Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 118

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Valuing Information Technology Related Intangible Assets1

Saunders, Adam, Brynjolfsson, Erik·2016·MIS Quarterly
DOI 10.25300/misq/2016/40.1.04
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this article, we assess the value of information technology related intangible assets and then use data on business practices and management capabilities to understand how this value is distributed across firms. Using a panel of 127 firms over the period 2003–2006, we replicate and extend the finding from Brynjolfsson, Hitt, and Yang (2002) that $1 of computer hardware is correlated with more than $10 of market value. We account for the “missing $9” by broadening the definition of IT to include capitalized software, and then include all purchased and internally developed software, other internal IT services, IT consulting, and IT-related training (whether or not it is capitalized by the firm). In addition, we use data on IT-related business practices in order to analyze the distribution of IT-related intangibles within the sample. Our results suggest that the “invisible” IT not accounted for on balance sheets is being priced into the market value of firms. We also estimate that there is a 45% to 76% premium in market value for the firms with the highest organizational IT capabilities (based on separate measures of human resource practices, management practices, internal IT use, external IT use, and Internet capabilities), as compared to those with the lowest organizational IT capabilities. Our results thus suggest that contributions of IT to value depend heavily on other factors, and are not a rising tide that lifts all boats.

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 · 10.25300/misq/2016/40.1.04

Cites

1 of 1 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. Anderson, 2003, The New Productivity Paradox, Communications of the ACM, 46, 91, 10.1145/636772.636776 · DOI
  2. Aral, 2007, IT Assets, Organizational Capabilities, and Firm Performance: How Resource Allocations and Organizational Differences Explain Performance Variation, Organization Science, 18, 763, 10.1287/orsc.1070.0306 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Athey, 1998, An Empirical Framework for Testing Theories About Complementarity in Organizational Design
  4. Baily, 1981, Productivity and the Services of Capital and Labor, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1981, 1, 10.2307/2534396 · DOI
  5. Bardhan, 2013, Business Value of Information Technology: Testing the Interaction Effect of IT and R&D on Tobin’s Q, Information Systems Research, 24, 1147, 10.1287/isre.2013.0481 · DOI
  6. Bartel, 2007, How Does Information Technology Affect Productivity? Plant-Level Comparisons of Product Innovation, Process Improvement, and Worker Skills, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122, 1721, 10.1162/qjec.2007.122.4.1721 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Barth, 1998, Brand Values and Capital Market Valuation, Review of Accounting Studies, 3, 41, 10.1023/A:1009620132177 · DOI · Paper page
  8. BEA, 2000, Recognition of Business and Government Expenditures for Software as Investment: Methodology and Quantitative Impacts, 1959-98
  9. BEA, 2003, Fixed Assets and Consumer Durable Goods in the United States, 1925-97
  10. Berger, 1995, Diversification’s Effect on Firm Value, Journal of Financial Economics, 37, 39, 10.1016/0304-405X(94)00798-6 · DOI · Paper page
  11. BLS, 1983, Trends in Multifactor Productivity, 1948-81
  12. Bresnahan, 2002, Information Technology, Workplace Organization, and the Demand for Skilled Labor: Firm-Level Evidence, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 339, 10.1162/003355302753399526 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Brynjolfsson, 2003, Computing Productivity: Firm-Level Evidence, Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 793, 10.1162/003465303772815736 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Brynjolfsson, 2005, Intangible but Not Unmeasurable: Some Thoughts on the Measurement and Magnitude of Intangible Assets, 557
  15. Brynjolfsson, 2002, Intangible Assets: Computers and Organizational Capital, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2002, 137, 10.1353/eca.2002.0003 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Brynjolfsson, 2012, Complementarity in Organizations, 11, 10.2307/j.ctt1r2ggg.5 · DOI
  17. Brynjolfsson, 1997, The Matrix of Change, Sloan Management Review, 38, 37
  18. Brynjolfsson, 2010, Wired for Innovation: How Information Technology is Reshaping the Economy
  19. Cheng, 2007, Industry Level Supplier-Driven IT Spillovers, Management Science, 53, 1199, 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0657 · DOI
  20. Corrado, 2005, Measuring Capital and Technology: An Expanded Framework, 11, 10.7208/chicago/9780226116174.003.0002 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Corrado, 2009, Intangible Capital and Economic Growth, Review of Income and Wealth, 55, 661, 10.1111/j.1475-4991.2009.00343.x · DOI · Paper page
  22. Crespi, 2007, Information Technology, Organisational Change, and Productivity Growth: Evidence from UK Firms
  23. David, 1990, The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox, The American Economic Review, 80, 355
  24. Dedrick, 2003, Information Technology and Economic Performance: A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence, ACM Computing Surveys, 35, 1, 10.1145/641865.641866 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Dewan, 2007, Investigating the Risk–Return Relationship of Information Technology Investment: Firm-Level Empirical Analysis, Management Science, 53, 1829, 10.1287/mnsc.1070.0739 · DOI
  26. Ernst & Young, 1998, Accounting for the Costs of Computer Software Developed or Obtained for Internal Use: Statement of Position 98-1
  27. Gao, 2012, Information Technology and Trademarks: Implications for Product Variety, Management Science, 58, 1211, 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1480 · DOI
  28. Griliches, 1986, Errors in Variables in Panel Data, Journal of Econometrics, 31, 93, 10.1016/0304-4076(86)90058-8 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Hall, 2005, Market Value and Patent Citations, The Rand Journal of Economics, 36, 16
  30. Hall, 2000, E-Capital: The Link Between the Stock Market and the Labor Market in the 1990s, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2000, 73, 10.1353/eca.2000.0018 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Hall, 2001, The Stock Market and Capital Accumulation, The American Economic Review, 91, 1185, 10.1257/aer.91.5.1185 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Hand, 2003, The Increasing Returns-to-Scale of Intangibles, 303, 10.1093/oso/9780199256938.003.0013 · DOI
  33. Lang, 1994, Tobin’s q, Corporate Diversification, and Firm Performance, Journal of Political Economy, 102, 1248, 10.1086/261970 · DOI
  34. Lev, 2000, Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and Reporting
  35. Lev, 2004, Sharpening the Intangibles Edge, Harvard Business Review, 82, 109
  36. Lev, 2005, Valuation of Organizational Capital, 73, 10.7208/chicago/9780226116174.003.0004 · DOI · Paper page
  37. McGahan, 1999, The Persistence of Shocks to Profitability, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81, 143, 10.1162/003465399767923890 · DOI · Paper page
  38. McGahan, 2003, The Emergence and Sustainability of Abnormal Profits, Strategic Organization, 1, 79, 10.1177/1476127003001001219 · DOI
  39. Milgrom, 1990, The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization, The American Economic Review, 80, 511
  40. Milgrom, 1995, Complementarities and Fit: Strategy, Structure and Organizational Change in Manufacturing, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19, 179, 10.1016/0165-4101(94)00382-F · DOI · Paper page
  41. Nakamura, 2001, What is the US Gross Investment in Intangibles? (At Least) One Trillion Dollars a Year!
  42. Pilat, 2004, The ICT Productivity Paradox: Insights from Micro Data, OECD Economic Studies, 38, 37, 10.1787/eco_studies-v2004-1-en · DOI
  43. Porter, 1996, What Is Strategy?, Harvard Business Review, 74, 61
  44. Rai, 2006, Firm Performance Impacts of Digitally Enabled Supply Chain Integration Capabilities, MIS Quarterly, 30, 225, 10.2307/25148729 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Seethamraju, 2003, The Value Relevance of Trademarks, 228, 10.1093/oso/9780199256938.003.0010 · DOI
  46. Stankevich, 2003, The Human Link in Supply Chain Technology, Retail Merchandiser, 43, 43
  47. Subramani, 2004, How Do Suppliers Benefit from Information Technology Use in Supply Chain Relationships?, MIS Quarterly, 28, 45, 10.2307/25148624 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Tambe, 2014, Job Hopping, Knowledge Spillovers, and Regional Returns to Information Technology Investments, Management Science, 60, 338, 10.1287/mnsc.2013.1764 · DOI
  49. Villalonga, 2004, Diversification Discount or Premium? New Evidence from the Business Information Tracking Series, Journal of Finance, 59, 479, 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2004.00640.x · DOI · Paper page
  50. Villalonga, 2004, Does Diversification Cause the Diversification Discount?, Financial Management, 33, 5
  51. Zhao, 2002, Relative Value Relevance of R&D Reporting: An International Comparison, Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 13, 153, 10.1111/1467-646X.00082 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Saunders, A., & Brynjolfsson, E.
Affiliations
  • Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, 2053 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2 Canada
  • Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 100 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142 U.S.A.
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2016-03-01
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
83-110
ISSN
  • 0276-7783
  • 2162-9730
DOI
10.25300/misq/2016/40.1.04
Cited by
118
References
1
Language
en

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.