Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An empirical analysis of software life spans to determine the planning horizon for new software

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents an empirical analysis of the life span of over 180 systems aimed at developing a model for determining the planning horizon for new software at the business case stage of software acquisition. At this early stage, the firm has limited knowledge about the project, but must make crucial decisions, such as scope (breadth of requirements), approach (both insource vs. outsource and custom vs. package) and technology, including fit with standards (adhere to current vs. adopt new technology). These decisions are associated with different system lifetimes that, in turn, impact both the costs incurred and benefits received from the system. The failure to explicitly and properly address these differences can lead to the implementation of systems better left undone or to unintended consequences, such as the Y2K problem. We find that technology and approach, but not scope decisions are strongly related to system lifetime. In particular, systems that use an operating system that conforms to the firm’s standard or are acquired using a blended team entail longer system life. On the other hand, shorter system life is indicated if the system is technically complex, custom developed or uses an older programming language. Furthermore, modified packaged software is shorter lived than is a vanilla package. In addition, environmental variables also impact the appropriate horizon. For example, as one would expect, strategic systems are used longer. On the other hand, somewhat surprisingly, systems sponsored by executives last less long and despite the quickening pace of technological and business process advancement, a small trend toward longer lived systems is uncovered.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. R.D. Banker, S.M. Datar, C.F. Kemerer and D. Zweig, Software complexity and maintenance costs, Communications of the ACM 36 (1993) 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. E. Barry, C. Kemerer and S. Slaughter, How development decisions affect product volatility: a longitudinal study of software change histories. GSIA Working Paper 2003-E66, (2003).

  3. A. Barua and T. Mukhopadhyay, A cost analysis of the software dilemma: to maintain or to replace, Proceedings for the Twenty-Second Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (1989).

  4. V. Basu, E. Hartono, A.L. Lederer and V. Sethi, The impact of organizational commitment, senior management involvement, and team involvement on strategic systems planning, Information & Management 39 (2002) 513–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. B. Boehm, Software Engineering Economics (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. Bruner, Y2K cost disclosures eyed, Electronic News 10/4/1999.

  7. T. Chan, S.L. Chung and T.H. Ho, Timing of software replacement, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Information Systems. Vancouver, Canada (1994) pp. 291–307.

  8. L. Erlikh, Leveraging legacy system dollars for e-business, IEEE IT Pro (May/June 2000) 17–23.

  9. D. Gode, A. Barua and T. Mukopadhyay, On the economics of the software replacement problem, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Information Systems. Copenhagen (1990) pp. 159–170.

  10. W.H. Greene, Econometric Analysis (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Hanna, Maintenance burden begging for remedy, Software Magazine 13(6) (1993) 53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Heales, Factors affecting information system volatility, Proceedings of the Twenty First International Conference on Information Systems (2000) pp. 70–83.

  13. S. Kaplan, Pull the plug on your legacy applications, CIO (March 15 2002) 56–65.

  14. R.E. Kass, and Adrian E Raftery, Bayes factors, Journal of the American Statistical Association 90(430) (1995) 773–795.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kmart Press Release, Kmart to restructure supply chain operations. http://www.kmartcorp.com/corp/story/pressrelease/news/pr010906.stm.9/6/2001.

  16. M.M. Lehman, J.F. Ramil, P. D. Wernick, D. E. Perry and W. M. Turski, Metrics and laws of software evolution—the nineties view. IEEE-CS Albuquerque, NM. 5–7, November 1997, pp. 20–32. Comp. Sci. Order No. PRO8093.

  17. J.E. Lawless, Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  18. B.C. McNurlin, Replacing old applications, EDP Analyzer 21(3) (1983) 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  19. P. Nelson, W. Richmond and A. Seidmann, Two dimensions of software acquisition, Communications of the ACM 39(7) (1996) 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. G. Premkumar and W.R. King, An empirical assessment of information systems planning and the role of information systems in organizations, Journal of Management Information Systems 9(2) (1992) 99–126.

    Google Scholar 

  21. G. Premkumar and W.R. King, Organizational characteristics and information systems planning: An empirical study, Information Systems Research 5(2) (1994) 75–109.

    Google Scholar 

  22. L.H. Putnam, and W. Meyers, Measures for Excellence Reliable Software On Time, Within Budget (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  23. A.E. Raftery, Approximate Bayes factors and accounting for model uncertainty in generalized linear models, Biometrika 83(2) (1996) 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. B. Rosser, How to economically justify an IT investment. Research Note TU-14-1816, (2001), Gartner, Inc. http://www.gartner.com.

  25. B. Schaller, The origin, nature, and implications of Moore’s law: The benchmark of progress in the semiconductor industry. Working Paper, School of Public Policy, George Mason University, (1996), http://mason.gmu.edu/rschalle/moorelaw.html.

  26. Standish Group, The, The Standish Group Report: CHAOS. Technical Report, (1994).

  27. E.B. Swanson, Framing the system replacement decision. Information Systems Working Paper 01-98 (1998) UCLA, Los Angeles, California. http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/acad_unig/info_sys.

  28. E.B. Swanson and E. Dans, System life expectancy and the maintenance effort: Exploring their equilibration, MIS Quarterly 24(2) (2000) 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. A. Taudes, Software growth options, JMIS 15(1) (1998) 165–185.

    Google Scholar 

  30. E. Wang, T. Barron and A. Seidmann, Contracting structures for custom software development: The impacts of informational rents and uncertainty on internal development and outsourcing, Management Science 43(12) (1997) 1726– 1744.

    Google Scholar 

  31. P. Weill and M. Vitale, Assessing the health of an information systems applications portfolio: An example from process manufacturing, MIS Quarterly 23(4) (1999) 601– 624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Information Systems, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, 28723

    William Richmond

  2. William E. Simon Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, 14627

    Paul Nelson & Sanjog Misra

Authors
  1. William Richmond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sanjog Misra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Richmond.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Richmond, W., Nelson, P. & Misra, S. An empirical analysis of software life spans to determine the planning horizon for new software. Inf Technol Manage 7, 131–149 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-006-8104-8

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-006-8104-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation