IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

A technological, organisational, and environmental analysis of decision making methodologies and satisfaction in the context of IT induced business transformations

Listed author(s):
  • Bernroider, Edward W.N.
  • Schmöllerl, Patrick
Registered author(s):

    Although Operational Research (OR) has successfully provided many methodologies to address complex decision problems, in particular based on the rationality principle, there has been too little discussion regarding their limited consideration in IT evaluation practice and associated decision making satisfaction levels in an organisational context. The aim of this paper is to address these issues through providing a current account of diffusion and infusion of OR methodologies in IT decision making practice, and by analysing factors affecting decision making satisfaction from a Technological, Organisational, and Environmental (TOE) framework in the context of IT induced business transformations. We developed a structural equation model and conducted an empirical survey, which supported four out of five developed research hypotheses. Our results show that while Decision Support Systems (DSSs), holistic IT evaluation methods, and management support seem to positively affect individual satisfaction, legislative regulation has an adverse effect. Results also revealed a persistent methodology diffusion and infusion gap. The paper discusses implications in each of these aspects and presents opportunities for future work.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal European Journal of Operational Research.

    Volume (Year): 224 (2013)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 141-153

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:224:y:2013:i:1:p:141-153
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.07.025
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Mousseau, V. & Figueira, J. & Naux, J. -Ph., 2001. "Using assignment examples to infer weights for ELECTRE TRI method: Some experimental results," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 263-275, April.
    2. Howick, Susan & Ackermann, Fran, 2011. "Mixing OR methods in practice: Past, present and future directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(3), pages 503-511, December.
    3. Matos, Manuel A., 2007. "Decision under risk as a multicriteria problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1516-1529, September.
    4. Karacapilidis, Nikos I. & Pappis, Costas P., 1997. "A framework for group decision support systems: Combining AI tools and OR techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 373-388, December.
    5. Tsoukias, Alexis, 2008. "From decision theory to decision aiding methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 138-161, May.
    6. Kunsch, P.L. & Kavathatzopoulos, I. & Rauschmayer, F., 2009. "Modelling complex ethical decision problems with operations research," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1100-1108, December.
    7. Björnsson, Hans & Lundegård, Roger, 1992. "Corporate competitiveness and information technology," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 341-347, September.
    8. Wei, Chun-Chin & Chien, Chen-Fu & Wang, Mao-Jiun J., 2005. "An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 47-62, April.
    9. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    10. Su, Yi-fen & Yang, Chyan, 2010. "Why are enterprise resource planning systems indispensable to supply chain management?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(1), pages 81-94, May.
    11. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    12. Kevin Zhu & Kenneth L. Kraemer & Sean Xu, 2006. "The Process of Innovation Assimilation by Firms in Different Countries: A Technology Diffusion Perspective on E-Business," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(10), pages 1557-1576, October.
    13. Todd, Peter M., 2007. "How much information do we need?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1317-1332, March.
    14. Eder, Lauren B. & Igbaria, Magid, 2001. "Determinants of intranet diffusion and infusion," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 233-242, June.
    15. Mackenzie, Adrian & Pidd, Michael & Rooksby, John & Sommerville, Ian & Warren, Ian & Westcombe, Mark, 2006. "Wisdom, decision support and paradigms of decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(1), pages 156-171, April.
    16. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    17. Barthelemy, J. P. & Bisdorff, R. & Coppin, G., 2002. "Human centered processes and decision support systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(2), pages 233-252, January.
    18. Sohal, Amrik S. & Fitzpatrick, Paul, 2002. "IT governance and management in large Australian organisations," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1-2), pages 97-112, January.
    19. 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.
    20. Naresh K. Malhotra & Sung S. Kim & Ashutosh Patil, 2006. "Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(12), pages 1865-1883, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:224:y:2013:i:1:p:141-153. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.