Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:01:04.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The necessary alignment between technology innovation effectiveness and operational effectiveness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Ricardo Santa ,
Mario Ferrer ,
Phil Bretherton  and
Paul Hyland
Ricardo Santa
Affiliation:
School of Law and Business, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina Campus, Darwin NT, Australia
Mario Ferrer
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business and Informatics, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton QLD, Australia
Phil Bretherton
Affiliation:
School of Law and Business, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina Campus, Darwin NT, Australia
Paul Hyland
Affiliation:
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane QLD, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Organisations are increasingly investing in complex technological innovations such as enterprise information systems with the aim of improving the operations of the business, and in this way gaining competitive advantage. However, the implementation of technological innovations tends to have an excessive focus on either technology innovation effectiveness (also known as system effectiveness), or the resulting operational effectiveness; focusing on either one of them is detrimental to the long-term enterprise benefits through failure to achieve the real value of technological innovations. The lack of research on the dimensions and performance objectives that organisations must be focusing on is the main reason for this misalignment. This research uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative, three-stage methodological approach. Initial findings suggest that factors such as quality of information from technology innovation effectiveness, and quality and speed from operational effectiveness are important and significantly well correlated factors that promote the alignment between technology innovation effectiveness and operational effectiveness.

Keywords

technological innovationsystem effectivenessoperational effectivenessinformation systems alignmentperformance objectives
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , May 2009 , pp. 155 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baroudi, JJ, Olson, MH and Ives, B (1986) An Empirical study of the impact of user involvement on system usage and information satisfaction, Communications of the ACM 29(3): 232–238.Google Scholar
Berthon, P, Pitt, L, Ewing, M and Carr, CL (2002) Potential research space in MIS: A framework for envisioning and evaluating research replication, extension, and generation, Information Systems Research 13(4): 416–427.Google Scholar
Bokhari, RH (2005) The relationship between system usage and user satisfaction: A meta-analysis, Journal of Enterprise Information Management 18(1/2): 211–234.Google Scholar
Chen, LD, Soliman, KS, Mao, E and Frolick, MN (2000) Measuring user satifaction with data warehouses: An exploratory study, Information & Management 37: 103–110.Google Scholar
Cotteleer, M (2001) Operational performance following ERP implementation, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Davenport, T (1998) Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system, Harvard Business Review 76(4): 121–131.Google Scholar
Davenport, T (2000) Mission critical: Realizing the promise of Enterprise Systems, Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA.Google Scholar
DeLone, W and McLean, E (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information system success: A ten-year update, Journal of Management Information Systems 19(4): 9–30.Google Scholar
Doll, WJ and Torkzadeh, G (1988) The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction, MIS Quarterly 12: 259–274.Google Scholar
Downing, CE (1999) System usage behavior as a proxy for user satisfaction: An empirical investigation, Information & Management 35: 203–216.Google Scholar
Gash, D and Orlikowski, W (1991) Changing frames: Understanding technological change in organizations, Working paper, Sloan School of Management 3368–92, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Hair, JF, Anderson, RE, Tatham, RL and Black, WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ.Google Scholar
Hammer, M and Champy, J (1993) Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution, Nicholas Brealey, San Francisco CA; Allen & Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Heeks, R (2005) Health information systems: Failure, success and improvisation, Medical Informatics 75: 125–137.Google Scholar
Hill, T (2005) Operations management, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Ifandoudas, P and Chapman, R (2006) ‘Strategic ICT implementation within SMEs for business Improvement: The COSTWORTH project’. Paper 6th Intl CINet Conference, Brighton.Google Scholar
Jamieson, K and Hyland, P (2004) ‘IS failure: Just too much information?' Paper presented to 8th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Orlando FL.Google Scholar
Kueng, P (2000) Process performance measurement system: A tool to support process-based organisations, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 11(1): 67–85.Google Scholar
Kueng, P (2002) Performance measurement systems in the service sectors: The potential of IT is not yet utilised, International Journal of Business Performance Management 4(1): 95–114.Google Scholar
Kvale, S (1996) Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing, Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
Mabert, VA, Soni, A and Venkataramanan, MA (2003) Enterprise resource planning: Managing the implementation process, European Journal of Operation Research 146: 302–314.Google Scholar
March, JG and Simon, A (1993) Organizations (2nd ed) Blackwell, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Masini, A (2003) ‘The ERP paradox: An empirical investigation of the impact of enterprise systems on operational effectiveness’, PhD thesis, Institut Europeen d'Administration des Affaires, France.Google Scholar
Mcafee, A (2002) The impact of enterprise information technology adoption on operational performance: An empirical investigation, Production and Operations Management 11(1): 33–53.Google Scholar
Mohmood, MA, Burn, JM, Gemoets, LA and Jacquez, C (2000) Variables affecting information technology end-user satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 52: 751–771.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J (2005) Critical success factors for implementing ERP system. In Qualitative Case Studies on Implementation of Enterprise Wide Systems, Idea Group Inc. pp 211–231.Google Scholar
Norman, A, Ngai, EWT and Cheng, TCE (2002) A critical review of end-user Information System satisfaction research and a new research framework, Omega The International Journal of Management Science 30: 451–478.Google Scholar
O'Neill, P and Sohal, A (1998) Business process reengineering: Application and success – an Australian study, International Journal of Operations & Production Management 18(9/10): 832–864.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W and Gash, D (1994) Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations, ACM Transactions on Information Systems TOIS 12(2): 174–207.Google Scholar
Pitt, LF, Watson, RT and Kavan, CV (1995) Service quality: A measure of information systems effectiveness, MIS Quarterly 19(2): 173–188.Google Scholar
Porter, M (1996) What is strategy?Harvard Business Review 11/Dec.Google Scholar
Rai, A, Lang, S and Welker, R (2002) Assessing the validity of IS success models: An empirical test and theoretical analysis, Information System Research 13(1): 50–69.Google Scholar
Romano, K (2003) The influence of organisational culture, leadership, and structure on operational effectiverness in the aerospace industry, Doctoral thesis, School of Advanced Studies, University of Phoenix.Google Scholar
Russell, RS and Taylor, BW (2005) Operations management - Quality and competitiveness in a global environment (5th ed) John Wiley, Hoboken NJ.Google Scholar
Sarantakos, S (2005) Social research (3rd ed) Palgrave Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Seddon, P (1997) A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success, Information System Research 8(3): 240–253.Google Scholar
Seddon, S and Kiew, M-Y (1994) ‘A partial test and development of DeLone and McLean's model of IS success’. Paper presented to International Conference on Information Systems, Atlanta GA.Google Scholar
Sekaran, U (2003) Research methods for business (4th ed) John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Slack, N (1991) The manufacturing advantage, Mercury Books, London.Google Scholar
Slack, N, Chambers, S and Johnston, R (2004) Operations management (4th ed) Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Somers, TM, Nelson, K and Karimi, J (2003) Confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument: Replication within an ERP domain, Decision Sciences 34(3): 595–621.Google Scholar
Teece, D, Pisano, G and Shuen, A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 8(7): 509–533.Google Scholar
Tidd, J, Bessant, J and Pavitt, K (2001) Managing Innovation John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Wheelwright, SC and Bowen, H (1996) The challenge of manufacturing advantage. Production and Operations Management 5(1): 59–77.Google Scholar
White, G (1996) A survey and taxonomy of strategy-related performance measures for manufacturing, International Journal of Operations and Production Management 16(3): 42–61.Google Scholar
Yin, R (2003) Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed) Applied Social Research Methods Series Vol. 5, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
Zviran, M and Pliskin, N (2005) Measuring user satisfaction and perceived usefulness in the ERP context, Journal of Computer Information Systems 45(3): 43–52.Google Scholar