No abstract

No abstract

Purpose -This article aims to present an empirical analysis of the effects of changes in the student teaching evaluation (STE) form in a business school. Design/methodology/approach -The authors discuss a case of STE re-design in a business school that focused on improving the STE instrument. They utilize empirical data collected from students that completed both the original and the revised STE form in several semesters of undergraduate economics courses to examine the effect of changing the evaluation scale and the fashion in which written comments are solicited. Findings -There are three results of interest to departments considering a change to student evaluation instruments. First, the authors find that a shift from a four-point scale to a five-point scale leads to a decrease in evaluation scores even after making an adjustment for scaling. Second, they find that students tend to give lower scores on comparison-type questions that ask for a comparison of the instructor or the course to the student's entire college experience. A larger share of such comparison-type questions may depress the mean scores on composite evaluations. Third, soliciting written feedback in a specific section of the form is an effective way to increase both the number of written comments and the size of each comment. Practical implications -Student teaching evaluations serve as an assessment instrument and are frequently used in faculty promotion decisions. A discussion of best practices in designing the STE is provided in order to caution the stakeholders of the problems that may arise and to guide academic institutions in the review of evaluation procedures. Originality/value -The authors start with an example of STE re-design and then analyze empirical data from several semesters. Analysis of the literature and empirical evidence leads to recommended best practices that make STE data more useful both as a summative measure for administrative decisions and as a formative measure used by faculty looking to improve their teaching skills and course design.

Escalation of commitment emerged as a major explanation for the propensity of management information systems projects to exceed time and budget constraints. Earlier studies demonstrated that escalation in MIS is a common event. This study presents a meta-analysis of the various theories of escalation that allows for integration of the various escalation factors into a model of irrational escalation and a model of rational escalation. The implications of rational and irrational escalation for the decision making in management of information systems are discussed.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine how the real option theory is applicable to evaluation of cases of escalation and premature termination of Management Information Systems (MIS) projects.Design/methodology/approachThe paper compares the implications of psychological and economic escalation theories with lessons from the real option theory as applied to MIS projects. Then, it examines published case studies, and discuss when project continuation enhances and reduces value for the manager and the firm.FindingsEscalation of commitment is continuation of an investment project after receiving negative signals. Escalation was identified as a significant problem in MIS projects often explained by the desire of the manager to avoid recognizing mistakes and to protect reputation. The opposite problem of premature termination of certain investment projects was also identified. This study argues that accurate application of real option theory is critical to distinguish between escalation and premature termination. Under the real option theory, an investment project is analogous to a financial option, in that there is an opportunity to continue the project, but no obligation. Continuation has value when there is uncertainty and new information about the project may be revealed. Failure to account for the real options in a project is value‐reducing as it may lead to mistakes in premature termination of projects when projects with real option value are labeled as cases of irrational escalation.Practical implicationsThe paper details the implications of real option theory to evaluating project continuation in the MIS setting.Originality/valueThis paper applies insights from real option theory to studies of escalation in MIS. Continuing a project may be seen as escalation when it actually has value for the firm, as new information received by continuing the project reduces uncertainty.