FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W36243602> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W36243602 endingPage "52" @default.
• W36243602 startingPage "41" @default.
• W36243602 abstract "ABSTRACT This paper investigates the effects of efforts by firms to improve the quality and frequency of evaluation for information systems project ideas and completed systems. We develop a framework, based on organizational learning theory, for the expected impacts, singly and together, of efforts to increase evaluation and to improve evaluation processes. We investigate whether developing the evaluation process leads to more frequent and more thorough evaluation and whether increased evaluation, improved evaluation, or both jointly affect evaluation quality. We found that improved evaluation led to more frequent evaluation. Neither improved evaluation processes nor increased frequency and thoroughness of evaluation clearly led to higher evaluation quality. Jointly they resulted in decidedly mixed results. We infer from the results that managers want better methods and tools to (1) develop better information for IS evaluation, (2) help them use information better in decision making, and (3) better align IS plans and projects with strategic business plans. INTRODUCTION That information systems today are important to firms is as well known in popular culture as it is in the IS research literature. Firms are increasingly dependent on such systems in order to be able to conduct day-to-day operations. Many firms have sought to use innovative IS to slash costs, establish marketing channels, or add information value to products and services. Others have sought to redesign production processes around products, using databases and electronic communications to coordinate diverse activities across functional and even organizational boundaries (Venkatraman 1994). Managers have sought to redefine the organization by using IS capabilities to lend assistance in management coordination and control activities, thereby allowing organizations to distribute supply chains globally, to outsource activities that aren't core competencies, and to squash organizational hierarchies by eliminating layers of management. Given all of these potential opportunities, managers should be eager to apply IS in the firm. Unfortunately, managers as a group aren't confident about their ability to make the right choices among these many opportunities (Peffers and Saarinen 2002). The record on payoffs from IS investments is mixed to the extent that some researchers have suggested that there is no relationship, per se, between IS investments and adding value to the firm, e.g., (Brynjolfsson 1993; Brynjolfsson and Hitt 1998; Dos Santos, Peffers and Mauer 1993). Furthermore, the record of IS projects that have failed to produce the desired results, were unusable, were never finished, or ran away with the budget, is nothing less than shocking (Keil and Mann 2000). Information systems now account for expenses equal to up to 8% of revenue in some industries and often have wide ranging impacts on the organization, so it is essential that managers have the tools to determine whether potential IS investments are worthwhile, in terms of strategy, feasibility, risk, and financial impact on the firm. Furthermore, managers need to be able to evaluate these systems at a strategic level to determine whether they are aligned with firm objectives, as well as to zoom in to evaluate the functionality of specific features and the effectiveness of whole systems (Dos Santos and Peffers 1993). Finally, it is important to evaluate systems at several points over the project life cycle, including at the time of the investment decision, during development, and at the completion of the project (Farbey, Land and Targett 1992; Hallikainen, Heikkila, Peffers, Saarinen and Wijnhoven 1998), so as to ensure that expected benefits are realized. Sadly, although many attempts have been made over the years to develop effective evaluation methods (Lincoln 1986; Ward 1990; Wen and Sylla 1999), real managers don't often use them. Apparently, most decisions about IS investments and development are made intuitively, without the benefit of using any of the formal methods (Hallikainen, Heikkila, Peffers, Saarinen and Wijnhoven 1998). …" @default.
• W36243602 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W36243602 creator A5017490778 @default.
• W36243602 creator A5031669136 @default.
• W36243602 creator A5084790856 @default.
• W36243602 date "2005-01-01" @default.
• W36243602 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W36243602 title "Deciding Which is to Build and Assessing Success: Learning to Do It Better" @default.
• W36243602 cites W115488469 @default.
• W36243602 cites W1552413492 @default.
• W36243602 cites W1972454325 @default.
• W36243602 cites W1978484347 @default.
• W36243602 cites W2027149741 @default.
• W36243602 cites W2029483929 @default.
• W36243602 cites W2030468655 @default.
• W36243602 cites W2051538335 @default.
• W36243602 cites W2057211911 @default.
• W36243602 cites W2074290291 @default.
• W36243602 cites W2078382101 @default.
• W36243602 cites W2080801151 @default.
• W36243602 cites W2083449279 @default.
• W36243602 cites W2099840395 @default.
• W36243602 cites W2122224612 @default.
• W36243602 cites W2130457181 @default.
• W36243602 cites W2152635972 @default.
• W36243602 cites W2462157841 @default.
• W36243602 cites W2550772819 @default.
• W36243602 cites W5967781 @default.
• W36243602 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W36243602 type Work @default.
• W36243602 sameAs 36243602 @default.
• W36243602 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W36243602 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W36243602 hasAuthorship W36243602A5017490778 @default.
• W36243602 hasAuthorship W36243602A5031669136 @default.
• W36243602 hasAuthorship W36243602A5084790856 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C119599485 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C180198813 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C182306322 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C195094911 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C202444582 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C33676613 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C56739046 @default.
• W36243602 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C10138342 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C111472728 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C111919701 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C119599485 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C127413603 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C138885662 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C144133560 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C180198813 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C182306322 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C195094911 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C202444582 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C2779530757 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C33676613 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C33923547 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C41008148 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C56739046 @default.
• W36243602 hasConceptScore W36243602C98045186 @default.
• W36243602 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W36243602 hasLocation W362436021 @default.
• W36243602 hasOpenAccess W36243602 @default.
• W36243602 hasPrimaryLocation W362436021 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W1485268609 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W1486833201 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W1522239862 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W1894207802 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W2038551506 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W2056238536 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W2091807989 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W2345751474 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W2461493288 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W2488725731 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W2500706824 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W2538474605 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W2581367164 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W2583232669 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W2769872648 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W296934574 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W2991990757 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W2992956729 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W3124657242 @default.
• W36243602 hasRelatedWork W96295738 @default.
• W36243602 hasVolume "6" @default.
• W36243602 isParatext "false" @default.
• W36243602 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W36243602 magId "36243602" @default.

• next