TS: I have always argued against the traditional notion of "alignment". Alignment simply doesn't work because it implies a master/slave relationship between IT and the rest of the organisation. It's always sequential--one part of the organisationdevises the business strategy, then the IT strategy follows.

This is what universities tend to teach in their computer science curriculum, but this only works if there is no change in the business landscape and if everything stays more or less constant. My argument against alignment is that today nothing is constant and change is continuous and ever present. Such an environment demands agility and responsiveness. The old concept of alignment does not allow for that. For me it's all about fusion -- strategic decisions must be taken while considering all aspects. For example, the launch of the new Cathay premium economy class required all the elements of this strategy to be considered and decided on before launching. All elements needed to be considered at the same time.