Evaluating Information Systems Projects: A Multidimensional Approach

Abstract

Evaluation of IS/IT investments is a notoriously difficult area. Some doubt that IT investments are ever really productive; others point to mismeasurement as a major reason for such a conclusion and for the so-called IT ‘productivity paradox’. The paper reviews traditional approaches to IS/IT evaluation, and discusses their limitations. An eight-stage, multidimensional approach is then put forward to address those limitations.

Towards an integrated measurement of IS project performance: The project performance scorecard

“…However, the current discourse also confirms the difficulties in assessing some factors such as information systems reach (Brandon 2006), the nature of tangible versus intangible benefits and the question of benefit evolution (Remenyi 2004). In addition, the ability to evaluate IT/IS investments effectively is of utmost importance in today's environment due to issues such as the huge capital outlay (Fitzgerald 1998) which has at least in part, contributed to the IT productivity paradox (Brynjolfsson 1993). Research on assessing IT/IS business value have pointed to areas beyond the traditional financial measures to intangible benefits such as improved customer service, increased responsiveness (Kumar 2003); readiness for the future Norton 1992, 1996a, b); implementability and flexibility of the IS investment (Fitzgerald 1998).…”

“…In addition, the ability to evaluate IT/IS investments effectively is of utmost importance in today's environment due to issues such as the huge capital outlay (Fitzgerald 1998) which has at least in part, contributed to the IT productivity paradox (Brynjolfsson 1993). Research on assessing IT/IS business value have pointed to areas beyond the traditional financial measures to intangible benefits such as improved customer service, increased responsiveness (Kumar 2003); readiness for the future Norton 1992, 1996a, b); implementability and flexibility of the IS investment (Fitzgerald 1998). Researchers have also argued that these solutions need have practical relevance (Winter et al 2006) in order to aid practitioners in their decision making process.…”

Overcoming theory-practice inconsistencies: Critical realism and information systems research

“…Philosophical and methodological adjustments to critiques have meant that the rigidly defined boundaries separating the two categories are becoming increasingly dubious (Weber, 2004). However, it is indisputable that these categories shape the current state of research, discourse, and pedagogy in the IS literature today, as evidenced by the myriad of papers discussing this divide and its implications (Fitzgerald & Howcroft, 1998;Fitzgerald, 1998;Kaplan & Duchon, 1988;Khazanchi & Munkvold, 2003;Lee, 1991;Mingers, 2004b;Mingers & Brocklesby, 1997;Weber, 2004).…”

A framework for the ex-ante evaluation of ERP software

“…ERP software's operational costs and benefits (some of them depicted in Table 1) are more easily identifiable and quantifiable than the strategic ones. As far as the strategic aspect is concerned, a key factor is the identification of the degree to which the adoption of an ERP system contributes to business strategy of the organisation (Fitzgerald, 1998). While this degree is difficult to assess in quantitative terms, a qualitative assessment is nevertheless possible by interviewing, for example, senior managers or by using other qualitative techniques such as Likerttype scales and cognitive mapping.…”

“…Changes in the IT infrastructure may be necessary in order to support the ERP system and any other additional applications. This poses another major evaluation problem, because the IT infrastructure is a supportive IT investment with no immediate measurable benefits by its own, but it still needs to be evaluated as far as alternative solutions or vendors are concerned (Fitzgerald, 1998).…”