استفاده از کارت امتیازی متوازن برای ارزیابی پروژه فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات

There is a large consensus among academics and practitioners that ICT investments should be carefully justified, measured and controlled. In practice, the traditional capital investment appraisal techniques (CIAT’s) such as payback period or net present value are by far the most used techniques. Nevertheless, serious doubts about the fitness of these techniques in an ICT environment arise. ICT investments have special characteristics (high risks, LT-return, large proportion of intangible/hidden costs and benefits. . .) which makes the use of these techniques very difficult and the reliability of the outcome most uncertain. Efforts are made to find more appropriate techniques. CIAT’s are adjusted so that these techniques become more reliable in an ICT environment. New justification methods/techniques are developed. However neither these adjusted techniques nor the new techniques are frequently used. This might be explained by the fact that the outcome of these techniques is difficult to interpret and to use and the fact that some significant problems (like the estimation of hidden costs) remain unsolved. Moreover, most of the new techniques are still in the conceptual phase. Despite the existence of a wealth of literature, the IS community appears to be no nearer to a solution to many problems associated with ICT appraisal. Since all techniques presented in the article have their drawbacks, it is safe to say that reliance on a sole technique may lead to sub-optimalisation or even failure. Therefore it makes sense to use a mixture of techniques, eliminating or diminishing the weaknesses of each of the techniques used. We strongly recommend a multi-layer evaluation process, or an evaluation process derived from the balanced scorecard, for the appraisal of major ICT investment projects.

In today’s increasingly competitive business climate, there is a growing requirement for stronger cost control and a demand for higher returns while minimizing risk in investments. Recognition of the potential impact of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) on the strategic power of companies and increasing levels of ICT-expenditure have made the evaluation, justification and control of ICT investments a critically important issue [1–3]. However, the record on measuring and controlling ICT investments has not been impressive. Hochstrasser and Griffiths [1] found that only 18% of the organizations in their sample rely on rigorous methods to calculate the benefits of investment in IT. Costs are significantly underestimated [4]. At least 22% of expenditure on IT is wasted and between 34 and 40% of IT projects realize no net benefits, however measured [5]. The reason for these failures can be complex: technical, human resource, environmental, organizational and management issues interrelate where explanations are sought. Major barriers, identified by a range of studies, occur in how the ICT investment is evaluated and controlled [1–7]. This paper studies the part of the evaluation and justification process that senior managers consider as being the most important: the feasibility evaluation [3]. More specifically, ex ante evaluation techniques used to justify capital investments in ICT are examined, classified and discussed. These techniques will be referred to as CIAT’s (Capital investment appraisal techniques).

There is a large consensus among academics and practitioners that ICT investments should be carefully justified, measured and controlled. A strong correlation exists between the control and measurement of IS and higher effectiveness with IS, however measured [29]. There is far less consensus on the techniques that should be used to justify or evaluate ICT projects. In practice, the traditional CIATs are by far the most used techniques. They are well-known, well-understood and easy to use. They are primarily focused on financial gains and are developed to maximize shareholder profits. The fact that most decisions on ICT investments are still taken by the financial department [1] might add to the choice for these traditional techniques. Nevertheless, serious doubts about the fitness of these techniques in an ICT environment arise. ICT investments have special characteristics (high risk, LTreturn, large proportion of intangible/hidden costs and benefits. . .) which makes the use of these techniques very difficult and the reliability of the outcome most uncertain. The fact that most managers are aware that traditional CIATs may lead to incorrect conclusions [34] combined with the fact that traditional CIATs are by far the most used justification techniques for the feasibility evaluation of ICT projects leads us to conclude that either management tends to overestimate the efficacy of their evaluation procedures [3] or that the results of these procedures are simply ignored [9,26]. Efforts are made to adjust the CIATs, so that the outcome becomes more reliable. Some authors suggested ways to incorporate ICT-specific risks, others suggest new ways of calculating cost and benefits or new ways to execute and interpret the CIATs. The adjustments proposed take away part of the criticisms on the traditional CIATs, but despite the advantage over the traditional CIATs, these adjusted techniques are seldom used [1,9,21]. This might be explained by the fact that the adjusted CIATs are significantly more difficult to use and to interpret and the fact that some significant problems (like the estimation of hidden costs) remain unsolved. A third group of justification methods/techniques are characterized by a complete break with the traditional finance based CIATs. New angles are sought. Most of these new techniques are still in the conceptual phase. Consequently, none of these techniques are generally accepted [14]. Despite the existence of a wealth of literature, the IS community appears to be no nearer to a solution to many problems associated with ICT appraisal [9]. Since all of these techniques have their negative points, it is safe to say that reliance on a sole technique may lead to sub-optimalization or even failure. Therefore a fourth group of justification methods is developed that uses a mixture of techniques, eliminating or diminishing the weaknesses of each of the techniques used (multi-layer evaluation, the balanced scorecard approach). We strongly suggest using a multi-layer evaluation process or an evaluation process derived from the balanced scorecard for the appraisal of ICT investment projects.