Defining IT “Business Value” Under Conditions of Economic Uncertainty

Athanasios G. Giannopoulos

doi:10.6000/2371-1647.2017.03.04

Authors

Athanasios G. Giannopoulos Department of Management Science and Technology, Athens University of Economics and Business (AUEB), Greece

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6000/2371-1647.2017.03.04

Keywords:

Business value, Information Technology, economic austerity, IT, Information Systems

Abstract

Investment in Information Technology (IT) has typically been justified as playing a crucial role in assisting business and other Organisations in conducting their business in a more efficient and effective way. The implied “value” that results from such investments is known as “IT business value” and its definition and measurement under conditions of economic austerity and uncertainty is the main subject of this paper.

The question is why, under such conditions, many Organisations fail to realize the positive impacts expected from IT investment, which by itself is then rather scarce and difficult to attain. To answer this question we concentrate in this paper on the issues of IT business value measurement and more specifically we attempt to answer the research question of how best to define the “business value” of IT and what factors may affect it.

The paper first puts forward the main definitions used for both “IT” and “Business value” in the literature. It then goes on to present and critically examine the most prominent of the existing methodologies for measuring “IT Business value” again by resorting to a relevant literature search. Then, we examine the special influencing factors that are at work in times of economic austerity and uncertainty and puts forward a framework for analyzing IT Business value under conditions of economic austerity. This framework is presented in terms of its elements and a description of their main characteristics and measures (metrics). Finally, before the conclusions, a list of the critical success factors for IT investment is presented which is based on a previous published work of the author.

References

Baker J, Song J, Jones D. Refining the IT business value model: evidence from a longitudinal investigation of healthcare firms. In: ICIS 2008 Proceedings [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2014 Nov 22].

Orlikowski W, Iacono C. Research commentary: Desperately seeking the“ it” in it research—a call to theorizing the it artifact. Inf Syst Res [Internet]. 2001 [cited 2014 Feb 3]. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.2.121.9700

Kling R. Defining the boundaries of computing across complex organizations [Internet]. Critical issues in information systems research. New York 1987; 307-362.

Latour B. Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society [Internet]. Harvard University Press 1987.

Moore GC, Benbasat I. Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Inf Syst Res [Internet]. 1991; 2(3): 192-222. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192

Kling R, Dutton W. The computer package, dynamic complexity. In: Computer and politics: High technology in American local governments [Internet] 1982; 22-50.

Kling R, Scacchi W. The Web of Computing: Computer Technology as Social Organization. In 1982 [cited 2017 Jul 26]. p. 1-90.

Beath CM, Orlikowski WJ. The Contradictory Structure of Systems Development Methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-User Relationship in Information Engineering. Inf Syst Res [Internet]. 1994; 5(4): 350-77. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.5.4.350

Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L. Beyond computation: Information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. J Econ Perspect [Internet]. 2000 [cited 2014 Jan 8]; 14(4): 23-48.

Mukhopadhyay T, Kekre S, Kalathur S. Business value of information technology: a study of electronic data interchange. Mis Q [Internet]. 1995 [cited 2014 Jan 8]. https://doi.org/10.2307/249685

Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L. Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending. Manage Sci [Internet]. 1996 [cited 2014 Jan 8]; 42(4): 541-58.

Bharadwaj A. A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Q [Internet]. 2000 [cited 2014 Jan 25]; 24(1): 169- 96.

Barua A, Kriebel C, Mukhopadhyay T. An economic analysis of strategic information technology investments. MIS Q [Internet]. 1991 [cited 2014 Jan 25]; 15(3): 313-31.

Brynjolfsson E. The productivity paradox of information technology. Commun ACM [Internet]. 1993 [cited 2014 Jan 8]; 36(12): 67-77.

Dewan S, Michael S, Min C. Firm characteristics and investments in information technology: Scale and scope effects. Inf Syst Res [Internet]. 1998 [cited 2014 Nov 22]; 9(3): 219-32.

Brynjolfsson E. The Contribution of Information Technology to Consumer Welfare. Inf Syst Res [Internet]. 1996; 7(3): 281-300. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.7.3.281

Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L. Computing productivity: Firm-level evidence. Rev Econ Stat [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2014 Nov 22]; 84(4): 793-808.

Gurbaxani V, Whang S. The impact of information systems on organizations and markets. Commun ACM [Internet]. 1991 [cited 2014 Jan 8]; 34(1): 59-73.

Belleflamme P. Oligopolistic competition, IT use for product differentiation and the productivity paradox. Int J Ind Organ [Internet]. 2001 Jan [cited 2014 Feb 3]; 19(1-2): 227-48.

Devaraj S, Kohli R. Information technology payoff in the health-care industry: a longitudinal study. J Manag Inf Syst [Internet]. 2000 [cited 2014 Jan 25]; 16(4): 41-67.

Silvius A. Does ROI matter? Insights into the true business value of IT. Electron J Inf Syst … [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2014 Jan 8]; 9(2): 93-104.

Soh C, Markus M. How IT creates business value: a process theory synthesis. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Systems [Internet]. 1995 [cited 2014 Jan 8]. p. 29-41.

Mooney J, Gurbaxani V, Kraemer K. A process oriented framework for assessing the business value of information technology. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Systems [Internet]. 1995 [cited 2014 Jan 8]. p. 17-27.

Wade M, Hulland J. Review: The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Q [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2014 Jan 25]; 28(1): 107-42.

Aral S, Weill P. IT Assets, Organizational Capabilities, and Firm Performance: How Resource Allocations and Organizational Differences Explain Performance Variation. Organ Sci [Internet]. 2007 Oct [cited 2014 Mar 22]; 18(5): 763-80.

Burton-Jones A, McLean ER, Monod E. Theoretical perspectives in IS research: from variance and process to conceptual latitude and conceptual fit. Eur J Inf Syst [Internet]. 2015; 24(6): 664-79. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.31

Melville N, Kraemer K, Gurbaxani V. Review: Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS Q [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2014 Jan 25]; 28(2): 283-322.

Oh W, Pinsonneault A. On the assessment of the strategic value of information technologies: conceptual and analytical approaches. MIS Q [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2014 Jan 8]; 31(2): 239-65.

Sward D. Measuring the business value of information technology. Pract Strateg IT Bus … [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2014 Jan 8].

Peppard J, Ward J, Daniel E. Managing the realization of business benefits from IT investments. MIS Q Exec [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2014 Jan 8]; (March).