Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

ORE: A Framework to Measure Organizational Risk Du

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Information Systems Development

  • 886 Accesses

Abstract

Information systems (IS) change initiatives often represent the single largest investment (and therefore risk) for large corporations, yet there exist few management frameworks in the literature to help decision makers measure organizational risk in a balanced manner during this organization-wide change process. The ORE framework has been developed as a design science artifact based on the Leavitt diamond paradigm as a multi-criteria, relative risk, condition consequence, management decision framework enabling decision makers to calculate and compare risk evolution at fixed points of the change cycle and make structured and balanced risk mitigation decisions. In this chapter the principles, architecture and elements of ORE are described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Albrecht, A.J. (1979) Measuring Application Development Productivity. Proc IBM Application Development Joint SHARE/GUIDE Symposium, pp. 83–92, Monterey, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, K. and Rajlich, V. (2000) Software Maintenance and Evolution: A Roadmap. Paper presented to Conf on Future of Software Engineering, ACM, pp. 75–87, Limerick, Ireland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruegge, B. and Dutoit, H.A. (1998) Communications Metrics for Software Development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(8): 615–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capital Broadleaf International Pty. Ltd. (2005 ) @Risk 4.0 Tutorial Notes: Quantitative Risk Modeling. http://www.broadleaf.com.au/tutorials/Tut%20Starting.pdf (15 Sept. 2005).

  • Chang, S.I. (2004) ERP Lifecycle Implementation, Management and Support: Implications for Practice and Research. Proc 37th HICSS, Hawai’i .

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, B. (1989) Three Problems Overcome with Behavioral Models of the Software Development Process. Paper presented to Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE, pp. 389–399, Pittsburgh, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T.H. (1998) Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System. Harvard Business Review, pp. 121–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dedolph, F.M. (2003) The Neglected Management Activity: Software Risk Management. Bell Laboratories Technical Journal, 8(3): 91–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery, F.E. and Trist, T.L. (1965) The Causal Texture of Organizational Elements. Human Relations, 18(1): 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evangelidis, A. (2003) FRAMES-A Risk Assessment Framework for E-Services. Electronic Journal of E-Government, 2(1): 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenton, N.E. (1998) Software Metrics, A Rigorous and Practical Approach. Course Technology. International Thomson Computer Press, Boston, MA .

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenton, N.E., Radlinkski, L., Neil, M. and Marquez, D. (2007) Improved Decision-Making for Software Managers Using Bayesian Networks. Submitted to The 6th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, Drubovnik, Croatia, September 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gluch, D.P. (1994) A Construct for Describing Software Development Risks. Technical Report CMU/SEI-94-TR-14, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004) Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1): 75–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higuera, R.P. and Haimes, Y.Y. (1996) Software Risk Management. Technical Report CMU/SEI-96-TR-012, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

    Google Scholar 

  • IEEE Standards Board (1998) IEEE Standard for Software Quality Assurance Plans. Standard published by the Software Engineering Standards Committee of the IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keene, P.G.W. (1981) Information Systems and Organizational Change. Communications of the ACM, 24(1): 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. and Raiffa, H. (1993) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Revised Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaus, H., Rosemann, M. and Gable, G.G. (2000) What is ERP? Information Systems Frontiers, 2(2): 141–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leavitt H.J. (1965) Applied Organizational Change in Industry: Structural, Technological and Humanistic Approaches. In James G. March, editor, Handbook of Organizations, pp. 1144–1170, Rand McNally and Company, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nair, M. (2006) A Survey of Software Estimation Techniques and Project Planning Practices. Proc 7th ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing, IEEE, Las Vegas, NV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nogueira, J. (2000) A Risk Assessment Model for Evolutionary Software Projects, Ph.D. thesis submitted to the Naval Postgraduate School USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Offen, R.J. and Jeffery, R. (1997) Establishing Software Measurement Programs. IEEE Software, 14(2): 45–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Project Management Institute (2000) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). Technical Report, Project Management Institute of USA Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, F.S. (1979) Measurement Theory with Applications to Decision Making, Utility, and the Social Sciences. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ropponen, J. and Lyytinen, K. (2000) Components of Software Development Risk: How to Address Them? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26(2): 98–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawy, O.A.E. (2001) Redesigning Enterprise Processes for E-Business. McGraw-Hill Irwin, Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skok, W. and Legge, M. (2001) Evaluating Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Using an Interpretive Approach. Paper presented to ACM SIGPCR, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Information Systems Audit and Control Association (2002) IS Auditing Procedure P1: IS Risk Assessment Measurement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumner, M. (2000) Risk Factors in Enterprise Wide Information Management System Projects. Proc ACM SIGCPR Conf on Computer Personnel Research, pp. 180–187, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatikonda, M. and Rosenthal, S. (2000) Technology Novelty, Project Complexity and Product Development Project Execution Success. A Deeper Look at Task Uncertainty in Product Innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(1): 74–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torsten P.G.R., Guido T. (1997) Separation of Powers and Public Accountability. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4): 1163–1202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volker W. and Rohde M. (1995) Towards an Integrated Organization and Technology Development. Proc Conf on Designing Interactive Systems, Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques. Ann Arbor, USA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Aditya Agrawal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gavin Finnie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Padmanabhan Krishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Business Information Systems Group J.E. Cairnes School of Business & Economics, National University of Ireland, Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland

    Chris Barry

  2. Business Information Systems Group J.E. Cairnes School of Business & Economics, National University of Ireland, Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland

    Michael Lang

  3. Department of Electrical Computer Engineering, Boise State University, 1910 University Dr. MEC 202C, Boise, ID, 83725-2075, USA

    Wita Wojtkowski

  4. Business Information Systems Group J.E. Cairnes School of Business & Economics, National University of Ireland, Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland

    Kieran Conboy

  5. Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Boise State University, 1910 University Dr. MEC 202C, Boise, ID, 83725-2075, USA

    Gregory Wojtkowski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Agrawal, A., Finnie, G., Krishnan, P. (2009). ORE: A Framework to Measure Organizational Risk Du. In: Barry, C., Lang, M., Wojtkowski, W., Conboy, K., Wojtkowski, G. (eds) Information Systems Development. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78578-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78578-3_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-78577-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-78578-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation