Integrating COBIT with a hybrid group decision-making approach for a business-aligned IT roadmap formulation


An IT roadmap is a critical investment that can significantly affect future competitiveness and performance of a firm. This study presents a comprehensive framework for determining the predecessors and successors of each activity of a roadmap to manage and govern the IT. This paper discusses the result of integrating the COBIT as a well-known IT standard with a hybrid group decision-making method, which has not been yet extensively studied to prioritize the potential actions of an IT roadmap, in a real-world case in Iran to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed framework. The proposed framework can systematically construct the objectives of IT portfolio building to support business goals and strategies of a firm, identify the proper attributes, and set up a consistent evaluation standard for facilitating a group decision process.The study findings will be interesting for academics, chief information officers, and IT planning practitioners and consultants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5


  1. 1.

    Fragola J (2010) Know your portfolio. Inf Manag 20(1):22–25

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    McGee MK (2008) IT and business alignment remains CIO’s top concern. InformationWeek

  3. 3.

    Reich BH, Benbasat I (2000) Factors that influence the social dimension of alignment between business and information technology objectives. Manag Inf Syst Q 24(1):81–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Valentine V (2011) IT management concerns changing rapidly. Inf Manag 21(10)

  5. 5.

    Jeffery M, Leliveld I (2004) Best practices in IT portfolio management. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 45(3):41–49

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    De Reyck B, Grushka-Cockayne Y, Lockett M, Calderini SR, Moura M, Sloper A (2005) The impact of project portfolio management on information technology projects. Int J Proj Manag 23(7):524–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Nielsen JA, Pedersen K (2014) IT portfolio decision-making in local governments: rationality, politics, intuition and coincidences. Gov Inf Q 31(3):411–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bardhan I, Sougstad R, Sougstad R (2004) Prioritizing a portfolio of information technology investment projects. J Manag Inf Syst 21(2):33–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Frey T, Buxmann P (2012) IT project portfolio management-a structured literature review. In: European conference on information systems (ECIS), p 167

  10. 10.

    Bouraad F (2010) IT project portfolio governance: the emerging operation manager. Proj Manag J 41(5):74–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    ISACA (2012) COBIT 5: a business framework for the governance and management of enterprise IT. ISACA, Rolling Meadows

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Phaal R, Farrukh C, Probert D (2001) Technology roadmapping: linking technology resources to business objectives. Centre for Technology Management, University of Cambridge, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Garcia ML, Bray OH (1997) Fundamentals of technology roadmapping. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Simonsson M, Johnson P (2006) Assessment of IT governance—a prioritization of cobit. In: Conference of systems engineering research (CSER), Los Angeles

  15. 15.

    Saaty TL (1996) Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Yoon K, Hwang C-L (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Shih H-S, Shyur H-J, Lee ES (2007) An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. MComM 45(7):801–813

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Garciá-Melón M, Smith-Perera A, Poveda-Bautista R, Pastor-Fernando JP (2009) Project priorisation for portfolio selection based on the analytic network process. In: International symposium on the analytic hierarchy process, pp 1–15

  19. 19.

    Kan AR (2003) Managing a multi-billion dollar IT budget. In: International conference on software maintenance (ICSM 2003). IEEE

  20. 20.

    Margherita A, Petti C (2010) ICT-enabled and process-based change: an integrative roadmap. Bus Process Manag J 16(3):473–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Phaal R, Farrukh CJ, Probert DR (2004) Technology roadmapping—a planning framework for evolution and revolution. Technol Forecast Soc Change 71(1):5–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Phaal R, Muller G (2009) An architectural framework for roadmapping: towards visual strategy. Technol Forecast Soc Change 76(1):39–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Durbin P, Doerscher T (2010) Taming change with portfolio management: unify your organization, sharpen your strategy and create measurable value. Greenleaf, Austin

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Bardhan IR, Kauffman RJ, Naranpanawe S (2006) Optimizing an IT project portfolio with time-wise interdependencies. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences. HICSS’06. IEEE, pp 168b–168b

  25. 25.

    Bardhan IR, Kauffman RJ, Naranpanawe S (2010) IT project portfolio optimization: a risk management approach to software development governance. IBM J Res Dev 54(2):2:1–2:18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Drake JR, Byrd TA (2006) Risk in information technology project portfolio management. J Inf Technol Theory Appl 8(3):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    David J, Saaty D (2007) Use analytic hierarchy process for project selection. In: ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, pp 22–29

  28. 28.

    Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchical process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Saaty TL (1994) Fundamentals of decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Pedersen K, Nielsen JA (2011) Managing uncertainty and conflict in IT project portfolio management. J Inf Technol Case Appl Res 13(4):51–83

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Chiang IR, Nunez MA (2013) Strategic alignment and value maximization for IT project portfolios. Inf Technol Manag 14(2):143–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Archer NP, Ghasemzadeh F (1999) An integrated framework for project portfolio selection. Int J Proj Manag 17(4):207–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Hicks DA, Stecke KE (1995) The ERP maze: enterprise resource planning and other production and inventory control software. IIE Solut 27(8):12–17

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Ullah A, Lai R (2011) Modeling business goal for business/IT alignment using requirements engineering. J Comput Inf Syst 51(3):21–28

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Ullah A, Lai R (2013) A systematic review of business and information technology alignment. ACM Trans Manag Inf Syst 4(1):4:1–4:30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Whittaker B (1999) What went wrong? Unsuccessful information technology projects. Inf Manag Comput Secur 7(1):23–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Berghout E, Tan C-W (2013) Understanding the impact of business cases on IT investment decisions: an analysis of municipal e-government projects. Inf Manag 50(7):489–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Alami A (2016) Why do information technology projects fail? Proc Comput Sci 100:62–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Zanakis SH, Solomon A, Wishart N, Dublish S (1998) Multi-attribute decision making: a simulation comparison of select methods. Eur J Oper Res 107(3):507–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Polatidis H, Haralambopoulos DA, Munda G, Vreeker R (2006) Selecting an appropriate multi-criteria decision analysis technique for renewable energy planning. Energy Sources B 1(2):181–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Lin C-T, Chen C-B, Ting Y-C (2011) An ERP model for supplier selection in electronics industry. Expert Syst Appl 38(3):1760–1765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Shahroudi K, Rouydel H (2012) Using a multi-criteria decision making approach (ANP-TOPSIS) to evaluate suppliers in Iran’s auto industry. Int J Appl Oper Res 2(2):37–48

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Tavana M, Zandi F, Katehakis MN (2013) A hybrid fuzzy group ANP–TOPSIS framework for assessment of e-government readiness from a CiRM perspective. Inf Manag 50(7):383–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Sakthivel G, Ilangkumaran M, Gaikwad A (2015) A hybrid multi-criteria decision modeling approach for the best biodiesel blend selection based on ANP-TOPSIS analysis. Ain Shams Eng J 6(1):239–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Karaşan A, Kahraman C (2019) A novel intuitionistic fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP–TOPSIS integrated methodology for freight village location selection. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 36(2):1335–1352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Lei J, Chang W, Zhou S, Li X, Wei F (2018) Study on the quality evaluation model of diesel engine with ANP and TOPSIS method. In: 2018 Annual reliability and maintainability symposium (RAMS). IEEE, pp 1–6

  47. 47.

    Rouyet-Ruiz J (2008) COBIT as a tool for IT governance: between auditing and IT governance. Eur J Inform Prof 9(1):40–43

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Goldman JE, Ahuja S (2009) Integration of COBIT, balanced scorecard & SSE-CMM as a strategic information security management (ISM) framework. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual information security symposium. CERIAS-Purdue University, p 19

  49. 49.

    Bartens Y, De Haes S, Lamoen Y, Schulte F, Voss S (2015) On the way to a minimum baseline in IT governance: using expert views for selective implementation of COBIT 5. In: 2015 48th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS). IEEE, pp 4554–4563

  50. 50.

    Saaty TL (2000) Fundamentals of the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Saaty TL (2004) Fundamentals of the analytic network process—multiple networks with benefits, costs, opportunities and risks. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 13(3):348–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Saaty TL (2005) The analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision-making. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, Boston, pp 345–408

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Ossadnik W, Schinke S, Kaspar RH (2016) Group aggregation techniques for analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: a comparative analysis. Gr Decis Negotiat 25(2):421–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Clemen RT, Reilly T (2013) Making hard decisions with decisiontools. Cengage Learning, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Forman EH (1990) Multi criteria decision making and the analytic hierarchy process. In: Bana e Costa CA (ed) Readings in multiple criteria decision aid. Springer, Berlin, pp 295–318

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Saaty TL, Vargas LG (eds) (2012) The seven pillars of the analytic hierarchy process. In: Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–40

  58. 58.

    Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1998) Diagnosis with dependent symptoms: bayes theorem and the analytic hierarchy process. Oper Res 46(4):491–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Khorramshahgol R, Moustakis VS (1988) Delphi hierarchy process (DHP): a methodology for priority setting derived from the delphi method and analytical hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 37(3):347–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Saaty TL (2005) Theory and applications of the analytic network process: Decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Heschl J (2004) COBIT in relation to other international standards. Inf Syst Control J 4:37–40

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    De Haes S, Van Grembergen W, Debreceny RS (2013) COBIT 5 and enterprise governance of information technology: building blocks and research opportunities. J Inf Syst 27(1):307–324

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Bernroider EW, Ivanov M (2011) IT project management control and the Control Objectives for IT and related Technology (CobiT) framework. Int J Proj Manag 29(3):325–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    ISACA (2012) COBIT 5: enabling processes, vol 60008. ISACA, Rolling Meadows

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2013) Decision making with the analytic network process: economic, political, social and technological applications with benefits, opportunities, costs and risks, vol 195. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

  67. 67.

    Wijnmalen DJ (2007) Analysis of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks (BOCR) with the AHP–ANP: a critical validation. MComM 46(7):892–905

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Chou T-Y, S-cT Chou, Tzeng G-H (2006) Evaluating IT/IS investments: a fuzzy multi-criteria decision model approach. Eur J Oper Res 173(3):1026–1046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Bacon CJ (1992) The use of decision criteria in selecting information systems/technology investments. Manag Inf Syst Q 16(3):335–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Escobar-Perez B (1998) Information systems investment decisions in business practice: the Spanish case. Eur J Inf Syst 7(3):202–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Ward JM (1990) A portfolio approach to evaluating information systems investments and setting priorities. J Inf Technol 5(4):222–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Ross JW, Johnson E (2009) Prioritizing IT investments. CISR Research Briefing

  73. 73.

    Quartel D, Steen MWA, Lankhorst MM (2011) Application and project portfolio valuation using enterprise architecture and business requirements modelling. Enterp Inf Syst 6(2):189–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Irani Z, Ezingeard J, Grieve R (1998) Costing the true costs of IT/IS investments in manufacturing: a focus during management decision making. Logist Inf Manag 11(1):38–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Kivijärvi H, Hallikainen P, Penttinen E (2012) Supporting IT implementation decisions with ANP—supplier scheduling for e-invoicing. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 11(03):525–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Suzangar A, Kalantarian M, Nasher S, Kajbaf m, madani n (2011) optimizing Information Technology Value Governance Framework Based on Val IT. In: European conference on information management, pp 412–419

  77. 77.

    Ravichandran T, Liu Y (2011) Environmental factors, managerial processes, and information technology investment strategies. Decis Sci 42(3):537–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Serafeimidis V, Smithson S (2000) Information systems evaluation in practice: a case study of organizational change. J Inf Technol 15(2):93–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Baky IA, Abo-Sinna MA (2013) TOPSIS for bi-level MODM problems. Appl Math Model 37(3):1004–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Ceballos B, Lamata MT, Pelta DA (2016) A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Prog Artif Intell 5(4):315–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Adams WJL, Saaty DL (2013) Measuring change distance of a factor in a decision. US8429115 B1

  82. 82.

    Williamson OE (1975) Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications: a study in the economics of internal organization. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Mata FJ, Fuerst WL, Barney JB (1995) Information technology and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based analysis. Manag Inf Syst Q 19(4):487–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Bharadwaj AS (2000) A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. Manag Inf Syst Q 24(1):169–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Melville N, Kraemer K, Gurbaxani V (2004) Review: information technology and organizational performance: an integrative model of IT business value. Manag Inf Syst Q 28(2):283–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Wade M, Hulland J (2004) Review: the resource-based view and information systems research: review, extension, and suggestions for future research. Manag Inf Syst Q 28(1):107–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Banerji A, Dutta B (2009) Local network externalities and market segmentation. Int J Ind Organ 27(5):605–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Sprague RH Jr, Carlson ED (1982) Building effective decision support systems. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Ahmad N, Berg D, Simons GR (2006) The integration of analytical hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis in a multi-criteria decision-making problem. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 5(2):263–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Despotis DK, Derpanis D (2008) A min–max goal programming approach to priority derivation in AHP with interval judgements. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 7(1):175–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morteza Alaeddini.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alaeddini, M., Mir-Amini, M. Integrating COBIT with a hybrid group decision-making approach for a business-aligned IT roadmap formulation. Inf Technol Manag 21, 63–94 (2020).

Download citation


  • IT roadmap
  • Control objectives for information and related technology (COBIT)
  • Group decision-making
  • Analytic network process (ANP)
  • Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS)