Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating Componentized Enterprise Information Technologies: A Multiattribute Modeling Approach

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Corporations are increasingly implementing enterprise information technologies (EITs), because of the costs of maintaining legacy systems and the lack of fit of such systems for organization-wide information sharing. A new type of EIT that is being introduced in major corporations (such as Dell Computers), is based on the idea of component systems, which are stand-alone software programs that can integrate with other such components with relative ease. Given the financial outlay for EITs, the evaluation and adoption of these systems is not something that can be completed haphazardly. This requirement is complicated by the relative infancy of models for the evaluation of componentized EITs. To this end, in this paper, we introduce a managerial multistage multiattribute decision model, consisting of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) model and the Supermatrix approach (also defined as the Analytical Network Processes (ANP) approach). This combination of models builds on earlier work that validates the Supermatrix approach for evaluating traditional EITs at a Fortune 100 organization. The aggregation of these benefits is then measured against the costs of systems, thereby arriving at a ranking of alternatives for each functional area. We illustrate the model with an example and draw managerial implications.

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

  • Adams S, Sarkis J, Liles D. The development of strategic performance metrics. Engineering Management Journal 1995;7(1):24-32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams D, Nelson R, Todd P. Perceived usefulness, ease of use and usage of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly 1992;227-245.

  • Aiken P, Muntz A, Richards R. DOD legacy systems: Reverse engineering data requirements. Communications of the ACM 1994;37(5):26-42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980:07632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albayrakoglu MM. Justification of new manufacturing technology: A strategic approach using the analytical hierarchy process. Production and Inventory Management Journal 1996;37(1):71-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alderson A, Shah H. Viewpoints of legacy systems. Communications of the ACM 1999;42(3):115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman R, Pond K. Components in the ERP world, Research Note, Gartner Advisory, http://www.isr.bucknell.edu/gartner/research/ ras/78600/78643/78643.html. 1999.

  • Arens Y, Knoblock C. Shen W. Query reformulation for dynamic information integration. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 1996;6:99-130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avery S. What purchasing needs to know before selecting an ERP system. Purchasing 1999;127(6):76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey JE, Pearson SW. Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Science 1983;29(5):530-545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banker R, Davis G, Slaughter S. Software development practices, software complexity and software maintenance performance: A field study. Management Science 1998;44(4):433-450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartholomew D, Jesitus J, Kreitzburg C. Managing the internetworked corporation: Promises versus reality. Industry Week 1997;246(20):26-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barua A, Kriebel C, Mukhopadhyay T. Information technologies and business value-an analytic and empirical investigation. Information Systems Research 1995;6(1):3-23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm B. Managing software productivity and reuse. Computer, 1999;(September):111-113.

  • Brynjolfsson E. The productivity paradox of information technology. Communications of the ACM 1993;36(12):67-77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L. Beyond computation: Information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. Journal of Economic Perspective 2000;14(4):23-48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burd E, Munro M. A method for the identification of reusable units through the reengineering of legacy code. Journal of Systems and Software 1998;44(2):121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronk MC, Fitzgerald EP. Understanding IS business value: Derivation of dimensions. Logistics Information Management 1999;12(1/2):40-49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport T. Putting the enterprise into enterprise systems. Harvard Business Review, 1998;(July-August):121-131.

  • Davis F. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 1989;13(3):319-342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis F, Bagozzi R, Warshaw P. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 1989;35(8):982-1003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devaraj S, Kohli R. Information technology payoff in the health-care industry: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management Information Systems 2000;16(4):41-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devaraj S, Fan M, Kohli R. Antecedents to B2C channel satisfaction and preference: Validating e-commerce metrics. Information Systems Research 2002;13(3):316-333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easley R, Valacich J, Venkataraman M. Capturing group preferences in multicriterria decisions. European Journal of Operational Research 2000;125:75-83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan M, Stallaert J, Whinston AB. The adoption and design methodologies of component-based enterprise systems. European Journal of Information Systems 2000;9:25-35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farbey B, Land F, Targett D. IT Investments: A Study of Methods and Practices. Oxford, U.K.: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francett B. ERP gets the point. Software Magazine 1998;18(3):77-79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Straub D. The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption. Journal of the Association of Information Systems 2000;1(8):1-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gimenes I, Barroca L. Enterprise framework for workflow management. Software-Practice and Experience 2002;32:755-769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustin CM, Daugherty PJ, Ellinger AE. Supplier selection decisions in systems/software purchases. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 1997;33(4):41-46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henn J. IBM San Francisco. Software-Concepts and Tools 1998;19:37-48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinley D. Software evolution management: A process-oriented perspective. Information and Software Technology 1996;38:723-730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt L, Brynjolfsson E. Productivity, business profitability and consumer surplur: Three different measures of information technology value. MIS Quarterly 1996;20(2):121-142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho L. Interoperable distributed management. Journal of network and systems management 1999;7(1):137-138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt S. Competition heats up in ERP. InfoWorld 1999;21(6):65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irani Z, Ezingeard J-N, Grieve RJ. Integrating costs of manufacturing IT/IS infrastructure into the investment decision-making process. Technovation 1997;17(11/12):695-706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeong H. et al. Design of a software component bank for distribution. Journal of Systems Integration 2001;10:223-237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jilovec N. Preparing for the electronic marketplace. ERP World Conference Proceedings, www.erpworld.org/conference/erpe99/ proceedings/021, 1999.

  • Kelley MR. Productivity and information technology: The elusive connection. Management Science 1994;40:1406-1425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettinger W, Lee C. Perceived service quality and user satisfaction with information-services function. Decision Sciences 1994;25(5/6):737-766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleindorfer PR, Partovi FY. Integrating manufacturing strategies and technology choice. European Journal of Operational Research 1990;47:214-224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli R, Devaraj S. Measuring information technology payoff: A meta analysis of structural variables in firm-level empirical research. Information Systems Research 2003;14(2).

  • Kremers M, Van Dissel H. ERP systems migrations. Communications of the ACM 2000;43(4):52-57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar K, Van Hillegersberg J. ERP experiences and evolution. Communications of the ACM 2000;43(4):22-26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai VS, Wong BK, Cheung W. Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection. European Journal of Operational Research 2002;137(1):134-144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laitinen M, Fayad M, Ward R. The problem with scalability. Communications of the ACM 2000;43(9):105-114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao Z, Cheung M. Internet-based e-shopping and consumer attitudes: An empirical study. Information and Management 2001;38(5):299-306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markosian L et al. Using an enabling technology to reengineer legacy systems. Communications of the ACM 1994;37(5):58-70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood M, Mann G. Measuring the organizational impact of information technology investment: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems 1993;10(1):97-122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki J, Hämäläinen RP. Web-HIPRE-global decision support by value-free and AHP synthesis. INFOR Journal 2000; 38(3):208-220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman A, Zeithaml V, Berry L. SERVQUAL-a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing 1988;64(1):12-40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkin R. IT security is a business issue not a technical one. Computers and Security 1996;15(5):411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulk M, Curtis B, Chrissis M. Capability maturity model for software. SEI Technical Report, CMU/SEI-91-TR-24, Carnegie Mellon University, 1991.

  • Plachy E, Hauser P. Enterprise solutions structure. IBM Systems Journal 1999;38(1):4-11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prattipatti S, Mensah M. Information systems variables and managing productivity. Information and Management 1997;33(1):33-43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramenyi D, Sherwood-Smith M. Maximize information systems value by continuous participative evaluation. Logistics Information Management 1999;12(1/2):14-31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson P. Integrating legacy systems with modern corporate applications. Communications of the ACM 1997;40(5):38-45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw Hill, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh PA: RWS Publications, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkis J, Sundarraj RP. Factors for strategic evaluation of enterprise information technologies. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 2000;30(3/4):196-220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkis J, Sundarraj RP. A decision model for strategic evaluation of enterprise information technologies. Information Systems Management 2001a;18(3):62-72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkis J, Sundarraj RP. Evaluation of enterprise information technologies: A decision model considering strategic and operational issues.Working Paper, University ofWaterloo, Waterloo, Canada, 2001b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer S. Packaged software: Implications of the differences from custom approaches to software development. European Journal of Information Systems 2000;9:47-58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sircar S, Turnbow JL, Bordoloi B. The impact of information technology investments on firm performance. Engineering Valuation and Cost Analysis 1998;1(3):171-181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sircar S, Turnbow J, Bordloi B. A framework for assessing the relationship between information technology investments and firm performance. Journal of Management Information Systems 2000;16(4):69-97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soh C, Kien S, Tay-Yap J. Cultural fits and misfits: Is ERP a Universal Solution? Communications of the ACM 2000;43(4):47-53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa J, Garlan D. Formal modeling of enterprise JavaBeans component integration framework. Information and Software Technology 2001;43:171-188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprott D. Componentizing the enterprise application packages. Communications of the ACM 2000;43(4):63-69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stets R, Hunt G, Scott M. Component-based APIs for versioning distributed applications. IEEE Computer 1999;54-61.

  • Sundarraj R, Talluri S.Amultiperiod optimization model for the procurement of component-based enterprise information technologies. Accepted by European Journal of Operational Research, 2002.

  • Tam K. Capital budgeting in information systems development. Information and Management 1992;23(6):345-357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taudes A. Software growth options. Journal of Management Information Systems 1998;15(1):165-185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taudes A, Feurstein M, Mild A. Options analysis of software platform decisions: A case study. MIS Quarterly 2000;24(2):227-243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torkzadeh G, Doll WJ. The development of a tool for measuring the perceived impact of information technology on work. Omega 1999;27:327-339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trunick PA. ERP: Promises or pipe dreams, Transportation and Distribution 1999;40(1):23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigand H, Verharen E, Dignum F. Dynamic business models as a basis for interoperable transaction design. Information Systems 1997;22(2/3):139-154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheelwright S. Reflecting corporate strategy in manufacturing decisions. Business Horizons 1978;20:57-66.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Management, Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worcester, MA, 01610-1477, USA

    Joseph Sarkis

  2. Department of Management Science, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada

    R.P. Sundarraj

Authors
  1. Joseph Sarkis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R.P. Sundarraj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sarkis, J., Sundarraj, R. Evaluating Componentized Enterprise Information Technologies: A Multiattribute Modeling Approach. Information Systems Frontiers 5, 303–319 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025605529006

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025605529006

Search

Navigation