The Effect of Strategic Alignment of Complementary IT and Organizational Capabilities on Competitive Firm Performance

  • Rogier van de WeteringEmail author
  • Patrick Mikalef
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 303)


This study explores how firm performance can be explained from the strategic alignment of information technology (IT) and organizational capabilities, i.e., IT flexibility, dynamic capabilities, and absorptive capacity. We build upon dynamic capabilities theory and conceptualize our research model through the lens of strategic alignment methods. Then, we empirically test our main hypothesis using PLS-SEM analysis on a sample of 322 international firms. Outcomes show that measurements and indicators of all first-order and higher-order constructs are reliable and valid. Results also indicate that there is a positive relationship between strategic alignment and competitive firm performance. This study highlights the importance of alignment between IT and organizational capabilities. Strategic alignment can, therefore, be seen an important facilitator of competitive firm performance in constantly changing environments. We conclude with a discussion and conclusion, outline limitations of the current study and present some directions for future research.


Strategic alignment IT flexibility Dynamic capabilities Absorptive capacity Third-order factor modeling Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Firm performance 


  1. 1.
    Eisenhardt, K.M., Martin, J.A.: Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strateg. Manag. J. 21(10–11), 1105–1121 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A.: Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strat. Manag. J. 18(7), 509–533 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Melville, N., Kraemer, K., Gurbaxani, V.: Review: information technology and organizational performance: an integrative model of IT business value. MIS Q. 28(2), 283–322 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kohli, R., Grover, V.: Business value of IT: an essay on expanding research directions to keep up with the times. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 9(1), 23 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Henderson, J.C., Venkatraman, N.: Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology for transforming organisations. IBM Syst. J. 32(1), 4–16 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chan, Y.E., Reich, B.H.: IT alignment: an annotated bibliography. J. Inf. Technol. 22, 316–396 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van den Bosch, F.A., Volberda, H.W., de Boer, M.: Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organ. Sci. 10(5), 551–568 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wade, M., Hulland, J.: Review: the resource-based view and information systems research: review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Q. 28(1), 107–142 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim, G., et al.: IT capabilities, process-oriented dynamic capabilities, and firm financial performance. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 12(7), 487 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., Grover, V.: Shaping agility through digital options: reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Q. 27(2), 237–263 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roberts, N., et al.: Absorptive capacity and information systems research: review, synthesis, and directions for future research. MIS Q. 36(2), 625–648 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhatt, G.D., Grover, V.: Types of information technology capabilities and their role in competitive advantage: an empirical study. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 22(2), 253–277 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van de Wetering, R., Mikalef, P., Pateli, A.: A strategic alignment model for IT flexibility and dynamic capabilities: toward an assessment tool. In: Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 5–10 June 2017, pp. 1468–1485 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van de Wetering, R., Mikalef, P., Pateli, A.: Managing firms’ innovation capabilities through strategically aligning combinative IT and dynamic capabilities. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Boston, United States, 10–12 August 2017Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sharma, S., Vredenburg, H.: Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J. 19, 729–753 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bharadwaj, A.S.: A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Q. 24(1), 169–196 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ward, J., Peppard, J.: Strategic Planning for Information Systems, 3rd edn. Wiley, Chichester (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Coleman, P., Papp, R.: Strategic alignment: analysis of perspectives. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Southern Association for Information Systems Conference, Jacksonville, Florida USA, pp. 241–250 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van de Wetering, R., et al.: A situational alignment framework for PACS. J. Digit. Imaging 24(6), 979–992 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Agarwal, R., Selen, W.: Dynamic capability building in service value networks for achieving service innovation. Decis. Sci. 40(3), 431–475 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pavlou, P.A., El Sawy, O.A.: From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: the case of new product development. Inf. Syst. Res. 17(3), 198–227 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu, L., Chen, J.-L.: A stage-based diffusion of IT innovation and the BSC performance impact: a moderator of technology–organization–environment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 88, 76–90 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mikalef, P., Pateli, A., van de Wetering, R.: IT flexibility and competitive performance: the mediating role of IT-enabled dynamic capabilities. In: Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Istanbul, Turkey, 12–15 June 2016Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van de Wetering, R., Batenburg, R.: Towards a theory of PACS deployment: an integrative PACS maturity framework. J. Digit. Imaging 27(3), 337–350 (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wetering, R.: Modeling alignment as a higher order nomological framework. In: Abramowicz, W., Alt, R., Franczyk, B. (eds.) BIS 2016. LNBIP, vol. 263, pp. 111–122. Springer, Cham (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-52464-1_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Byrd, T.A., Turner, D.E.: Measuring the flexibility of information technology infrastructure: exploratory analysis of a construct. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 17(1), 167–208 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simon, H.A.: The architecture of complexity. Gen. Syst. 1965(10), 63–76 (1965)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pil, F.K., Cohen, S.K.: Modularity: Implications for imitation, innovation, and sustained advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31(4), 995–1011 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van de Wetering, R., Bos, R.: A meta-framework for efficacious adaptive enterprise architectures. In: Abramowicz, W., Alt, R., Franczyk, B. (eds.) BIS 2016. LNBIP, vol. 263, pp. 273–288. Springer, Cham (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-52464-1_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Priem, R.L., Butler, J.E.: Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Acad. Manag. Rev. 26(1), 22–40 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schilke, O.: On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: the nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strateg. Manag. J. 35(2), 179–203 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Drnevich, P.L., Kriauciunas, A.P.: Clarifying the conditions and limits of the contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 32(3), 254–279 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Helfat, C.E., Peteraf, M.A.: The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strateg. Manag. J. 24(10), 997–1010 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pavlou, P.A., El Sawy, O.A.: Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decis. Sci. 42(1), 239–273 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Protogerou, A., Caloghirou, Y., Lioukas, S.: Dynamic capabilities and their indirect impact on firm performance. Ind. Corp. Change 21(3), 615–647 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zahra, S.A., George, G.: Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad. Manag. Rev. 27(2), 185–203 (2002)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A.: Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 35(1), 128–152 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sambamurthy, V., Zmud, R.W.: Arrangements for information technology governance: a theory of multiple contingencies. MIS Q. 23(2), 261–290 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Venkatraman, N.: The concept of fit in strategy research: towards verbal and statistical correspondence. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14(3), 423–444 (1989)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: Alignment: Using the Balanced Scorecard to Create Corporate Synergies. Harvard Business Press, Brighton (2006)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Van de Wetering, R., Batenburg, R.: Defining and formalizing: a synthesized review on the multifactorial nature of PACS performance. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 5(Suppl. 1), 170 (2010)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., Van Oppen, C.: Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Q. 33(1), 177–195 (2009)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chin, W.: The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides, G.A. (ed.) Modern Methods for Business Research, pp. 295–336. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1998)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Capron, L., Mitchell, W.: Selection capability: how capability gaps and internal social frictions affect internal and external strategic renewal. Organ. Sci. 20(2), 294–312 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tafti, A., Mithas, S., Krishnan, M.S.: The effect of information technology-enabled flexibility on formation and market value of alliances. Manag. Sci. 59(1), 207–225 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Liu, H., et al.: The impact of IT capabilities on firm performance: the mediating roles of absorptive capacity and supply chain agility. Decis. Support Syst. 54(3), 1452–1462 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rai, A., Tang, X.: Leveraging IT capabilities and competitive process capabilities for the management of interorganizational relationship portfolios. Inf. Syst. Res. 21(3), 516–542 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hair Jr., J.F., et al.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2016)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.-M.: SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt (2015).
  50. 50.
    Tenenhaus, M., et al.: PLS path modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 48(1), 159–205 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Market. Theory Pract. 19(2), 139–152 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Esposito Vinzi, V., et al.: Capturing and treating unobserved heterogeneity by response based segmentation in PLS path modeling. A comparison of alternative methods by computational experiments. ESSEC Working Papers (2007)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.: Treating unobserved heterogeneity in PLS path modeling: a comparison of FIMIX-PLS with different data analysis strategies. J. Appl. Stat. 37(8), 1299–1318 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mikalef, P., et al.: Investigating the impact of procurement alignment on supply chain management performance. Procedia Technol. 9, 310–319 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pavlou, P.A., El Sawy, O.A.: The “third hand”: IT-enabled competitive advantage in turbulence through improvisational capabilities. Inf. Syst. Res. 21(3), 443–471 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fiss, P.C.: A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32(4), 1180–1198 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mikalef, P., et al.: Purchasing alignment under multiple contingencies: a configuration theory approach. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 115(4), 625–645 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Open University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations