Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Perception That ICT Projects Are Different

  • Chapter
The FAP Model and Its Application in the Appraisal of ICT Projects

  • 71 Accesses

Abstract

The importance of investing in ICT cannot be over emphasised.1 ICT consists of all technical means to handle information and aid communication, including computer and network hardware and software.2 Recent research emphasises the strategic importance of new technology or infrastructure, for example computer systems projects, with 70% of survey respondents having experience of the appraisal of such projects.3 Now, more than ever, effective business strategy centres on aggressive, efficient use of information technology.4 Expenditure on ICT projects has been growing at a rapid pace over the past two decades, while investment in non-ICT projects (other than commercial real estate) has, in comparison, been in decline. Despite the global downturn, ICT is the world’s fastest-growing international industry.5 The appraisal of ICT projects, however, continues to present a problem. ICT projects are multidimensional constructs requiring a multidimensional approach to their appraisal.6

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Heemstra, F. J. and Kusters. R. J., 2004, Defining ICT proposals. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 17 (4), 258–268;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Milis, K. and Mereken, R., 2004, The use of the balanced scorecard for the evaluation of information and communication technology projects. International Journal of Project Management, 22 (2), 87–97;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Oxford Economics, 2011a, Capturing the ICT Dividend: Using technology to drive productivity and growth in the EU, September, White Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Oxford Economics, 2011, Capturing the ICT Dividend: Using technology to drive productivity and growth in the EU, September, White Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Harris, E. P., Emmanuel, C. R. and Komakech. S., 2009, Managerial Judgement and Strategic Investment Decisions — A Cross-Sectional Survey (Oxford: CIMA/Elsevier).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nah, F, F., Lau, J. L. and Kuang, J., 2001, Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systems. Business Process Management Journal, 7 (3), 285–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. International Telecommunications Union, 2011, Trends in telecommunication reform 2010–11 Enabling tomorrow’s digital world. Viewed 17th May, 2013, from http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/reg/D-REG-TTR.12–2010-SUM-PDF-E.pdf. Geneva, March, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Etezadi-Amoli, J. and Farhoomand, A. F., 1996, A structural model of end-user computing satisfaction and user performance. Information and Management, 30 (2), 65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lefley, F., 2013, Information communication technology (ICT) projects, are they different? Operations Management, 39 (1), 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  10. This chapter is taken from the following publication, Hynek, J., Janeček, V., Lefley, F., Půžová, K. and Němeček, J., 2014, An exploratory study investigating the perception that ICT capital projects are different? Evidence from the Czech Republic. Management Research Review, 37 (10), 912–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Anandarajan, A. and Wen, H. J., 1999, Evaluation of information technology investment. Management Decision, 37 (4), 329–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Heemstra, F. J. and Kusters. R. J., 2004, Defining ICT proposals. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 17 (4), 258–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Heemstra, F. J. and Kusters. R. J., 2004, Defining ICT proposals. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 17 (4), 258–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lefley, F. and Morgan, M., 1998, A new pragmatic approach to capital investment appraisal: The financial appraisal profile (FAP) model. International Journal of Production Economics, 55 (3), 321–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Milis, K. and Mereken, R., 2004, The use of the balanced scorecard for the evaluation of information and communication technology projects. International Journal of Project Management, 22 (2), 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. See, for example, Benaroch, M., 2002, Managing investments in information technology based on real options theory. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (2), 43–84;

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fichman, R., Keil, M and Tiwana, A., 2005, Beyond valuation: Options thinking in IT project management. California Management Review, 47 (2), 74–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. See, for example, Black, F. and Scholes, M., 1973, The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81, May/June, 637–659;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Merton, R. C., 1973, Theory of rational option pricing. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 4 (1), 141–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stark, A. W., 1990, Irreversibility and the capital budgeting process. Management Accounting Research, 1 (3), 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fichman, R., Keil, M. and Tiwana, A., 2005, Beyond valuation: Options thinking in IT project management. California Management Review, 47 (2), 74–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Anandarajan, A. and Wen, H. J., 1999, Evaluation of information technology investment. Management Decision, 37 (4), 329–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Powell, P., 1992, Information technology evaluation: Is it different? Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43 (1), 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Harris, E. P., 2009, Strategic Project Risk Appraisal and Management: Advances in Project Management (Farnham, UK: Gower Publishing).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ramesur, T., 2012, A critical assessment of the evaluation methods of ICT investments: The case of a small island economy with a large public sector, in Bwalya, K. J. and Zulu, S. F. C. (Eds), Handbook of research on E-Government in Emerging Economies: Adoption, E-Participation, and Legal Frameworks (Hershey, USA,: IGI Global), Chapter 7, 145–157.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Fox, S., 2013, Applying critical realism to the framing of information and communication technologies. Management Research Review, 36 (3), 296–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ballantine, J. and Stray, S., 1998, Financial appraisal and the IS/IT investment decision making process. Journal of Information Technology, 13 (1), 3–14;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gunasekaran, A., Love, P. E. D. Rahimi, F. and Miele, R., 2001, A model for investment justification in information technology projects. International Journal of Information Management, 21 (5), 349–364;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Irani, Z. and Love, P.E.D., 2001, The propagation of technology management taxonomies for evaluating investments in information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17 (3), 161–178;

    Google Scholar 

  30. Milis, K. and Mereken, R., 2004, The use of the balanced scorecard for the evaluation of information and communication technology projects. International Journal of Project Management, 22 (2), 87–97;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dunk, A. S., 2007, Innovation budget pressure, quality of IS information, and departmental performance. The British Accounting Review, 39 (2), 115–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Anandarajan, A., Wen. J. and Anandarajan, M., 1997, The application of activity based costing in identifying costs in a client server environment. Management Accounting (UK), 75 (10), 62–67.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Love, P. E. D., Irani, Z., Ghoneim, A. and Themistocleous, M., 2006, An exploratory study of indirect ICT costs using the structured case method. International Journal of Information Management, 26 (2), 167–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Symons, V. J., 1991, A review of information systems evaluation: Content, context and process. European Journal of Information Systems, 1 (3), 205–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Anandarajan, A. and Wen, H. J., 1999, Evaluation of information technology investment. Management Decision, 37 (4), 329–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Anandarajan, A. and Wen, H. J., 1999, Evaluation of information technology investment. Management Decision, 37 (4), 329–337;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Milis, K. and Mereken, R., 2004, The use of the balanced scorecard for the evaluation of information and communication technology projects. International Journal of Project Management, 22 (2), 87–97;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lefley, F., 2008, Research in applying the financial appraisal profile (FAP) model to an information communication technology project within a professional association. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1 (2), 233–259;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Harris, E. P., 2009, Strategic Project Risk Appraisal and Management: Advances in Project Management (Farnham, UK: Gower Publishing);

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wong, J. and Dow, K. E., 2011, The effects of investments in information technology on firm performance: An investor perspective. Journal of Information Technology Research, 4 (3), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lefley, F., 2008, Research in applying the financial appraisal profile (FAP) model to an information communication technology project within a professional association. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1 (2), 233–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Harris, E. P., 2009, Strategic Project Risk Appraisal and Management: Advances in Project Management (Farnham, UK: Gower Publishing).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Earl, M. J., 1989, Management Strategies for Information Technology (London: Prentice Hall).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Apostolopoulos, T. K. and Pramataris, K. C., 1997, Information technology investment evaluation: Investment in telecommunication infrastructure. International Journal of Information Management, 17 (4), 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Earl, M. J., 1992, Putting IT in its place: A polemic for the nineties. Journal of Information Technology, 7 (2), 100–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ives, B. and Jarvenpaa, S. L., 1991, Applications of global information technology key issues for management. MIS Quarterly, 15 (1), 33–49;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Earl, M. J., 1993, Experiences in strategic information systems planning: Editors comment. MIS Quarterly, 17 (1), 1–14;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sethi, V. and King, W. R., 1994, Development of measurers to assess the extent to which an information technology application provides competitive advantage. Management Science, 40 (12), 1601–27;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Powell, T. C., and Dent-Micallef, A., 1997, Information technology as competitive advantage: The role of human, business, and technology resources. Strategic Management Journal 18 (5), 375–405;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lefley, F., 2008, Research in applying the financial appraisal profile (FAP) model to an information communication technology project within a professional association. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1 (2), 233–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Oxford Economics, 2011b, The New Digital Economy: How it will transform business, June. www.oxfordeconomics.com/free/pdfs/the_new_digital_economy.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Farbey, B., Land, F. and Targett, D., 1999, Moving IS evaluation forward: Learning themes and research issues. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 8 (2), 189–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. King, M. and McAulay, L., 1997, Information technology investment evaluation: Evidence and interpretations. Journal of Information Technology, 12 (2), 131–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Cotton, W. D. J. and Schinski, M., 1999, Justifying capital expenditure in new technology: A survey. Engineering Economist, 44 (4), 362–376 [16%];

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sandahl, C., and Sjőgren, S., 2003, Capital budgeting methods among Sweden’s largest groups of companies. The state of the art and a comparison with earlier studies. International Journal of Production Economics, 84 (1), 51–69 [group ‘B’ 16.5%];

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lefley, F., Wharton, F., Hajek, L., Hynek, J. and Janecek, V., 2004, Manufacturing investment in the Czech Republic: An international comparison. International Journal of Production Economics, 88 (1), 1–4 [19%];

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Harris, E. P. Emmanuel, C. R. and Komakech, S., 2009, Managerial Judgement and Strategic Investment Decisions — A Cross-Sectional Survey (Oxford: CIMA/Elsevier), [16%].

    Google Scholar 

  58. Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D., 1996, Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 5th ed. (London: Arnold);

    Google Scholar 

  59. Murphy, D. S., 2006, Global leadership potential in Mexican firms. Management Research News 29 (3–4), 80–91;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Love, P. E. D. and Irani, Z., 2004, An exploratory study of information technology evaluation and benefits management practices of SMEs in the construction industry. Information and Management, 42 (1), 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lefley, F., and Sarkis, J., 1997, Short-termism and the appraisal of AMT capital projects in the US and UK. International Journal of Production Research, 35 (2), 341–368;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Ho, S. S. M. and Pike, R. H., 1998, Organisational characteristics influencing the use of risk analysis in strategic capital investments. Engineering Economist, 43 (3), 247–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Farbey, B., Land, F. and Targett, D., 1992, Evaluating investments in IT. Journal of Information Technology, 7 (2), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Cumps, B., Viaene, S. and Dedene, G., 2010, Linking the strategic importance of ICT with investment in business-ICT alignment: An explorative framework. International Journal on IT/Business Alignment and Governance, 1 (1), 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Apostolopoulos, T. K. and Pramataris, K. C., 1997, Information technology investment evaluation: Investment in telecommunication infrastructure. International Journal of Information Management, 17 (4), 289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Anandarajan, A. and Wen, H. J., 1999, Evaluation of information technology investment. Management Decision, 37 (4), 329–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Ward, J., Taylor, P. and Bond, P., 1996, Evaluation and realisation of IS/IT benefits: An empirical study of current practices. European Journal of Information Systems, 4 (4), 214–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Anandarajan, A. and Wen, H. J., 1999, Evaluation of information technology investment. Management Decision, 37 (4), 336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Earl, M. J., 1992, Putting IT in its place: A polemic for the nineties. Journal of Information Technology, 7 (2), 100–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Lefley, F., Wharton, F., Hajek, L., Hynek, J. and Janecek, V., 2004, Manufacturing investment in the Czech Republic: An international comparison. International Journal of Production Economics, 88 (1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Gunasekaran, A., Love, P. E. D., Rahimi, F. and Miele, R., 2001, A model for investment justification in information technology projects. International Journal of Information Management, 21 (5), 349–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Lefley, F., Wharton, F., Hajek, L., Hynek, J. and Janecek, V., 2004, Manufacturing investment in the Czech Republic: An international comparison. International Journal of Production Economics, 88 (1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. See, for example, Ballantine, J. and Stray, S., 1999, Information systems and other capital investments: Evaluation practices compared. Logistics Information Management, 12 (1/2), 78–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Gunasekaran, A., Love, P. E. D. Rahimi, F. and Miele, R., 2001, A model for investment justification in information technology projects. International Journal of Information Management, 21 (5), 349–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Lefley, F., 1996a, The PB method of investment appraisal: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Production Economics, 44 (3), 207–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Lefley, F., 1996b, Strategic methodologies of investment appraisal of AMT projects: A review and synthesis. Engineering Economist, 41 (4), 345–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Ives, B. and Jarvenpaa, S. L., 1991, Applications of global information technology key issues for management. MIS Quarterly, 15 (1), 33–49;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Earl, M. J., 1993, Experiences in strategic information systems planning: Editors comment. MIS Quarterly, 17 (1), 1–14;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Gunasekaran, A., Love, P. E. D., Rahimi, F. and Miele, R., 2001, A model for investment justification in information technology projects. International Journal of Information Management, 21 (5), 349–364;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Lefley, F., 2008, Research in applying the financial appraisal profile (FAP) model to an information communication technology project within a professional association. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1 (2), 233–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Anandarajan, A. and Wen, H. J., 1999, Evaluation of information technology investment. Management Decision, 37 (4), 329–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Gunasekaran, A., Love, P. E. D., Rahimi, F. and Miele, R., 2001, A model for investment justification in information technology projects. International Journal of Information Management, 21 (5), 349–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Ballantine, J. and Stray, S., 1999, Information systems and other capital investments: Evaluation practices compared. Logistics Information Management, 12 (1/2), 78–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic

    Frank Lefley (Honorary Research Fellow)

Authors
  1. Frank Lefley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2015 Frank Lefley

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lefley, F. (2015). The Perception That ICT Projects Are Different. In: The FAP Model and Its Application in the Appraisal of ICT Projects. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137443526_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation