Examining Real Options Exercise Decisions in Information Technology Investments

: Researchers have advocated real options thinking (ROT) for evaluating and managing risky IT investments to account for managerial decision flexibility. Effective ROT is a three-step process that requires managers to recognize, value, and exercise options embedded in IT projects. Prior research has illustrated the existence of managerial bias in the recognizing and valuing real options. However, little research has examined real options exercise decisions. Hence, we use prospect theory to examine whether IT managers demonstrate systematic biases while exercising real options in IT projects and portfolios. We also study whether one can control or mitigate such biases. We found evidence of biased (suboptimal) real option exercise decisions in IT projects and in IT portfolios. However, we found differences in biased decision making between a single project and a portfolio scenario. We also found that project scale and real option type influenced vulnerability of a project to biased decision making. In addition, simplifying the presentation of the net effects of real options exercise decisions can help reduce bias, especially for large project portfolios. We discuss the implications of these results on theory and practice. on the real options than the planned path component of project value in long-term projects. The extent to which supervising managers rely on the real options component of value in their funding decisions can be influenced by aggregating or disaggregating the components of project value in a financial summary of subordinates’ long-term investment proposals because the report format influences perceptions of the relative accuracy of the planned path and real options components of project value.

[1]  Adam Wierman,et al.  Thinking Fast and Slow , 2017, SIGMETRICS Perform. Evaluation Rev..

[2]  Ashley R. Davis A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Path Dependency and Technology Option Evaluation when Valuing IT Opportunities , 2015 .

[3]  Antonis C. Stylianou,et al.  Risk Attitudes and Real Option Exercise Decisions in IT Projects , 2015 .

[4]  Moutaz Khouja,et al.  Effects of time-inconsistent preferences on information technology infrastructure investments with growth options , 2013, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[5]  Antonis C. Stylianou,et al.  Understanding the Information Technology Growth Options: Effects of Gender and Experience on Option Exercise Decisions , 2013 .

[6]  Katerina Pramatari,et al.  Investigating the Impact of Real Options on IT Project Value: The Moderating Effect of Project Scope, Purpose and Span , 2012 .

[7]  Martin Weber,et al.  Reference-Point Formation and Updating , 2011, Manag. Sci..

[8]  Kevin E. Jackson,et al.  Managers ’ Incorporation of the Value of Real Options into Their Long-Term Investment Decisions : An Experimental Investigation * , 2010 .

[9]  Kexin Zhao,et al.  Narrow Framing Effects on Real Options: the Case of IT Application Portfolios , 2010, ICIS.

[10]  Richard Goodwin,et al.  Shared Services Transformation: Conceptualization and Valuation from the Perspective of Real Options , 2009, Decis. Sci..

[11]  Longkai Zhao,et al.  Narrow framing: Professions, sophistication, and experience , 2009 .

[12]  Christine A. Denison Real Options and Escalation of Commitment: A Behavioral Analysis of Capital Investment Decisions , 2009 .

[13]  Nancy K. Lankton,et al.  Uncertainty and Industry Structure Effects on Managerial Intuition About Information Technology Real Options , 2008, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Chorng-Shyong Ong,et al.  Active ERP implementation management: A Real Options perspective , 2008, J. Syst. Softw..

[15]  Robert J. Kauffman,et al.  Option-Based Risk Management: A Field Study of Sequential Information Technology Investment Decisions , 2007, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[16]  Mark Keil,et al.  Escalation: The Role of Problem Recognition and Cognitive Bias , 2007, Decis. Sci..

[17]  Robert J. Kauffman,et al.  Valuing information technology infrastructures: a growth options approach , 2007, Inf. Technol. Manag..

[18]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  The Bounded Rationality Bias in Managerial Valuation of Real Options: Theory and Evidence from IT Projects , 2007, Decis. Sci..

[19]  R. Coff,et al.  Real Options Meet Organizational Theory: Coping with Path Dependencies, Agency Costs, and Organizational Form , 2007 .

[20]  The Total Cost of ERP Ownership in Mid-Size Companies , 2007 .

[21]  Yossi Lichtenstein,et al.  Real Options in Information Technology Risk Management: An Empirical Validation of Risk-Option Relationships , 2006, MIS Q..

[22]  A. Tiwana,et al.  Beyond Valuation: Real Options Thinking in it Project Management , 2006 .

[23]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  Information Systems Project Continuation in Escalation Situations: A Real Options Model , 2006, Decis. Sci..

[24]  R. Thaler,et al.  Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing , 2006 .

[25]  Mark Jeffery,et al.  On the Valuation of Multistage Information Technology Investments Embedding Nested Real Options , 2006, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[26]  Robert J. Kauffman,et al.  Technology competition and optimal investment timing: a real options perspective , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[27]  Indranil R. Bardhan,et al.  Prioritizing a Portfolio of Information Technology Investment Projects , 2004, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[28]  Robert G. Fichman,et al.  Real Options and IT Platform Adoption: Implications for Theory and Practice , 2004, Inf. Syst. Res..

[29]  Kent D. Miller,et al.  Technology search investments: evolutionary, option reasoning, and option pricing approaches , 2004 .

[30]  Kent D. Miller,et al.  AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF HEURISTICS AND BIASES AFFECTING REAL OPTION VALUATION , 2004 .

[31]  D. Kahneman Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics , 2003 .

[32]  J. Weyant,et al.  Strategic exercise of real options: Investment decisions in technological systems , 2003 .

[33]  To Open Or Not To Open-Or What To Do With A Closed Copper Mine , 2002 .

[34]  Ram L. Kumar,et al.  Managing risks in IT projects: an options perspective , 2002, Inf. Manag..

[35]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Meta-analysis: recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. , 2001, Annual review of psychology.

[36]  Mark Keil,et al.  Why Software Projects Escalate: An Empirical Analysis and Test of Four Theoretical Models , 2000, MIS Q..

[37]  Mary Sumner,et al.  Risk factors in enterprise-wide/ERP projects , 2000, J. Inf. Technol..

[38]  Bernard C. Y. Tan,et al.  A Cross-Cultural Study on Escalation of Commitment Behavior in Software Projects , 2000, MIS Q..

[39]  Alfred Taudes,et al.  Options Analysis of Software Platform Decisions: A Case Study , 2000, MIS Q..

[40]  K. Cassell,et al.  The Information Paradox: Realizing the Business Benefits of Information Technology , 1999 .

[41]  Mark Keil,et al.  Turning Around Troubled Software Projects: An Exploratory Study of the Deescalation of Commitment to Failing Courses of Action , 1999, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[42]  Nalin Kulatilaka,et al.  Real Options: Managing Strategic Investment in an Uncertain World , 1998 .

[43]  Schneider,et al.  All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[44]  A. Kühberger,et al.  The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[45]  L. Gómez-Mejia,et al.  A Behavioral Agency Model of Managerial Risk Taking , 1998 .

[46]  Sydney Howell,et al.  Laboratory Evidence on How Managers Intuitively Value Real Growth Options , 1997 .

[47]  Max P. Michaels,et al.  The real power of real options , 1997 .

[48]  J. Busby,et al.  Real Options In Practice: An Exploratory Survey Of How Finance Officers Deal With Flexibility In Capital Appraisal , 1997 .

[49]  A. Tversky,et al.  The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test , 1997 .

[50]  Gregory Rowe,et al.  Escalation in Decision Making: The Tragedy of Taurus , 1997 .

[51]  Ram L. Kumar,et al.  A Note on Project Risk and Option Values of Investments in Information Technologies , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[52]  N. Roese,et al.  What Might Have Been: The Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking , 1995 .

[53]  E. H. Bowman,et al.  Strategy through the Option Lens: An Integrated View of Resource Investments and the Incremental-Choice Process , 1993 .

[54]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Timid choices and bold forecasts: a cognitive perspective on risk taking , 1993 .

[55]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .

[56]  Zbigniew H. Przasnyski,et al.  On Information Systems Project Abandonment: An Exploratory Study of Organizational Practices , 1991, MIS Q..

[57]  J. Hull Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives , 1989 .

[58]  Terry Connolly,et al.  Hindsight Bias and Strategic Choice: Some Problems in Learning From Experience , 1988 .

[59]  A. Tversky,et al.  Rational choice and the framing of decisions , 1990 .

[60]  G. Northcraft,et al.  Opportunity costs and the framing of resource allocation decisions , 1986 .

[61]  J. Knetsch,et al.  Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value , 1984 .

[62]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[63]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[64]  Terry S. Overton,et al.  Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys , 1977 .

[65]  W. G. Cochran The comparison of percentages in matched samples. , 1950, Biometrika.