IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ijoais/v36y2020ics1467089518300058.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A conceptual framework for valuing IT within a business system

Author

Listed:
  • Töhönen, Harri
  • Kauppinen, Marjo
  • Männistö, Tomi
  • Itälä, Timo

Abstract

Evaluation of IT value is challenging due to the complex nature of IT impacts and multifaceted interpretations of value. We introduce a conceptual framework for tackling the complexity of IT value evaluation within the scope of a single company. Our study applies design science research with analysis of experiences from five cases. The conceptual framework covers perspectives: 1) analysis levels for varying stakeholder views on value, 2) valuing logics for different interpretations of value, and 3) evaluation views for understanding systemic value. Together these perspectives create a basis for evaluating and communicating multifaceted IT value, and help to understand what kind of specific value information can serve the needs of IT- related decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Töhönen, Harri & Kauppinen, Marjo & Männistö, Tomi & Itälä, Timo, 2020. "A conceptual framework for valuing IT within a business system," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ijoais:v:36:y:2020:i:c:s1467089518300058
    DOI: 10.1016/j.accinf.2019.100442
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1467089518300058
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.accinf.2019.100442?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. E F Wolstenholme, 1999. "Qualitative vs quantitative modelling: the evolving balance," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 50(4), pages 422-428, April.
    2. Corlane Barclay, 2008. "Towards an integrated measurement of IS project performance: The project performance scorecard," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 331-345, July.
    3. Irani, Zahir & Ghoneim, Ahmad & Love, Peter E.D., 2006. "Evaluating cost taxonomies for information systems management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(3), pages 1103-1122, September.
    4. Pieters, R. & Baumgartner, H. & Allen, D., 1995. "A means-end chain approach to consumers' goal structures," Other publications TiSEM 7d190b0e-3495-4c5f-8de3-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Nicky J. Welton & Howard H. Z. Thom, 2015. "Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 564-566, July.
    6. Steven De Haes & Wim Van Grembergen, 2015. "Enterprise Governance of Information Technology," Management for Professionals, Springer, edition 2, number 978-3-319-14547-1, December.
    7. Richins, Marsha L, 1994. "Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meanings of Possessions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(3), pages 504-521, December.
    8. Anitesh Barua & Charles H. Kriebel & Tridas Mukhopadhyay, 1995. "Information Technologies and Business Value: An Analytic and Empirical Investigation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 3-23, March.
    9. Nicholas C. Georgantzas & Evangelos G. Katsamakas, 2008. "Information systems research with system dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 24(3), pages 247-264, September.
    10. Stockdale, Rosemary & Standing, Craig, 2006. "An interpretive approach to evaluating information systems: A content, context, process framework," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(3), pages 1090-1102, September.
    11. Russell L. Ackoff, 1971. "Towards a System of Systems Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(11), pages 661-671, July.
    12. Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin M. Hitt, 2000. "Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 23-48, Fall.
    13. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    14. Gates, Emily F., 2016. "Making sense of the emerging conversation in evaluation about systems thinking and complexity science," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 62-73.
    15. Rafael Ramírez, 1999. "Value co‐production: intellectual origins and implications for practice and research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 49-65, January.
    16. Gunasekaran, A. & Ngai, E.W.T. & McGaughey, R.E., 2006. "Information technology and systems justification: A review for research and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(3), pages 957-983, September.
    17. Davern, Michael J. & Wilkin, Carla L., 2010. "Towards an integrated view of IT value measurement," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 42-60.
    18. Willcocks, Leslie & Lester, Stephanie, 1996. "Beyond the IT productivity paradox," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 279-290, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Polák, Petr, 2017. "The productivity paradox: A meta-analysis," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 38-54.
    2. Khallaf, Ashraf, 2012. "Information technology investments and nonfinancial measures: A research framework," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 109-121.
    3. Stefan Schweikl & Robert Obermaier, 2020. "Lessons from three decades of IT productivity research: towards a better understanding of IT-induced productivity effects," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 70(4), pages 461-507, November.
    4. Prasanna Tambe & Lorin M. Hitt, 2014. "Measuring Information Technology Spillovers," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 53-71, March.
    5. Sharma, Mahak & Antony, Rose & Sehrawat, Rajat & Cruz, Angel Contreras & Daim, Tugrul U., 2022. "Exploring post-adoption behaviors of e-service users: Evidence from the hospitality sector /online travel services," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    6. Bejjar Mohamed Ali & Boujelbene Younes, 2013. "The Impact of Information Systems on user Performance: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, ScientificPapers.org, vol. 3(2), pages 1-10, April.
    7. de Camargo Fiorini, Paula & Roman Pais Seles, Bruno Michel & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose & Barberio Mariano, Enzo & de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes, 2018. "Management theory and big data literature: From a review to a research agenda," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 112-129.
    8. Surendra Gera & Wulong Gu, 2004. "The Effect of Organizational Innovation and Information and Communications Technology on Firm Performance," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 9, pages 37-51, Fall.
    9. Zand, Fardad & Van Beers, Cees & Van Leeuwen, George, 2011. "Information technology, organizational change and firm productivity: A panel study of complementarity effects and clustering patterns in Manufacturing and Services," MPRA Paper 46469, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Ali Merima & Shifa Abdulaziz B. & Shimeles Abebe & Woldeyes Firew, 2017. "Working Paper 290 - Building Fiscal Capacity The role of ICT," Working Paper Series 2404, African Development Bank.
    11. Merima Ali & Abdulaziz B. Shifa & Abebe Shimeles & Firew Woldeyes, 2021. "Building Fiscal Capacity in Developing Countries: Evidence on the Role of Information Technology," National Tax Journal, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(3), pages 591-620.
    12. Sadaf Bashir & Bert Sadowski, 2014. "General Purpose Technologies: A Survey, a Critique and Future Research Directions," Working Papers 14-02, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2014.
    13. Sinan Aral & Peter Weill, 2007. "IT Assets, Organizational Capabilities, and Firm Performance: How Resource Allocations and Organizational Differences Explain Performance Variation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 763-780, October.
    14. Sang Nguyen & B.K. Atrostic, 2005. "Computer Investment, Computer Networks and Productivity," Working Papers 05-01, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    15. Jones, Derek C. & Kalmi, Panu & Kauhanen, Antti, 2011. "Firm and employee effects of an enterprise information system: Micro-econometric evidence," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 159-168, April.
    16. Leonardo Becchetti & Fabrizio Adriani, 2005. "Does the digital divide matter? The role of information and communication technology in cross-country level and growth estimates," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(6), pages 435-453.
    17. Hadi Karimikia & Narges Safari & Harminder Singh, 2020. "Being useful: How information systems professionals influence the use of information systems in enterprises," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 429-453, April.
    18. van Wessel, R.M., 2008. "Realizing business benefits from company IT standardization : Case study research into the organizational value of IT standards, towards a company IT standardization management framework," Other publications TiSEM 4bdde091-4f3f-4be1-84aa-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Xu, Xiaobo & Zhang, Weiyong & Li, Ling, 2016. "The impact of technology type and life cycle on IT productivity variance: A contingency theoretical perspective," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1193-1204.
    20. Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Banita Lal & Michael D. Williams & Marc Clement, 2017. "Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 549-568, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ijoais:v:36:y:2020:i:c:s1467089518300058. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-accounting-information-systems/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.