For organizations that use IT systems in their primary business or as support of their business processes, optimal alignment between the business strategy and their business information technology (BIT) is critical. However, achieving business information technology alignment remains challenging due to the vast number of choices one has to make. Firstly, one has to choose from a large number of potential BIT practices. Secondly, one has to choose BIT practices that align with the business strategy. Thirdly, one has to understand the dynamics of combining multiple BIT practices. And, finally, as business strategy and BIT practices evolve, one needs to consider the long-term alignment as this has significant consequences for both the business strategy and the overall enterprise architecture. These intricacies of alignment mirror the challenges apparent in other business strategy-practice alignment domains. An example is human resource management and strategy alignment for which a simulation model and serious game has been developed in prior research. Here, we build upon this prior research. In BITInLine players have to select a set of BIT practices with the best strategy fit from a list of 48 different BIT practices. The challenge is to select a combination of practices over multiple consecutive simulated years (rounds within the game) that align to the organisations’ strategic profile, and adapt to the outcomes of the choices made in previous years. Practices in the game are clustered around six key BIT topics emerging from the strategic alignment and enterprise architecture disciplines: (1) service strategy, (2) information & data strategy, (3) platform & application strategy, (4) Infrastructure strategy, (5) security strategy, and (6) operations and performance. In BITInLine feedback on the BITA and the deviation from the desired strategic profile is presented after each round (representing a year of using the selected practices). Using BITInLine, players can experiment with, and in doing so learn from, selecting multiple combinations of BIT practices and experience the outcome of their choices in terms of BITA over multiple simulated years, while adapting their choice of practices to the situation at hand. In the current paper the serious game (re)design to create BITInLine and an initial trial run will be presented.
MULTIFILE
As part of their SMS, aviation service providers are required to develop and maintain the means to verify the safety performance of their organisation and to validate the effectiveness of safety risk controls. Furthermore, service providers must verify the safety performance of their organisation with reference to the safety performance indicators and safety performance targets of the SMS in support of their organisation’s safety objectives. However, SMEs lack sufficient data to set appropriate safety alerts and targets, or to monitor their performance, and no other objective criteria currently exist to measure the safety of their operations. The Aviation Academy of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences therefore took the initiative to develop alternative safety performance metrics. Based on a review of the scientific literature and a survey of existing safety metrics, we proposed several alternative safety metrics. After a review by industry and academia, we developed two alternative metrics into tools to help aviation organisations verify the safety performance of their organisations.The AVAV-SMS tool measures three areas within an organisation’s Safety Management System:• Institutionalisation (design and implementation along with time and internal/external process dependencies).• Capability (the extent to which managers have the capability to implement the SMS).• Effectiveness (the extent to which the SMS deliverables add value to the daily tasks of employees).The tool is scalable to the size and complexity of the organisation, which also makes it useful for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The AVAS-SCP tool also measures three areas in the organisation’s safety culture prerequisites to foster a positive safety culture:• Organisational plans (whether the company has designed/documented each of the safety cultureprerequisites).• Implementation (the extent to which the prerequisites are realised by the managers/supervisors acrossvarious organisational levels).• Perception (the degree to which frontline employees perceive the effects of managers’ actions relatedto safety culture).We field-tested these tools, demonstrating that they have adequate sensitivity to capture gaps between Work-as-Imagined (WaI) and Work-as-Done (WaD) across organisations. Both tools are therefore useful to organisations that want to self-assess their SMS and safety culture prerequisite levels and proceed to comparisons among various functions and levels and/or over time. Our field testing and observations during the turn-around processes of a regional airline confirm that significant differences exist between WaI and WaD. Although these differences may not automatically be detrimental to safety, gaining insight into them is clearly necessary to manage safety. We conceptually developed safety metrics based on the effectiveness of risk controls. However, these could not be fully field-tested within the scope of this research project. We recommend a continuation of research in this direction. We also explored safety metrics based on the scarcity of resources and system complexity. Again, more research is required here to determine whether these provide viable solutions.
