational planning, also called action planning, focuses on integration and operational effectiveness as it coordinates the company`s next year activities [11]. On business unit level, it integrates the quantities of the functional part-plans of sales, production, procurement, and staffing multiplied with standard prices or costs into one master plan or master budget. On a corporate level, it integrates the budgets of the business units into one corporate budget [6]. A key characteristic of operational planning is the top-down or bottom-up budgeting process once per year. Forecasts are predictions of the development of real-world phenomena related to the corporation. In the planning system, they are used as input for the planning process or as a complement to the operational budget [11]. The latter prompt the management to look at risks and opportunities not anticipated in the budget [8]. Long-term planning broadens the focus of the management attention not only on short-term goals, but also on the long-term development of the company. Longterm planning often has a scope of three to five years. Therefore, it is heavily based on advanced forecasting tools, including trend analysis and regression. Long-term planning has been traditionally focused on financials [16]. With the strategic management approach, long-term planning shifts to strategic planning emphasizing strategic thinking and adaptation to the environment [5]. Its focus shifts to visions, missions, and strategies, i.e. on (qualitative) content and innovations rather than on financials/budgets, on the exploration of alternative futures rather than on extrapolation of historical business data [18]. The crafting of strategy calls for a specific strategy process and strategic instruments, e.g. strength, weakness, opportunities, and threat (SWOT) analysis, business portfolio approaches, the balanced scorecard (BSC), etc. [5]. Strategic planning is input for operational planning. Forecast, planning, and operational figures are used for comparisons. The following functional map (cf. fig 2) depicts the planning subsystems and their relationships. It extends the work of Frezatti et al. [13] by a forecasting function as described above. Fig. 2 Corporate planning subsystems (adapted from Frezatti et al [13])

5 5 BI types Since the 1960s, the support of corporate management with IS has been an ongoing topic. From the support of transactional processing and reporting (transaction processing systems), the development of IT leads to an evolution of IS-based managerial decision support systems (DSS) [7]. In addition to s, the corporate IS landscape also encompasses integration infrastructure, such as DWs and enterprise integration systems, which are necessary to enable the communication and information sharing between the s [32]. This leads to widespread accepted reference architecture models of BI, oriented towards the IS pyramid, incorporating source systems, integration infrastructure, and analytical s [32, 36]. Following Watson, business intelligence is a broad category of s, technologies and processes for gathering, storing, accessing, and analyzing data to help business users to make better decision [36]. As we aim at the identification of real-world designs in the field of corporate planning, we outline the relevant BI s as identified in the literature [2, 35]. Thereby, we focus on standard software components, as this has been established in the field of corporate management [3, 28]. The following Fig. 3 shows the portfolio of BI s available. The focus is on analytical s, but we also provide relevant integration systems and source systems. The descriptions are derived from the literature [2, 28, 32, 35]. Examples of standard software from three leading vendors are provided [14]. In terms of analytics, we follow the differentiation proposed by Baars and Kemper [22] and distinguish between generic and concept-oriented s. The latter are incorporating business logic (models and workflows) and are specific for some planning subsystems [2, 28, 35]. Category Concept oriented analytical Generic analytcial Integration system Source system Type Strategic planning Financial planning Consolidation Spreadsheet OLAP DW ERP Description Strategic planning solutions especially address strategy formulation and visualization and the subsequent defining and tracking of strategic initiatives. They support quantitative data and allow linking corporate strategy KPIs to divisional strategy KPIs and also to KPIs of strategic initiatives and projects. Often, they include BSC approaches for cascading strategic targets. Financial planning s provide tools for the flexible development of planning models and offer planning functionalities like allocation, distribution, simulations, and scenarios. Often, they are based on OLAP databases. Usually, these planning s support the planning workflow from data loading up to reconciliation. Consolidation s are preliminarily designed for financial consolidation according to legal requirements and for management consolidation. Sometimes, consolidation s are also used for data loading and the aggregation of planning values. Spreadsheet s, are highly used in corporate planning, for decentralized and centralized calculation of planning figures. Advantages of spreadsheet solutions are the high degree of modeling flexibility, the user-friendliness and the low initial costs The central feature of OLAP s is multidimensional data modeling. OLAP is interesting for corporate planning as it allows aggregation and even some moderate levels of financial consolidation of data along the corporate organizational and product hierarchies and some calculations, such as contribution margins. In terms of integration systems, the data warehouse centric architecture has been established. The DW (and data marts, as a subset of the DW) serves as data integrator from diverse source system and as data provider and storage for the following analytical s. Enterprise resource planning systems (ERP) are important data sources for corporate management. They are used to support transactions along business processes. ERP also offers specific modules supporting integrated operational planning, but today ERP focus more on transactions processing than on planning. Vendor example IBM Cognos Balanced Scorecard Oracle PeopleSoft Scorecard SAP Strategy Management IBM Cognos Planning IBM Cognos TM1 Oracle's PeopleSoft Planning and Budgeting SAP Integrated planning SAP BO Planning and Consolidation, IBM Cognos Controller, Oracle Hyperion Oracle PeopleSoft Consolidation SAP Business Consolidation Microsoft's (MS) Excel IBM Cognos BI OLAP Oracle OLAP SAB Business Explorer Analyzer IBM's DB2 Oracle's 11g database SAB BW (Business Warehouse), Oracle Enterprise One SAP ERP Fig. 3: Relevant BI s

6 6 Design and population of the maturity model We now focus on the model construction itself. As mentioned above, we follow the top-down process of maturity model construction. First, we specify the metamodel and populate the maturity levels from a planning perspective by outlining characteristics of the different dimensions. In a second step, we allocate the identified BI s to the maturity levels. Meta-model and corporate planning maturity levels The sequence of the outlined corporate planning subsystems reveals a first glance at corporate planning maturity, as these instruments have been developed in literature and business practice in historical order [5]. But to be effective and efficient, these corporate planning subsystems need to be tailored to each other and to the contingencies of the company [1]. As empirical analyses show, the design of corporate planning systems is mainly influenced by the organizational structure (e.g. size and diversification) and corporate strategy (e.g. growth or cost-orientation) [17, 38]. To integrate these contingencies and subsystems, and also to derive a consistent maturity model, we choose a life-cycle model of organizations. We select the model of Pümpin and Prange as it is based on further maturity models of organizational development and provides the needed perspectives of corporate strategy and organizational structure [31]. We map the planning subsystems and their characteristics according to the requirements of the stages. The allocations are based on results of corporate planning contingency research [17, 38], and as proposed by Becker et al. [4] on the reuse of (the few) existing planning maturity models [15, 16]. In the following, we describe the maturity levels according to corporate strategy, organizational structure, and the planning system: Level 1: Informal planning: The company is in its pioneering phase. Therefore, corporate strategy is focused on shaping its success potential in terms of technology and markets. As the company is small and the leadership is centred on the company s founder, there is no need for a formal planning system. Level 2: Corporate operational planning: The company is in its first growth phase exploring its success potentials and markets, but also focusing on operational effectiveness. The structure is driven by specialization and oriented along the value chain. The diversification is still low. The increasing size demands a formalization of corporate management. Therefore, the planning system consists of an integrated operational planning. Out of top-down targets, the annual budget is generated by a bottom-up process. The operational planning system is complemented by a forecast, predicting the development for the current year and allowing reactions to meet the budget. Long-term and strategic planning is done informally by top management.

7 Level 3: Corporate financial planning: The company is in its second growth phase. The increasing size and diversification leads to divisional group structures. Management is decentralized with much autonomy and full responsibility: operational planning and strategy development is done on a divisional level. The corporate centre is staffed minimally and has its focus on financial planning and control: Annual budgets are the main focus of the corporate planning process complemented by a financial forecast. As corporate managers and planners have to learn to balance resources between divisions in the long run, the planning system is supplemented by financial-oriented long-term and cash-flow planning. The longterm planning is focused on three to five years and sets objectives for the annual budget of the divisions. Formal corporate strategic planning is missing. Divisions may develop their own strategic planning system. Level 4: Corporate strategic planning becomes necessary as the company shifts from internal growth to external growth (e.g. acquisitions) and develops matrix structures that demand cross-divisional coordination. Divisions are responsible for strategic planning, budgeting, and capital expenditure, but the corporate centre reserves the right to ensure that divisional strategic plans are sound and fit in with the corporate development. The corporate centre also sponsors and launches certain strategic initiatives. Corporate planning shifts from pure financial planning to a balanced planning of financial and qualitative information: Next to the annual budget and forecast, there is a formalized strategic planning with a horizon of three to five years as complement to or instead of financial long-term planning. Supporting the forward-looking shift, forecast and strategic planning use rolling horizons. Corporate strategic planning is done by integrating or setting targets for divisional strategic business plans. The strategic planning sets multidimensional targets for the annual budget, e.g. by using BSC dimensions. Other strategic instruments, e.g. scenarios and simulations, are implemented as well. Level 5: Corporate strategic management: The company manages hundreds of different evolving and also declining businesses. Strategic thinking is well spread all over the company. In order to align the different strategic initiatives within the company, strategic planning and operational planning are integrated in a company-wide planning framework, which consists of a long- and a short-term integrated strategic planning process, balanced in terms of financial and qualitative information. Both instruments shift from fixed to rolling planning horizons. This especially addresses a shift from operational planning and complementing forecast to a single rolling operational planning. Driven by planning efficiency and in order to compensate problems which are associated with a complete central framework, the corporate centre only requests a reduced set of key performance indicators (KPIs). The corporate centre reserves the right to selectively reduce the autonomy of divisions as financial pressure increases. 7

8 8 Support of maturity levels Outlined the maturity levels and their planning subsystems, this section allocates the identified BI s to the maturity levels using an analytical and an empirical approach. Analytically, the allocation is done by mapping the capabilities of the s with the requirements of the maturity levels and by integrating results of the existing knowledge base [3, 28, 35]. In order to refine the analytical results, seven explorative case studies of corporate planning systems of large enterprises have been carried out (see also next section). As shown by the empirical groundwork, the maturity model needs to differentiate between central and decentralized planning s to reflect the corporate planning s landscape properly. The results of the mapping are described below: Informal planning is characterized by a small enterprise size and the lack of a formal planning system. Therefore, corporate planning is only supported by the use of spreadsheet solutions. Corporate operational planning is realized by using ERP solutions or financialoriented planning s. ERP solutions usually provide an integrated model especially designed for the operational planning of functional organizations. Alternatively, financially planning s providing and integrated planning model. They need more modelling up front, but are recommended if operational planning is heavily oriented around financials. Forecasts are usually prepared outside the dedicated planning s using spreadsheet solutions. Corporate financial planning is associated with larger divisional enterprises. At the corporate level, there is usually a financial planning solution, which is used for the necessary advanced forecasting, long-term planning, and portfolio cash-flow planning. This solution is also used for target communication, data loading, aggregation, and reconciliation of divisional planning data. The planning and forecasting of divisions and subdivisions is prepared in a decentralized way, either using MS Excel or in the case of larger divisions by individual decentralized financial planning s or ERP solutions. In order to avoid initial costs associated with dedicated planning solutions, companies use their existing financial consolidation to aggregate planning data. Operational planning is done in a decentralized way. Strategic planning is done informally at the corporate level. Divisions may use their own strategic planning. Corporate strategic planning adds a specific strategic planning solution to the s used at the level of corporate financial planning. Even if there is a need for full strategy formulation support, the focus is normally only on tools for strategy visualization, managing strategic initiatives and BSC. Quantitative information, SWOT analyses, and portfolio planning are still mainly realized outside of enterprise tools, using spreadsheets and other desktop s, e.g. MS Word, and MS PowerPoint. Corporate strategic management: This level needs a company-wide integrated framework for strategic planning on long- and short-term levels. This demands a solution which integrates the strength of financial planning s and of

9 9 strategic planning s. Next to financial aggregation, quantitative data should also be handled along the company hierarchies. Strategic initiatives should be based on the same data model as financial planning, so that strategic planning and tracking of cross divisional initiatives become fully integrated with the organizational structure. The following figure 1 provides an overview of the combined maturity model. We differentiate the dimensions of corporate (planning) contingencies, corporate planning, and BI. These group the sub-dimensions of corporate strategy, corporate structure, operational planning, forecasting, strategic planning, decentralized and central s. BI Corporate planning Corporate contingencies Fig. 4 Combined maturity model Test and evaluation As prescribed by the development process and also by the design science research [29], maturity models need to be tested and evaluated with regard to content completeness and accuracy. As proposed by design science research, we follow an analytical and empirical evaluation strategy [30]. Analytically, the combined model can be considered to be comprehensive, as it addresses all relevant dimensions of corporate planning as identified by our literature research. Furthermore, it enhances them with regard to corporate characteristics (strategy and structure), and it also adds BI dimensions. Therefore, it should support the envisaged business and IT alignment.

10 10 In order to confirm the maturity model empirically, we conducted qualitative case interviews with seven large European companies each lasting about 120 minutes. In each case, interview partners from corporate management accounting with responsibility for the BI systems were selected to capture the required holistic view on corporate planning and BI. After a first interview session, the cases have been sent back for verification and completion of open questions. The interviewquestionnaire contained qualitative, open questions structured considering corporate strategy, organizational structure, corporate planning, and usage of BI. As a result, we have been able to identify the assumed maturity levels. The characteristics of the examined cases are presented in Fig. 5. Fig. 5 Case comparison The cases confirm the model, as each case can be matched to one of the maturity levels. In consequence, it can be assumed that the combined maturity model measures corporate planning systems and corresponding BI of further companies as well. Nevertheless, the presented combined maturity model needs further testing, as it will help to further refine the combined maturity model and increase the scientific rigor of the artefact. Conclusion and outlook Corporate planning is subject to change, from business and BI perspective as well. As maturity models are an established means for organizational assessment and planned organizational development, we developed a combined maturity model integrating both domains. The derived model promises to support the aligned development of corporate planning and BI. The next step of research will be the design of a corresponding assessment instrument, e.g. a questionnaire. Along with the development and the empirical testing of the assessment, the maturity model is also subject to further refinement and evaluation. Besides these aspects, future research should be devoted to the contextual and BI aspects of the model. Due to model simplicity, the used meta-model assumed a linear development of corporations and focused on only two contextual dimensions. Addressing a complex reality, additional contextual factors, e.g. the

11 11 environment, should be integrated into the combined maturity model. As the derived BI dimension so far only focuses on planning s, other corporate planning relevant BI aspects, such as BI platforms (i.e. integration with other analytical s, shared data infrastructure) should be addressed by the model's next iteration. References 1. Abernethy, M., Chua, W.F.: (1996) A field study of control system "redesign": The impact of institutional Processes on Strategic Choice. Contemporary accounting research 2:13, Baars, H., Kemper, H.-G.: (2008) Management Support with Structured and Unstructured Data An Integrated Business Intelligence Framework. ISM 25:2, Bange, C., Dahnken, O., Friedrich, D.: (2008) Planung und Budgetierung in europäischen Unternehmen: Konzepte, Lösungen und Potenzial von Performance Management. Springer, Heidelberg. 4. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, J.: (2009) Developing Maturity Models for IT Management - A Procedure Model and its Application. BISE 1:3, Bowman, E.H., Singh, H., Thomas, H.: (2006) The domain of strategic management: history and evolution. In: Pettigrew, A.M., Thomas, H., Whittington, R. (eds.): Handbook of Strategy and Management. SAGE Publication, London Churchill, N.C.: (1984) Budget Choice: planning vs. control. HBR 62:4, Clark Jr, T.D., Jones, M.C., Armstrong Curtis, P.: (2007) The Dynamic Structure of Management Support Systems: Theory Development, Research Focus, and Direction. MIS Quarterly 31:3, Clarke, P.: (2007) The Rolling Forecast as a catalyst for change. Acc. Ireland 39:5, de Bruin, T., Rosemann, M., Freeze, R., Kulkarni, U.: (2005) Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model. In: Proceedings of the 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney, Australia. 10. Eckerson, W.W.: (2009) TDWI's Business Intelligence Maturity Model. Springer, Heidelberg. 11. Ekholm, B.-G., Wallin, J.: (2000) Is the annual budget really dead? The European Accounting Review 9:4, Fraser, P., Moultrie, J., Gregory, M.: (2002) The Use of Maturity Models/Grids as a Tool in Assessing Product Development Capability. In: IEMC 2002, IEEE Engineering Management Society, Cambridge, UK. 13. Frezatti, F., Aguiar, A.B., Guerreiro, R., Gouvea, M.A.: (2009) Does management accounting play role in planning process? Journal of Business Research, In Press. 14. Gartner, I.: (2010) Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms. Springer, Heidelberg. 15. Gleich, R., Greiner, O., Hofmannn, S.: (2006) Better, Advanced and Beyond Bugeting: Von der Evolution zur Revolution. In: Gleich, R., Hofmann, S., Leyk, J. (eds.): Planungs- und Budgetierungsinstrumente: Innovative Ansätze und Best-Practise für den Managementprozess. Haufe, Freiburg Gluck, F.W., Kaufmann, S.P., Walleck, S.A.: (1980) Strategic management for competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review 58, Grinyer, P., Al-Bazzaz, S., Yasai-Ardekani, M.: (1986) Towards a contingency theory of corporate planning. Strategic Management Journal 7, Hahn, D., Taylor, B.: (2006) Vorwort. In: Hahn, D., Taylor, B. (eds.): Strategische Unternehmensplanung - Strategische Unternehmensführung. Springer, Berlin XI-XIV.

12 Hansen, S.C., Van der Stede, W.A.: (2003) Multiple facets of budgeting: an explanatory analysis. Management Accounting Research 15, Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: (2004) Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28:1, Hope, J., Fraser, R.: (2003) Beyond Budgeting. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (Massachussets). 22. Horngren, C.T., Sundem, G.L., Stratton, W.O.: (2008) Introduction to Management Accounting. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River. 23. Horváth, P.: (2001) Controlling. Verlag Franz Vahlen, München. 24. Lahrmann, G., Marx, F., Winter, R., Wortmann, F.: (2010) Business Intelligence Maturity Models: An Overview. In: VII Conference of the Italian Chapter of AIS (itais 2010). Springer, Naples, Italy. 25. Malmi, T., Brown, D.A.: (2008) Management control systems as a package Opportunities, challenges and research directions. Management Accounting Research 19, March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: (1995) Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems 15:4, Moores, K., Yuen, S.: (2001) Management Accounting Systems and Organizational Configuration: A Lifecycle Perspective Accounting. AOS 26, Oehler, K.: (2006) Planung und Budgetierung: (Neue) Anforderungen an die Softwareunterstützung. In: Gleich, R., Hofmann, S., Leyk, J. (eds.): Planungs- und Budgetierungsinstrumente. Rudolf Haufe Verlag, Freiburg Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: (2007) A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24:3, Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.L., Venable, J.: (2008) Strategies for design science research evaluation. In: 16th European Conference on Information Systems, , Galway, Ireland. 31. Pümpin, C., Prange, J.: (1991) Management der Unternehmensentwicklung. Phasengerechte Führung und Umgang mit Krisen. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt. 32. Schelp, J., Winter, R.: (2007) Integration Management for Heterogeneous Information Systems. In: Desouza, K.C. (ed.): Agile Information Systems - Conceptualizations, Construction, and Management. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford Simpson, J.A., Weiner, E.S.C.: (1989) The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 34. Venkatraman, N.: (1989) The Concept of Fit in Strategy Research: Toward Verbal and Statistical Correspondence. Academy of Management Review 14:3, Wagner, C.: (2004) Enterprise strategy management systems: current and next generation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13:2, Watson, H.J.: (2009) Tutorial: Business Intelligence Past, Present, and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 25, Winter, R.: (2003) An Architecture Model for Supporting Application Integration Decisions. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Systems, Naples, Italy. 38. Yasai-Ardekani, M., Haug, R.S.: (1997) Contextual determinants of strategic planning processes. Journal of Management Studies 34:5, Yin, R.K.: (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Los Angeles.