Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 321–333 | Cite as

Complementary Investment in Change Management and IT Investment Payoff

  • Susan A. Sherer
  • Rajiv Kohli
  • Ayelet Baron


Measuring information technology payoff continues to be a challenge for organizations. Considering the impact of complementary investments on IT payoff has been proposed by recent studies. This paper examines the impact of one type of complementary investment on IT payoff: organizational change management initiatives to support IT implementation. The paper reports a case study of Cisco Systems' IT investment in an operating systems upgrade of over 34,000 computer systems in 117 countries. The findings of the exploratory case study indicate that planned communications and change management strategies developed by their Organizational Change Management group led to the smooth implementation of the upgrade process and contributed to the payoff from the IT investment, measured in terms of client satisfaction with the process and system and reduced cost and time to upgrade all systems. The findings were supported by pre- and post-implementation surveys of clients, analysis of the change management initiatives and their impact on the process, and comparison of actual and budgeted costs for the project.

change management complementary investment IT payoff organizational change management 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bannister F. Dismantling the silos: Extracting new value from IT investments in public administration. Information Systems Journal 2001;11(1):65-84.Google Scholar
  2. Baron A. Communicating at the speed of change. Strategic Communication Management 1999;(Oct./Nov.):12-17.Google Scholar
  3. Baronas AM, Louis R. Restoring a sense of control during implementation: Howuser involvement leads to system acceptance. MIS Quarterly 1988;12(1):111-123.Google Scholar
  4. Baroudi J, Olson M, Ives B. An empirical study of the impact of user involvement on system usage and information satisfaction. Communications of the ACM 1986;29(3):232-238.Google Scholar
  5. Barua A, Kriebel CH, Mukhopadhyay T. Information technologies and business value-an analytic and empirical-investigation. Information Systems Research 1995;6(1):3-23.Google Scholar
  6. Barua A, Lee CHS, Whinston AB. The calculus of reengineering. Information Systems Research 1996;7(4):409-428.Google Scholar
  7. Barua A, Mukhopadhyay T. Information technology and business performance: Past, present, and future. In: Zmud RW, ed. Framing the Domains of IT Research: Projecting the Future Through the Past, Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Educational Resources, 2000:65-84.Google Scholar
  8. Bell M, Harrison D, McLaughlin M. Forming, changing, and acting on attitude toward affirmative action programs in employment: A theory driven approach. Journal of Applied Psychology 2000;85(5):784-796.Google Scholar
  9. Boehm B.Aspiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Computer 1988:61-72.Google Scholar
  10. Brynjolfsson E. The productivity paradox of information technology. Communications of the ACM 1993;36(12):66-77.Google Scholar
  11. Brynjolfsson E, Hitt LM. Beyond computation: Information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2000;14(4):23-48.Google Scholar
  12. Byrd TA, Marshall TE. Relating information technology investment to organizational performance: A causal model analysis. Omega-International Journal of Management Science 1997;25(1):43- 56.Google Scholar
  13. Castle D, Sir M. Organization development: A framework for successful information technology assimilation. Organization Development Journal 2001;19(1):59-72.Google Scholar
  14. Chan YE. IT value: The great divide between qualitative and quantitative and individual and organizational measures. Journal of Management Information Systems 2000;16(4):225-261.Google Scholar
  15. Cobb A, Folger R, Wooten K. The role justice plays in organizational change. PAQ 1995:135-151.Google Scholar
  16. Coffee P. E-CRM: Making the customer king? eWeek 2001; 18(20):39.Google Scholar
  17. Cummings TC, Huse EF. Organizational Development and Change. New York: West Publishing, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. Davern MJ, Kauffman RJ. Discovering potential and realizing value from information technology investments. Journal ofManagement Information Systems 2000;16(4):121-143.Google Scholar
  19. Debrabander B, Edstrom A. Successful information systems development projects. Management Science 1977;24(2):191-199.Google Scholar
  20. Devaraj S, Kohli R. Information technology payoff in the healthcare industry: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management Information Systems 2000;16(4):41-67.Google Scholar
  21. Dewan S, Min CK. The substitution of information technology for other factors of production: A firm level analysis. Management Science 1997;43(12):1660-1675.Google Scholar
  22. Fryer B. The ROI challenge. CFO 1999:85-90.Google Scholar
  23. Ginzberg M. Early diagnosis of MIS implementation failure: Promising results and unanswered questions. Management Science 1981;27(2):459-478.Google Scholar
  24. Grover V, Jeong SR, Kettinger W, Teng J. The implementation of business process reengnineering. Journal of Management Information Systems 1995;12(1):109-144.Google Scholar
  25. Grover V, Teng J, Segars A, Fiedler K. The influence of information technology diffusion and business process change on perceived productivity: The IS executive's perspective. Information & Management 1998;34(3):141-159.Google Scholar
  26. Guha S, Grover V, Kettinger W, Teng James TC. Business process change and organizational performance: Exploring an antecedent model. Journal of Management Information Systems 1997;14(1):119-154.Google Scholar
  27. Harker PT. The Service Productivity and Quality Challenge. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995.Google Scholar
  28. Hitt LM, Brynjolfsson E. Productivity, business profitability, and consumer surplus: Three different measures of information technology value. MIS Quarterly 1996;20(2):121-142.Google Scholar
  29. Ives B, Olson MH. User involvement and MIS success: A review of research. Management Science 1984;30(5):586-603.Google Scholar
  30. Kohli R, Devaraj S. Contribution of decision support systems to organizational performance: Evidence from a longitudinal study, Decision Support Systems 2003 (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  31. 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):127-145.Google Scholar
  32. Kohli R, Piontek F, Ellington T, VanOsdol T, Shepard M, Brazel G. Managing customer relationships through an e-business decision support application: A case of hospital physician collaboration. Decision Support Systems 2001;32(2):171-187.Google Scholar
  33. Lewin K. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper and Row, 1951.Google Scholar
  34. Lippitt GL. Organization Renewal: A Holistic Approach to Organization Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982.Google Scholar
  35. Lippitt GL, This LE, Bidwell RG. Optimizing Human Resources; Readings in Individual and Organization Development. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1971.Google Scholar
  36. Lucas H. Implementation: The Key to Successful Information Systems. New York: McGraw Hill, 1981.Google Scholar
  37. Lucas H, Ginzberg M, Schultz, R. Information Systems Implementation. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1990.Google Scholar
  38. Mahmood M, Mann GJ. How information technology investments affect organizational productivity and performance:Alongitudinal study. In: Proceedings of the 1997 Information Resources Management Association International Conference, 1997:187-191.Google Scholar
  39. Mooney JG, Gurbaxani V, Kraemer KL. A process oriented framework for assessing the business value of information technology (Reprinted from Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual International Conference on Information Systems, 1995:17-27), Data Base For Advances in Information Systems 1996;27(2):68-81.Google Scholar
  40. Mukhopadhyay T, Kekre S, Kalathur S. Business value of information technology-A study of electronic data interchange. MIS Quarterly 1995;19(2):137-156.Google Scholar
  41. Mukhopadhyay T, Lerch FJ, Manga lV. Assessing the impact of information technology on labor productivity: A field study. Decision Support Systems 1997;19(2):109-122.Google Scholar
  42. Mumford E, Henshall D. A Participative Approach to Computer Systems Design. London: Associated Business Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  43. Powell TC, DentMicallef A. Information technology as competitive advantage: The role of human, business, and technology resources. Strategic Management Journal 1997;18(5):375-405.Google Scholar
  44. Sarker S. IT-enabled organizational transformation: A case study of BPR failure at TELECO. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1999;8(1):83-103.Google Scholar
  45. Strassmann PA. Information Payoff: The Transformation of Work in the Electronic Age. New York, London: Free Press; Collier Macmillan, 1985.Google Scholar
  46. Wanberg C, Banas J. Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in reorganizingworkplace. Journal of Applied Psychology 2000;85(1):132-142.Google Scholar
  47. Weill P. The relationship between investment in information technology and firm performance: A study of the valve manufacturing sector. Information Systems Research 1992;3(4):307-333.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan A. Sherer
    • 1
  • Rajiv Kohli
    • 2
  • Ayelet Baron
    • 3
  1. 1.College of Business and EconomicsLehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA
  2. 2.Mendoza College of BusinessUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA
  3. 3.Worldwide Strategy and Planning, Worldwide Sales, Cisco Systems, Inc.San JoseUSA

Personalised recommendations