PERFORMANCE PARADOX: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERFORMANCE IN THE CASE OF THE 50 U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS

Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2003

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 389-400

  Jain, Abhijit ^a  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

e government; IT investment; performance measurement; Performance paradox; productivity paradox; public sector; structural equation modeling (SEM); U.S. state governments

Indexed keywords

BUDGET CONTROL; GOVERNMENT DATA PROCESSING; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; INVESTMENTS; PRODUCTIVITY;

E-GOVERNMENT; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS; PERFORMANCE; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS; PERFORMANCE PARADOX; PRODUCTIVITY PARADOX; PUBLIC SECTOR; STATE GOVERNMENTS; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELS; US STATE GOVERNMENT;

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84944713953     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (48)

1. Alpar, P., and Kim, M. “A Comparison of Approaches to the Measurement of IT Value,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Science, R. H. Sprague Jr. (ed.), IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1990.
2. Arbuckle, J. L. “Full Information Estimation in the Presence of Incomplete Data,” in Advanced Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Techniques, G. A. Marcoulides and R. E. Schumacker (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1996, pp. 243-277.
3. Babakus, E., Ferguson, C. E., Jr., and Joreskog, K. G. “The Sensitivity of Confirmatory Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis to Violations of Measurement Scale and Distributional Assumptions,” Journal of Marketing Research (24), 1987, pp. 222-228.
4. Baily, M. N, and Chakrabarti, A. “Electronics and White-Collar Productivity in Innovation and the Productivity Crisis,” Chapter 5 in Innovation and the Productivity Crisis, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1988, pp. 86-102.
5. Bartle, J. R. “Budgeting, Policy, and Administration: Patterns and Dynamics in the United States,” International Journal of Public Administration (24:1) 2001, pp. 21-30.
6. Barua, A., Kriebel, C., and Mukhopadhyay, T. “Information Technology and Business Value: An Analytic and Empirical Investigation,” Working Paper, University of Texas, Austin, May, 1991.
7. Berndt, E., and Morrison, C. “High-Tech Capital Formation and Economic Performance in U.S. Manufacturing Industries: An Exploratory Analysis,” Journal of Econometrics (65:1) 1995, pp. 9-43.
8. Brynjolfsson, E. “The Productivity Paradox of Information Technology: Review and Assessment,” Communications of the ACM (36:12), December 1993, pp. 67-77.
9. Brynjolfsson, E., and Hitt, L. “Is Information Spending Productive? New Evidence and New Results,” in Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Information Systems, J. I. DeGross, R. P. Bostrom and D. Robey (eds.), Orlando, FL, 1993, pp. 47-64.
10. Brynjolfsson, E., and Hitt, L. “Paradox Lost? Firm-Level Evidence on the Returns to Information Systems Spending,” Management Science (42:4) 1996, pp. 541-558.
11. Brynjolfsson, E., and Hitt, L. “Beyond the Productivity Paradox: Computers are the Catalyst for Bigger Changes,” Communications of the ACM (41:8), August 1998, pp. 49-55.
12. Brynjolfsson, E., and Hitt, L. M. “Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance,” Journal of Economic Perspectives (14:4) 2000, pp. 23-48.
13. Cron, W. L., and Sobol, M. G. “The Relationship Between Computerization and Performance: A Strategy for Maximizing the Economic Benefits of Computerization,” Journal of Information and Management (6) 1983, pp. 171-181.
14. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., and Finch, J. F. “The Robustness of Test Statistics to Nonnormality and Specification Error in Confirmatory Factor Analysis,” Psychological Methods (1) 1996, pp. 16-29.
15. Fan, X., Thompson, B., and Wang, L. “Effects of Sample Size, Estimation Method, and Model Specification on Structural Equation Modeling Fit Indexes,” Structural Equation Modeling (6:1) 1999, pp. 56-83.
16. Farbey, B., Land, F., and Targett, D. How to Assess Your IT Investment: A Study of Methods and Practice, Butterworth-Heinmann, Oxford, UK, 1993.
17. Franke, R. H. “Technological Revolution and Productivity Decline: Computer Introduction in the Financial Industry,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change (31:2), 1987, pp. 143-154.
18. Harris, S. E., and Katz, J. L. “Predicting Organizational Performance Using Information Technology Managerial Control Ratios,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Volume 4, R. H. Sprague Jr. (ed.), IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1989, pp. 197-204.
19. Hirschheim, R. A., and Smithson, S. “Evaluation of Information Systems: A Critical Assessment,” in Beyond the IT Productivity Paradox, L. Willcocks and S. Lester (eds.), Wiley, Chichester, England, 1999, pp. 381-409.
20. Hitt, L. M., and Brynjolfsson, E. “Productivity, Business Profitability, and Consumer Surplus: Three Different Measures of Information Technology Value,” MIS Quarterly (20:2) 1996, pp. 121-142.
21. Irani, Z., and Love, P. E. D. “The Propagation of Technology Management Taxonomies for Evaluating Investments in Information Systems,” Journal of Management Information System (17:3) 2001, pp. 161-177.
22. Ives, B. “Probing the Productivity Paradox: Editor’s Comments,” MIS Quarterly (18:2), June 1994, pp. xxi-xxiv.
23. Jorgenson, D. W. “Information Technology and the US Economy,” American Economic Review (91:1) 2001, pp. 1-32.
24. Jorgenson, D. W., and Stiroh, K. J. “US Economic Growth at the Industry Level,” American Economic Review (90:2) 2000, pp 161-167.
25. Kettinger, W. J., and Lee, C. C. “Pragmatic Perspectives on the Measurement of Information Systems Service Quality,” MIS Quarterly (21:2), June 1997, pp. 223-240.
26. Kline, R. B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York, 1998.
27. Kohli, R., and Sherer, S. A. “Measuring the Payoff of Information Technology Investments: Research Issues and Guidelines,” in Proceedings of the Eighth Americas Conference on Information Systems, R. Ramsower and J. Windsor (eds.), Dallas, TX, 2002, pp. 2411-2416.
28. Loveman, G. W. “An Assessment of the Productivity Impact of Information Technologies,” in Information Technology and the Corporation of the 1990s: Research Studies, T. J. Allen and M. S. Scott Morton (eds.), Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, pp. 84-110.
29. Mahmood, M. A., and Mann, G. J. “Special Issue: Impacts of Information Technology Investment on Organizational Perfor-mance,” Journal of Management Information Systems (16:4), 2000, pp. 3-10.
30. McKeen, J. D., and Smith, H. A. “The Relationship Between Information Technology Use and Organizational Performance,” in Strategic Infortnation Technology Management: Perspectives on Organizational Growth and Competitive Advantage, R. D. Banker, R. J. Kauffman, and M. A. Mahmood (eds.), Idea Group, Harrisburg, PA, 1993, pp. 405-444.
31. Meyer, M. W., and Gupta, V. “The Performance Paradox,” in Research in Organizational Behavior, B. W. Staw and L. Cummings (eds.), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1994, pp. 309-369.
32. Morrison, C. J., and Berndt, E. R. “Assessing the Productivity of Information Technology Equipment in the U.S. Manufacturing Industries,” Working Paper #3582, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, January, 1990.
33. NASBO. “The Perfect Storm: States Are Facing Record Budget Deficits,” National Association of State Budget Officers, 2003 (available online at http://www.nasbo.org/; accessed April 19, 2003).
34. Noyelle, T. (ed.). Skills, Wages, and Productivity in the Service Sector, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1990.
35. Oliner, S. D., and Sichel, D. E. “The Resurgence of Growth in the Late 1990s: Is Information Technology the Story?,” Journal of Economic Perspectives (14:4), 2000, pp. 3-22.
36. Olsson, U. H., Foss, T., Troye, S. V., and Howell, R. D. “The Performance of ML, GLS and WLS Estimation in Structural Equation Modeling Under Conditions of Misspecification and Nonnormality,” Structural Equation Modeling (7:4), 2000, pp. 557-595.
37. Osterman, P. “The Impact of Computers on the Employment of Clerks and Managers,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review (39) 1986, pp. 175-186.
38. Panko, R. R. “Is Office Productivity Stagnant?,” MIS Quarterly (15:2), June 1991, pp 191-203.
39. Parsons, D. J., Gotlieb, C. C., and Denny, M. “Productivity and Computers in Canadian Banking,” Working Paper #9012, Department of Economics, University of Toronto, June, 1990.
40. Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T., and Kavan, C. B. “Measuring Information Systems Service Quality: Concerns for a Complete Canvas,” MIS Quarterly (21:2), June 1997, pp. 209-222.
41. Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T., and Kavan, C. B. “Service Quality: A Measure of Information Systems Effectiveness,” MIS Quarterly (19:2), June 1995, pp. 173-187.
42. nd ed.), Butterworth Heinemann, London, 2000.
43. Roach, S. S. “America’s White-Collar Productivity Dilemma,” Manufacturing Engineering, August 1989, p. 104.
44. Roach, S. S. “Services Under Seize: The Restructuring Imperative,” Harvard Business Review (69:5), September-October 1991, pp. 82-92.
45. Siegel, D., and Griliches, Z. “Purchased Services, Outsourcing, Computers and Productivity in Manufacturing,” Working Paper No. 3678, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, April, 1991
46. Skinner, W. “The Productivity Paradox,” Harvard Business Review (64:4), July-August 1986, pp. 55-59.
47. Strassmann, P. A. The Business Value of Computers, Information Economics Press, New Canaan, CT, 1990.
48. Weill, P. Do Computers Pay Off?, ICIT Press, Washington, DC, 1990.