Introduction
Understanding “IS
business value”:
derivation of
dimensions
Research into the “IS business value” construct has its roots in the IS effectiveness
literature. Early evaluation approaches
focused on a single system, using only a financial perspective (Hamilton and Chervany,
1981a, 1981b). Later studies introduced the
concept of IS’s overall contribution to organisational performance (Bender, 1986; Turner,
1985). These methods were also limited to a
financial perspective, relating overall IS
expenditure to organisational performance
through such measures as ROI and ROA. The
failure to consistently demonstrate a positive
correlation between IS expenditure and
organisational performance led to a recognition of the difficulty in isolating IS’s contribution from other organisational and external
confounding factors. This recognition resulted in a re-focus on the single system and the
development of “financial surrogates” including the more qualitative measures such as user
satisfaction and system goal fulfilment
(Miller, 1989; Symons, 1991). Dissatisfaction
with the limited scope of these measures led
to the development of a number of multidimensional methodologies (Banker and
Kauffman, 1991). However, none of these
methodologies is widely adopted by practitioners (McBride and Fidler, 1994). This
suggests that, despite extensive research,
deficiencies still exist in traditional appraisal
techniques.
As a first step in addressing these deficiencies, our aim in this paper is to improve the
understanding of the “IS business value”
construct by the derivation of its dimensions.
First, analysis of current “IS business value”
methodologies is undertaken, revealing a
number of problems which become the focus
of the paper. As addressed in this paper, these
include the limited perspective on value, the
difficulty in comparing evaluation methods
due to differing levels of complexity and
differing issues being addressed by the
methodologies, lack of construct validity, and
definitional inconsistency. Next, a working
definition of “IS business value” is derived
and used as the basis for further discussion.
Then, literature synthesis reveals categories of
measurement approaches which collectively
address the major dimensions of “IS business
value”, allowing the construct validity of the
evaluation methods to be assessed. This
should assist practitioners and researchers
Marguerite C. Cronk and
Edmond P. Fitzgerald
The authors
Marguerite C. Cronk is a Lecturer in the Department of
Information Systems, Faculty of Business and
Edmond P. Fitzgerald is Principal Lecturer in the
Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Business,
both at University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba,
Queensland, Australia.
Keywords
Evaluation, Information systems, Information technology,
Value
Abstract
The ever increasing expenditure on information systems
(IS) has been accompanied by an increasing demand to
measure the business value of the investment. There has
been much debate in the literature over appropriate
measures to determine this value. Of the many evaluation
methods that have been proposed by researchers, only the
various forms of cost-benefit analysis have gained wide
acceptance among practitioners. However, before appropriate measures can be devised, a clear definition of what
is to be measured and an understanding of the dimensions
of “IS business value” are necessary. The aims of this
research paper, therefore, are first to highlight the complexity of the “IS business value” picture and second to
bring some clarity to the complex problem of determination of “IS business value”. These aims are addressed by
first defining the construct of interest and, second, by
deriving its dimensions. It is posited that an “IS business
value” evaluation methodology should include measures
for each of these dimensions in order to tap all the aspects
of value contribution.
Logistics Information Management
Volume 12 · Numbers 1/2 · 1999 · pp. 40–49
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0957-6053
40
Understanding “IS business value”: derivation of dimensions
Logistics Information Management
Marguerite C. Cronk and Edmond P. Fitzgerald
Volume 12 · Numbers 1/2 · 1999 · 40–49
alike in appreciating the complexity of the “IS
business value” construct and thence in the
selection/development of “IS business value”
evaluation methodologies.
of value is influenced by many contextual
factors and forms part of the overall information system context (Symons, 1991). As the
varying perspectives on value may moderate
both the “actual value added to the organisation” by the information system and the
“value uncovered by the evaluation process”,
they need to be included in appraisal techniques (Cronk and Fitzgerald, 1997).
With the existence of so many evaluation
approaches it is no wonder that practitioners
are unsure which method to use (Cronk and
Fitzgerald, 1996). In order to simplify the
picture, the following discussion places
methods into categories, first on the basis of
complexity or the number and type of
measures used, and second on the basis of
what “IS business value” question they are
addressing.
An analysis of the current evaluation
approaches listed in Table I shows that the “IS
business value” construct has been considered at three levels of complexity, as depicted
in Table II. The first level seeks to determine
appropriate measures for the “IS business
value” of existing systems (as opposed to
future investments in IS). At this level, for
single systems, measures such as quantitative
cost-benefit analysis or qualitative user satisfaction are proposed, without any considerations of the value chain created by the IS, or
why the value is what it is. Similarly, simple
financial measures are used to measure the
collective contribution of IS to the organisation (e.g. total IS cost versus organisational
performance indicators). The second level of
complexity addresses these value issues in
terms of factors influencing value and broader
considerations of the ripple effect of IS to
other parts of the organisation, thus requiring
more sophisticated metrics. The third level of
complexity addresses the IS investment question and incorporates many of the factors of
the first two levels, with multi-dimensional
metrics. However, none of these multi-dimensional measures consider issues of alignment
in conjunction with organisational strategy
and context.
Each level of complexity addresses a slightly different business question. The first level
of complexity primarily addresses the question of “current value” of an existing system.
The second level explains why the value is
what it is, or what factors are influencing the
resultant “IS business value” of the system.
Associated methods focus more on
Current evaluation methods
Over the past 20 years there has been a clearly
discernible evolution in the methodologies
proposed for the measurement of “IS business
value”. This evolution has been congruent
with the evolution of information system
types and objectives, as well as our understanding of their contributions to the organisation. Table I summarizes the plethora of “IS
business value” evaluation methods presented
in the literature over the past 15 years and
highlights the diversity of measurement
approaches. From Table I, it can be seen that
current evaluation methods may:
• address a single information system or
organisational IS in a collective fashion;
• be quantitative or qualitative in nature;
• be single or multidimensional;
• be limited to the system itself or expanded
to consider contextual and organisational
factors.
Collective wisdom recommends a multidimensional methodology involving both
quantitative and qualitative components
(Banker et al., 1993). Whilst Table I lists
many aspects of “IS business value” (the
dependent variable), no currently available
methodology incorporates an understanding
of the relationship between the numerous
dependent, independent and moderating
variables addressing issues of context, content
and process as suggested by Symons (1991).
The process of evaluation, that is, the measures used and the people chosen for the
evaluation, is influenced by the type of information system (content) and the context of
the information system (Symons, 1991).
Context encompasses such issues as conversion effectiveness (Weill, 1989), differing
organisational structures, current financial
position and practices, levels at which value is
accrued, and organisational culture (including areas of social context such as conflicting
value perspectives, power structures, and
perspectives on IS as a whole). A major deficiency of traditional appraisal techniques is
their inability to accommodate the effect on
“IS business value” of differing value perspectives (i.e. the concept of value). The concept
41
Understanding “IS business value”: derivation of dimensions
Logistics Information Management
Marguerite C. Cronk and Edmond P. Fitzgerald
Volume 12 · Numbers 1/2 · 1999 · 40–49
Table I Summary of “IS business value” evaluation approaches
Measurement approach
Researcher
Quantitative, organisational level measure
Some IT factor (e.g. annual IT expenditure) vs. some
organisational performance measure (e.g. pre-tax profit)
Brynjolfsson (1993)
Cron and Sobol (1983)
Floyd and Wooldridge (1990);
Bender (1986); Turner (1985);
Weill (1989,1990); Katz (1993);
Strassmann (1990);
Harris and Katz (1988)
Data envelope analysis
Converts multiple input measures and multiple output
measures into a single measure of relative efficiency
Information economics
Enhanced ROI, business domain assessment, technology
domain assessment
Information value approach
The value of the IS based on the value of the information
being processed
Perceived values
Fulfilment of objectives
System quality, information quality, use, user satisfaction,
individual and organisational impact
User information satisfaction
User information satisfaction
CSF fulfilment
UIS and use
Quality, flexibility, responsiveness, functional integrity
Value is benefit of system and system goals
Nature of system benefits
Support of system objectives
Value analysis
Achieving system goals
Benefits
Perceived fulfilment of system objectives
Value related to utility or usefulness
Utility
Usefulness
Resource view
Labour and IT considered jointly and treated as a resource
deployment issue
Service quality
Improved client services
SERVQUAL a marketing instrument – as a measure of IS service
Alignment with business strategy
Mahmood (1994)
Parker and Benson (1988)
Ahituv (1989); Taylor (1986);
West and Courtney (1993)
Davis (1989)
DeLone and McLean (1992)
Iivari and Ervasti (1994)
Miller (1989)
Slevin et al. (1991)
Srinivasan (1985)
Fink and Tjkarta (1994)
Ahituv (1989)
Hamilton and Chervany (1981a, 1981b)
Keen (1981)
Symons (1991)
Udo and Guimaraes (1994)
Davis (1989)
Ahituv (1989)
Seddon and Fraser (1995)
McKeen and Smith (1991)
Broadbent et al. (1995)
Pitt et al. (1995)
Broadbent and Weill (1993);
Thurlby (1993)
Process improvement
Value demonstrated through process improvement (or answers Davenport (1993);
the question of how value is added to the business)
Mooney et al. (1995);
Taylor (1986)
Multi-dimensional/business perspective measures
Balanced scoreboard
Kaplan and Norton (1996)
IT value as a measure of business contributions
Rubin (1991)
Enterprise level measurement, IT impact on contact with
Berger (1992)
customers
Information economics
Willcocks (1992)
IS business value linkage
Banker and Kauffman (1991)
Context, content and process
Symons (1991b )
42
Understanding “IS business value”: derivation of dimensions
Logistics Information Management
Marguerite C. Cronk and Edmond P. Fitzgerald
Volume 12 · Numbers 1/2 · 1999 · 40–49
Table II Levels of complexity in the measurement of “IS business value”
Level of complexity
Focus of measurement
Example of factors considered
Example of measures used
1st
Single system
Organisation
2nd
Single system
3rd
Single system
Immediate sphere of influence of the IS
Collective IS costs versus organisational
performance
Context, alignment with business goals,
levels of value contribution other than
immediate sphere
Combination of above factors
UIS, cost-benefit, CSF fulfilment
Percentage of total assets versus
total general IS expense
Qualitative, degree of alignment,
measures of power and politics,
organisational impact
Multi-dimensional measures
independent or moderating variables. The
third level answers the “should we invest in
this system?” question, which takes into
account issues such as risk (in the form of the
degree of alignment between the proposed IS
and the organisational culture), strategy
alignment and estimated cost-benefit. The
method of choice depends on the stage of the
system development life cycle as well as many
other issues beyond the scope of this paper.
Thus, it is futile to attempt to compare methods that are not measuring the same aspect of
value.
concept as theorized. Without a definition of
the construct it is difficult to determine
whether an instrument reflects its true meaning. So our definition of “IS business value”
and identification of its dimensions should
greatly facilitate the development of evaluation instruments having the all-important
construct validity.
Convergent validity, an aspect of construct
validity, is attained when two instruments
measuring the concept correlate highly
(Sekaran, 1992). As shown in Table I, many
differing approaches have been proposed for
the measurement of “IS business value”. For
example, one proposed instrument measures
user satisfaction while another measures
system objective fulfilment and yet another
measures ROI. It is unlikely that these vastly
different instruments would correlate highly.
Perhaps if researchers all shared a common
definition of “IS business value”, greater
convergent validity would be attained, thereby
facilitating comparison of the evaluation
methods and their outcomes.
In some cases the definition of the “IS
business value” construct is the same as its
measures. For example, Udo (1992) defines
“IS business value” as system usage plus user
satisfaction and measures it as such. In this
case, what is defined is what is measured but it
lacks construct validity because these two
instruments do not adequately reflect the full
meaning of the “IS business value” construct.
The construct is complex requiring the measurement of many variables in order to attain
construct validity (DeLone and McLean,
1992). Thus a clear definition is a good starting place for furthering the understanding of
“IS business value”.
In the following section we propose a
working definition of “IS business value”.
However, the discussion would not be complete without acknowledgment of the problems in further defining components of this
definition and related constructs.
Development of definition
As previous research has provided us with
numerous evaluation methodologies but
failed to consistently identify positive correlation between IS expenditure and organisational performance (Sethi et al., 1993), it is
generally accepted that future research should
first focus on defining the “IS business value”
construct before considering the development
of appropriate measures (Banker et al., 1993).
However, our analysis suggests research into
“IS business value” has tended to proceed
from the opposite direction providing a
plethora of methodologies but little understanding of what is being measured and of
how the components relate to one another.
The following section highlights some theoretical and conceptual dilemmas in the “IS
business value” literature (which may in part
explain the presence of so many evaluation
methods) via the analysis of relevant definitions in the light of theory relating to validity.
To enable research efforts to be compared,
it would be helpful to have a clearer definition
of the concept being discussed. Clear and
precise definitions are necessary to enable the
construct validity of the instruments proposed
in the evaluation methods to be verified.
Sekaran (1992) states that construct validity
refers to whether the instrument taps the
43
Understanding “IS business value”: derivation of dimensions
Logistics Information Management
Marguerite C. Cronk and Edmond P. Fitzgerald
Volume 12 · Numbers 1/2 · 1999 · 40–49
Derivation of “IS business value”
definition
The absence of an adequate definition of “IS
business value” is a major omission in this
research area. Quite frequently no attempt is
made to define “IS business value” and the
discussion proceeds under the assumption
that the reader has a similar understanding to
that of the researcher. Considering the many
different perspectives presented in the literature, this is unlikely to be the case. As discussed below, the term “IS business value”
had its roots in the IS effectiveness literature
of the 1980s and its meaning has been evolving through the 1990s. The recent introduction of an organisational perspective has
added further definitional inconsistencies
with the definition of organisational performance also being problematic.
Kriebel (1989) agrees that one of the key
issues in this area of research is that of defining “IS business value” in a meaningful way.
Part of the current confusion may be due to
the plethora of terms used to describe the
concept. These include IS effectiveness (Iivari
and Ervasti, 1994), IS success (DeLone and
McLean, 1992), IS influence (Mason, 1978),
IS impact (Gurbaxani and Whang, 1991;
Vogel and Nunamaker, 1990), and “IS business value” (Katz, 1993; Broadbent et al.,
1995). As shown below, the same term is
frequently used to describe slightly different
concepts. However, of all these terms, common usage suggests that IS effectiveness and
“IS business value” are the most closely related.
When an attempt is made to define the
concept, the definition varies among
researchers. For example, IS effectiveness has
been defined as:
• the effect of information on the receiver
(Shannon and Weaver, 1949);
• performing the right tasks to achieve
desired results (McNurlin and Sprague,
1989);
• a comparison of performance objectives or
a measure of resource (Hamilton and
Chervany, 1981a, 1981b);
• the contribution to organisational effectiveness (Miller, 1989);
• how well a programme is achieving its
stated goals or other effects (Symons,
1991);
• system usage plus user satisfaction (Udo,
1992);
• the value IS adds to the firm (Gatian, 1994).
A gradual evolution of understanding from a
number of perspectives is demonstrated by
the change in definitions over time. The final
definition in the list above reflects current
thinking on “IS business value”. Note that
there is no indication of how to measure value
in this definition. Given that different measures may be applicable in different circumstances, a definition free of measures may be
the most appropriate.
The term “IS business value” is a more
recent term, appearing predominantly in the
1990s and, according to the literature, may
equate to:
• service to the business (Konsynski, 1993);
• value added as equal to revenue minus
purchases (Strassmann, 1990);
• value IS adds to business (Kauffman,
1993);
• economic contribution that IS can make to
the management’s goal of profit maximisation (Banker and Kauffman, 1991);
• strategic value (Katz, 1993; Berger, 1992);
• performance of the IS department and the
impact of IS (Katz, 1993);
• ability of IS to gain competitive advantage
(Hitt and Brynjolfsson, 1994);
• an economic measure of IS investment in
relation to productivity usually at the
organisational level (Jordan, 1995);
• impact of IS on business performance
(Mukhopadhyay, 1995).
As can be seen, there is considerable overlap
between the more recent definitions of IS
effectiveness and “IS business value”, with the
focus moving more to organisational concerns. This is quite different from the earlier
definitions of IS effectiveness which looked at
the more localised immediate effect of a given
information system. This change in focus
reflects the growing understanding of the role
played by IS in the organisation. Taking into
account these various perspectives and the
evolution in understanding, the following
definition is proffered:
“IS business value” is the sustainable value
added to the business by IS, either collectively
or by individual systems, considered from an
organisational perspective, relative to the
resource expenditure required.
An organisational perspective is necessary as
two given information systems can be effective (doing the right things) but may vary
greatly in the value they add to the business.
Another reason for including a broader
44
Understanding “IS business value”: derivation of dimensions
Logistics Information Management
Marguerite C. Cronk and Edmond P. Fitzgerald
Volume 12 · Numbers 1/2 · 1999 · 40–49
conjunction with organisational objectives
(Cronk and Fitzgerald, 1997).
perspective in our definition is that of the
ripple effect of IS benefits, i.e. the benefits of
IS that may cascade or ripple through many
SBUs or levels of the organisation. In addition
if an organisational perspective is taken, it
becomes a high level moderator of the more
limited individual perspectives of what constitutes “IS business value”.
“Value for money”
The evaluation process according to Willcocks (1992, p. 364) “is about establishing by
quantitative and/or qualitative means the
worth of IS to the organisation, … bringing
into play notions of cost, benefit, risk, and
value”. So when considering our definition of
“IS business value”, two distinct concepts are
relevant: first that of determining the contribution of IS to business and, second, how this
effect compares with the resource expenditure
required to gain the effect, together known as
“value for money”. An information system
may contribute substantial value to the business, i.e. “IS business value”, but the costs
may be excessive and thus represent poor
value for money. Obviously, if the on-going
costs are excessive then the value cannot be
sustained; hence the need to qualify value
with the word “sustainable” in the above
definition of “IS business value”.
A definitional problem also exists in many
articles submitted by practitioners in relation
to the term “value for money”. This question
has motivated a lot of the research and is the
key question asked by many executives (Katz,
1993). Everyone instinctively understands
what “value for money” means and of course
consequently establishes their own definition
and their own set of criteria. Hence this construct shares the problems of value perspective both in the sense of what constitutes
“value” and then in the sense of what constitutes “value for money”. For this reason our
discussion of dimensions of “IS business
value” is restricted to the first part of the
equation, that of what constitutes “IS business value” and not the value for money issue
(see Figure 1). Further research will be
required to determine how this relates to
expenditure (which takes into account comparisons with other investments).
Components of the definition
Having defined “IS business value” we need
to consider the main terms associated with
our definition. Differing perspectives on value
make it difficult to define value and consequently value for money, and organisational
performance. These difficulties are discussed
and suggestions made as to their
consequence.
Value
There are many inherent difficulties in defining value, or its dimensions. Value is defined
as “the worth, desirability or utility of a thing”
(Concise Oxford Dictionary), but what constitutes worth/desirability/utility to an individual
depends on many different factors. An individual’s IS value perspective is not formed in
isolation but may be a composite of factors,
such as:
• preconceived ideas about IS as a whole
(how and when it contributes) which influence value expectations (this study’s interview data);
• the role of the individual in the organisation (this study’s interview data);
• personal value system/ethics (Bird and
Lehrman, 1993);
• factors relating to the organisation, such as:
– the IS culture, e.g. support, service and
quality (Symons, 1991);
– nature and intensity of political activity,
e.g. empire building, self-interests,
competitiveness, etc. (Pfeffer, 1992).
This is a definitional problem as one’s value
perspective determines how value and hence
“IS business value” are defined and ultimately
measured. It is important to understand the
evaluator’s value perspective in order to interpret the result of his/her evaluation. There is
some debate in the literature as to whose value
perspective should be accepted but we suggest
that the answer should include integrated
multiple value perspectives (upper and middle
management, system users, etc.) in
Organisational performance
Whilst not of direct relevance to our definition
of “IS business value”, a further definitional
problem exists for researchers who include
organisational performance in their definition. According to Miller (1989), organisational efficiency and related performance are
also a question of values, differing depending
on perspective. Research in this area has given
rise to multiple models, multiple dependent
45
Understanding “IS business value”: derivation of dimensions
Logistics Information Management
Marguerite C. Cronk and Edmond P. Fitzgerald
Volume 12 · Numbers 1/2 · 1999 · 40–49
Dimensions of “IS business value”
first step, that of understanding “IS business
value” and value via clearer definitions. In
order to further develop understanding this
paper identifies, through literature synthesis,
the dimensions of “IS business value” and
proposes the relationship between these
dimensions. Our discussion is restricted to the
value side of the equation (see Figure 1).
Future research will need to determine what
specific measures to choose.
Our criticism of existing methodologies is
that their measurement instruments tap only
part of the true meaning of the construct,
therefore not attaining construct validity.
Because of the complexity of the “IS business
value” construct, the methodology should
contain instruments that tap all relevant
aspects of value. Synthesis of the literature
revealed three natural groupings or dimensions of “IS business value”, as depicted in
Table III, partitioned on the basis of what
aspect of value is being addressed and congruent with how value is added. Context is proposed as a moderator of these dimensions but
not an actual dimension.
The proposed three dimensions of “IS
business value” are:
(1) System dependent dimension: value that is
added to the organisation as a result of the
system characteristics. This value may be
reflected in measures such as accuracy,
response time, downtime, semantic quality, timeliness, etc;
(2) User dependent dimension: value that is
added to the organisation as a result of
user characteristics. User characteristics
include skills and attitudes that may result
in effective or ineffective use of the system;
(3) Business dependent dimension: value that is
added to the organisation as a result of
business factors such as alignment
between system and business goals. This
value may be reflected in the realisation of
business goals.
Our approach to understanding the “IS business value” construct, resulting in measures
that reflect its true meaning, is shown in
Figure 1 (focus of this study shown in bold).
The motivation for this study was the suggestion that “IS business value” research should
initially focus on understanding the “IS business value” construct and how IS adds value
to the organisation, and then on the development of appropriate measures (Banker et al.,
1993). Thus far our focus has been on the
With these three dimensions in mind, “IS
business value” may be considered loosely
analogous to a four-sided prism, with each
dimension forming one face of the prism, and
contextual factors representing the base of the
prism. The interaction of each of the faces
specifies the resultant form and volume of the
prism (Figure 2). Similarly, the interaction of
each of the “IS business value” dimensions
(system, user and business) creates the holistic form of “IS business value”.
Figure 1 Approach to understanding the “IS business value” construct (focus
of this study shown in bold)
variables and multiple independent variables
to measure this construct (DeLone and
McLean, 1992; Willcocks, 1992). “Unfortunately, these have obfuscated a clear definition
of organisational efficiency and, as a result, no
singular, parsimonious models or theory has
emerged” (Mahmood, 1994, p. 96).
In summary we believe our definition has
at least partially addressed these definitional
problems, as we have defined “IS business
value” in a generic fashion free of suggested or
implied measures that result from a specific
value perspective. This is appropriate as the
context of the information system will determine the required measures (Cronk and
Fitzgerald, 1996). Thus whilst the differing
value perspectives add to the difficulty in
defining terms such as value, value for money
and organisational performance, current
research directions indicate the problem is not
insurmountable. The approach we propose is
to start with a more generic definition, assign
dimensions of value that in total reflect the
true meaning of the construct and allow the
IS context to direct the choice of measures
from each of the dimensions that represent
“IS business value”. These dimensions are
discussed in the next section.
46
Understanding “IS business value”: derivation of dimensions
Logistics Information Management
Marguerite C. Cronk and Edmond P. Fitzgerald
Volume 12 · Numbers 1/2 · 1999 · 40–49
Table III Dimensions of “IS business value”
Dimension
Aspect of value
Measures
System dependent
Value attributed as a result of the type
and characteristics of the system
System
quality
User dependent
Value attributed as a result of user characteristics
Business dependent
Value attributed as a result of alignment with
business strategy
User skills
and attitude
Measures of system alignment with organisational
objectives
Measures of system fulfilment of organisational CSF
Some IS evaluation methods do not assess a
single dimension as described above, but
rather the interaction of two or all three of the
dimensions, but only from one perspective.
For example, quantitative financial methods
such as ROI measure the outcome of the
interaction of all three dimensions (system,
user, business dependent) as seen from the
financial perspective. We label these “crossdimensional measures”. To illustrate this
concept, consider a cross-section or slice of
the prism (see Figure 3) where a portion of all
three dimensions is represented.
User satisfaction provides another example.
This is a measure that considers the outcome
of the interaction between the technical and
user characteristics. By way of explanation, a
system that is technically sound may not
deliver user satisfaction if the user is not
trained, has not the skills to use the
system, or has a negative attitude to the system
because of some personal or political predisposition. Thus user satisfaction is an outcome
measure of interaction of both of these dimensions (but not the business dimension). In this
sense it is a bi-dimensional measure. Similarly,
the measure “process enhancement” addresses the interaction of the system and user
dimensions and in some cases (depending on
the process) the business dimension. Many
current evaluation methodologies can be
described in terms of these dimensions.
Measures of system user interaction:
– user satisfaction;
– system usage;
– goal fulfilment
Conclusion
For a new theory to be accepted, we posit that
it must be highly operationalizable, better
explain existing theory, or bring clarification
to an area where confusion exists. The lack of
understanding of the “IS business value”
construct, exemplified by the fact that none of
the numerous evaluation methods proposed
in the literature is widely accepted, suggests a
need for clarification. This study better
explains existing theory on “IS business
value” and contributes to the clarification of
theory in this area of research by:
• deriving categories of measures which
illuminate the similarities and differences
in the approaches taken in existing evaluation methods;
• proposing a working definition of “IS
business value”;
• suggesting, through literature synthesis,
the dimensions of “IS business value” and
the relationship between these dimensions;
• facilitating the selection of evaluation
methods by providing an understanding of
what aspects of value are and are not
addressed by the method chosen.
The proposed framework should assist in the
development of evaluation methods with a
higher level of construct validity by better
reflecting the construct as theorized.
Figure 3 Cross-section of prism – cross-dimensional
measures
Figure 2 Faces of the prism – “IS business value” dimensions
47
Understanding “IS business value”: derivation of dimensions
Logistics Information Management
Marguerite C. Cronk and Edmond P. Fitzgerald
Volume 12 · Numbers 1/2 · 1999 · 40–49
References
Fink, D. and Tjarka, F. (1994), “Measuring information
systems effectiveness: the emergence of business
performance frameworks”, Proceedings of the 5th
Australian Conference on Information Systems,
(ACIS), Vol. 2, pp. 687-97.
Ahituv, N. (1989), “Assessing the problems of information:
problems and approaches”, Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference on Information Systems,
Boston, MA, pp. 315-25.
Floyd, S. and Woolridge, B. (1990), “Path analysis of the
relationship between competitive strategy, information technology and financial performance”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, Summer, pp. 47-64.
Banker, R.D. and Kauffman, R.J. (1991), “Quantifying the
business value of information technology: an
illustration of the ‘business value linkage’ framework”, New York University Working Paper Series,
Stern School of Business.
Gatian, A. (1992), “Is user satisfaction a valid measure of
system effectiveness?”, Information & Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 119-31.
Banker, R.D., Kauffman, R.J. and Mahmood, M.A. (1993),
Strategic Information Technology Management:
Perspectives on Organisational Growth and Competitive Advantage, Idea Group Publishing, Harrisburg, MA.
Gurbaxani, V. and Whang, S. (1991), “The impact of
information systems on organizations and markets”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 61-73.
Bender, D. H. (1986), “Financial impact of Information
Processing”, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 3 No. 2, Summer, pp. 232-38.
Hamilton, S. and Chervany, N. (1981a), “Evaluating
information systems effectiveness – Part 1”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 55-69.
Berger, P. (1992), “Critical issues in IS management”, I/S
Analyzer, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 1-16.
Hamilton, S. and Chervany, N. (1981b), “Evaluating
information systems effectiveness – Part 2”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 79-86.
Bird, A. and Lehrman, W.G. (1993), “The effects of major
information technology adoption in Japanese
corporations”, Japan and the World Economy, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 217-42.
Harris, S. and Katz, J. (1988), “Profitability and information
technology capital intensity in the insurance industry”, Proceedings of the 21st Hawaii International
Conference on Systems Sciences, pp. 124-30.
Broadbent, M. and Weill, P. (1993), “Improving business
and information strategy alignment: learning from
the banking industry”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 162-79.
Hitt, L. and Brynjolfsson, E. (1994), “The three faces of IT
value: theory and evidence”, Proceedings of 15th
International Conference on Information Systems,
December, pp. 263-77.
Broadbent, M., Butler, C., Hansell, A. and Dampney, C.N.G.
(1995), “Business value, quality and partnerships:
Australian information systems management
issues”, Australian Computer Journal, February, Vol.
27 No. 1, pp. 17-26.
Iivari, J. and Ervasti, I. (1994), “User information satisfaction: IS implementability and effectiveness”,
Information & Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 20520.
Brynjolfsson, E. (1993), “The productivity paradox of
information technology”, Communications of the
ACM, Vol. 36 No. 12, pp. 66-77.
Jordan, E. (1995), “A global strategy for building information assets: an agenda for information professionals”, Proceedings of ACIS ‘95, Perth, 26-29 September, pp. 915-26.
Cron, W.L. and Sobol, M.G. (1983), “The relationship
between computerisation and performance: a
strategy for maximising the economic benefits of
computerisation”, Information and Management,
Vol. 6, pp. 171-81.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), “Using the balanced
scorecard as a strategic management system”,
Harvard Business Review, pp. 75-85.
Cronk, M.C. and Fitzgerald, E.P. (1996), “A conceptual
approach to understanding IS business value”,
Proceedings of 7th Australasian Conference on
Information Systems, Hobart, December, pp. 127-37.
Katz, A. (1993), “Measuring technology’s business value”,
Information Systems Management, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 33-9.
Cronk, M.C. and Fitzgerald E.P. (1997), “Contextual
moderators of information system business value”,
Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on
Information Technology Evaluation, Delft, October.
Kaufmann, R. (1993), “Introduction” in Banker, R.D.,
Kauffman, R.J. and Mahmood, M.A. (Eds), Strategic
Information Technology Management: Perspectives
on Organisational Growth and Competitive Advantage, Idea Group Publishing, London, pp. 1-9.
Davenport, T.H. (1993), Process Innovation: Reengineering
Work through Information Technology, Ernst &
Young, Boston, MA.
Keen, P. (1981), “Value analysis: justifying decision
support systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 1-15.
Davis, F. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, and user acceptance of information technology”, MIS Quarterly, September, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 319-40.
Konsynski, B.R. (1993), “A perspective on the ‘case study
approach’ to IT investment evaluation”, in Banker,
R.D., Kauffman, R.J. and Mahmood, M.A. (Eds),
Strategic Information Technology Management:
Perspectives on Organisational Growth and Competitive Advantage, Idea Group Publishing, London,
pp. 15-31.
DeLone, W. and McLean, E. (1992), “Information system
success: the quest for the dependent variable”,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 60-95.
48
Understanding “IS business value”: derivation of dimensions
Logistics Information Management
Marguerite C. Cronk and Edmond P. Fitzgerald
Volume 12 · Numbers 1/2 · 1999 · 40–49
Kriebel, C.H. (1989), “Understanding the strategic investment in information technology” in Laudon, K. and
Turner, J. (Eds), Information Technology and Management Strategy, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, pp. 106-18.
Sethi, V., Hwang, K. and Pegels, C. (1993), “Information
technology and organisational performance: a
critical evaluation of Computerworld’s index of
information systems IS business value”, Information
and Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 193-205.
Shannon, C. and Weaver, W. (1949), The Mathematical
Theory of Communication, University of Illinois
Press, Urbana, IL.
McBride, N. and Fidler, C. (1994), “An interpretative
approach to justification of investment in EIS”,
Proceedings of 1st European Conference on IT
Evaluation, Henley, pp. 16-26.
Slevin, D., Stieman, P. and Boone, M. (1991), “Critical
success factor analyses for systems performance,
measurement and enhancement”, Information and
Management, Vol. 21, pp. 1161-82.
McKeen, J.D. and Smith, H.A. (1991), “The value of information technology: a resource view”, Proceedings
of the 12th International Conference on Information
Systems, December, pp. 41-52.
Srinivasan, A. (1985), “Alternative measures of system
effectiveness: associations and implications”, MIS
Quarterly, September, pp. 243-53.
McNurlin, B. and Sprague, R. (1989), Information Systems
Management in Practice, Prentice-Hall, London.
Strassmann, P.A. (1990), The Business Value of Computers,
The Information Economics Press, New Canaan, CT.
Mahmood, M. (1994), “Evaluating organisational efficiency resulting from information technology investment: an application of data envelope analysis”,
Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 4, pp. 93-115.
Symons, V. (1991), “A review of information systems
evaluation: content, context and process”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 205-12.
Mason, R.O. (1978), “Measuring information output: a
communication systems approach”, Information &
Management, Vol. 1 No. 5, pp. 219-34.
Taylor, R.S. (1986), Value-added Processes in Information
Systems, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood,
NJ.
Miller, J. (1989), “Information systems effectiveness: the fit
between business needs and systems capabilities”,
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on
Information Systems, December, pp. 273-88.
Thurlby, R. (1993), “Strategic information systems planning: a process to integrate IT and business strategies”, ICL Technical Journal, May, pp. 417-37.
Turner, J. (1985), “Organisational performance, size, and
the use of data processing resources”, Working
Paper No. 58, Center for Research in Information
Systems, New York University.
Mooney, J.G., Gurbaxani, V. and Kraemer, K. (1995), “A
process oriented framework for assessing the
business value of information technology”, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on
Information Systems, December, Amsterdam,
pp. 17-27.
Udo, G. (1992), “Rethinking the effectiveness measures of
decision support systems”, Information & Management, Vol. 22, pp. 123-35.
Mukhopadhyay, T. (1995), “Business value of information
technology: a study of electronic data interchange”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 137-56.
Udo, G. and Guimaraes, T. (1994), “Empirically assessing
factors related to DSS benefits”, European Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 218-27.
Parker, M. and Benson, R. (1988), Information Economics,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Vogel, D. and Nunamaker, J. (1990), “Group decision
support system impact: multi-methodological
exploration”, Information & Management, Vol. 18.
Pfeffer, J. (1992), Managing with Power: Politics and
Influence in Organisations, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
Weill, P. (1989), “The relationship between investment in
information technology and firm performance in the
manufacturing sector”, Working Paper No. 18,
August, The University of Melbourne Graduate
School of Management.
Pitt, L., Watson, R. and Kavan, B. (1995), “Service quality:
a measure of information system effectiveness”,
MIS Quarterly, June, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 173-85.
Weill, P. (1990), “A study of information technology payoff:
implications for investment appraisal”, Working
Paper No. 13, June, The University of Melbourne
Graduate School of Management.
Rubin, H. (1991), “Measurement: shifting the focus to
business value”, Capacity Management Review,
Vol. 57, pp. 81-93.
West, L. and Courtney, J. (1993), “The information problems of organisations: a research model for the
value of information and information systems”,
Decision Sciences, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 229-50.
Seddon, P. and Fraser, S. (1995), “A re-specification of the
Delone and McClean model of IS success”, Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Information
Systems, September, Vol. 1, pp. 109-18.
Willcocks, L. (1992), “IT evaluation: managing the catch
22”, European Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2,
June, pp. 220-29.
Sekaran, U. (1992), Research Methods for Business, 2nd
ed., John Wiley, New York, NY.
49