An empirical study of IT as a factor of production: The case of Net-enabled IT assets

Information Systems Frontiers

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 323-335

  Nevo, Saggi ^a   Wade, Michael ^b   Cook, Wade D ^b  

^a Massry Center for Business   (United States)

^b YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Data envelopment analysis; Diminishing marginal productivity; Economics of is; Input substitutability; IT productivity; Net enabled itassets

Indexed keywords

DATA SETS; DEPENDENT VARIABLES; DIMINISHING MARGINAL PRODUCTIVITY; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; FUNCTIONAL FORMS; INPUT AND OUTPUTS; INPUT SUBSTITUTABILITY; IT ASSETS; IT PRODUCTIVITY; METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH; MULTIPLE INPUTS; MULTIVARIATE REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TWO-STAGE PROCESS;

DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; DATA HANDLING; ECONOMICS; LINEAR PROGRAMMING; MULTIVARIANT ANALYSIS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

PRODUCTIVITY;

EID: 77954759224     PISSN: 13873326     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10796-008-9141-0     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in DEA. Management Science, 30 (9), 1078-1092.
2. Banker, R. D., & Slaughter, S. T. (1997). A field study of scale economics in software maintenance. Management Science, 43 (12), 1709-1735.
3. Banker, R. D., & Slaughter, S. T. (2000). The moderating effects of structure on volatility and complexity in software enhancement. Information Systems Research, 11 (3), 219-240. doi:10.1287/isre.11.3.219.12209.
4. Barua, A. & Lee, B. (1997). The information technology productivity paradox revisited: a theoretical and empirical investigation in the manufacturing sector. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 9, 145-166. doi:10.1023/A:1007967718214.
5. Barua, A., Kriebel, C., & Mukhopadhyay, T. (1995). Information technologies and business value: an analytic and empirical investigation. Information Systems Research, 6 (1), 3-23.
6. Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (1995). Information technology as a factor of production: the role of differences among firms. Economics of Innovations and New Technologies, 3 (4), 183-200. doi:10.1080/10438599500000002.
7. Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (1996). Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending. Management Science, 42 (4), 541-558.
8. Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (2000). Beyond computation: information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14 (4), 23-48.
9. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429-444. doi:10.1016/0377-2217 (78) 90138-8.
10. Cook, W. D., Hababou, M., & Tuenter, H. J. H. (2000). Multicomponent efficiency measurement and shared inputs in data envelopment analysis: an application to sales and service performance in bank branches. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 14 (3), 209-224. doi:10.1023/A:1026598803764.
11. Dedrick, J., Gurbaxani, V., & Kraemer, K. L. (2003). Information technology and economic performance: a critical review of the empirical evidence. ACM Computing Surveys, 35 (1), 1-28. doi:10.1145/641865.641866. (Pubitemid 44159291)
12. Dewan, S., & Kraemer, K. (2000). Information technology and productivity: evidence from country-level data. Management Science, 46 (4), 548-602. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.4.548.12057.
13. Dewan, S., & Min, C. K. (1997). Substitution of information technology for other factors of production: a firm-level analysis. Management Science, 43 (12), 1660-1675.
14. Epstein, M. K., & Henderson, J. C. (1989). Data envelopment analysis for managerial control and diagnosis. Decision Sciences, 20 (1), 90-119. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1989.tb01399.x.
15. Gurbaxani, V., Melville, N., & Kraemer, K. (2000). The production of information services: a firm-level analysis of information systems budgets. Information Systems Research, 11 (2), 159-176. doi:10.1287/isre.11.2.159.11779.
16. Herrero, I., & Salmeron, J. L. (2005). Using the DEA methodology to rank software technical efficiency. Communications of the ACM, 48 (1), 101-105. doi:10.1145/1039539.1039546. (Pubitemid 40493433)
17. Hitt, L. M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1996). Productivity, business profitability, and consumer surplus: three different measures of information technology value. MIS Quarterly, 20 (2), 121-142. doi:10.2307/249475.
18. Kohli, R., & Devaraj, S. (2003). Measuring information technology payoff: a meta-analysis of structural variables in firm-level empirical research. Information Systems Research, 14 (2), 127-145. doi:10.1287/isre.14.2. 127.16019.
19. Korbin, S. J. (2001). Territoriality and governance of cyberspace. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (4), 687-704. doi:10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8490990.
20. Kudyba, S., & Diwan, R. (2002). Research report: increasing returns to information technology. Information Systems Research, 13 (1), 104-111. doi:10.1287/isre.13.1.104.98.
21. Lee, B., & Menon, N. M. (2000). Information technology through different normative lenses. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16 (4), 99-119.
22. Mahmood, M. A., Pettingell, K. J., & Shaskevich, A. I. (1996). Measuring productivity of software projects: a data envelopment analysis approach. Decision Sciences, 27 (1), 57-80. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996. tb00843.x.
23. Melville, N., Gurbaxani, V., & Kraemer, K. (2007). The productivity impact of information technology across competitive regimes: the role of industry concentration and dynamism. Decision Support Systems, 43 (1), 229-242. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2006.09.009. (Pubitemid 46073239)
24. Menon, N. M., Lee, B., & Eldenburg, L. (2000). Productivity of information systems in the healthcare industry. Information Systems Research, 11 (1), 83-92. doi:10.1287/isre.11.1.83.11784.
25. Metters, R. D., Frei, F. X., & Vargas, V. A. (1999). Measurement of multiple sites in service firms with data envelopment analysis. Production and Operations Management, 8 (3), 264-281.
26. Mukhopadhyay, T., & Cooper, R. B. (1993). A microeconomic production assessment of the business value of management information systems: The case of inventory control. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10 (1), 33-55. doi:10.1080/10580539308906910.
27. Mukhopadhyay, T., Rajiv, S., & Srinivasan, K. (1997). Information technology impact on process output and quality. Management Science, 43 (12), 1645-1759.
28. Oz, E. (2005). Information technology productivity: in search of a definite observation. Information & Management, 42, 789-798. doi:10.1016/j.im.2004.08.003. (Pubitemid 40788751)
29. Pollak, R. A., Sickles, R. C., & Wales, T. J. (1984). The CES-translog: specification and estimation of a new cost function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 66 (4), 602-607. doi:10.2307/1935984.
30. Ray, G., Muhanna, W. A., & Barney, J. B. (2005). Information technology and the performance of the customer service process: a resource-based analysis. MIS Quarterly, 29 (4), 625-652.
31. Robey, D., & Boudreau, M. C. (1999). Accounting for the contradictory organizational consequences of information technology: theoretical directions and methodological implications. Information Systems Research, 10 (2), 167-197.
32. Shao, B. B. M., & Lin, W. T. (2002). Technical efficiency analysis of information technology investments: a two-stage empirical investigation. Information & Management, 39 (5), 391-401. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206 (01) 00105-7.
33. Shu, W., & Strassman, P. A. (2005). Does information technology provide banks with profit? Information & Management, 42, 781-787. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.06.007. (Pubitemid 40655120)
34. Sircar, S., Turnbow, J. L., & Bordoloi, B. (2000). A framework for assessing the relationship between information technology investments and firm performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16 (4), 69-97.
35. Varian, H. (1992). Microeconomic analysis (3rd ed.). NY: Norton.
36. Varian, H., Litan, R., Elder, A., & Shutter, J. (2002). The Net Impact Study: The projected economic benefits of the Internet in the United States, United Kingdom, France and Germany. available: www.netimpactstudy.com.
37. Weill, P. (1992). The relationship between investment in information technology and firm performance: a study of the valve manufacturing sector. Information Systems Research, 3 (4), 307-333.
38. West, L. A. (2000). Private markets for public goods: pricing strategies of online database vendors. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17 (1), 59-85.
39. Zhu, J. (2002). Quantitative models for performance evaluation and benchmarking. Kluwer's International Series. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
40. Zhu, K., & Kraemer, K. L. (2002). E-commerce metrics for netenhanced organizations: assessing the value of e-commerce to firm performance in the manufacturing sector. Information Systems Research, 13 (3), 275-295. doi:10.1287/isre.13.3.275.82.
41. Zhu, K. (2004). The complementarity of information technology infrastructure and e-commerce capability: a resource-based assessment of their business value. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21 (1), 167-202.
42. Zhu, K., & Kraemer, K. L. (2005). Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-business by organizations: cross-country evidence from the retail industry. Information Systems Research, 16 (1), 61-84. doi:10.1287/isre.1050. 0045. (Pubitemid 40701109)