Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,028

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Executives’ Perceptions of the Business Value of Information Technology: A Process-Oriented Approach

Open access
Tallon, Paul P., Kraemer, Kenneth L., Gurbaxani, Vijay·2000·Journal of Management Information Systems
DOI 10.1080/07421222.2000.11518269
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

:Despite significant progress in evaluating the productivity payoffs from information technology (IT), the inability of traditional firm-level economic analysis to account fully for the intangible impacts of IT has led to calls for a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to measuring IT business value. In response to this call, we develop a process-oriented model to assess the impacts of IT on critical business activities within the value chain. Our model incorporates corporate goals for IT and management practices as key determinants of realized IT payoffs. Using survey data from 304 business executives worldwide, we found that corporate goals for IT can be classified into one of four types: unfocused, operations focus, market focus, and dual focus. Our analysis confirms that these goals are useful indicators of payoffs from IT in that executives in firms with more focused goals for IT perceive greater payoffs from IT across the value chain. In addition, we found that management practices such as strategic alignment and IT investment evaluation contribute to higher perceived levels of IT business value.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07421222.2000.11518269

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. 10.2307/249029 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1287/isre.6.1.3 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1002/9781118619179 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.2307/249620 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1147/sj.321.0162 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1080/10438599500000002 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1287/mnsc.42.4.541 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1287/isre.8.2.125 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Compass Group, 1999, International IT Survey Census
  10. Computer Sciences Corporation, 1998, Critical Issues in Information Systems Management
  11. Davis G.B., 1985, Management Information Systems
  12. 10.1287/mnsc.43.12.1660 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Earl M., 1989, Management Strategies for Information Technology
  14. Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), 1999, Assessing the Strategic Value of Information Technology
  15. 10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00054-8 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1147/sj.382.0472 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1080/07421222.1997.11518166 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Iacocca L., 1988, Talking Straight
  19. 10.1145/2135.2137 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.5465/AME.1990.4277208 · DOI
  21. 10.2307/249382 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Kauffman R.J., 1988, Measuring the Business Value of IT
  23. 10.1287/mnsc.40.11.1406 · DOI
  24. Lawrence P.R., 1986, Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration
  25. 10.1080/10438599500000003 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Lucas H.C., 1999, Information Technology and the Productivity Paradox: Assessing the Value of Investing in IT, 10.1093/oso/9780195121599.001.0001 · DOI
  27. Luftman J., 1996, Competing in the Information Age: Strategic Alignment in Practice
  28. McFarlan W., 1984, Harvard Business Review, 62, 98
  29. 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1991.tb00368.x · DOI
  30. 10.1287/mnsc.33.10.1317 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.2307/249685 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Pennings J.M., 1987, New Technology as Organizational Innovation
  33. Pine B.J., 1995, Harvard Business Review, 73, 103
  34. Porter M.E., 1985, Competitive Advantage
  35. Porter M.E., 1996, Harvard Business Review, 74, 61
  36. Porter M.E., 1985, Harvard Business Review, 63, 149
  37. 10.1080/07421222.1992.11517960 · DOI
  38. 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1990.tb01686.x · DOI
  39. 10.2307/249542 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1145/358413.358429 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1993.tb00493.x · DOI
  42. 10.1287/mnsc.40.12.1601 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1002/(SICI)1097–0266(199805)19:5<Aid-Smj946>3.0.CO;2-C · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199805)19:5
  44. Strassmann P.A., 1997, The Squandered Computer: Evaluating the Business Alignment of Information Technologies
  45. 10.1016/0263-2373(93)90037-I · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1177/014920638701300109 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Violino R., 1997, Information Week, 36
  48. 10.2307/248780 · DOI
  49. Woolfe R., 1993, Information Strategy: The Executive’s Journal, 9, 13
  50. Wilson D., 1993, Strategic Information Technology Management: Perspectives on Organizational Growth and Competitive Advantage

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Tallon, P. P., Kraemer, K. L., & Gurbaxani, V.
Venue
Journal of Management Information Systems
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2000-03
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
145-173
ISSN
  • 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-928X
DOI
10.1080/07421222.2000.11518269
OpenAlex
W1915854659
Cited by
1,028
References
3
FWCI
32.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.