Transforming a Company, Project by Project: The IT Engagement Model.

Full text

© 2006 University of Minnesota MIS Quarterly Executive Vol 5. No. 1 / Mar 2006 1
IT Engagement Model
Executive Summary
Information Technology (IT) organizations have long struggled with achieving company-
wide strategies while simultaneously responding to urgent requests from business units to
implement solutions for local projects.
Our studies suggest that successful approaches address two fundamental goals: alignment
between IT and the rest of the business and coordination across multiple organizational
levels. Our IT engagement model describes these successful approaches. We dene our model
as the system of mechanisms that brings together key stakeholders to ensure that projects
achieve both local and company-wide objectives. It consists of three general components:
company-wide IT governance, project management, and linking mechanisms. This article
focuses on the linking mechanisms because they are crucial but not well understood. We
illustrate the model with two case studies: BT plc and Toyota Motor Marketing Europe
(TMME). Both companies have distributed the risks and responsibilities of achieving
company-wide objectives across multiple stakeholders and have incrementally achieved
company-wide objectives on a project-by-project basis.
Transforming a Company,
projeCT by projeCT: The iT
engagemenT model1
Nils O. Fonstad
Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology
David Robertson
IMD
addressing iT alignmenT and
coordinaTion issues2
Two streams of research have addressed the challenge
of IT organizations aiming to achieve company-wide
strategies while simultaneously responding to urgent
requests from business units.
The top-down research approach has focused on IT
governance, and how management groups can allocate
decision rights to make company-wide IT-related
decisions. This research has studied the key decisions
that IT and non-IT senior managers must address. But
1 Bob Zmud was the accepting Senior Editor for this article.
2 Our thanks to Jeanne Ross, Peter Weill, Peter Heinckiens, and
Chuck Gibson for their signicant contributions to our thinking on
the IT engagement model. We are grateful to the managers who
participated in this research and shared their experiences and insights.
We are also grateful to Bob Zmud and three anonymous reviewers
for helpful comments on improving this paper. This paper was made
possible by support of CISR sponsors and, especially, CISR patron BT
plc. This paper draws on 1. Fonstad, N. and Robertson, D. “Realizing
IT-enabled Change: The IT Engagement Model,” MIT Sloan School
of Management, Center for Information Systems Research, Research
brieng (IV:) Oct 2004; 2. Fonstad, N. and Robertson, D. “Engaging
for Change: An Overview of the IT Engagement Model,” MIT Sloan
School of Management, Center for Information Systems Research,
Research brieng (V:1C), Mar 2005; and 3. Ross, J., Weill, P., and
Robertson, D. “Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a
Foundation for Business Execution”, forthcoming in 2006 from Harvard
Business School Press.
it has not examined in detail how these decisions get
implemented in projects.3
The bottom-up research approach has focused
on project management, and how projects can be
coordinated and managed to achieve local goals. This
research has studied how IT departments ensure that
projects are on time and on budget, but it has not
addressed how sets of projects can achieve company-
wide objectives.
Neither approach fully addresses how IT organizations
can simultaneously pursue both company-wide and
local objectives. Success requires the concerted efforts
of multiple stakeholders and maintaining a healthy
balance between strategic and tactical demands.
Success also requires exibility because the details of
a nal solution often only emerge over time. The end
solution can be difcult to anticipate.4
3 Weill, P. and Ross, J., IT Governance, Harvard Business School
Press, 2004; Weill, P., “Don’t Just Lead, Govern: How Top-Performing
Firms Govern IT,” MIS Quarterly Executive, (3:1), Mar 2004, pp. 1-17.
4 See, for example: Roberts, B., Jarvenpaa, S., and Baxley, C.,
“Evolving at the Speed of Change: Mastering Change Readiness at
Motorola’s Semiconductor Products Sector,” MIS Quarterly Executive,
(2:2) Sep 2003, pp. 58-73; Brown, C.V. and Vessey, I., “Managing the
Next Wave of Enterprise Systems: Leveraging Lessons from ERP,”
MIS Quarterly Executive, (2:1) Mar 2003, pp. 65-77; Gibson, C.F.,
“IT-Enabled Business Change: An Approach to Understanding and
Managing Risk,” MIS Quarterly Executive, (2:2), Sep 2003, pp. 104-
115; and Ranganathan, C., Watson-Manheim, M.B., and Keeler, J.,
“Bringing Professionals on Board: Lessons on Executing IT-Enabled
Transformation,” MIS Quarterly Executive, (3:3) Sep 2004, pp. 151-
160.
MIS
Q
Uarterly
Executive

2 MIS Quarterly Executive Vol 5. No. 1 / Mar 2006 © 2006 University of Minnesota
Fonstad and Robertson / IT Engagement Model
We have studied how companies are addressing
this challenge. Our ndings suggest that successful
approaches address both alignment between IT and the
rest of the business and coordination across multiple
organizational levels. They achieve both alignment and
coordination by linking company-wide IT governance
with project governance and by engaging multiple
stakeholder groups.
We use the term engagement to mean negotiating,
inuencing, educating, socializing, and interacting in
other ways across organizational levels and functional
boundaries to develop greater alignment and
coordination throughout the company.
The IT Engagement Model
We have developed the IT engagement model to
describe these successful approaches. We dene our IT
engagement model as the system of mechanisms that
brings together key stakeholders to ensure that projects
achieve both local and company-wide objectives. It
consists of three components:
Company-wide IT governance—the decision
rights and accountabilities of company-level and
business unit-level stakeholders to dene company-
wide objectives and encourage desirable behavior
in the use of IT.
Project management—a formal project
management process, with clear deliverables and
regular well-dened checkpoints, that encourages
disciplined, predictable behavior for project teams.
Linking mechanisms—processes and decision-
making bodies that connect project-level activities
to overall IT governance.
Each component is made up of a set of mechanisms,
which can include groups (e.g., committees, boards),
processes (e.g., post-implementation review), and
roles (e.g., integrators, oversight roles). As a set, these
mechanisms enable and constrain communication
among stakeholders.
The rst two components—IT governance and
project management—are well recognized and well
researched. We found the “missing link” to be the third
component: linking mechanisms.
An Analogy with Professional Cycling
To underscore the importance of linking mechanisms,
a senior IT manager at a nancial services company
drew an analogy from professional cycling.
Professional cycling is a team sport where individual
cyclists must work closely with each other and the
coach to support the team leader. Company-wide IT
•
•
•
governance is like overall team management in that
it focuses on the high-level issues of overall strategy,
budget, and resource allocation. Project management,
on the other hand, is like individual training in that it
aims to ensure that all the cyclists (in particular, the
team leader) are in top shape and perform as well as
they can. Linking mechanisms connect individual
efforts—making sure the cyclists know their role
(such as riding in front of the leader or fetching food
and water)—as well as provide guidance during a race
(such as when to accelerate as a team and when to take
the lead).5 Linking mechanisms ensure that the efforts
of cyclists remain coordinated and aligned with the
team strategy throughout a race.
The Importance of Linking Mechanisms
If a company only has IT governance (decisions about
bikes, riders, and races) and good project management
(t and skilled riders), there is a danger that the
company’s strategies will not be executed. Without
linking mechanisms, coaches are unable to orchestrate
the team of cyclists throughout the race, so the cyclists
lose perspective on how they can best help the team
win.6
Linking mechanisms are the heart of a company’s IT
engagement model because they enable ideas to ow
back and forth between company-wide IT governance
and project management. Linking mechanisms ensure
that high-level governance decisions are understood
and implemented by project teams, so that projects
incrementally help achieve the company’s objectives
and the company learns from each project. Linking
mechanisms connect key governance decisions with
projects by means of regular access points provided
by standard project methodologies. As a result, these
mechanisms enable stakeholders from different
organizational levels to manage interdependencies,
identify commonalities across business units and
projects, and negotiate conicting demands.
The IT engagement model is a framework that lets
companies assess how well they are aligning and
coordinating the different goals and perspectives of six
key stakeholder groups, as shown in Figure 1. These
5 Some examples of linking mechanisms in cycling include team
training; race radios that keep cyclists in touch with the coach; team
vans that provide equipment and nourishment during the race; team-
mates whose role is to constantly monitor their leader in relation
to competitors and are prepared to block rivals or give up a tire; and
incentives for individual cyclists to do as much as possible for the team,
even at the risk of losing.
6 An interesting debate in cycling is whether or not to allow cyclists
to wear devices that enable them to be in continuous communication
with their coaches and each other. For some, this would be too much
linking.

© 2006 University of Minnesota MIS Quarterly Executive Vol 5. No. 1 / Mar 2006 3
IT Engagement Model
stakeholder groups might otherwise inadvertently
work at odds with each other. The box, “Six
Stakeholder Groups,” provides brief descriptions of
each stakeholder group as well as each one’s primary
objectives. By using a system of mechanisms to align
and coordinate key stakeholders, companies can
distribute the risks of and responsibilities for achieving
company-wide objectives and incrementally advance
company-wide objectives project-by-project.
The Problems with Two Traditional
Approaches to IT Projects
Traditionally, IT organizations have taken a different
approach to transforming company-wide operations
than to building solutions for local business initiatives,
as shown in Figure 2.
For company-wide initiatives, like ERP, CRM, or
SCM, companies often use a “big bang” approach to
implementing the new systems, processes, and data
(the top arrow in Figure 2). The difculties encountered
in this approach are well known. For example, some
companies have handed off the responsibility for
implementing the new systems and associated business
process changes to the IT organization, even though
IT did not have sufcient knowledge or authority to
change the way the rest of the business worked. IT’s
effectiveness has often been limited by its lack of
engagement with the rest of the business and with
project-level members primarily driven by local
objectives. The predictable result has been too many
projects not making their expected benets.7
On the other hand, to build solutions for local business
initiatives (the smaller arrows in the lower left in
Figure 2), companies have favored small, nimble
project teams to develop solutions tailored to specic
local needs. These teams have had a higher probability
of locally dened “success.” But, when their solutions
were developed without coordination via company-
wide IT governance, these solutions provided little
help in achieving company-wide goals. Worse yet,
when the local project teams were not sufciently
engaged with company-level and business unit-level
IT decision-making bodies, disparate IT solutions
accumulated, creating IT infrastructure spaghetti.
Such infrastructure is expensive to maintain, difcult
to integrate, inexible, and not scalable. In fact, it
presents a signicant source of operational, nancial,
and strategic risk to the company.
Figure 2 illustrates why these two approaches to
projects are limited: they fail to engage all six
stakeholder groups. Consequently, they do not
adequately support the degree of alignment and
coordination among stakeholders necessary to
transform company-wide operations. Alignment
7 Robey, D., Ross, J.W., and Boudreau, M-C., “Learning to
Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics
of Change,” Journal of Management Information Systems, (19:1)
Summer 2002, pp. 17-45.
Figure 1: The IT Engagement Model—Engaging Six Stakeholders and Their Key
Objectives

4 MIS Quarterly Executive Vol 5. No. 1 / Mar 2006 © 2006 University of Minnesota
Fonstad and Robertson / IT Engagement Model
Figure 2: Different Approaches for Projects
Six Stakeholder Groups
Achieving alignment and coordination involves six key stakeholder groups. Figure 1 can be regarded as a political map,
showing the objective driving each group—company strategy, business unit strategy, project plan, enterprise architecture,
business unit architecture, and project IT architecture. Each primary objective corresponds to the stakeholder group’s
functional role (business or IT) and its organizational level.
In the left “business” column are the stakeholders focused on company strategy and operations. They measure their success
using such metrics as sales growth, protability, ROA, and customer satisfaction. In the right “IT” column are the stakeholders
primarily focused on developing and maintaining IT solutions and infrastructures. Their goals are effective and robust results
that support current and future company and business-unit goals. Creating and maintaining alignment between these two
sides of the company is a continuing and difcult challenge.1
Looking across the top row, high-level managers seek to optimize resource use, reduce redundancies, and coordinate
activities across the company. The top-level IT personnel (CIO, chief architect, and their direct reports) aim to maximize
business value from IT for the entire company. To help them manage the company’s systems, they typically have company-
wide funding strategies, mechanisms to structure and support decision making, and an enterprise architecture. We dene
“enterprise architecture” as the organizing logic for the integration and standardization of data, business processes, and IT
systems in a company.2
In the business-unit row, managers look across many projects to make sure they collectively meet business unit goals. The IT
group at the business unit level focuses on maximizing the value from IT for that business unit. This job includes managing
the systems estate, implementing a business unit architecture, and managing the development of IT solutions for the unit.
In the project row, business managers are primarily interested in optimizing their project – making sure it meets the goals set
out in the business case and is on time and on budget. Project-level IT managers seek to support their business counterparts
by developing the best IT solutions as quickly as possible.
1 Henderson, J.C. and Venkatraman, N., “Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations,” IBM
Systems Journal, (32:1), 1993, pp. 4-16.
2 To learn more about enterprise architecture, see Ross, J.,“Creating a Strategic IT Architecture Competency: Learning in Stages,” MISQ
Executive, (2:1), 2003, pp. 31-43.

© 2006 University of Minnesota MIS Quarterly Executive Vol 5. No. 1 / Mar 2006 5
IT Engagement Model
between IT and the business ensures that each party is
doing its best to help the others achieve business value.
Coordination across the company hierarchy ensures
that bottom-up actions support top-down initiatives.
Linking Mechanisms
Figure 3 shows how the three components of an
effective IT engagement model enable all six
stakeholder groups to achieve alignment and
coordination. Company-wide IT governance depends
on one set of mechanisms to bring together IT and non-
IT executives to make company-wide decisions. (See
the box “Company-wide IT Governance.”) Project
management depends on a different set of mechanisms
to bring together IT and non-IT stakeholders from
project teams and business units to make decisions
about projects. (See the box “Project Management.”)
Finally, linking mechanisms are mechanisms that
link project management with company-wide IT
governance—that is, they ensure that project teams
remain coordinated and aligned with higher-level
strategies throughout their lifecycle. When integrated
effectively, these three components form a system
that enables independent stakeholders to negotiate
their differences, inuence one another, learn from
each other, develop trust across the company,
and collectively achieve local and company-wide
objectives.
Our research suggests that effective IT engagement
models have a range of linking mechanisms. We have
found three categories, shown in Figure 3, business
linkage, architecture linkage, and alignment linkage.
Business linkage mechanisms work vertically up and
down the organization, linking projects to company-
level and business-level strategies. They include:
Process owners responsible for the structure
and performance of standard business processes,
•
Company-wide IT Governance
We use the Weill and Ross denition of company-wide IT governance as the organizational distribution of “decision rights and
accountabilities to encourage desirable behavior in the use of IT.”1 An important aspect of IT governance is deciding which
decisions need to be made. Weill and Ross have identied ve major IT decisions (which they call domains): IT principles,
enterprise architecture, infrastructure strategies, business application needs, and investment priorities.
Companies draw on a set of mechanisms, including processes, decision-making bodies, and roles, to bring together various
stakeholders to address each decision type.2 In most cases, effective IT governance involves both IT and non-IT stakeholders
across the company and business unit levels.3 Companies with good governance get 40% more value from IT.4
Examples of mechanisms used for company-wide IT governance: enterprise architecture committee; CIO representation on
senior business strategy team; chargeback processes; formal IT investment and prioritization process.
1 Op. cit, Weill and Ross, 2004.
2 Op. cit, Weill and Ross, 2004; Sambamurthy, V. and Zmud, B., “Arrangements for Information Technology Governance: A Theory of Multiple
Contingencies,” MIS Quarterly, 23:2, 1999, pp. 261-290.; Brown, C., “Horizontal Mechanisms Under Differing IS Organization Contexts,” MIS
Quarterly, 23:3, 1999, pp. 421-454.
3 Op. cit, Weill and Ross, 2004.
4 Ibid.
Project Management
Project management has emerged as a critical competence in many, if not most, companies. Increasingly, they are adopting
standardized project methodologies—either homegrown or industry standard. These approaches ensure that all projects
execute certain tasks at certain times, in a consistent manner across the company. A good project management methodology
has well-dened process steps with clear deliverables and metrics to be reviewed at regular checkpoints (often called gates).1
Project management presents a valuable opportunity for engagement between IT and non-IT decision makers at the project
team level.
Examples of mechanisms used for project management: project management ofce; industry-standard methodology; project
tracking software tool; project manager role.
1 Information systems textbooks provide many different examples of project management processes. For example, see Turban, E., McLean, E.
and Wetherbe, J., Information Technology for Management: Transforming Organizations in the Digital Economy, 4th ed. (New York: Wiley, 2004);
Laudon, K. and Laudon. J., Management Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm, 9th Ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall, 2006); Alter, S., Information Systems: Foundation of E-Business, 4th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002); Martin. E.W., et al.,
Managing Information Technology, 4th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002).

6 MIS Quarterly Executive Vol 5. No. 1 / Mar 2006 © 2006 University of Minnesota
Fonstad and Robertson / IT Engagement Model
Strategy boards that manage across projects,
and program management ofces that coordinate
individual projects,
Funding reviews that decide whether to kill or
continue to fund projects,
Reward systems that encourage the
achievement of company-wide goals.
These linking mechanisms give managers ways
to periodically assess how well projects are
achieving company-wide goals and spur managers
to revisit company strategy in response to front-line
experiences.
Architecture linkage mechanisms work vertically,
linking projects to company and business unit
architectures. Companies may put together a system
of such mechanisms—such as an architecture ofce,
architects on projects, and an exceptions-handling
process—to establish and update standards, review
projects for compliance, and approve and manage
exceptions. Another powerful mechanism is an
architecture-driven funding process that can add
funds to a single project above and beyond the funds
provided by the business, to allow it to accomplish
signicant architectural improvements. Using such
a linking mechanism can provide a way for future
projects to be charged for that improvement.
Alignment linkage mechanisms work horizontally,
linking IT with the rest of the business, particularly
•
•
•
at the business-unit level. Both company-wide
IT governance and project management include
mechanisms that companies use to improve alignment.
However, we found several rms that introduced
additional mechanisms to improve alignment further.
The most common was to formally introduce the role
of integrator. For example, BT plc has established
business-IT liaisons whose key role is to secure and
maintain a proactive strategic role of IT. They are also
involved in project management and company-level
committees. In fact, in the companies that we studied,
alignment linkage mechanisms were always integrated
into a broader system of mechanisms.
Figure 3 shows how the three categories of linkages
interact to enable coordination and alignment across the
three organizational levels and between the business
and IT. In general, business linkage mechanisms
coordinate business stakeholders; architecture linkage
mechanisms coordinate IT stakeholders; and alignment
linkage mechanisms align IT with the rest of the
business.
To illustrate these linking mechanisms, we draw on BT
plc and Toyota Motor Marketing Europe to illustrate
how differently companies can apply the concepts of
engagement and linkage. BT plc required signicant
changes in IT governance, project management,
and all three types of linking mechanisms to make
major company-wide changes. In contrast, TMME,
with its strong company culture of continuous
Figure 3: Three Categories of Linking Mechanisms

© 2006 University of Minnesota MIS Quarterly Executive Vol 5. No. 1 / Mar 2006 7
IT Engagement Model
improvement, process discipline, and consensus-
oriented management, had fewer challenges related to
IT governance and business linkage. The case study
thus focuses more on the architectural linkages.
BT plc
At BT plc (formerly British Telecom), a core part
of an ambitious strategy to pursue company-wide
transformation involved increasing engagement among
key stakeholders. During the late 1990s and 2000, BT
prepared to divide the company and spin off parts as
separate businesses. However, after the technology
bubble burst in 2001, BT had a great deal of debt,
there was little market for its business spinoffs, and the
margins in its traditional businesses were declining.
The company replaced its CEO, changed its strategy,
and began to fundamentally transform its business
processes. Management decided it needed to bring
together the different parts of the company to provide
a better experience for its customers. The new CEO—
Ben Verwaayen—established “OneBT,” to integrate
internal operations and reduce redundant efforts. The
company also kicked off a number of company-wide
efforts to grow revenues, improve coordination and
performance, and cut costs.
During his rst month at BT, Verwaayen issued the
Broadband Challenge: to sell and implement one
million broadband connections within 18 months.
The different business units—Wholesale, Retail, and
Global Services—divided up their responsibilities
and met the challenge, with time to spare. However,
because each business unit developed its piece of the
solution using its own systems estate, and without
engaging the other business units, the total solution
lacked sufcient integration and standardization to
be adequately scalable, reliable, and efcient to meet
the next challenge: four million connections in 24
months. From the Broadband Challenge and the other
company-wide initiatives, senior management quickly
realized that BT needed stronger company-wide IT
governance, with a common enterprise architecture at
its core.
Company-wide IT Governance at BT
To ensure that the business units worked in a “One BT”
coordinated manner, the CIO introduced several high-
level decision-making bodies. The Senior Information
Forum (SIF) was formed to connect the efforts of
the different business units and provide them with a
consistent, cohesive strategy. SIF was composed of the
CIOs of the various business units and their architects.
IT managers were placed on the boards of several key
company-wide transformation efforts, to help evaluate
and prioritize efforts and reduce duplication across
them.
A central group, called the Architecture Realization
Group (ARG), was formed and charged with designing
a BT-wide architecture and implementing it across
the company. ARG was led by Chief Architect Jim
Crookes, and it engaged with other decision-making
bodies to design, debate, and reach consensus on a rst
draft of BT’s enterprise architecture. Crookes and his
team had to contend with three major business units
that were already well into their own respective and
unique architecture development and transformation
efforts. As a result, developing the single common
enterprise architecture led to signicant clashes in
several areas. For example, one business unit was
using Vitria for its middleware hub technology,
whereas another was using BEA. Each had invested a
tremendous amount in its particular technology.
Despite these clashes, during its rst year, the ARG
made signicant progress dening and implementing
a new enterprise architecture by “riding waves”—
that is, by using the urgency of the major business
transformation efforts to engage with key business and
IT stakeholders from the different business units.
ARG also implemented architecture linkage
mechanisms to connect high-level governance to
project-level activities. However, the IT group did not
want to have to rely on riding waves to engage with
key stakeholders because the waves were unpredictable
and temporary. Reliance would lead to inconsistent
engagement and assumptions that greater engagement
was only necessary during crises. Instead, the IT group
wanted more robust governance, to regularly engage
with key stakeholders throughout BT and ensure that
every project helped to achieve company-wide goals.
Project Management at BT
Some two years after introducing IT governance
mechanisms to increase engagement at the company
level, a new CIO—Al-Noor Ramji—came on board.
The enterprise architecture was already well under
development and senior management was aligned
on the need for a single, company-wide enterprise
architecture. So Ramji focused on ensuring that
all major projects advanced BT’s company-wide
objectives. To improve and extend engagement from
the company level down through all the projects,
Ramji streamlined company-level and business unit-
level governance and introduced a standard project
methodology for all BT.

8 MIS Quarterly Executive Vol 5. No. 1 / Mar 2006 © 2006 University of Minnesota
Fonstad and Robertson / IT Engagement Model
In the new methodology, all approved business
programs were required to go through 90-day cycles
that consisted of ve standard phases. Before a
program could proceed to the next phase, it had to go
through a “gate” and get approval. The “hot housing”
phase, for instance, was an intense three days of rapid
prototyping between competing teams of IT and non-
IT participants from various levels of BT. The four
other phases were build, test, implementation, and
post implementation review (PIR). These mechanisms
brought IT and non-IT stakeholders together, many for
the rst time. With its standard process for managing
and measuring programs, BT was able to prioritize and
allocate resources.
Linking Mechanisms at BT
To improve alignment and coordination across BT,
Ramji dramatically reorganized IT. He removed
almost all IT personnel from the business units and
consolidated them into a central IT group, so that
he could better manage human resources and skill
development.
Alignment Linkage Mechanisms
The few IT staff members left in each business
unit were led by a “Market Side” CIO. These staff
members’ job was to provide strategic guidance to the
business unit CEO.
Business Linkage Mechanisms
Senior IT management introduced a number of
business linkage mechanisms. For one, the IT group
consolidated 4,000 projects into 29 major business
programs. All the programs required a business
sponsor and an architect, who together created the
initial business case. Each program’s business case was
then assessed and prioritized based on a framework
jointly agreed on by the CIOs, CFOs, and strategy
management group. This prioritization framework
contained four core IT and non-IT criteria: strategic t
with BT Group strategy, expected nancial return, size
of budget, and risk of failure. Senior IT management
used this framework to map and track programs and
their respective projects. If a proposed project did not
t within one of the 29 programs, or it veered too far
off course, it was stopped.
Each program was managed by a dedicated team of IT
and non-IT managers. Their job was to ensure that the
projects met program objectives. A critical mechanism
for linking projects to program objectives was the
Post-Implementation Review (PIR). The PIRs did not
simply examine whether or not projects efciently
achieved their local goals. They also assessed projects
on broader objectives. In addition, over half the total
time spent on PIRs occurred during the early project
stages. Soon after the “hot housing” phase, IT and non-
IT participants from multiple levels of BT (many of
whom had worked together in the hot housing phase)
negotiated realistic metrics to assess project progress
(or lack thereof). The metrics needed to consider short-
term and long-term value, local and company-wide
objectives, and architecture compliance. At the end of
90 days, these metrics were used to review the project.
If the review found that the project had not met key
metrics, the project’s participants did not receive
bonuses and the project could be stopped. Projects that
continued onto another 90-day cycle used the results
of their PIR to improve management going forward.
Finally, all PIRs were managed by a central company-
level PIR team that disseminated best practices across
BT.8
Architecture Linkage Mechanisms
These vertical linkage mechanisms included:
Training designers to design architecturally
compliant solutions,
Involving architects in the earliest stages of
projects to instill a long-term company-wide
perspective. Generally, their involvement was
through informal meetings called “Brown Bag
Reviews,”
An exceptions-handling process that did not
simply enforce standards but was open to learning
from participating stakeholders.
Together, these three mechanisms provided valuable
means to collect insights to improve and rene the
enterprise architecture.
In 2001, when Verwaayen announced “One BT,” the
company had few mechanisms to align and coordinate
efforts across its business units. By 2005, it had
strengthened its company-wide IT governance and
standard project management and introduced several
linking mechanisms. Figure 4 illustrates these linking
mechanisms. With all the pieces of a more robust IT
engagement model in place, stakeholders could focus
on improving their collaborative capabilities and rene
the model as it matured. Many of the executives that
we interviewed credited engagement with enabling IT
to reduce costs by 10 percent every year. These savings
proved critical to fund new initiatives. In August 2005,
8 To learn more about post-implementation reviews, see Nelson,
R.R., “Project Retrospectives: Evaluating Project Success, Failure, and
Everything In Between,” MIS Quarterly Executive, (4:3) Sep 2005, pp.
361-372.
•
•
•

© 2006 University of Minnesota MIS Quarterly Executive Vol 5. No. 1 / Mar 2006 9
IT Engagement Model
CIO Magazine named BT one of the 100 boldest
companies of the year for “assuming signicant risk
for the sake of great reward.” In January 2006, One BT
earned ISO 9001 certication for its “innovative agile
development methodology.”
ToyoTa moTor markeTing
europe
Over the past 10 years, Toyota Motor Marketing Europe
S.A./N.V. (TMME)9 has transformed its structure from
a set of independent country units to a more integrated
and centrally coordinated organization. An integral
part of this transformation effort was transformation of
its enterprise architecture, to improve its exibility and
increase the transparency of information throughout
TMME’s supply and demand chains. TMME already
had a strong culture and business processes around
continuous improvement. As a result, its IT engagement
model focuses on architecture linkage mechanisms.
Toyota’s European operations started as a central
headquarters handling only supply and demand
9 TMME is a wholly owned subsidiary of Toyota Motor Europe
S.A./N.V. It is responsible for the wholesale marketing of Toyota and
Lexus vehicles, parts and accessories in Europe. Toyota Motor Europe
also owns Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing Europe S.A./
N.V., which is responsible for Toyota’s European manufacturing and
engineering operations.
management for Toyota’s many independently
managed country operations. As Toyota’s sales grew in
Europe, management realized it needed to take more
control over operations to serve its European customers
well. For example, prior to 1999, inventories of new
cars were maintained within country units. Thus,
a Swiss customer desiring a green Corolla with an
automatic transmission might have to wait months to
get it, even though that exact car was a few kilometers
away, just over the border in France. The same was
true for spare parts. Management realized TMME had
to start acting as a single European entity rather than
as individual country units.
Company-wide IT Governance and
Project Management at TMME
When asked to transform the company’s architecture,
the rst step the Architecture Group took was to link
the principles of the architecture to the goals of the
company. To do this, Peter Heinckiens, TMME’s Chief
Architect and Deputy General Manager of IT Strategy,
surveyed the strategic initiatives underway to identify
patterns. He summarized these patterns in a document,
to capture TMME’s strategy in a single place and in a
concrete manner.
This strategy document set forth the desired capabilities
of the enterprise architecture. The architecture group
Figure 4: Examples of Linking Mechanisms from BT

10 MIS Quarterly Executive Vol 5. No. 1 / Mar 2006 © 2006 University of Minnesota
Fonstad and Robertson / IT Engagement Model
designed a high-level set of architectural principles
showing how each one contributed to these desired
capabilities and, hence, to TMME’s strategic goals.
In 2000, management endorsed these principles. The
IT unit then used the principles to start conversations
with the country units about their need to comply with
the enterprise architecture. Heinckiens explained:
“It was important to connect the architecture principles
to the company’s goals. If we were to talk to project
managers only about architectural compliance, they
would dismiss it. By connecting the architecture with
the strategy of the company, we make architecture
relevant. Now, if managers resist complying with the
architecture, we simply point out that this means that
they are not supporting Toyota’s strategy. That changes
the conversation.”
The architecture group then began implementation.
After a few initial missteps, the group realized that
the only way to effectively ensure that business
projects didn’t violate the architecture was to establish
a disciplined process and assign an architect to each
project. The architecture group adapted and installed a
four-phase standard project methodology.
Linking Mechanisms at TMME
To link the standard project methodology with
enterprise architecture, the architecture group
introduced four linking mechanisms:
Project architects
Architects’ authority to “pull the line”10
Architecture funding
An appraisal phase
Project Architects
Each project team included a project architect,
with some architects on multiple projects. These
architects were responsible for helping to develop
the architecture for the project solution, ensuring that
the solution was compatible with TMME’s enterprise
architecture, and helping to update and improve the
enterprise architecture, if necessary.
The architects were rewarded for realistic solutions
and successful project delivery, which aligned with
each project team’s goals. This alignment fostered the
teams’ acceptance of the architects. In fact, each project
architect’s primary goal was project success. When the
project was successful—that is, when it met the project
10 “Pull the line” is a term borrowed from Toyota’s manufacturing
organization and is integral to Toyota’s culture. In a Toyota plant,
workers are obligated to “pull the line” and stop production if they see
poor quality production occurring.
1.
2.
3.
4.
plan on time and on budget, even if it violated the
architecture to some degree—the architect was deemed
to have “nearly achieved” the goals. When the project
was successful and helped implement the enterprise
architecture, the architect “fully achieved” the goals.
And when the project was successful and helped
implement and improve the enterprise architecture, the
architect “exceeded” the goals. TMME’s dual focus on
successful project delivery and enterprise architecture
helped project teams accept the project architects’ role
and helped ensure that the architectural solutions were
realistic and aligned with business goals.
“Pull the Line”
Project architects had the authority to “pull the line” on
a project when it was veering off course. Because of the
explicit linkage between the architecture and TMME’s
strategic goals, and because of TMME’s emphasis on
the importance of architecture, the architecture team
had the credibility and authority to stop projects, if
necessary. Although the architects rarely “pulled the
line,” this option gave them the power to keep projects
focused on achieving Toyota’s goals.
Architecture Funding
The central architecture group had a limited pool of
funds to support projects. Consequently, it looked for
ways to get multiple projects to support infrastructure
improvement. For example, if a project needed to
connect to a spare parts inventory database that
required updating, then that project would be given the
task of updating the database and its interface. Rather
than charge this project for that entire additional
cost, though, the architecture group rst looked for
other projects that also required interaction with that
database, to see if the updating cost could be shared.
If no other projects were found, then the architecture
group funded the additional cost itself. As Heinckiens
explained:
“If you have good engagement, most architecture
efforts get funded through the projects. The
projects need to do the work anyway, so all
you’re doing is asking them to do the work
in an architecturally sound way. The cost of
doing something right is usually no greater and
often leads to overall savings for the project.”
TMME tightly interwove these components—the
project architects, their ability to “pull the line,” and
architecture funding—into a robust architecture linkage
and applied all three early in projects’ life cycles to
engage IT and non-IT stakeholders and introduce
company-wide objectives into project strategies. As a

© 2006 University of Minnesota MIS Quarterly Executive Vol 5. No. 1 / Mar 2006 11
IT Engagement Model
result, projects advanced both local and company-wide
objectives, and business managers developed respect
for architectural efforts.
For example, the IT group was asked to create a Web-
based service for customers to select automotive
accessories—steering wheel covers, gear shift knobs,
and the like. The goal was to show customers pictures
of the accessories and let them choose which ones
they wanted. The architecture group realized that
the underlying data was located in numerous places,
including one application whose vendor had gone out
of business. Rather than build the application on top
of this data structure, the architecture group worked
with the business managers to re-scope the project
and incorporate design and construction of a new
accessories database. The initial project only had to
implement one small piece of this new database, but
it was done architecturally so that future projects
could easily nish the job. By being involved before
the start of the project and re-scoping the project, the
architecture group helped advance the architecture,
without increasing the cost of the original project.
An Appraisal Phase
Based on its experiences with projects, the architecture
group added a new phase to its project process, called
“The Appraisal Phase.” The appraisal phase became
the rst phase in a project’s lifecycle and focused on
project specications and stafng. This phase provided
a forum for the business and IT to decide on the goals
and solution strategy for a project, and how the project
would build on the enterprise architecture. Thus,
in this phase, projects can be re-scoped (as the Web-
based accessories service was) to include architectural
improvements (such as restructuring a database).
This new, up-front phase ensures that all projects
will contribute to achieving not only short-term local
business goals but also long-term company-wide
goals.
Business managers on the project teams have become
more motivated to cooperate with the architects to
achieve longer-term goals for three reasons. First, the
architects’ authority to “pull the line” initially spurred
cooperation—even though the architects have rarely
resorted to taking this action. Second, the architects
had carefully linked TMME’s strategy to the enterprise
architecture. So the architects could argue that business
managers resisting the architectural approach were
hindering Toyota from executing its strategy. Third,
the business managers began to see that following the
architects’ recommendations reduced overall project
cost and time, even when the initial project phases
took slightly longer.
TMME designed metrics to measure degree
of architectural compliance of projects and the
architecture’s contribution to business success. The
architectural compliance of projects went from 26%
in 2001 to 93% in 2004. Architecture contribution to
strategic initiatives improved 76% between 2002 and
2005.11
Figure 5 summarizes TMME’s linking mechanisms.
The results of the engagement efforts have been
positive: Toyota’s European delivery lead time for
vehicles has been reduced by 35% and its inventory
of spare parts has been reduced by almost 50%. And
Toyota’s European unit sales have grown over 11%
per year for the three years ending 2004.
seven principles for good
engagemenT
Based on our case study research of BT, TMME, and
other companies, we have identied seven principles
for ensuring that IT governance, project management,
and linking mechanisms lead to successful
engagement:
Build on a foundation of good IT
governance and project management. Each
component of the IT engagement model needs
to be effective on its own. Then, when they are
linked together, they are better able to make the
best of the other components, and the sum of the
whole becomes signicantly greater than the sum
of the individual components.
Make strategic objectives clear, specic,
and actionable. Clear strategic objectives are
necessary to guide engagement efforts. For
example, the rst activity of Toyota’s architecture
group was to create a clear statement of strategy
and gain top management’s endorsement.
Motivate to meet company goals. Formal
incentives, such as bonus plans, annual reviews,
and performance metrics, can help focus and
align activities. Toyota motivated both its project
managers and project architects to focus on
company goals through its incentive programs.
Dene enforcement authority. Complement
formal incentives with formal enforcement
mechanisms. Unless an engagement model has the
ability to stop efforts that stray from supporting
company goals, managers will ignore or resist
engagement efforts. The rst project to actually
11 For more information on Toyota Motor Marketing Europe’s
architecture and how it is measured, see Heinckiens, P. M., “Meta-level
Business Integration for Supporting New-Economy Business Models,”
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ghent, Belgium, May 2004.
1.
2.
3.
4.

12 MIS Quarterly Executive Vol 5. No. 1 / Mar 2006 © 2006 University of Minnesota
Fonstad and Robertson / IT Engagement Model
get penalized or stopped is an important tipping
point that boosts the credibility of engagement.
Emphasize early intervention and
prevention. Successful IT groups engage with
business projects during the earliest development
stages, to ensure that goals are aligned and to
prevent bad solutions from being designed in the
rst place.
Maintain transparent, regular, two-way
communication. With good engagement,
alignment and coordination are maintained
through regular communication between business
and IT. Such communication helps the parties
learn from each other, negotiate their differences,
and develop a common understanding of goals.
Involve the right people. Successful
engagement depends on having effective cross-
boundary communicators. These people tend to
be knowledgeable and empathetic to the concerns
and objectives of both parties (that is, they are
savvy in business and IT objectives and they are
uent in both company-wide and business unit
objectives).
The results of good engagement can be profound. In
a survey of 103 companies in the U.S. and Europe,
Ross, Weill and Robertson12 found two major
predictors of the strategic effectiveness of architectural
12 Op cit, Ross, Weill, and Robertson, forthcoming in 2006.
5.
6.
7.
initiatives. The rst predictor was the degree to
which senior managers were involved in dening
and overseeing architecture initiatives. This predictor
resulted from alignment across the top management
team. The second predictor was the degree to which
the architecture effort was well linked to project
activities—that is, successful companies had architects
on 81% of their teams versus 49% at less successful
companies. And, successful companies reviewed 80%
of their projects for architectural compliance versus
60% at less successful companies.
Are Your Stakeholders Engaged?
Figure 6 lists a selection of linking mechanisms from
TMME and BT, and describes in detail how each has
been used to improve coordination. As TMME and BT
both illustrate, companies draw on a variety of linking
mechanisms (including roles, decision-making bodies,
incentives, and formal and informal processes) to
achieve the three types of linkages. Each mechanism
has its strengths and weaknesses. For instance, a new
boundary-spanning role may be lled by someone
who can provide in-depth understanding across two
parties; however, that person may not solve political
tensions. Companies generally test out a variety of
mechanisms to see which ones t their situation best.
As stakeholders learn to engage, they adapt existing
mechanisms or replace them with new ones.
Figure 5: Examples of Linking Mechanisms from TMME

© 2006 University of Minnesota MIS Quarterly Executive Vol 5. No. 1 / Mar 2006 13
IT Engagement Model
While BT and TMME illustrate a range of linking
mechanisms, many others are possible. Another
common alignment linkage mechanism is business-
IT relationship managers. These managers build
trust and common understanding through continuous
engagement, which helps to guide projects. They also
can summarize business needs and IT constraints so
that projects are well scoped and targeted. Similarly,
business process owners increase alignment when they
work with IT to reduce redundancies and increase reuse
across the company. Linking mechanisms, integrated
with the mechanisms that make up company-wide IT
governance and project management, form a system of
mechanisms that we call the IT engagement model.
There are two ways to illustrate your company’s
system of mechanisms. Each approach reveals different
aspects of the engagement model. The rst approach
is to draw a top-down organizational view, such as
Figure 6: A Selection of Linking Mechanisms from BT and TMME
Linking Mechanism
Type of Linkage
Impact on Project Level
How did the mechanism enable company-wide IT
governance to inuence projects?
Impact on Company-wide IT
Governance
How did the mechanism enable
projects to inuence company-wide IT
governance?
BT plc
Market Side CIOs
Alignment Linkage
Market side CIOs ensured that personnel from the central
IT organization understood business needs.
Market side CIOs focused on the strategic
role of IT, guiding investment and project
priorities.
Program and Project Prioritization
Business Linkage
All projects had to belong to one of 29 programs. A
standard prioritization framework was jointly agreed on
between CIOs, CFOs, and BT’s strategy group. Projects
that belonged to programs with low priority were also
given low priority. This alignment helped control the
number of projects that project-level IT worked on.
Senior management nally had a
comprehensive view of projects across
BT. This BT-wide view allowed them to
compare and assess the strategic t and
risk prole of programs and projects, and
better guide IT investments.
Brown Bag Review
Architecture Linkage
IT architects sat down with project managers to review the
project solution’s architecture. Early inuence of project
solution helped manage the expectations of the business
sponsors before they became too invested in a specic
solution.
Helped the enterprise architecture
team identify and address gaps in
the architecture before they became
signicant impediments.
Post Implementation Review
Business Linkage and Architecture
Linkage
After the PIR metrics were dened, the project was
assessed once a month against those metrics. At the
end of the 90-day cycle, a nal review was conducted.
Projects that did not meet their goals were stopped. The
results were used to determine bonuses and rewards for
project-level participants. Lessons from PIRs were used
to develop more realistic and specic business cases for
projects.
Results were used to rene measures and
targets to evaluate projects. In addition,
at the end of each 90-day cycle, the PIR
team reported lessons learned.
Exceptions Handling Process
Architecture Linkage
Each project was assigned a program lead designer who
was trained in BT’s enterprise architecture. All exceptions
had to receive approval before receiving IT resources.
Exceptions were used to improve the
enterprise architecture. Exceptions
sometimes highlighted parts of the
architecture that required rening.
TMME
Project Architect on Project Teams
Architecture Linkage
Project architects helped develop the architecture for the
project solution, and ensure that the project was compliant
with the enterprise architecture.
Project architects helped to design and
update the enterprise architecture.
Architecture Funding Process
Architecture Linkage
Architecture funding helped spread the cost of major
architecture improvements over many projects, making
it easier for projects to also take on related architectural
improvements.
The process of reviewing which strategic
initiatives could benet (and would pay
for) a major architectural improvement
helped establish the importance of that
improvement.
Addition of Appraisal Phase
Alignment Linkage
Project goals and solution strategy were assessed early in
the life cycle of a project and the project was re-scoped, if
necessary, to accomplish both business and architectural
goals.
Restructuring of projects helped educate
both business and IT on each other’s
goals.
Assessment of Impact of Architecture
Architecture Linkage
At their conclusion, projects were assessed on the degree
of compliance with enterprise architecture. Feedback
helped ensure that architectural efforts were truly
beneting projects.
The strategic impact of the architecture
was assessed to ensure that it continued
to provide business value and to adjust
architecture goals, if necessary.
Continuous Improvement of Standard
Project Methodology
Business Linkage
Lessons from past projects were used to adjust and
improve the way projects were executed.
Projects were considered as learning
opportunities to improve the standard
project methodology.

14 MIS Quarterly Executive Vol 5. No. 1 / Mar 2006 © 2006 University of Minnesota
Fonstad and Robertson / IT Engagement Model
shown in Figures 4 and 5. To follow this approach, ask
yourself four questions:
What mechanisms do our IT governance bodies
use to reach and to enforce their decisions?
How do these mechanisms interact with our
projects?
How are our projects coordinated?
What linking mechanisms connect our projects
to business leadership? To IT leadership? To IT
architects?
The second approach is to take a project-focused
view. This approach can complement the top-down
organizational view. Choose an important strategic
initiative and ask the project manager three questions:
If you were to attach yourself to the initiative
and follow it from inception to completion, what
mechanisms would it experience?
For each mechanism, describe who provides
inputs and who is authorized to make the nal
decision.
How do these mechanisms enable or constrain
business-IT alignment across organizational
levels? How do the mechanisms enable or
constrain coordination across the company and
within IT?
Once you have drawn these two pictures of your IT
engagement model, ask yourself the following ve
questions:
Are the right people involved? Is there good
involvement at all levels from both the business
and IT sides?
Is there real authority, or are people ignoring
the mechanisms when they’re not convenient?
Do people understand how the IT strategy
and enterprise architecture support the business
strategy?
Does IT get involved early in projects? Does
it link efforts across the company?
Is it clear to everyone why the engagement
model exists and how it functions?
conclusion
Most IT groups face a myriad of requests for new
projects, each competing for scarce resources.
Tackling each challenge separately is rarely effective
because the individual solutions quickly turn into
an unwieldy tangle that suffocates innovation and
erodes the credibility of senior decision makers. And
big, top-down initiatives, too, often fail to meet their
goals. We have found that the three key components
of the engagement model—IT governance, project
management, and linking mechanisms—help
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
companies take on the right projects, execute them
well, and, when taken together, collectively help the
company achieve its goals.
Because of TMME’s effective engagement model,
it has built large parts of its enterprise architecture
through ongoing projects, driving the central
architecture budget almost to zero. Many IT groups
we have talked to respond to this statement with
disbelief. Yet, we believe this is an achievable goal. By
effectively engaging across all parts of the company,
real company-wide transformation can be achieved,
funded by business-driven initiatives, one project at a
time.
aBouT The auThors
Nils O. Fonstad
Nils Fonstad (nilsfonstad@mit.edu) is a Research
Scientist at the MIT Center for Information Systems
Research. He uses ethnographic methods to examine
how groups and organizations use technology to
innovate in dynamic environments. He earned his Ph.D.
from the Information Technology Group at MIT Sloan.
His research seeks to better understand the roles of
technology in a variety of fundamental organizational
practices (e.g., innovation, transformation, and
negotiation) as well as the practices themselves.
David Robertson
David Robertson (David.Robertson@imd.ch) is a
Professor at IMD in Lausanne, Switzerland, where he
teaches innovation, technology management, and IT
in IMD’s executive and MBA programs. At IMD, he
is currently directing executive programs for Credit
Suisse, EMC2, Skanska, GMAC, and HSBC. He was
also Co-Director of the Making Business Sense of IT
program, a joint program between IMD and MIT. Prior
to IMD, Robertson was a Post-Doctoral Research
Fellow at the MIT Computer Science and Articial
Intelligence Laboratory, a consultant at McKinsey
& Company for ve years, and an executive at four
enterprise software companies. In addition to his
responsibilities at IMD, he is co-founder of a product
design rm that has patented and is bringing to market
its rst product. He also serves as a consultant to
companies on issues such as innovation, enterprise
architecture, and overall business strategy.