ارزیابی سرمایه گذاری های بالقوه در فن آوری های نوین: تعادل ارزیابی مزایای بالقوه با ارزیابی عدم منافع بالقوه، قابلیت اطمینان و بهره برداری

In recent years, the assessment of intangible benefits has become an explicit requirement of investment evaluation techniques. By contrast, assessments of three factors which can prevent the realization of any benefits have not become an explicit requirement. Those three factors are disbenefits, reliability and utilization. The importance of these factors may sometimes be identified prior to investment evaluation when exploratory methods such as contingency planning are used. However, evidence presented in this paper suggests that these three factors are often overlooked. Further, the evidence presented in this paper suggests that investment performance often suffers as a result. Accordingly, it is argued that investment evaluations need to be balanced by making assessments of disbenefits, reliability and utilization an explicit requirement. This argument is supported by reporting of experiences from action research. These experiences indicate that investment evaluations can be balanced by making assessments of disbenefits, reliability and utilization an explicit requirement.

In recent years, the assessment of intangible benefits has become an explicit requirement of investment evaluation techniques (Gerwin, 1988, Lillrank et al., 2001, Murphy and Simon, 2002, Slagmulder et al., 1995 and Whiting et al., 1996). Previously, intangible benefits may sometimes have been identified as being important prior to investment evaluation when exploratory methods such as scenario analysis (Linneman and Kennell, 1977) were used. Nonetheless, the assessment of intangible benefits is now an explicit requirement of evaluation techniques. By contrast, assessments of disbenefits, reliability and utilization have not become an explicit requirement of evaluation techniques. Yet, disbenefits, reliability problems and under utilization can prevent the realization of any benefits, whether tangible or intangible. For example, under utilization can thwart strategic initiatives which a new technology was intended to enable. Moreover, if an investment in a new technology is not utilized, it is not likely that it will yield a return on investment. In spite of their significance, assessments of these three critical performance factors are not an explicit requirement of financial evaluation techniques. Indeed, the term, disbenefit, was not found to be present within any existing evaluation technique. The importance of these three critical performance factors may sometimes be identified prior to the application of evaluation techniques when exploratory methods such as contingency planning (Swanson et al., 2002) are used. However, evidence presented in this paper suggests that disbenefit, reliability and utilization issues are often overlooked. Further, the evidence presented in this paper suggests that investment performance often suffers as a result. Accordingly, it is argued that investment evaluations need to be balanced by making assessments of disbenefits, reliability and utilization an explicit requirement. This argument is supported by reporting of experiences from action research. These experiences indicate that investment evaluations can be balanced by making assessments of disbenefits, reliability and utilization an explicit requirement. Many alternative techniques are available to support the financial evaluation of potential investments in new technologies. Existing evaluation techniques can be grouped into four categories: traditional capital investment appraisal techniques (CIAT); adjusted CIATs; new investment evaluation techniques; mixed investment evaluation techniques (Milis and Mercken, 2004). CIATs include Internal Rate of Return, Net Present Value, and Return On Investment. It has been argued for some time that such techniques are not well-suited to the evaluation of investments in technology (Dixit and Pindyck, 1994 and Kumar, 1997). Adjusted CIATs include the incorporation of estimated intangible benefits from an investment (Whiting et al., 1996). New techniques include Real Options Analysis (Copeland and Antikarov, 2001). Mixed techniques include adaptations of the balanced scorecard (Buglione et al., 1999 and Kaplan and Norton, 1992). Potential investments in new technologies can be difficult to evaluate (Bacon, 1992, Clemons and Weber, 1990, Keen and Digrius, 2002, Putterill et al., 1996, Shank, 1996 and Thatcher and Oliver, 2001). Nonetheless, review of existing evaluation techniques suggests that they do little to support the assessment of certain critical performance factors. Those being factors which can determine the performance of a new technology in use and, as a result, often determine returns from investments in that technology. In particular, existing techniques do little, if anything, to direct users to three critical performance factors: disbenefits, reliability, and utilization. In this paper, potential methods for assessing critical performance factors during investment evaluation are described. These potential methods were identified, developed and applied during an action research study which was carried out with twenty companies over a period of 2.5 years. The remainder of the paper is structured in six sections. The purpose, scope and method of the research are described in Section 2. The significance of disbenefits, reliability and utilization are explained in Sections 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 5. The content of these sections provides evidence which suggests that financial evaluations need to be balanced by including assessment of these critical performance factors. In Section 6, potential assessment methods and their application is described. In the final section, conclusions from this research and directions for future research are presented.

Traditional capital investment appraisal techniques have been supplemented by a variety of adaptations and additional techniques. These adaptations and additional techniques focus on some factors which can be critical to the performance of investments. Findings from the research reported here suggest that disbenefit, reliability and utilization can be critical to the performance of investments in new technology. Examples of these factors have been presented from architecture, engineering and construction. Further examples have been presented from automotive, finance, government and retail. Also, examples of technologies that are used in many sectors, such as Email and fax, have been provided. All together, these examples indicate that disbenefits, reliability and utilization are prevalent, as well as critical performance factors. Yet, review of existing investment evaluation techniques suggests that they do little, if anything, to support the evaluation of disbenefits, reliability and utilization. For example, these terms are not present within existing techniques. During the research, the introduction of a simple formula including these terms facilitated identification of potential investment options which would be undermined by disbenefits, reliability problems and/or under utilization. In recent years a number of techniques have been introduced which focus attention on specific factors such as intangible benefits. The introduction of such techniques could be balanced by including assessment of disbenefit, reliability and utilization in investment evaluation. This is necessary because these factors can prevent the realization of any benefits. Further, the research reported here suggests that there may be no need to develop complicated new evaluation techniques or complicated adaptations of existing evaluation techniques. Rather, it may be sufficient to make assessment of disbenefits, reliability and utilization an explicit requirement of financial evaluation prior to the application of existing techniques. It is likely that the identification and elimination of disbenefits, reliability problems and under utilization will continue to be haphazard—if assessment of these critical performance factors is not included as an explicit requirement of financial evaluation. This could have increasingly serious consequences for societies and indeed the entire World. Consider, for example, the on-going consequences that face the World from the disbenefits of one technology: the automobile. These disbenefits include: road rage, traffic deaths, damaged landscapes, local pollution, and global warming.