A conceptual framework for evaluation of information technology investments

Sylla, Cheickna; Wen, H. Joseph

doi:10.1504/ijtm.2002.003054

Cited by 30 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The discussion becomes even more complicated when researchers also distinguish between what the particular outcome of an IS investment is, and how this outcome is interpreted. For example, the interpretation of a particular outcome, such as a productivity gain, depends on the view of the particular evaluator (Engelbert, 1991;Sylla & Wen, 2002), on what competitors have achieved (Dehning & Richardson, 2002) and on what is finally done to exploit it (Alshawi et al, 2003). We use the aforementioned facets of IS business value to structure the presentation of the research findings.…”

Section: Is Business Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The final body of literature considered in this study consists of more than 200 articles. Based on prior work (Schryen, 2010a, b), we also explored the following literature reviews on IS business value, which have been published since 1989 in peer-reviewed journals or peerreviewed conference proceedings: (Kauffman & Weill, 1989;DeLone & McLean, 1992;Brynjolfsson, 1993;Soh & Markus, 1995;Brynjolfsson & Yang, 1996;Sircar et al, 1998;Seddon et al, 1999;Bannister & Remenyi, 2000;Chan, 2000;Devaraj & Kohli, 2000;Dehning & Richardson, 2002;Irani & Love, 2002;Sylla & Wen, 2002;Dedrick et al, 2003;Melville et al, 2004;Piccoli & Ives, 2005;Chau et al, 2007;Wan et al, 2007;Kohli & Grover, 2008;Paré et al, 2008).…”

Section: Synthesising Research Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clarifying these issues is highly important with regard to detecting and explaining achieved competitive advantage. To sum up, the evaluation of IS business value should be context-specific (Sylla & Wen, 2002;Alshawi et al, 2003).…”

Section: Ambiguity and Fuzziness Of The 'Is Business Value' Constructmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…IS investments bear economic risks due to the uncertainty of the future and states (McFarlan, 1981;Mata et al, 1995), and are even regarded as being substantially riskier than non-IS investments, as measured by their relative contributions to the overall riskiness of the firm (Dewan et al, 2007). While risk in the context of IS investment decision making (ex ante evaluation) has received a little attention (Sylla & Wen, 2002;Au & Kauffman, 2003;Benaroch et al, 2007;Dewan et al, 2007), both the creation and the reduction of risk through IS investments has been neglected. However, this neglect can result in ignoring the essential impact of IS investments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Revisiting IS business value research: what we already know, what we still need to know, and how we can get there

Schryen

2013

European Journal of Information Systems

327

354

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The business value of investments in Information Systems (IS) has been, and is predicted to remain, one of the major research topics for IS researchers. While the vast majority of research papers on IS business value find empirical evidence in favour of both the operational and strategic relevance of IS, the fundamental question of the causal relationship between IS investments and business value remains partly unexplained. Three research tasks are essential requisites on the path towards addressing this epistemological question: the synthesis of existing knowledge, the identification of a lack of knowledge and the proposition of paths for closing the knowledge gaps. This paper considers each of these tasks. Research findings include that correlations between IS investments and productivity vary widely among companies and that the mismeasurement of IS investment impact may be rooted in delayed effects. Key limitations of current research are based on the ambiguity and fuzziness of IS business value, the neglected disaggregation of IS investments, and the unexplained process of creating internal and competitive value. Addressing the limitations we suggest research paths, such as the identification of synergy opportunities of IS assets, and the explanation of relationships between IS innovation and change in IS capabilities.

show abstract

Section: Is Business Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Synthesising Research Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ambiguity and Fuzziness Of The 'Is Business Value' Constructmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Revisiting IS business value research: what we already know, what we still need to know, and how we can get there

Schryen

2013

European Journal of Information Systems

327

354

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More specifically, we use the following reviews, which are listed in chronological order and described in detail in the appendix: (Kauffman and Weill 1989;DeLone and McLean 1992;Brynjolfsson 1993;Soh and Markus 1995;Brynjolfsson and Yang 1996;Potthof 1998;Sircar et al 1998;Seddon et al 1999;Bannister and Remenyi 2000;Chan 2000;Devaraj and Kohli 2000;Dehning and Richardson 2002;Irani and Love 2002;Sylla and Wen 2002;Dedrick et al 2003;Melville et al 2004;Walter and Spitta 2004;Piccoli and Ives 2005;Chau et al 2007;Wan et al 2007;Kohli and Grover 2008;Pare et al 2008).…”

Section: Research Design and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Preserving Knowledge on IS Business Value

Schryen

2010

Bus Inf Syst Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on a comprehensive literature search, this meta review analyzes to what extent past literature reviews on IS business value have covered key research areas and preserved their key findings. The results show that while some areas have been explored extensively, some other crucial areas, such as accounting performance, the growth of intangible assets, and the differentiation between economic output and derived or perceived value, have been neglected. They need to be considered in future reviews. The results also reveal those research areas where even primary research is weak and needs to get intensified before literature reviews can be applied to synthesize findings.

show abstract

Group Decision Makers' Preferences Modelling within the Goal Programming Model: An Overview and a Typology

Munro

Aouni

2012

Multi Criteria Decision Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Goal Programming (GP) model is one of the first models that have been developed to deal with managerial decision‐making problems where several incommensurable and conflicting objectives are involved. The GP variants integrate the decision maker's preferences differently. This model has also been applied to group decision‐making situations. The aim of this paper is to propose a new typology based on preferences articulation of decision makers through the GP model. This typology is based on the articulation and the elucidation process of the group decision makers' preferences. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

A conceptual framework for evaluation of information technology investments

Cited by 30 publications

References 21 publications

Revisiting IS business value research: what we already know, what we still need to know, and how we can get there

Revisiting IS business value research: what we already know, what we still need to know, and how we can get there

Preserving Knowledge on IS Business Value

Group Decision Makers' Preferences Modelling within the Goal Programming Model: An Overview and a Typology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About