FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W218539482> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W218539482 abstract "Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have increasingly become crucial to achieving organizational and strategic goals. This has led to an ever increasing expenditure on ICT and an accompanying increasing demand to measure the business value of the IS investment. The need to evaluate investments in ICT projects is further exacerbated by the ‘productivity paradox’ observed in these investments. Despite higher investments in ICT, the resulting business value is not easily visible. One of the most important evaluations of any project is the ex ante evaluation. This is a type of evaluation which informs the go/no go or approval decisions of projects. It is extremely important because it is through this evaluation that beneficial projects are picked and implemented and non beneficial ones dropped. This paper explores the influence that ex ante evaluation has played in the approval for implementation of ICT projects in universities in Kenya. The theoretical framework used for this evaluation focuses on three interrelated constructs that contribute to the success of evaluation, namely; context, content and process. The context of evaluation refers to factors external and internal to the organization that influence evaluation and its management; the evaluation content refers to the subject of evaluation, the criteria used and the criteria measures; and the process of evaluation refers to the way that evaluation is carried out, the time frame and the tools and techniques used. The evaluation was carried out using a total of seven selected case study projects. Three of the ICT projects were from one of the largest public universities while four projects were drawn from two of the most established private universities. Data was collected through interviews with key project stakeholders, review of project documentation and review of relevant information contained on the Internet and institutional websites. The project cases are analyzed using the context, process and content conceptual framework. From the results, the paper concludes that all the universities studied had some form of project approval process. The level of sophistication or rigour in the process and management expectations varied at each institution. In addition, the basic methodology used in all cases was the non-rational (influence) methodology. In this approach influence techniques are used to persuade and obtain commitment and participation from Management (the approving parties) and the beneficiaries/users of the final product/service of the ICT project. Other conclusions are that in situations where there is a high profile and well established ICT function, the ICT experts have a huge role to play in deriving the benefits and influencing approval; that most project benefits were mainly stated in a narrative form and project risks were generally not accounted for; and that external stakeholders have a significant role in influencing approval of ICT projects (the accrediting body in both private universities the Ministry of Education in the case of the public university). The study also concludes that the amount of time taken in the evaluation" @default.
• W218539482 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W218539482 creator A5003672418 @default.
• W218539482 creator A5027575736 @default.
• W218539482 date "2009-01-01" @default.
• W218539482 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W218539482 title "Ex Ante Evaluation of Information and Communication Technology Projects; Case Studies of Kenyan Universities" @default.
• W218539482 cites W1527311855 @default.
• W218539482 cites W1801350309 @default.
• W218539482 cites W1978484347 @default.
• W218539482 cites W2020144920 @default.
• W218539482 cites W2041632200 @default.
• W218539482 cites W2064583296 @default.
• W218539482 cites W2078860536 @default.
• W218539482 cites W2082571229 @default.
• W218539482 cites W2411673959 @default.
• W218539482 cites W2563430562 @default.
• W218539482 cites W2809590287 @default.
• W218539482 cites W584249427 @default.
• W218539482 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W218539482 type Work @default.
• W218539482 sameAs 218539482 @default.
• W218539482 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W218539482 countsByYear W2185394822016 @default.
• W218539482 countsByYear W2185394822017 @default.
• W218539482 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W218539482 hasAuthorship W218539482A5003672418 @default.
• W218539482 hasAuthorship W218539482A5027575736 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C121017731 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C122251271 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C139719470 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C195094911 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C204983608 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C56739046 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C67363961 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W218539482 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C111919701 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C121017731 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C122251271 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C136764020 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C139719470 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C144133560 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C151730666 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C162324750 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C162853370 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C195094911 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C204983608 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C2779343474 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C41008148 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C50522688 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C56739046 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C67363961 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C86803240 @default.
• W218539482 hasConceptScore W218539482C98045186 @default.
• W218539482 hasLocation W2185394821 @default.
• W218539482 hasOpenAccess W218539482 @default.
• W218539482 hasPrimaryLocation W2185394821 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W1513367238 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W1522246520 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W1542345931 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W1544075956 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W1975253448 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W2171417462 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W2305378746 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W2605740300 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W2765183879 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W2788531927 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W2965701395 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W2983881386 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W3100029735 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W3116786790 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W3134903951 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W3193862981 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W3201132480 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W3363212 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W574513467 @default.
• W218539482 hasRelatedWork W641346899 @default.
• W218539482 isParatext "false" @default.
• W218539482 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W218539482 magId "218539482" @default.
• W218539482 workType "article" @default.