A framework for measuring the efficiency of organizational investments in information technology using data envelopment analysis

Omega

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 125-141

  Shafer, Scott M ^a   Byrd, Terry A ^b  

^a WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Data envelopment analysis; Economics of information technology; Firm performance; Information systems; Information technology

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; EFFICIENCY; INFORMATION USE; INVESTMENTS; MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING;

ECONOMICS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; FIRM PERFORMANCE; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS; LARGE ORGANIZATIONS; ORGANISATIONAL; PERFORMANCE; PROGRAMMING TECHNIQUE; SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS; TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES;

DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS;

EID: 0034165479     PISSN: 03050483     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0305-0483(99)00039-0     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ali AI, Seiford LM. Computational accuracy and infinitesimals in data envelopment analysis. INFOR 1993;31(4):290-7.
2. Arnold VL, Indranil R, Cooper WW. A two-stage DEA approach for identifying and rewarding efficiency in Texas secondary schools. In: Cooper WW, Thore S, Gibson G, Phillips F, editors. IMPACT: How IC2 Institute Research Affects Public Policy and Business Practices. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1997. p. 131-66.
3. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 1984;30(9):1078-92.
4. Banker RD, Kauffman RJ, Morey RC. Measuring the gains in operational efficiency from information technology: A study of the Positran deployment at Hardee's Inc. Journal of Management Information Systems 1990;7(2):29-54.
5. Bardhan IR, Cooper WW, Kumbhakar SC. A simulation study of joint uses of data envelopment analysis and statistical regressions for production function estimation and efficiency evaluation. Journal of Productivity Analysis 1998;9:249-78.
6. Bender DH. Financial impact of information processing. Journal of Management Information Systems 1986;3(2):22-32.
7. Brynjolfsson E. The productivity paradox of information technology. Communications of the ACM 1993;35:66-77.
8. Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L. Is information systems spending productive? New evidence and new results. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Systems, 1993. p. 47-64.
9. Business Week. The New Business Cycle. 3520, 31 March;1997:58-61; 64-65, 68.
10. Business Week. The Technology Payoff. No. 3323, 14 June; 1993:57-61, 64, 68.
11. Cash J, McKenney JL, McFarlan FW. Corporate Information Systems Management the Issues Facing Senior Executives. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1988.
12. Chakravarthy BS. Measuring the spillovers from technical advances: Mainframe computers in financial services. Strategic Management Journal 1986;7:437-58.
13. Chandler S. United: So many cuts, so little relief. Business Week 1994;December 5: 42.
14. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operations Research 1978;2(6):429-44.
15. Compaine BM. Understanding News Media. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1984.
16. Computerworld. The Premier 100. Computerworld, supplement, 19 September, 1994.
17. Computerworld. The Premier 100. Computerworld, supplement, 14 September, 1994.
18. Computerworld. The Premier 100. Computerworld, supplement, 30 September, 1991.
19. Computerworld. The Premier 100. Computerworld 1990, supplement, 8 October, 1990.
20. Cron WL, Sobol MG. The relationship between computerization and performance: A strategy for maximizing the economic benefits of computerization. Information and Management 1983;6:171-81.
21. Davis B. Shared vision make IT pay off. Informationweek 1998;700:93-100 28 September.
22. Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 1989;14:543-76.
23. Hammer M. Reengineering work: Don't automate obliterate. Harvard Business Review 1990;90(4): 104-12.
24. Hammer M, Champy J. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business. New York: Harper Business, 1993.
25. Harris SE, Katz JL. Organizational performance and information technology intensity in the insurance industry. Organization Science 1991;2(3):263-95.
26. InformationWeek. The Most Innovative IT Users. 22 September 1997; 92-101.
27. InformationWeek. The Biggest and the Best Users of Information Technology. 21 September 1992; 20-9.
28. Jarvenpaa S, Ives B. Information technology and corporate strategy: A view from the top. Information Systems Research 1990;1(4):351-76.
29. Kaufman RJ, Weill P. An evaluative framework for research on the performance effects of information technology investment. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information Systems, Boston, 1989.
30. Lewin AY, Morey RC. Measuring the relative efficiency and output potential of public sector organizations: An application of data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Policy Analysis and Information Systems 1981;5(4):267-85.
31. Loveman GW. An assessment of the productivity impact of information technologies. In: Allen TJ, Scott Morton MS, editors. Information Technology and the Corporation of the 1990s: Research Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. p. 84-110.
32. Mahmood MA, Mann GJ. Measuring the organizational impact of information technology investment: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems 1993;10(1):97-122.
33. Paradi JC, Reese DN, Rosen D. Applications of DEA to measure the efficiency of software production at two large Canadian banks. Annals of Operations Research 1997;73:91-115.
34. Parthasarthy R, Sethi SP. Relating strategy and structure to flexible automation: A test of fit and performance implications. Strategic Management Journal 1993;14:529-49.
35. Pastor JT. Translation invariance in data envelopment analysis: A generalization. Annal of Operations Research 1996;66:93-102.
36. Pennings JM, Harianto F. The diffusion of technological innovation in the commercial banking industry. Strategic Management Journal 1992;13:29-46.
37. Raymond L. Organizational context and information systems success: A contingency approach. Journal of MIS 1990;6:5-20.
38. Roach SS. Pitfalls on the 'new' assembly line: Can services learn from manufacturing? In: Economic Perspectives. New York: Stanley, 1989.
39. Roach SS. Technology and the service sector: The hidden competitive challenge. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1988;34(4):387-403.
40. Saurez FF, Cusumano MA, Fine CH. An empirical study of flexibility in manufacturing. Sloan Management Review 1995;37(1):25-32.
41. Scherer FM. Inter-industry technology flows in the United States. Research Policy 1982;11:227-45.
42. Sherman S. How to bolster the bottom line. Fortune Special Issue: 1994 Information Technology Guide 1993;128(7):1-28.
43. Stock Investor User's Guide, Version 1.01. Chicago, IL: The American Association of Individual Investors, 1993.
44. Venkatraman N. IT-enabled business transformation: From automation to business scope redefinition. Sloan Management Review 1994;35(2):73-87.
45. Weill P. The relationship between investment in information technology and firm performance: A study of the valve manufacturing sector. Information Systems Research 1992;3(4):307-33.
46. Weill P, Olson M. Managing investment in information technology: Mini case examples and implications. MIS Quarterly 1989;13(1):3-17.
47. Woo CY, Willard G. Performance representation in business policy research: Discussion and recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual National Meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, 1983.
48. Yin R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd Ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1994.