Advertisement

In Quest of ICT Value through Integrated Operations: Assessment of Organisational – Technological Capabilities

  • Darijus Strasunskas
  • Asgeir Tomasgard
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 37)

Abstract

Knowledge based systems improve information interoperability, integration, and knowledge management. Consequently, there is envisioned a set of the associated business benefits. However, knowledge technology as any other information technology is barely an enabler for productivity and resulting benefits, whereas the real drivers are process optimisation and organisational changes. The paper proposes a valuation method to qualitatively assess organisational and technological capabilities. The business value of system implementation is calculated by accounting for uncertainties explicitly defined in implementation scenarios. The valuation method is aligned to a generic process of system and organisational change implementation.

Keywords

qualitative quantitative evaluation business value ICT value integrated operations influence diagram 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Andersen, T.M., Vatland, S., Doyle, P.: Oil company of the future: Wireless, real-time data keys to growth for Statoil technology consortium. In: ISA InTech. (April 2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Binney, D., Guthrie, J., Boedker, C., Nagm, F.: A Framework for Identifying the Intangible Capital Value of ICT Investments. In: Proceedings of the PACIS 2007, pp. 284–298 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blomskoeld, A., Klingenberg, F.: SemTask – Semantic Task Support in Integrated Operations. Master thesis, University of Oslo, Norway, p. 166 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L.M., Saunders, A.: Information Technology and Organizational Capital. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Systems Economics (WISE 2007), Montreal, Quebec, Canada (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L.M.: Computing productivity: firm-level evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics 85(4), 793–808 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L.M., Yang, S.: Intangible Assets: Computers and Organizational Capital. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1, 138–199 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buerger, T., Simperl, E.: Measuring the Benefits of Ontologies. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM-WS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5333, pp. 584–594. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chand, D., Hachey, G., Hunton, J., Owhoso, V., Vasudevan, S.: A balanced scorecard based framework for assessing the strategic impacts of ERP systems. Computers in Industry 56(6), 558–572 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crundwell, F.K.: Finance for Engineers - Evaluation and Funding of Capital Projects. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dai, Q., Kauffman, R.J., March, S.T.: Valuing information technology infrastructures: a growth options approach. Information Technology and Management 8(1), 1–17 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten Year Update. Journal of Management Information Systems 19(4), 9–30 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ebert, C., De Man, J.: Effectively utilizing project, product and process knowledge. Information and Software Technology 50, 579–594 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Farbey, B., Finkelstein, A.: Evaluation in Software Engineering: ROI, but more than ROI. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Int’l Workshop on Economics-Driven Software Engineering Research (EDSER-3 2001) (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fink, L., Neumann, S.: Exploring the perceived business value of the flexibility enabled by information technology infrastructure. Information & Management 46, 90–99 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fjaertoft, I.: Consequences of implementation of integrated operations on the Norwegian continental shelf. Presentation at the EURAM conference (2006), http://www.npd.no/NR/rdonlyres/299C3416-BF9E-4329-A61B-7C2ABB8E2954/11340/Presentasjon150506.pdf (last visited, 2009.03.02)
  17. 17.
    Gottschalk, P.: Maturity levels of interoperability in digital government. Government Information Quaterly 26, 75–81 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gulla, J.A., Tomassen, S.L., Strasunskas, D.: Semantic Interoperability in the Norwegian Petroleum Industry. In: Proceedings of the 5th Int’l Conf. on Information Systems Technology and its Applications (ISTA 2006). LNI, vol. P-84, pp. 81–94 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hallikainen, P., Chen, L.: A Holistic Framework on Information Systems Evaluation with a Case Analysis. The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation 9(2), 57–64 (2005), www.ejise.com Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hsieh, P.J., Lin, B., Lin, C.: The construction and application of knowledge navigator model (KNM): An evaluation of knowledge management maturity. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 4087–4100 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    IBM. Achieving integrated operations and unit efficiency with the IBM chemical and petroleum integrated information framework (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Irani, Z., Ghoneim, A., Love, P.E.D.: Evaluating cost taxonomies for information systems management. European Journal of Operational Research 173, 1103-1122 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 71–80 (January - February1992)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim, K.K.: User satisfaction: A synthesis of three different perspectives. Journal of Information Systems 4(1), 1–12 (1989)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kjaerulff, U.B., Madsen, A.L.: Bayesian Networks and Influence Diagrams. In: A Guide to Construction and Analysis, p. 318. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lech, P.: Proposal of a Compact IT Value Assessment Method. The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation 10(1), 73–82 (2007), http://www.ejise.com Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Love, P.E.D., Irani, Z., Ghoneim, A., Themistocleous, M.: An exploratory study of indirect ICT costs using the structured case method. International Journal of Information Management 26, 167–177 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Norheim, D., Fjellheim, R.: AKSIO - Active Knowledge management in the petroleum industry. In: Proceedings of ESWC 2006 Industry Forum (2006), http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-194/paper3.pdf
  29. 29.
    Nystad, B.H.: Technical Condition Indexes and Remaining Useful Life of Aggregated Systems. Ph.D Thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, p. 191(2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Orlikowski, W.J.: Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work. Organization Studies 28(9), 1435–1448 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parker, M.M., Benson, R.J., Trainor, H.E.: Information economics: Linking business performance to information technology. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Peffers, K., Saarinen, T.: Measuring the Business Value of IT Investments: Inferences from a Study of Senior Bank Executives. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 12(1), 17–38 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Phillips-Wren, G., Mora, M., Forgionne, G.A., Gupta, J.N.D.: An integrative evaluation framework for intelligent decision support systems. European Journal of Operational Research 195(3), 642–652 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Plaza, M., Ngwenyama, O.K., Rohlf, K.: A comparative analysis of learning curves: Implications for new technology implementation management. European Journal of Operational Research (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.010Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    POSC Ceasar. ISO 15926 in OWL (2008), https://trac.posccaesar.org/wiki/ISO15926inOWL (last visited, 2009.03.09)
  36. 36.
    Raghunathan, S.: Impact of information quality and decision-maker quality on decision quality: a theoretical model and simulation analysis. Decision Support Systems 26, 275–286 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rastogi, P.N.: Knowledge management and intellectual capital: the new virtuous reality of competitiveness. Human Systems Management 19(1), 39–48 (2000)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rodriguez Montequin, V., Ortega Fernandez, F., Alvarez Cabal, V., Roqueni Gutierrez, N.: An integrated framework for intellectual capital measurement and knowledge management implementation in small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Information Science 32(6), 525–538 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Saaty, T.L.: Relative Measurement and its Generalization in Decision Making: Why Pairwise Comparisons are Central in Mathematics for the Measurement of Intangible Factors - The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process. RACSAM 102(2), 251–318 (2008)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Silvius, A.J.G.: Does ROI Matter? Insights into the true Business Value of IT. The Electronic Journal Information System Evaluation 9(2), 93–104 (2006), http://www.ejise.com Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Simperl, E., Tempich, C., Sure, Y.: A Cost Estimation Model for Ontology Engineering. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 625–639. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stewart, R.A.: A framework for the life cycle management of information technology projects: Project IT. International Journal of Project Management 26, 203–212 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Strasunskas, D., Tomassen, S.L.: The role of ontology in enhancing semantic searches: the EvOQS framework and its initial validation. Int. J. Knowledge and Learning 4(4), 398–414 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Urwiler, R., Frolik, M.N.: The IT Value Hierarchy: Using Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as a Metaphor for Gauging the Maturity Level of Information Technology Use within Competitive Organizations. Information Systems Management 25(1), 83–88 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3), 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vorakulpipat, C., Rezgui, Y.: Value creation: the future of knowledge management. The Knowledge Engineering Review 23(3), 283–294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zoric, J., Strasunskas, D.: Techno-business assessment of services and service platforms: Quantitative, scenario-based analysis. In: Proceedings of ICT-MobileSummit 2008, Stockholm, Sweden (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Darijus Strasunskas
    • 1
  • Asgeir Tomasgard
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Industrial Economics and Technology ManagementNorwegian University of, Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations