Two organizational case studies of IT-enabled value

Systems Research and Behavioral Science

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 689-706

  Kanungo, Shivraj ^a  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Interpretive structural modelling; IT enabled value; Process view

Indexed keywords

COMPLEX PROCESSES; IT-ENABLED VALUE; METHODOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS; PROCESS VIEW; PROCESS-ORIENTED; STRUCTURAL MODELLING; TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS; TRANSFORMATION PROCESS;

INVESTMENTS; MANAGEMENT; MANAGERS; RESEARCH; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 70350128818     PISSN: 10927026     EISSN: 10991743     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sres.961     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Anderson JC, Rungtusanthanam M, Schroeder RG. 1994. A theory of quality management underlying the deming management method. The Academy of Management Review 19: 472-509.
2. Anderson MC, Banker RD, Ravindran S. 2003. The new productivity paradox. Communications of the ACM 46: 91-94.
3. Arya DS, Abbasi SA. 2001. Identification and classification of key variables and their role in environmental impact assessment: methodology and software package. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 72: 277-296.
4. Barua A, Lee CHS, Whinston AB. 1996. The calculus of reengineering. Information Systems Research 7: 409-428.
5. Barney JB. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99-120.
6. Barney JB. 1994. Bringing managers back in: a resource-based analysis of the role of managers in creating and sustaining competitive advantage. In Does Management Matter? On Competencies and Competitive Advantage, Barney JB, Spender JC, Reve T. (eds.) Institute of Economic Research: Lund.
7. Boulding K. 1966. The Impact of the Social Sciences. Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ.
8. Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L. 1998. Beyond the productivity paradox. Communications of the ACM 41: 49-55.
9. Crowston K. 2000. Process as theory in information systems research, In IFIP WG 8.2 International Conference: The Social and Organizational Perspective on Research and Practice in Information Technology, Aalborg, Denmark. http://crowston.syr.edu/papers/ifip2000.pdf.
10. Dedrick J, Gurbaxani V, Kraemer KL. 2003. Information technology and economic performance: a critical review of the empirical evidence. ACM Computing Surveys 35: 1-27.
11. Godet M. 2002. The social structure of value creation, Management (Belgrade), 25: 48-56. (http://www.cnam.fr/lipsor/eng/publications_03.php).
12. Hansen JV, Mckell LJ, Heitger LE. 1979. ISMS: computer-aided analysis for design of decision support systems. Management Science 25: 1069-1081.
13. Javidan M. 1998. Core competence: what does it mean in practice. Long Range Planning 31: 60-71.
14. Kanungo S. 2003. Using systems dynamics to operationalize process theory in information systems research. International Conference on Information Systems proceedings. Paper 38.
15. Koh C, Soh C, Markus ML. 2000. A process theory approach to analyzing ERP implementation and impacts: the case of Revel Asia. Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications 2: 4-23.
16. Kraemer K, Dedrick J. 2001. The productivity paradox: Is it resolved? Is there a new one? What does it all mean for managers? Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, http://www.crito.uci.edu/itr/publications/pdf/it_prod_paradox.pdf.
17. Kurtz CF, Snowden DJ. 2003. The new dynamics of strategy. IBM Systems Journal 42: 462-483.
18. Marchand D, Kettinger W, Rollins J. 2000. Information orientation: people, technology and the bottom line. Sloan Management Review 41: 69-81.
19. Markus ML, Tanis C. 2000. The enterprise systems experience-from adoption to success. In Framing the Domains of IT Research: Glimpsing the Future Through the Past, Zmud RW (ed.). Pinnaflex Educational Resources Inc.: Cincinnati; 173-207.
20. Melnyk SA, Fredenell LD. 2002. Total Quality Management. McGraw-Hill/Irwin: New York.
21. Melville N, Kraemer K, Gurbuxani V. 2004. Review: information technology and organizational performance: an integrative model of IT business value. MIS Quarterly 28: 283-322.
22. Mizuno S. 1988. Management for Quality Improvement: The Seven New QC Tools. Productivity Press: Cambridge, MA.
23. Mukhopadhyay T, Rajiv S, Srinivasan K. 1997. Information technology impact on process output and quality. Management Science 43: 1645-1659.
24. Porter AL, Rossini FA, Carpenter SR, Roper AT. 1980. A Guidebook for Technology Assessment and Impact Analysis. North Holland: New York.
25. Raghuvanshi PS, Kumar S. 1999. On the structuring of systems with fuzzy relations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 29: 547-553.
26. Sambamurthy V, Bharadwaj A, Grover V. 2003. Shaping agility through digital options: reconceptualizing the role of IT in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly 27: 237-263.
27. Soh C, Markus ML. 1995. How IT creates business value: A process theory synthesis. International Conference on Information Systems 29-42.
28. Staley SM, Warfield JN. 2007. Enterprise integration of product development data: Systems science in action, Enterprise Information Systems, 1: 269-285.
29. Tan FB, Hunter MG. 2002. The repertory grid technique: a method for the study of cognition in information systems. MIS Quarterly 26: 39-59.
30. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18: 509-533.
31. Warfield JN. 1973. Intent structures. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 3: 133-140.
32. Warfield JN. 2007. Systems science serves enterprise integration: A tutorial, Enterprise Information Systems, 1: 255-268.
33. Warfield JN, Perino GH. 1999. The problematique: evolution of an idea. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 16: 221-226.
34. Weick K. 1995. Sense-making in Organizations. Sage: London.