Bridging Operational, Strategic and Project Management
Information Systems for Tactical Management Information
Provision
Renata Petrevska Nechkoska1,2, Geert Poels1 and Gjorgji Manceski2
1
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
2
Faculty of Economics – Prilep, University St. Clement Ohridski, Bitola, Macedonia
renata.petrevskanechkoska@ugent.be
geert.poels@ugent.be
gmanceski@t-home.mk
Abstract: Tactical Management is a distinctive managerial function that needs to be delineated both in the managerial and
information systems sense. This research of literature investigates current types of managerial information systems in
order to evaluate the various manners tactical management is addressed. Ongoing research supports us to pursue a goal of
properly defining Tactical Management, its characteristics and distinctiveness from the Operational, Strategic and Project
Management; but also its connection points and overlapping collaboration areas with these managerial functions. This
ought to provide proper basis for recognizing the information system requirements for tactical management and shed light
on what should and can be done differently, in order to align the tactical management business profile and needs with the
information provisioned by managerial information systems. Given that Tactical Management needs adaptability to
changing context (organizational and environmental); is facing the complexity of issues of different nature to be dealt with;
communicates with widest scope of stakeholders, entities, processes and developments to be informed about; faces a
variable set of diverse incoming and outgoing information flows whose mismatch needs to be addressed; and last but not
least, should be able to perform system design, prior process design and management. This research reaches several
important findings in the direction of under-addressing of tactical information needs by current types of managerial
information systems; ingestion or assimilation of the tactical managerial level of decision-making by operational or
strategic management; attempts to automatize the handling of mismatch of incoming and outgoing information; strive for
real-time information environments; divided tendencies towards providing adaptability or predictability to the
management; diverse ideas for context capturing and treatments of tactical management as process or system. The
implicit purpose of the research is to attract attention to tactical management, its importance that can bring substantial
competitive advantage to the businesses, and the incremental potential tactical management will realize when being
accordingly supported by the information systems of tomorrow.
Keywords: tactical management, sense-and-respond framework, adaptability, information systems, requirements
engineering
1. Introduction
“Tactics play a crucial role in determining how much value is created and captured by firms” (CasadesusMasanel et al. 2009). It is important to define and explore it in details, in order to be able to point out its
managerial distinctiveness as well as similarity with the operational, strategic and project management; and
the mutual connecting points and dependencies. There is hard time behind doing the tactical management
job, trying to coordinate, translate and/or align operations/strategy, details/summaries,
management/employees, clients/company, manual/automatized information systems, human, technical,
business, … aspects of work. The translation and alignment of the mismatch of all these signals, especially
observed from the point of view of the person, is highly complex, diverse and changeable, and should be
addressed properly. In the continuing challenges for sustainable information systems, Loucopoulos et al.
(Loucopoulos et al., 2006) observe the aspects of ecological complexity – perceiving the double sided nature of
the companies and the information systems as complex socio-technical systems; product complexity; project
management – for getting the wrong requirements and not focusing on the outcome of and information
system engineering and implementation; and education. The successful performance of the tactical
management function differentiates the success of the company throughout the time, and it is person- and
company- specific. Defining and embedding processes and structures in the organization that enable both
business and IT people to execute their responsibilities in creating value from IT-enabled business investments
(De Haes and Van Grembergen, 2015) is a current tendency on the side of the researchers and practitioners,
also supported by standardization (such as ISO 38500 – the International Standard for Corporate Governance
ISSN 1566-6379
146
©ACPIL
Reference this paper as: Petrevska Nechkoska R., Poels G. and Manceski G., “Bridging Operational, Strategic
and Project Management Information Systems for Tactical Management Information Provision” The Electronic
Journal Information Systems Evaluation Volume 18 Issue 2 2015, (pp146-158), available online at
www.ejise.com
Renata Petrevska Nechkoska, Geert Poels and Gjorgji Manceski
of IT, ISO 31000 – for Risk Management (ISO, 2015)). This motivation is fueling numerous theoretical
contributions and business solutions – however the connection points are sporadic, especially when the entire
organization or the widest stakeholder structure is observed (Van Grembergen et al., 2015).
This research of literature aims to point out current Information Systems contributions in terms of concepts,
approaches, artifacts and implementations with regards to Operational, Tactical, Strategic and Project
Management, through the lens of Tactical Management distinctive needs – with the aim to reveal the tactical
management specific information system needs and to make visible the junctures where tactical management
bridges with operational, strategic and project management. Our standpoint is that tactical management is
distinctive from other managerial functions with the:
High need for adaptability to changing context (organizational and environmental)
Complexity of issues of different nature to be dealt with
Widest scope of stakeholders, entities, processes, developments to be informed about
System design approach, prior Process flow
Variable set of diverse incoming and outgoing information flows that can’t always be predefined, and
whose mismatch needs to be addressed
Hence, the tactical management need for information systems is very specific, and can’t be satisfied only with
cascading goals, reports and automatized processing logic. It needs theoretical specification, relevance
confirmation by real-business research, and special provision by the information systems. The direction is
towards individualized extraction and combination of inputs, dynamic processing logic, immediate
environmental and organizational context capture and customizable outputs in terms of information. It also
needs continuous revising of the context to be able to sustain towards an outcome in changing context – in
order to capture earlier the relevant impulses and have a mechanism for proper response (Welsh et al., 2011).
We are in favor of “heterogeneous requirements engineering” (Lyytinen et al., 2006) in order to avoid social or
technological reductionism in sustainable addressing the tactical management function with information. In
terms of business pursuit for an “end” (strategic guidelines, KPIs, targets, goals), it is generally a ‘given’
variable. In terms of operations, the prescription of business processes, the pursuit for efficiency and
optimization, gives throughout the time (year(s)) certain rigidity and repetitiveness in their existence.
However, in terms of tactical management, there are numerous and various in nature specific aspects to be
taken care of, while pursuing a goal, with somewhat fixed operational inputs, in terms of alternative paths and
adaptations to a very dynamic and generally uncertain (Schwabe, 2014) and/or unpredictable environment.
In the highly dynamic business world, one should ‘know earlier’ the most quiet peripheral signals that may
shape the future of the work – but that is possible only if one points a radar towards them. From this narrative,
we would like to point out the tactical manager’s duty - to continuously properly position the sensing of
information (Sense), and align the mismatch of information received (Interpret) processes and actions
(Decide), with some reasoning and maneuvers to translate them in order to provide and control the right path
to fulfillment (Act) – SIDA loop (in the Sense-and-Response Framework, (Haeckel, 2004)). This SIDA loop is
perceived as the perpetual engine to adaptability, if continuously run to revise the context (both organizational
and environmental). Such capturing of context is of utmost importance for the lens of this research – with the
aim not to suffer from the discrepancy between design-time and run-time (Zdravkovic, 2013) states of the
socio-technical system being managed. The SIDA loop is also enabling more precise mapping of the
Information System needs for tactical management, that differ in manner of obtaining, frequency, content,
and many other aspects.
We see the tactical management as a very important and flexible crossroad that should be able to trace a
number of alternative paths for the existence of any business. This specific nature of tactical management
does need specific addressing with Information Systems and with Managerial Concepts. The organization of
the paper is as follows: firstly, we are delineating tactical management from the other managerial functions;
after which, brief definition of the concepts used as baseline, the research strategy and criteria according
which the subject papers have been filtered, are explained. The analysis performed upon the research
categories and interpretation of results and conclusions are given in the last section.
www.ejise.com
147
ISSN 1566-6379
Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation Volume 18 Issue 2 2015
2. Tactical Management Definition and Characteristics
We are introducing the managerial background of the Tactical Management in order to point out how the
business foundation of tactics is paving the way for proper Information System requirements and appropriate
provisions.
One definition of tactics, even though modestly present in literature, stated by Merriam-Webster dictionary, is
as follows: (a) the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat; (b) the art or skill of
employing available means to accomplish an end; (c) a system or mode of procedure”; deriving from Latin
‘tactica’, from Greek ‘taktika’ meaning ‘fit for arranging, to arrange, place in battle formation’ (MerriamWebster). When removing the military context, the important words in this definition are – disposing –
positioning, influencing, persuading, ruling ; maneuvering; skill – managerial; employing available means –
using and capturing the current context; to accomplish an end – to reach a goal; a system; mode – approach;
arranging and re-arranging.
In our working definition we perceive tactical management as the managerial function on How to achieve
what is expected by utilizing what is given and following certain governing principles in the current context of
the organization and environment.
The elements of the definition can be rearranged with reference to the other managerial functions:
How to achieve (tactics)
what is expected (strategy)
by utilizing what is given (operations)
and following certain governing principles (strategic guidelines)
in the current context of the organization and environment (tactics)
As it is visible from the definition, the tactical management is expected to maneuver with numerous ‘givens’ –
that may change and are changing. The context is also dynamic and to some extent unpredictable, be it the
immediate environment, or the organizational context – the purpose, priorities, governing principles,
expectations. The socio-technical system being managed is dynamic and unpredictable. We are recognizing
that the department, the team, the organization it is a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) (Holland, 1996) that a
manager needs to guide towards a goal, which is specific and unpredictable (Janssen, 2015), to begin with.
These requirements imply that Tactical Management should have the adaptability as integrated characteristic
in the behavior of the manager and in the information system design, in order to perform successfully,
throughout time.
The current managerial literature for strategic management is diverse and abundant. The main concepts
integrated in the literature are effectiveness, organizational alignment, governance, competitive advantage.
Strategic managers are assisted with conceptual frameworks and contributions such as the the Balanced
Scorecard (Kaplan et al., 2007), Triple Bottom Line (Elkington, 1997), the Performance Prism (Neely et al.,
2002), Skandia’s Navigator (Edvinsson, 1997), Intangible Assets Monitor (Sveiby, 1997), The Tableau de Bord
(Epstein et al., 1997) (Bourguignon et al., 2004) (Pezet, 2009), The Performance Measurement Matrix (Keegan
et al., 1989), the Strategic Measurement and Reporting Technique Pyramid (Lynch et al., 1991), The Results
and Determinants Framework (Fitzgerald et al., 1991), The Input-Process-Output-Outcome Framework (Brown,
1996), Objectives and Key Results, the Performance Wheel (McNair et al., 2009) and numerous others. These
theoretical approaches offer strategic mapping, balanced measurement systems, financial and non-financial
dimensions of organizational performance, qualitative and quantitative information, and appropriate
scorecards and even dashboards that enable key indicator monitoring and decision making.
The operational management is also receiving valuable attention with managerial as well as Information
System contributions. In the managerial literature, the key elements are efficiency and business processes. The
non-exhaustive list incorporates managerial methods and techniques such as Six Sigma, Total Quality
Management, Lean Six Sigma (Tennant G., 2001), Statistical Process Analysis, Statistical Process Control, Agile
(Meyer, 2014), and others.
www.ejise.com
148
©ACPIL
Renata Petrevska Nechkoska, Geert Poels and Gjorgji Manceski
The tactical management dilemmas for key concepts in managerial literature are effectiveness vs. efficiency,
outcomes vs. outputs, system design vs. process design. There is scarcity of managerial methods and
techniques related to tactics – and, this investigation aims to prove that the same situation reflects in the
support for tactical management in terms of information systems, too. On the side of the tools and techniques,
actively used are Network Planning, Realistic Scheduling, Accurate Estimating, Work Breakdown Structure,
Product and Project Lifecycle. Tactical Management is mostly supported in Project Management literature –
with the well-established concepts of PMBOK (Project Management Institute, 2004), Scrum, Prince 2, Agile
Project Management, Management of Value and others. However, the tactical management as continuous
function has distinctive characteristics from the project management function, so to some extent the project
management literature is addressing but not completely covering the tactical management needs.
The intersections of the Tactical Management function with the operational, strategic and project
management functions (discussed in our definition), stress the junctions where tactical management connects
these functions in the socio-technical system of an organization. The distinctiveness of the Tactical
Management function from the operational, strategic and project management functions (discussed in the
Introduction), points out how it needs to be addressed with Information System provisions.
3. Research design
3.1 Concepts in the research
With the abovementioned Tactical Management definition and characteristics in mind, we have performed a
theoretical research in order to get deeper insight in the support that the tactical management is having at this
point in time, with broad information systems artifacts, frameworks, methods and tools. To be more specific,
the literature research was guided by the following questions: (1) understanding of the essence of the paper,
the proposed contribution and its integration in management per level (Operational, Tactical, Strategic,
Project) and the proposed combinations; (2) analyzing the specific information and processing input for
Tactical Management, depending on the used Tools, Methods, Approaches, Artifacts; (3) detection of how the
proposed artifact takes in consideration (used the term “closing” with) an End – may it be performance
measurement framework, such as Balanced Scorecard, Triple Bottom Line, … or Business Plan, KPIs, Goals,
Targets, Reason for Being, Purpose, Accountability; (4) how the work handles the mismatch of the information
for tactical management; (5) the prescription of Real-time or tactical management specific Right-time
information need; (6) The presence or absence of Sense-and-Respond Framework and the adaptability loop
(such as Sense-Interpret-Decide-Act (SIDA) Loop); (7) the support for Adaptability (8) the perception of
Predictability in the specific approach (9) the Context capture approach and (10) the artifact’s underlying focus
on System Design, Process Design or both.
3.2 Research strategy
The background idea that is guiding this research is to detect the provisions of adaptability i.e. and Information
System requirements for tactical management.
The initial stage of the research was performed on 350 theoretical contributions obtained from EBSCO
database; Web Of Science Listing of high ranking Information Systems journals, Google Scholar engine;
Research Gate Portal; searched with the keywords: information systems, management information systems,
tactical management information system, operational management information system, strategic
management information system, project management information system, business and IT alignment;
decision support systems; enterprise architecture, enterprise ontology, business process modeling, business
modeling. Also, snowballing technique was used, cross-checking and expanding the search with referenced
publications in the initially selected works. This literature review investigates in-depth 25 theoretical
contributions published in the time frame of 2004-2015 that are offering information systems artifacts,
implementations and knowledge to the operational, tactical, strategic and project management, using various
foundations technologies and combinations, and from different viewpoints. The selection of 25 papers out of
350 was performed according specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. As initial step, we recognized the
widest foundations for positioning the information systems foundations in the categories Enterprise
Architecture, Enterprise Ontologies, Business Modeling and Business Process Modeling. With the intention to
provide overarching representation of contributions, we have conducted selection of 25 papers to represent
extensions in use of these categories. The inclusion criteria was regarding the content of the works –
www.ejise.com
149
ISSN 1566-6379
Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation Volume 18 Issue 2 2015
addressing information systems for operational, tactical, strategic, project management in at least two
managerial functions (operational and tactical; tactical and strategic; …); containing information for tactical
management information input, output, handling of mismatch; treatment of real-time or right-time
information; inclusion of adaptability or predictability feature; addressing context capture and system or
process design in the information system design. The works that had input for the before-mentioned criteria
have been shortlisted and selected according belonging to the use of the four categories, described as initial
foundation. Contributions that have been domain specific or business line specific have not been taken in
consideration. Another, exclusion criteria was commercialized tools and solutions – the analysis is performed
on theoretical artifacts only. Third exclusion criteria was for contributions that are addressing only one of the
operational or strategic management, and every artifact in the shortlist addresses at least two of the
managerial functions – inevitably including, or overseeing tactical management, which has been very useful to
observe.
4. Analysis
The analysis of the selected literature according the questions stated in section 3.1 follows:
4.1 Primary orientation in terms of operational, tactical, strategic, project management and
combinations of the contributions
The Information system support for tactical management, we argue, should be approaching the target
audience according its characteristics - not generalization as any other type of management. As discussed in
the introduction, the tactical management is facing high complexity and unpredictability. Since it is being the
way to achieve the expectations of the company’s existence, and since it is so much diverse and person- and
company-dependent, it is addressed with the general principles of a certain level of management. From this
standpoint, it was an interesting quest to see in what way which artifacts are assisting tactical management.
Hence, the initial categorization is to be made by which level of management the analyzed papers are focusing
on.
Figure 1: Coverage of the managerial functions (Operational, Tactical, Strategic, Project management) by the
investigated works
Of course, one can argue that this is not complete and thorough literature review but more an “emerging issue
that would benefit from exposure to potential theoretical foundations” (Webster and Watson 2002) and as
such, conclusions about absence of focus to the characteristics of the tactical management and appropriate
information systems can’t be made. However, this investigation shows that there is significantly less coverage
in some form addressing tactical management in general, present in only 50% of the papers, while Operational
is in a hive of solutions with 75% preceeded by Strategic with 80%. Project management has been addressed in
48% of the works (Figure 1).
www.ejise.com
150
©ACPIL
Renata Petrevska Nechkoska, Geert Poels and Gjorgji Manceski
Figure 2: Combinations of focus of the information system solutions of the analyzed works in terms of
operational, tactical, strategic and project management
Figure 2 shows the combinations that exist in the reviewed artifacts and approaches: interestingly, 30% of the
investigated works tend to overarch Operations to Strategy (Iafrate 2013), (Buckley et al. 2005), (Werner
2013), (Kapoor et al. 2005), (Hoogervorst 2009), (Ba et al. 2008)(Berzisa et al., 2015); the one end of
Operational and Tactical issues is being tackled by 15% of the works (IBM 2008), (Hoontae et al. 2007), (Hill
2009); and the other end of Tactical and Strategic by 10% of the works (Maes 2007), (Cherbakov et al.
2005)(Franceskoni et al., 2013) (Frank, 2014) and complete solutions for Operations, Tactics and Strategy are
being given in 25% of the investigated works (Barone et al. 2010), (Gill 2013), (Berkem 2008), (Forno 2012),
(Haeckel 2004) (Poels et al., 2013),(ISACA, 2012).
4.2 Information and processing input for tactical management, depending on the used tools,
methods, approaches, artifacts
This aspect is browsed through the literature in order to perceive the provision of tactical management with
information from the operations and/or wider entities and processes that are happening in the everyday work.
This is one aspect that supports our idea that the tactical management is facing mismatch of incoming
information vs outgoing information flows and outcome expectations. The idea behind is that tactical
management proper information is much more than standard reports or automated dashboards because there
are many operations, modifications and maneuvers that need to be done to any incoming data prior the
tactical management information is appropriate for use. The solutions in literature are diverse. Starting from
wide range of event driven and on-demand data with near-zero-latency Business Inteligence, predictive
modeling, incorporating best practices and exceptions management (Iafrate 2013) Big analytics, massive data
capture and business inteligence, “what-if” analysis, forecasts and trends (Buckley et al. 2005), support with
processed data and integrated business intelligence (Werner 2013), as well as use of Business Event
Processing, heterogeneous event types, internal and external multiple sources, event processing logic
maintained by user – dashboards (IBM 2008) and personalized monitoring dashboards (Hoontae et al. 2007)
that incorporate event-driven and on-demand information to be given at hand (Kapoor et al. 2005). Number of
contributions are noted using enterprise architecture to facilitate context analysis (Hoogervorst 2009) (Gill
2013), ‘Business Execution layer’ feeding information (Simon et al. 2013). Enterprise modeling is being used in
providing design of the sensing mechanism based on the Business Intelligence Model (BIM) and i* (Nalchigar
2013), in order to monitor the achievement of strategic goals, develop alternative responses, select the most
suitable alternatives, implement and monitor the response (Barone et al. 2010). Frequent is the observation
that the tactical choices that are available depend on the business model chosen by the firm in the first stage
that depends on the strategy (Casadesus-Masanell 2009), while Ba et al. develop method aimed at effectively
organizing, integrating, reusing knowledge and model components in direction of providing information and
knowledge input for the alternatives, scenario models and model solutions of the decision maker (Ba et al.
2008). With Component Business Model (CBM) (Cherbakov et al. 2005) have seen information support through
www.ejise.com
151
ISSN 1566-6379
Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation Volume 18 Issue 2 2015
the componentization and the dynamic processes, while the Business Motivation Model (BMM) and Service
Oriented Architecture (SOA) are the basis for designing ‘The Why (Business motivation), the What (Services)
and the How (Service Description and Realization)’ (Berkem 2008) to provide organized information supply.
Business Process Execution Measurement Model (BPEMM), Business Activity Monitoring (BAM) and Process
Mining (PM) are the basis for Overall Business Process execution measurement and Improvement approach
that serves the levels of management with relevant BP information (Delgado et al. 2014). Modeling selected
Business Processes, Describing functions, Roles, Alternatives, Actions is the approach used by (Frank, 2014)
Noteworthy designs for information provision and automated decision-making are seen in the SIFT framework
an abstract artifact (a framework comprising of models, measures and a method) for Information Quality
improvement (Hill 2009), Integrative framework for Information Management (Maes 2007) where Strategy,
Structure and Operations are differentiated and in the Adaptive Enterprise Service System Model (Gill 2013).
Goals cascade and the Process-Practice-Activity concepts, especially the inputs and outputs of the Practices
being useful for Tactical Management in the COBIT 5 framework (ISACA, 2013). Tactical view (for internal
aspects of tactic) and Partnership view (for the partnerships among enterprises) are the way of addressing
tactic in the TBIM (Franceskoni et al., 2013). Core concepts, Ecology concepts, Execution concepts, Evaluation
concepts are the main elements which intertwine in the work of (Poels et al., 2013) To end with the other side
of this spectrum, with the approaches of Forno and Haeckel, where proper positioning of information sensors
with regard to the current accountability is recommended. (Haeckel 2004) (Forno 2012)
4.3 Output expected of tactical management (‘ends’)
With regard to the expected outputs or outcomes from the tactical management function, the literature
analysis has resulted with the notion that most of the contributions expect the ‘endings’ to be Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs), some of which using the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) as strategic framework, with
the following modalities: KPIs (Ba et al. 2008) (IBM 2008) (Delgado 2014); Indicators and KPIs (Hoontae et el.
2007) (Berzisa et al., 2015); KPIs that align with strategic goals (Iafrate 2013); KPIs, Goals and Objectives
(Buckley et al. 2005); KPIs and projections (Maes 2007); two loops for monitoring KPIs and ex-post periodic
analysis (Werner 2013); KPIs through BSC perspectives (Kapoor et al. 2005) (Nalchigar et al. 2013) (Barone et
al. 2010). ‘Endings’ in broader sense are defined and used as Mission, Goals (Hoogervorst 2009); Goals and
Priorities (Gill 2013); Targets, Goals (Cherbakov et al. 2005); Strategic guidelines reflected in the selected
business model (Casadesus-Masanell et al. 2009); Business motivation, Business Model (Simon et al. 2013);
and Metrics (Hill 2009). Business goals as part of the ends drive courses of actions (strategy and tactic),
directives (rules and policies) till business processes in the (Berkem 2008) paper. Strategic goals are used in the
work of (Franceskoni et al., 2013) (Frank, 2014) The RACI charts roles that address tactical manager’s role
expectations as well as the integrated goal cascades are used in COBIT 5 (ISACA, 2013). Evaluation concepts
(quality, productivity, legal compliance, sustainable innovation) serve as KPIs in the work of (Poels et al., 2013).
To complete the horizon with the Reason for being (Purpose) and the Outcomes accountable for, that are used
as ‘endings’ defined and used by (Forno 2012) and (Haeckel 2004) while achieving whatever indicators a
company needs.
4.4 Handling mismatch of information
According the previous two concepts, our standpoint that the tactical management position in the middle of
Strategy and Operations, Clients and Company and Management and Employees faces mismatch of incoming
and outgoing information that needs to be handled in some way. Usually, the additional operations of data
exported from the existing systems are performed by the manager him/herself (research in progress); but
there is significant variance in time, quality, personal approach and effects when that operation is performed
individually. The theoretical approaches offer different solutions for this problem: starting from Automatized
conversions and reasoning of data (Iafrate 2013) and automated decision making (Hill 2009); Sense and
Respond Business Performance Management that orchestrates dynamic, structured and unstructured
information within a continuous, adaptive event-based planning process, also determines business rules and
policies and orchestrates among the value partners to achieve better overall performance (Buckley et al. 2005)
through management by exception, most of the data is automatically converted with some prescribed
reasoning and processing logic (IBM 2008). Business Process design and KPI definition (Werner 2013) and
essential alignment of measures that are related to business strategy and goals for the entire organization with
the ones that are specific for each business process (Delgado et al. 2014) are another type of approaches
trying to address the mismatch of information on tactical level. Modeled conversions and reasoning of data
are visible in the papers of (Kapoor et al. 2005), (Nalchigar et al. 2013), (Ba et al. 2008), (Hoontae et al. 2007),
www.ejise.com
152
©ACPIL
Renata Petrevska Nechkoska, Geert Poels and Gjorgji Manceski
all the way to more specific, short-term, semi-structured modeling possible for Mid-level management control
(Barone et al. 2010). “Means (Strategy, Tactics) and Ends (Vision, Goal, Objective) to cover the "total
disconnection" of the business processes with the business goals and rules” (Berkem 2008). Comparison of the
model (requires vs. produces) is intended to handle the in-out mismatch of information (Frank, 2014).
Noteworthy for our suggestion for tactics is the design of “establishing capability delivery patterns and context
indicators that monitor whether the design for capability delivery is still valid for the current context situation”
(Berzisa et al., 2015) Heads Up displays for every role (Haeckel 2004) and no ambiguity in the defined Purpose
and Governing principles together with proper communication and sensors while negotiating towards the
outcome (Forno 2012) are the approach that can be adapted to any level of management, including tactical.
4.5 Right-time information or real-time information
Our idea for tactical management underlines the necessity of right-time information, which has some low
latency in terms of time and frequency and almost no latency in terms of structure and scope. However,
theoretical contributions discuss and strive for real-time information (Iafrate 2013), (Buckley et al. 2005),
(Werner 2013), (Kapoor et al. 2005), (Ba et al. 2008), (IBM 2008), (Hoontae et al. 2007), (Cherbakov et al.
2005), (Delgado et al. 2014), (Barone et al. 2010); or in terms of shortening the latencies (Nalchigar et al.
2013), (Forno 2012), (Haeckel 2004). Some of the papers are not addressing this issue at all, not being focus of
their approach.
4.6 Sense-and-respond framework and adaptability loop
We perceive the Sense-and-Respond managerial concept as introduced by Haeckel in 1999 as good starting
point for attempting to solve the adaptability, ambiguity, uncertainty and complexity the tactical management
is facing with (Petrevska Nechkoska et al., 2014). Its component, the SIDA Loop is the revising mechanism that
provides the adaptability to changing environment, circumstances, stakeholder needs and accountabilities.
From this standpoint, we submit the reviewed contributions also to these concepts to perceive whether they
have been used or not, and with which understanding and implementation. No explicit use of these concepts
has been noted in the papers of (Hoogervorst 2009), (Ba et al. 2008), (Hoontae et al. 2007), (Hill 2009),
(Berkem 2008), (Maes 2007), (Simon et al. 2013), (Delgado et al. 2014), (Casadesus-Masanel et al. 2009).
However, according our perception, the SIDA loop has been implicitly integrated in the BPCIP (Delgado et al.
2014); in the Plan-Do-See-Act design (Hoontae et al. 2007); and addressed through the Input of the Knowledge
Provider, the Processing of the Knowledge Broker and the Output of the Decision Makers (Ba et al. 2008) and
Scan&Sense, Interpret&Analyze, Decide&Respond (Gill, 2013). In own interpretation, both terms have been
used by (Barone et al. 2010) and separately with BIM to sense and interpret and with their artifact to decide
and act (Nalchigar et al. 2013). The TBIM (Franceskoni et al., 2013) uses the automated reasoning techniques,
including 'what if' and 'is it possible'; SWOT analysis - all included in the BIM as baseline framework. In the
work of (Frank, 2014) the MEMO steps (Multiperspective Enterprise Modeling) are prescribed to provide
adaptability of the system and processes. IBM’s definition and approach to these concepts is visible in the
work of (IBM 2008), (Cherbakov et al. 2005), (Buckley et al. 2005), (Werner 2013) and in a way that the S&R
system uses available data, such as forecasts, customer orders, and supply commitments, and aims to provide
an early warning system for conditioning with an important innovation - a new algorithm that identifies
potential problems by using historical information and future indicators to forecast trends for customer orders
and to compare trends and forecast as lead indicators of future occurrences (Kapoor et al. 2005). The core
definition, Knowing earlier, Managing by wire, Dispatching capabilities from the event back, Designing a
business as a system (Haeckel 2004) as Sense-and-Respond basics are explicitly used by (Forno 2012).
4.7 Adaptability
The concept of Adaptability is analyzed in conjunction with modularity, and the deduction is as follows: when
the discussion of the authors is in terms of business processes, the adaptability is perceived in their adjustment
(Iafrate 2013), predefinition (Werner 2013), corporate agility (IBM 2008), Monitoring Modeling, Event
Modeling, Indicator Modeling, Alert and Response Modeling (Hoontae et al. 2007), Business Processes and
stable and loosely coupled services (Berkem 2008) all the way to setting up continuous improvement cycle for
business processes implemented by services in organizations based on BP execution measurements (Delgado
et al. 2014). Enterprise design and architecture create the ability to adapt and change for the future and
systems thinking is significantly present in the adaptability aspect of the work of (Hoogervorst 2009).
Enterprise-wide business processes and setting the context, designing for change, executing the SIDA loop -
www.ejise.com
153
ISSN 1566-6379
Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation Volume 18 Issue 2 2015
process for re-engineering the enterprise are significant for Kapoor et al. 2005, while composite services and
dynamic processes based on componentization, partner networks; value nets, service oriented enterprise are
discussed by (Cherbakov et al. 2005). (Maes 2007) sees the modularity and the adaptability prescribed in the
structure of the company, while their determination by the selected business model is present in the work of
(Casadesus-Masanel 2009), (Barone et al. 2010) (Simon et al. 2013), (Ba et al. 2008), culminating with
continued focus on responsiveness and adaptability provided by a a model-driven capability design and an
architectural framework of loosely coupled components for adaptive business management (Buckley et al.
2005). Adaptive Enterprise Service System Model and underlying adaptive enterprise architecture into
adaptive enterprise architecture capability for handling complex enterprise transformations based on the view
of the enterprise as a system with subsystems are largely discussed by (Gill 2013). Adaptability is not explicitly
set up but is recommended in the accountabilities in COBIT 5 (ISACA, 2013). Alternative plans are the
prescribed way of addressing adaptability in the work of (Franceskoni et al., 2013) and (Frank, 2014). The SIDA
loop as generator of adaptability, the constant negotiations and the system design of the enterprise existence
with flexible role occurrences are used in their generic sense by (Haeckel 2004) and (Forno 2012).
4.8 Predictability
For indirect support of our choice of the Sense-and-Respond concept is the investigation how do all these
different authors perceive predictability or unpredictability of the environment into account for their
contributions, we performed the scan of the approaches through the lens of this concept. If we set aside the
works where this issue hasn’t been addressed or not being focused on, there are two general standpoints:
attempts to provide forecasting, what-if alternative analysis, extrapolation, optimization and predicting ability
to the management, by different tools, algorithms and business intelligence activities (IBM 2008), (Hoontae et
al. 2007), (Hill 2009), (Delgado et al. 2014), (Barone et al. 2010) (ISACA, 2013), through the variation of
identifying runtime variations (Werner 2013) and maintaining lowest latencies possible (Nalchigar et al. 2013)
all the way to assuming unpredictability and uncertainty (Hoogervorst 2009), (Gill 2013), (Forno 2012),
(Haeckel 2004), (Cherbakov et al. 2005). Patterns that reflect best practices and their run-time or executiontime adaptation are the specific instrument used in the work of (Berzisa et al., 2015)
4.9 Context capture
Capturing the context is of primary importance for any managerial function. It becomes strikingly observable
for tactical management – both in terms of organizational context (changes in purpose, goals, governance,
priorities, structure, resources …) and in terms of the environment (immediate events that influence the work,
early signals from important entities or events, …) “The temporal dimension has been found to play a central
role in the understanding of the explanatory factors of IS success and failure in an organizational context (Alter
2013; Pettigrew et al. 2001)” (Dwivedi et al., 2015).The authors Berzisa et al. (2015) and Zdravkovic (2013)
define in a plastic way as ‘design-time’ (“by eliciting business goals, Key Performance Indicators (KPI),
designing generic business processes and resources, as well as by specifying capabilities, relevant context sets
and patterns”) and ‘run-time’ (when the IS ability “to handle changes in different context is put to test”). This
concept has been addressed in abundant diversity. We have grouped the findings in regards to contextual
scanning in three main directions, and we will present the different original approaches within, by the various
contributions:
Approach 1: Real-time context scanning
Real-time monitoring (Buckley et al., 2005) (Cherbakov et al., 2005) (Maes, 2007)
Business Activity Monitoring (IBM, 2008)
Dashboard with user-defined rules for alerts; Management by Exception (Hoontae et al., 2007)
Context-Mechanism-Outcome Configuration (Hill, 2009)
Zero-latency contextual scanning (Iafrate, 2013)
Set the context, Design for change, Execute the SIDA loop - process for re-engineering the enterprise
(Kapoor et al., 2005)
Continuous Business Process Improvement; real-time monitoring on business process execution and
BP improvement (Delgado et al., 2014)
Approach 2: Contextual scanning and reaction according needs – potential for ‘right-time’ information
www.ejise.com
154
©ACPIL
Renata Petrevska Nechkoska, Geert Poels and Gjorgji Manceski
Sense-and-Respond and/or SIDA loop use for context capture (Buckley et al., 2005) (Kapoor et al.,
2005) (Nalchigar et al., 2013) (Forno, 2013) (Haeckel, 2004)
Scan&Sense, Interpret&Analyze, Decide&Respond (Gill, 2013)
Feedback and the Monitoring process (ISACA, 2013)
Context indicators monitor whether the design for capability delivery is still valid for the current
context situation (Berzisa et al., 2015)
Ecology concepts aggregates the service system entities that are involved in the service system and
Evaluation concepts(quality, productivity, legal compliance, sustainable innovation) that serve as KPIs
that are monitored for realization (Poels et al., 2013)
Approach 3: Ex-post periodic analysis and comparisons
Two loops, monitoring KPIs, ex-post periodic analysis (Rausch et al., 2013)
Discrete, What-if and SWOT analysis (Barone et al., 2010) (Berkem, 2008) (Franceskoni et al., 2013)
Enterprise Architecture facilitating context analysis, Learning rather than planning (Hoogervorst,
2009)
Comparison of the model (requires vs. produces) (Frank, 2014)
Our interest in tactical management defines our standpoint that when performing this function, the manager
should continuously scan the context both for changes organization-wise (in the goals, governing principles,
priorities, …) that happen occasionally, but also for daily organizational changes (staff, resources, incidents,
cascading changes in plans, …) and environmental changes (competitors, other stakeholders, clients, other
departments, …) Adaptation of the work to all these changes, while still pursuing the given goal, is necessary,
especially for the tactical management. From the three approaches observed in literature, we would be in
favor of right-time contextual scanning – in order to relief the burden of unnecessary real-time information
enterprise systems investments and still provide proper alert for the manager.
4.10 System design, Process design focus or combination of approaches
From a managerial point of view, the need for system view, if not even system design, is highest for strategic
management and tactical management (including project management), and the accent on process design is
needed for operational management. Of course, strategic management pays attention to efficiency and
processes, at the same time; while, in our perception, the tactical management puts effectiveness before
efficiency – and system design prior process design. There are contributions that address Operational and
Tactical Management but persist in the process design usage - 12%, Operational and Strategic Management
and still retain the process design – 16% and 4% of approaches that treat Tactical and Strategic Management
with Process Design only (Table 1). The rest of the contributions, use either system design or both system and
process design because they are addressing the whole company or Tactical and Strategic Management.
Table 1: Overview of Process, System or combined approach usage in the investigated works
Process design
System design
System and Process design
Operational,
Tactical
Operational, Strategic
12%
16%
20%
Tactical,
Strategic
4%
12%
12%
Operational,
Tactical,
Strategic
8%
16%
5. Interpretation of the results and conclusions
The tactical management specificity should be stressed to a great extent when designing information systems
for the companies. This research reaches several important findings in the direction of under-addressing with
specific approach by the Information System contributions; ingestion or assimilation of the tactical by the
operational or strategic management; attempts to automatize the handling of mismatch of incoming and
outgoing information; to some extent unnecessary strive for real-time information environments; divided
tendencies towards providing adaptability or predictability to the management; diverse ideas for context
capturing and treatments of tactical management as process or system.
www.ejise.com
155
ISSN 1566-6379
Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation Volume 18 Issue 2 2015
The feeding with information to the tactical management is done mostly on a technical level of
implementation, and usually with structured, automatized data and automatic connections and dashboards.
The present tendency of closing with endings by shooting real-time operational data towards strategic
dashboards that are performing some sort of KPI monitoring on different levels of management is visible in
30% of the papers (Figure 2), which, according to our standpoint, is too big of a distance, and too present of
mismatch for feasible implementation in the real business world. Hence, the current support for handling the
mismatch of information in the middle is done with automatized logic, that can’t always be prescribed, with
modeling and incorporation in business processes, but maybe with not exploited enough governing principles
and purpose that individualize the conversion logic and bring it down to context and structure.
The top-down approaches starting from strategic level, cascading outcomes, quantitative but also qualitative
expectations, are somewhat assimilating tactical management specifics. There is significant ‘ingestion’ of the
tactics by operations or strategy, in the last period of time.
In terms of adaptability, still, the solutions base on the somewhat rigidity of business processes, or their
continuous improvement, while tactical management needs flexible support in flexible/unstructured/dynamic
processes. Unpredictability is still little concern to the contemporary solutions, which for the whole companies
and especially for tactical management should not be assumed. The context capture is of interest in all the
contributions, noting diverse ideas and approaches on how to address it. With regards to tactical management
the context capture is an ongoing process of revising the current setup – sensing, interpreting what it means to
the functionality of the socio-technical system and its outcomes, deciding what should be changed, which is
the trigger to being informed and mapping the information system needs for this function, and acting. Last,
but not least, we would like to contribute with the finding that the tactical manager needs system thinking and
system design in order to facilitate the socio-technical system towards an outcome and effect, while the
efficiency should be a second criterion when reasoning and acting.
Hopefully, this research will turn the lights towards tactical management, as present and making a difference
in every pore of life, especially in business, with its specifics and elasticity, rather then general managerial
treatment; which should be addressed with appropriate identification of characteristics and followed up by
innovative information systems concepts and solutions.
References
Ba S., Lang K. R., Whinston A. B., (2008) “Compositional Enterprise Modeling and Decision Support”, Handbook on Decision
Support Systems 2, Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Barone D., Mylopoulos J., Jiang L., Amyot D., (2010) The Business Intelligence Model: Strategic Modelling, University of
Toronto, Canada
Berkem B., (2008) “From The Business Motivation Model (BMM) To Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)”, Journal of Object
Technology Vol. 7 No. 8, ETH Zurich
Berzisa S., Bravos G., Gonzales T. C., Czubayko U., Espana S., Grabis J., Henkel M., Jokste L., Kampars J., Koc H., Kuhr J-C.,
Llorca C., Loucopoulos P., Pascual R. J., Pastor O., Sandkuhl O., Sandkuhl K., Simic H., Valverde F. G., Zdravkovic J.
(2015) “Capability Driven Development: An Approach to Designing Digital Enterprises”, Springer Fachmedien
Wiesbaden
Buchanan R. D., Soley R. M., (2002), Aligning Enterprise Architecture and IT Investments with Corporate Goals Whitepaper,
Object Management Group
Casadesus-Masanell R., Ricart J. E., (2009) From Strategy to Business Models and to Tactics, IESE Business School –
University of Navara
Cherbakov L., Galambos G., Harishankar R., Kalayana S., Rackham G., (2005) Impact of the service orientation at the
business level, IBM Systems Journal Vol. 44, No. 4
Delgado A., Weber B., Ruiz F., Guzman I. G.-R., Piattini M., (2014) “An integrated approach based on execution measures
for the continuous improvement of business processes realized by services”, Information and Software Technology,
Elsevier B. V.
Dwivedi Y. K., Wastell D., Laumer S., Henriksen H. Z., Myers M. D., Bunker D., Elbanna A., Ravishankar M. N., Srivastava S. C.
(2015) “Research on Information Systems Failures and Successes: Status update and future directions”, Information
Systems Frontiers, vol. 17, Springer, p: 143-157
Edvinsson, L., Malone, M. S. (1997) “Intellectual Capital: The Proven Way to Establish Your Company’s Real Value By
Measuring Its Hidden Values”, Piatkus. London.
Elkington, J. (1997) “Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business”, Capstone Publishing Ltd.
Oxford.
www.ejise.com
156
©ACPIL
Renata Petrevska Nechkoska, Geert Poels and Gjorgji Manceski
Forno D. J., (2012) Applying Sense&Respond to Create Adaptive Organizations, Available:
http://www.senseandrespond.com/downloads/AdaptiveEnterpriseExperience--Forno.pdf. Last accessed on 1 April
2014
Franceskoni F., Dalpiaz F., Mylopoulos J. (2013), “TBIM: A language for Modeling and Reasoning about Business Plans”
Technical Report #DISI-13-020, Department for Information Engineering and Computer Science, University of Trento,
Italy,
Frank U. (2012) “Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges”,
Software Systems Models, Springer-Verlag
Gill A. Q., (2013) “Towards the Development of an Adaptive Enterprise Service System Model”, Adaptive Enterprise
Architecture Toolkit, Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois
Haeckel S. H., (2004) “Peripheral Vision: Sensing and Acting on Weak Signals Making Meaning out of Apparent Noise: The
Need for a New Managerial Framework”, Long Range Planning, Elsevier
Haeckel S. H., (1999) Adaptive Enterprise: Creating and Leading Sense-And-Respond Organizations, Harvard Business School
Press Boston
Hill G., (2009) A Framework for valuing the quality of Customer Information, PhD Thesis, The University of Melbourne
Hiekkanen K., Helenius M., Korhonen J. J., Patricio E, (2013) “Aligning Alignment with Strategic Context: A Literature
Review”, Digital Enterprise Design and Management, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
Holland, J. H. (1996). Hidden order. How adaptation creates complexity. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, p: 10.
Hoogervorst J., (2009) Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering, Springer London
Hoontae K., Yong-Han L., Hongsoon Y., Nam Wook C., (2007) “Design and Implementation of a Personalized Business
Activity Monitoring System”, Human-Computer Interaction; Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
Iafrate F., (2013) “Use Case: Business Intelligence “New Generation” for a “Zero Latency” Organization (When Decisional
and Operational BI are Fully Embedded)”, Digital Enterprise Design and Management, Springer Berlin Heidelberg
IBM, (2008) “Empowering the business to sense and respond: Delivering Business Event Processing with IBM WebSphere
Business Events, Business Event Processing”, WebSphere software White Paper, IBM New York
International Organization for Standardization 2015. http://www.iso.com (5 May 2015).
ISACA (2012) “Cobit 5 – A business framework for the governance and management of enterprise IT”,
Janssen M., van der Voort H., van Veenstra A. F., (2015) “Failure of large transformational projects from the viewpoint of
complex adaptive systems: Management principles for dealing with project dynamics”, Springer Science+Business
Media New York
Kaplan, R. S., Norton D. P., 2007. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System, Harvard Business
Review.
Kapoor S., Bhattacharya K., Buckley S., Chowdhary P., Ettl M., Katircioglu K., Mauch E., Phillips L., (2005) “A technical
framework for sense-and-respond business management”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol 44, No 1
Loucopoulos P., Lyytinen K., Liu K., Gilb T., Maciaszek L.A.: (2006) “Project Failures: Continuing Challenges for Sustainable
Information Systems”, Enterprise Information Systems VI, Seruca I., Cordeiro J., Hammoudi S., Filipe J. (Ed.), Springer
(p: 1-8)
Lyytinen K., Bergman M., King J. L.: (2006) “Large Scale Requirements Analysis as Heterogeneus Engineering”, Enterprise
Information Systems VI, Seruca I., Cordeiro J., Hammoudi S., Filipe J. (Ed.), Springer (p: 9-22)
Maes R., (2007) “An Integrative Perspective on Information Management”, PrimaVera Working Paper Series, University of
Amsterdam
McNair, C.J., Watts, T. (2009) “The integration of balanced scorecard models”, Cost Management
Meyer B., (2014) “Agile! The Good, the Hype and the Ugly”, Springer International Publishing Switzerland
Nalchigar S., Yu E., (2013) “From Business Intelligence Insights to Actions: A Methodology for Closing the Sense-andRespond Loop in the Adaptive Enterprise”, The Practice of Enterprise Modeling, Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Neely A. D., Adams C., Kennerley M. (2002) “The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Business
Success”, Financial Times Prentice Hall. London.
Petrevska Nechkoska, R., Manceski, G., Poels, G., (2014): “Meeting Point of Strategy and Operations: Tactical Management
Sense-and-Respond Framework Enhancement,” Proceedings of the 8th ECIME 2014, AC&PI Ltd., UK.
Poels G., Van Der Vurst G., Lemey E. (2013) “Towards an Ontology and Modeling Approach for Service Science” in IESS
2013, LNBIP 143, e Cuhna J.F., Snene M., Novoa H. (Eds), Springer-Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg, pp. 285-291
Rausch P., Sheta A. F., Ayesh A., (2013) “Business Activity Monitoring”, Business Intelligence and Performance
Management, Theory, Systems and Industrial Applications, Springer-Verlag London
Schwalbe K. (2014) “Information Technology Project Management”, Course Technology, Boston, USA, pp. 7
Simon D., Fischenbach K., Schoder D., (2013) “Enterprise architecture management and its role in corporate strategic
management”, Information Systems E-Business Management, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
Sveiby K. (1997) “The Intangible Assets Monitor”, Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting, Emerald Insight
"tactics." Merriam-Webster.com. 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com (2 January 2014).
Tennant G., (2001) “Six Sigma: SPC and TQM in manufacturing”, Gower Publishing Limited England
Van Grembergen W., Saull R., De Haes S. (2015) “Linking the IT Balanced Scorecard to the Business Objectives at a Major
Canadian Financial Group”, University of Antwerpen Management School, ITAG Research Institute,
http://www.antwerpmanagementschool.be/media/287506/linking%20it%20scorecard%20to%20bus%20objectives%
20can.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2015)
www.ejise.com
157
ISSN 1566-6379
Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation Volume 18 Issue 2 2015
Webster J. and Watson R. T., (2002) “Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 2
Werner S., (2005) “Sense and Respond Business Performance Management”, Supply Chain Management on Demand:
Strategies, Technologies, Applications, Springer Berlin HeidelberWelsh K., Sawyer P., Bencomo N. (2011)”Towards
Requirements aware Systems: Run-time Resolution of Design-time Assumptions”, IEEE Explore, USA
Zdravkovic, J., Stirna, J., Henkel, M., Grabis, J. (2013) “Modeling Business Capabilities and Context Dependent Delivery by
Cloud Services”, CAISE 2013, LNCS 7908, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
www.ejise.com
158
©ACPIL
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.
PRINT
Weekly Discussion Rubric
Content, Research, and Analysis
Meets Expectation
Approaches
Expectation
Below Expectation Limited Evidence
No
Evidence
Content
5
PointsDemonstrates
excellent
knowledge of
concepts, skills, and
theories relevant to
topic.
4
PointsDemonstrates
fair knowledge of
concepts, skills, and
theories.
3
PointsDemonstrates
significantly flawed
knowledge of
concepts, skills, and
theories.
2
PointsDemonstrates
poor or absent
knowledge of
concepts, skills, and
theories.
0
PointsDid
not
participate
Support
5 PointsStatements
are well supported;
posts extend
discussion.
4 PointsStatements
are partially
supported; posts
may extend
discussion.
3 PointsSupport is
deficient; posts do
not extend
discussion.
2 PointsStatements 0
are not supported. PointsDid
not
participate
Content, Research, and Analysis
Meets Expectation
Writing
Quality
5 PointsWriting is
well organized,
clear, concise, and
focused; no errors.
Approaches
Expectation
4 PointsSome
significant but not
major errors or
omissions in
writing
organization, focus,
and clarity.
Below Expectation Limited Evidence
3 PointsNumerous
significant but not
major errors or
omissions in
writing
organization, focus,
and clarity.
2 PointsNumerous
errors or omissions
- at least some
major - in writing
organization, focus,
and clarity.
No
Evidence
0
PointsDid
not
participate
Timeliness 5 PointsInitial post 4 PointsInitial post 3 PointsInitial post 2 PointsInitial post 0
before deadline.
1 day late (Friday). 2 days late
3 days late
PointsDid
(Saturday).
(Sunday).
not
participate
Quantity
5 PointsInitial post 4 PointsInitial post 3 PointsInitial post 2 PointsOne post to 0
and two other posts. and one other post. only.
colleague.
PointsDid
not
participate
•
Total Points Possible25
Purchase answer to see full
attachment