Article Preview
TopLiterature Survey
In Literature there is a mix response towards the relation between IT and productivity, some authors found no existence of relationship between IT and productivity (Brynjolfsson, 1993), other found there may be no or negative relationship (Bernt and Morrison, 1995) Allen (1997), Van Nievelt (1999) and Dasgupta et al. (1999). (Morrison and Bernt, 1990) and some also remain silence about the relationship (Strassmann, 1990; Barua et al., 1995; Loveman, 1994). Some author Chen and Zhu 2004 also realized that the link between IT investment and firm performance is indirect. Later in the year 1998 based on research Brynjolfsson found that there is a positive relationship between IT and investment, which was against his own outcome. Authors has also found positive relationship (Bose (2002), Shin (1999) and Kraemer and Dedrick (1996), recent study also agree with positive relationship, which has resulted large scale implementation. The above variation are described by Marian Carcary, 1998 on Evaluation of ICT Investment Performance, and reveal that due to various factors like organizational change; mis-measurement, organizational weaknesses; lack of analysis; not able to create an better ICT capability; mismanagement of investments; ineffective evaluation methodology (Bharadwaj, 2000; Brynjolfsson and Hitt,1999; Gregor et al., 2006; Kohli and Deveraj, 2003; Kwon and Watts, 2006; Lillrank et al., 2001; Willcocks and Lester, 1999a). Author has also pointed that justification of IT investment is not easy and complicated because of intangible benefits (Irani, 1999; Irani, Ezingeard, Grieve, & Race, 1999; Swamidass & Kotha, 1998), which are not easily measurable. In the absence of strong methodology, some author argues on the traditional method of IT investment and found negative about their approach (Farbey, Land, and Targett (1992, 1993, 1995), so they conclude that there is no ‘best’ universal solution for diversified projects and the decision of IT investment are complex and not same with other investment, as each investment have their own characteristics, and offers different types of benefits and costs. Similarly, each methodology has its own set of limitations (Irani, Ezingeard, & Grieve, 1997; Peppard & Ward, 1999; Hares & Royle, 1994). According to Parker and Benson (1989), “most chief executive officers (CEOs) are not comfortable with the current tools and techniques used to justify their investments in IT, because they lack the preciseness of definition in the financial methods used” discussed by Gunasekaran et al 2001. Literature have also seen deteriorating trends in evaluating IT investment, as because absence of right tool and complex nature for evaluation (Ward & Peppard, 2002), Sammon and Adam (2007).