Summary and Conclusion

This paper has presented a new IT portfolio approach for justifying IT investment priorities. The approach, through strategy maps, helps to identify the important internal processes. A set of IT applications are then proposed to improve these processes. These IT applications are formed as the initial IT portfolio based on Miles and Snow’s strategy classification typology.

The initial IT portfolio is then adjusted according to value-readiness matrix. The ultimate goal is to provide a quantifiable prescriptive model to improve the quality of IT investment. The example presented here has demonstrated the applicability of the model to support IT investment of TAITRA; the same model can be applied to other organizations.

There are several unique features about the proposed model. First, the model provides a powerful tool to complement the strategy maps. Strategy maps are qualitative in nature and are applied to general business innovations. It include neither analytical models nor corresponding decision support systems for IT portfolio management. The proposed model does not eliminate subjectivity completely, but that is not an attainable or desirable end result. The advantage of the proposed model is that it adds quantitative precision to an otherwise qualitative decision-making process.

Second, the proposed framework not only incorporate IT strategic alignment, IT business values, and e-business readiness, but also coordinates them through a fine-tuning process. The diagrams and matrices resulting from the process allow the decision maker to examine the sensitivity of IT investment priorities with

respect to changes in competitive strategies and its corresponding business needs, as well as changes in values and readiness. Finally, the example provided in this paper demonstrates the applicability and ease of use of the model in different organizations.

This study raises interesting issues that warrant further research. Through this article has demonstrated the use and benefits of the proposed method, further evaluation and refinement of the model using additional field studies may prove beneficial.

6. References

[1] J. Bacon J, “The Use of Decision Criteria in Selecting Information Systems/Technology Investments,” MIS Quarterly, 16 (3), 1992, pp. 335-353.

[2] E. F. Bedell, The Computer Solution: Strategies for Success in the Information Age, Homewood, Dow-Jones Irwin, 1985.

[3] R. Cao, W. Ding, and C. Tian, “Using resource and portfolio management solution to align IT investment with business,” International Journal of Electronic Business, 4 (3/4), 2006, pp. 239-246.

[4] W. S. C. Desarbo, A. D. Benedetto, M. Song, and I.

Sinha, “Revisiting the Miles and Snow Strategic Framework: Uncovering Interrelationships Between Strategic Types, Capabilities, Environmental Uncertainty, and Firm Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, 26, 2004, pp. 47-74.

[5] J. R. Drake and T. A. Byrd T. A, “Risks in Information Technology Project Portfolio Management,” Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 8 (3), 2006, pp. 1-11.

[6] P. B. Escobar, “Information systems investment decisions in business practice: the Spanish case,”

European Journal of Information Systems, 7, 1998, pp.

202-209.

[7] M. Fathian, P. Akhavan, and M. Hoorali, “E-readiness assessment of non-profit ICT SMEs in a developing country: The case of Iran,” Technovation, 28, 2008, pp.

578-590.

[8] Z. Irani, “Information systems evaluation: navigating through the problem domain,” Information &

Management, 40, 2002, pp. 11-24.

[9] M. Jeffery and I. Leliveld, “Best practices in IT portfolio management,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 45 (3), 2004, pp. 40-49.

[10] R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton, Alignment: Using the Balanced Scorecard to Create Corporate Synergies, Harvard Business Press, 2006.

[11] R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton, Strategy Maps:

Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes, Harvard Business Press, 2003.

[12] J. Karimi, Y. P. Gupta, and T. M. Somers T. M., “The Congruence between a firm’s Competitive Strategy and Information Technology Leader’s Rank and Role,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 13 (1), 1996, pp. 63-88

[13] G. Kearns, “A Multi-Objective, Multi-Criteria Approach for Evaluating IT Investments: Results from

Two Case Studies,” Information Resources Management Journal, 17 (1), 2004, pp. 37-62.

[14] J. L. King and E. L. Schrems, “Cost-Benefit Analysis in Information Systems Development and Operation,”

Computing Surveys, 10 (1), 1978, pp. 19-34

[15] T. A. Kirkpatrick, “CIOs speak on ROI,” CIO Insight, 1(11), 2002, available via: www.cioinsight.com, results of questionnaire available via:

common.ziffdavisinternet.com/download/0/1396/0110 rio research.pdf.

[16] C. Lin, Y. A. Huang, and J. Burn, “Realizing B2B e-commerce benefits: the link with IT maturity, evaluation practices, and B2BEC adoption readiness,”

European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 2007, pp. 806-819.

[17] J. N. Luftman, “Assessing IT/business alignment,”

Information Systems Management. 20 (4), 2003, pp.

9–15.

[18] B. Maizlish and R. Handler R. IT Portfolio Management Step-by-Step: Unlocking the Business Value of Technology. Wiley, John & Sons Incorporated, 2005.

[19] R. E. Miles and C. C. Snow, Organization Strategy, Structure and Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978.

[20] A. Molla and P. S. Licker P. S., Perceived E-Readiness Factors in E-Commerce Adoption: An Empirical Investigation in a Developing Country, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 10(1), 2005, pp. 83–110.

[21] S. M. Mutula and P. Brakel P, “An evaluation of e-readiness assessment tools with respect to information access: Towards an Integrated information rich tool,” International Journal of Management, 26, 2006, pp. 212-223.

[22] M. C. A. Nievelt, “Managing with information technology, a decade of wasted money?” Compact, 1992, pp. 15-24.

[23] J. E. Oxley and B. Yeung, “E-Commerce Readiness:

Institutional Environment and International Competitiveness,” Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (4), 2001, pp. 705-723.

[24] M. M. Parker, R. J. Benson, and H. E. Trainor H.E, Information Strategy and Economics, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1989.

[25] G. Premkumar and K. Ramamurthy, “The role of interorganisational and organizational factors on the decision mode for adoption of interorganisational systems,” Decision Sciences 26 (3), 1995, pp.

303–336.

[26] T. J. W. Renkema and E. W. Bergout E. W,

“Methodologies for information systems investment evaluation at the proposal stage: a comparative review,” Information and Software Technology, 39, 1997, pp. 1-13.

[27] B. D. Reyck, Y. Grushka-Cockayne, M. Lockett, S. R.

Calderini, M. Moura, and A. Sloper, “The impact of project portfolio management on information technology projects,” International Journal of Project Management, 23, 2005, pp. 524-537.

[28] R. Sabherwal and Y. E. Chan Y. E., Alignment Between Business and IS Strategies: A Study of

Prospectors, Analyzers, and Defenders, Information Systems Research, 12 (1), 2001, pp. 11-33.

[29] J. L. Salmeron, “EIS profitability, costs and benefits:

an evolutionary approach,” Industrial Management &

Data Systems, 102 (5), 2002, pp. 284-288.

[30] R. Santhanam and E. Hartono, “Issues in linking information technology capability to firm performance,” MIS Quarterly 27 (1), 2003, pp.

125–153.

[31] H. Sheng, F. F. H. Nah, and K. Siau, “Strategic implications of mobile technology: A case study using Value-Focused Thinking,” Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14, 2005, pp. 269-290.

[32] P. A. Strassmann, Information Payoff, New York, Free Press, 1990.

[33] H. Tavakolian, “Linking the Information Technology Structure with Organizational Competitive Strategy: A Survey,” MIS Quarterly, September 1989, pp.

309-317.

[34] C. Verhoef, “Quantitative IT portfolio Management,”

Science of Computer, 45, 2002, pp. 1-96.

[35] H. J. Wen and S. C. Shih, “Strategic Information Technology Prioritization,” The journal of Computer Information Systems, 46 (4), 2006, pp. 54-63.

[36] J. W. Weiss, A. Thorogood, and K. D. Clark. “Three IT-Business Alignment Profiles: Technical Resource, Business Enabler, and Strategic Weapon,”

Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 18, 2006, pp. 676-691

[37] L. Willcocks and S. Lester, “Assessing IT productivity:

Any way out of The Labyrinth?” In: Willcocks, L., Feeny, D., Islei, G. (Eds.), Managing IT As A Strategic Resource. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, 1997, pp. 64–

貳、PACIS—第 15 屆亞太資訊系統會議

計畫編號 NSC 99-2410-H-004-103

計畫名稱 建構 IT 投資組合評量之方法論

出國人員姓名

服務機關及職稱 張欣綠，國立政治大學資訊管理學系

會議時間地點 Brisbane, Australia

會議名稱 中文：第十五屆亞太資訊系統會議

英文：The Fifteenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information System

發表論文題目 Realizing the Value of Mobile Service: The Verification of “Limit-to-Value”

Framework

三、 參加會議經過

This year, the theme of this conference is “Quality IS Research in Pacific Asia,” emphasizing the growing importance of the region as a source of internationally recognized top-tier research in information systems, and the growing recognition of value from IS contributions and

development beyond the IS discipline.

The conference is located at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), and jointly organized by the information systems discipline, faculty of science and technology, QUT, and the BIS cluster, UQ Business School, Faculty of Business, Economics and Law, The University of Queensland. The conference involves 27 tracks. A total of 184 regular paper and 18

research-in-progress papers were accepted and presented in the conference.

The keynote on day 1 is “Information Systems Research in the Asia Pacific Region,” by Professor KK Wei, a past AIS President, and Dean and Chaired Professor of IS at City University of Hong Kong. The keynote on day 2 is “On the Relevance of Information Systems Research,” by Professor Detmar Straub, Editor-in-Chief of MIS Quarterly. The closing keynote is by Mr. Michael Harte, Commonwealth Bank (CBA), Group Executive Enterprise Services, and Chief Information Officer.

My paper was presented on July 9, Session Z503.

四、 與會心得

Two interesting papers are discussed in the sessions that I have participated. I summarize the discussion results as follows.

[Contracting for personalization]

Sin and JiaJia presented a stylized model based on the principal-agent framework in the absence of monetary instrument as a compensation device to agents with privately known production costs.

Their results identify a new trade off that arises from alternative compensation devices, as well as the associated implications on firm’s profitability and consumer welfare.

[E-government maturity]

Singh presented a longitudinal analysis of the drivers of e-government maturity. They constructed a panel dataset for the period from 2003 to 2007 using data published by various authoritative sources. Their results suggested that countries investing in leading-edge ICT infrastructure can maintain or improve their global standing in e-Government without substantial changes to human capital or governance.

參、 建議

Comments to the paper are summarized below.

2. Path coefficients should be reported and evaluated.

3. Discriminant validity should be examined for the reflective constructs. Also, content validity should be examined.

4. Some constructs should be operationalized as formative, rather than reflective. For example, Network Externalities and Industry Characteristics of Adopting New Service Innovation should be formative, since their items do not necessarily covary. Other constructs, such as mobile objects and Absorptive Capacity might also be better considered as formative.

5. H3a regarding firm size is not persuasive. In fact, the discussion on the negative effect of firm size on page 12 (point 4) is more persuasive and supported by the literature. I would suggest hypothesizing a negative effect of firm size.

6. The model in table 3 should be combined with the model in table 4, and estimated simultateously in PLS to co-test all the hypotheses, which would be more reasonable and persuasive.

7. For testing the moderation effect (table 4), I would suggest including all independent variables and interaction items together in the model, in order to test the moderation effects simultaneously. Seperate tests do not seem to be reasonable or persuasive.

8. Those measures that were not found to be significant were tested using only two items per variable. Variables should have at least three items.

9. In the discussion o f Organization age, the paper did not break down the age of the companies. What do you mean by “older companies?” And, would a young, large company have a positive or negative effect on the potential value of a mobile service?

10. Please update references as most are older than 2009. In specific, some recent references to technology adoption models will help the discussion.

11. Please do report the actual values for Cronbach's Alpha and indicate whether any items were dropped from the original model.

肆、 攜回資料名稱及內容

A. Conference paper abstracts B. Conference program outline

C. Revision strategy and comments to my presented paper

伍、發表論文

REALIZING THE VALUE OF MOBILE SERVICES —THE