Rethinking Information Systems Planning in the Era of Autonomous Decision Making

Autonomous decision making (ADM) and agentic information systems are changing the premises of Strategic Information Systems Planning (SISP). Whereas conventional SISP assumes centralized authority, stable workflows, and periodic business IT alignment, agentic systems distribute sensing, analysis, and bounded action across human and digital actors. This theory building integrative review synthesizes a 37 source theoretical reference base spanning SISP, agentic IS, autonomous decision making, governance, and socio technical systems research. It develops responsible autonomy as an organizational capability through which firms align delegated AI action with retained human control. The model distinguishes delegation capacity, comprising modular System of Systems architecture and real time data orchestration, from assurance capacity, comprising explainability, governance by design, and human AI accountability. Delegation capacity enables bounded action with greater speed and adaptability, whereas assurance capacity makes that action intelligible, contestable, controlled, and attributable. Responsible autonomy emerges when these capacities are aligned to decision criticality. High criticality decisions involving safety, regulatory exposure, significant financial impact, or irreversible consequences require stronger assurance and more explicit human intervention authority than low risk, repeatable decisions. The paper makes three contributions. First, it reframes SISP as the continuous design and recalibration of human agentic decision arrangements rather than a periodic technology alignment exercise. Second, it integrates architecture, governance, and human oversight literature into a two capacity model. Third, it develops five propositions, a decision criticality matrix, measurable readiness indicators, and an empirical validation agenda. The framework positions responsible autonomy as an alternative to both ungoverned autonomy and compliance heavy inertia.

Strategic Information Systems Planning; Agentic IS; Autonomous Decision Making; Responsible Autonomy; Governance by Design; Human AI Accountability

1. Amrollahi, A., Ghapanchi, A. H., & Talaei Khoei, A. (2013). A systematic literature review on strategic information systems planning: Insights from the past decade. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(2), 39 66. https://doi.org/10.17705/1pais.05203 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Baird, A., & Maruping, L. M. (2021). The next generation of research on IS use: A theoretical framework of delegation to and from agentic IS artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 315 341. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/15882 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing artificial intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433 1450. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/16274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Blindheim, S., & Johansen, T. A. (2022). Electronic navigational charts for visualization, simulation, and autonomous ship control. IEEE Access, 10, 3716 3737. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3139767 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio technical perspective. Part I: The causes. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 17 32. https://doi.org/10.2307/249019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Casbeer, D. W., Manyam, S. G., & Sharma, R. (2020). Introduction to the special issue on multi agent coordination and control. Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, 17(8), 370. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I010861 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. De Haes, S., & Van Grembergen, W. (2009). An exploratory study into IT governance implementations and its impact on business/IT alignment. Information Systems Management, 26(2), 123 137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530902794786 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Earl, M. J. (1993). Experiences in strategic information systems planning. MIS Quarterly, 17(1), 1 24. https://doi.org/10.2307/249507 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627 660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611 642. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148742 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Gupta, S., Singh, J., Agrawal, R., & Batra, U. (2025). Explainable AI and machine learning for robust cybersecurity in smart cities. Cyber Security and Applications, 3, Article 100104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csa.2025.100104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 4 16. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.382.0472 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577 586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Lazaros, K., Vrahatis, A. G., & Kotsiantis, S. (2026). Human in the loop artificial intelligence: A systematic review of concepts, methods, and applications. Entropy, 28(4), Article 377. https://doi.org/10.3390/e28040377 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Lederer, A. L., & Sethi, V. (1991). Critical dimensions of strategic information systems planning. Decision Sciences, 22(1), 104 119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540 5915.1991.tb01265.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Ligneul, C., Saux, E., Olivares, M., Ruichek, Y., & Haralambous, Y. (2026). Integrating ontology with automated action planning for autonomous drone mission management system. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 202, Article 105460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2026.105460 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Lu, Y., & Ramamurthy, K. (2011). Understanding the link between information technology capability and organizational agility: An empirical examination. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 931 954. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409967 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Mannan, M. A., Shaikh, A. K., Khan, A. A., Raahemifar, K., & Mohamed, M. A. (2025). Transforming ERP systems with collaborative AI: Paving the path to strategic growth and sustainability. Array, 28, Article 100517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.array.2025.100517 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Mayerhoff, J., & Schmidt, M. (2026). Reinforcement learning for autonomous production planning and control: A systematic literature review. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 86, 546 568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2026.03.023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Mohammed, B. (2026). The sentient infrastructure paradigm: A review of novel sensors, digital twins, and AI for civil structural health monitoring. Sensor Review, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/SR 10 2025 0822 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Morar, C. D., Popescu, D. E., Novac, O. C., & Ghiurău, D. (2025). Rethinking blockchain governance with AI: The VOPPA framework. Computers, 14(10), Article 425. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers14100425 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Nabavi, A., Safari, F., Shmoury, A. H., Tabet, S., Perdomo Luna, C., & Celi, L. A. (2026). Artificial intelligence in scholarly peer review: A scoping review of applications, risks, and governance challenges. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 214, Article 106418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2026.106418 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Ören, T. (2018). Simulation of cyber physical systems of systems: Some research areas Computational understanding, awareness, and wisdom. Journal of System Simulation, 30(2), 363 385. https://doi.org/10.16182/j.issn1004731x.joss.201802002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Pentland, B. T., Liu, P., Kremser, W., & Hærem, T. (2020). The dynamics of drift in digitized processes. MIS Quarterly, 44(1), 19 47. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/14458 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192 210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Salvini, P., Reinmund, T., Hardin, B., Grieman, K., Ten Holter, C., Johnson, A., Kunze, L., Winfield, A., & Jirotka, M. (2023). Human involvement in autonomous decision making systems: Lessons learned from three case studies in aviation, social care and road vehicles. Frontiers in Political Science, 5, Article 1238461. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1238461 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1998). Strategic information systems planning success: An investigation of the construct and its measurement. MIS Quarterly, 22(2), 139 162. https://doi.org/10.2307/249393 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Segars, A. H., Grover, V., & Teng, J. T. C. (1998). Strategic information systems planning: Planning system dimensions, internal coalignment, and implications for planning effectiveness. Decision Sciences, 29(2), 303 345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540 5915.1998.tb01579.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Shamsuddoha, M., Zimmerman, H., Nasir, T., & Sakib, M. N. (2026). Autonomous supply chains: Integrating artificial intelligence, digital twins, and predictive analytics for intelligent decision systems. Information, 17(4), Article 371. https://doi.org/10.3390/info17040371 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Shrestha, Y. R., Ben Menahem, S. M., & von Krogh, G. (2019). Organizational decision making structures in the age of artificial intelligence. California Management Review, 61(4), 66 83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619862257 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Suhaimi, K. S., Syauqy, A., Subki, M. S., Trilaksono, B. R., Rohman, A. S., Hadi, Y. W., Supeno, H., Kusumawardhana, D. B., & Husna, D. N. (2023). Architecture and decision making for autonomous tram development. IEEE Access, 11, 71714 71726. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3293659 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Teo, T. S. H., & King, W. R. (1997). Integration between business planning and information systems planning: An evolutionary contingency perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(1), 185 214. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1997.11518158 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Tiwari, A. (2025). Conceptualising the emergence of agentic urban AI: From automation to agency. Urban Informatics, 4(1), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44212 025 00079 7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356 367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Verdegay, J. L., Lamata, M. T., Pelta, D., & Cruz, C. (2021). Artificial intelligence and decision making problems: The need for an ethical context. Suma de Negocios, 12(27), 104 114. https://doi.org/10.14349/sumneg/2021.V12.N27.A2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii xxiii. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Xu, G., Li, X., Chen, Y., Duan, Y., Wu, S., Yu, H., Chiu, C. H., Ni, J., Tang, N., Li, T. J. J., Yuille, A., Jin, W., & Shi, Y. (2026). A comprehensive survey of AI agents in healthcare. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 179, Article 105045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2026.105045 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Empowering SME Performance Through Social Media: The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation in Malaysian Manufacturing SMEs
• Effective School Bullying Prevention Strategies: A Thematic Review
• Impact of Workplace Conflict on the Operational Performance of Deposit Money Banks in Enugu State.
• Towards Digital Financial Solutions: A Conceptual Model of SME Strategies and Strategic Development
• Effect of Work-Life Balance and Affective Commitment on Employee Performance in the Hotel Industry in Plateau State