The Institutionalization of IT Budgeting: Empirical Evidence from the Financial Sector

Each year, businesses and organizations around the world invest billions of dollars in information technology IT related products and services. What are the factors influencing each individual firm's investment budget decisions? Limited empirical results derived from firm-level data suggest that internal affordability, such as previous IT budget levels, sales, profitability, and size, are significant sources of influence. In this study, we introduce the perspective of external institutional influence for examining corporate IT budgeting processes in addition to the internal affordability perspective. Using firm-level IT and financial data of publicly traded companies in the financial sector, we show that the two most significant sources of influence on corporate IT budgets are the firm's IT spending level of the previous year internal and the IT spending level of the perceived industry leaders external. We posit that as IT becomes pervasive in all aspects of business operations and all sectors of the economy, IT budgeting processes have been at least partially institutionalized. The implications of this institutionalization are discussed, and future research directions are suggested.

[1]  Christina Soh,et al.  How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis , 1995, ICIS.

[2]  Lorin M. Hitt,et al.  Productivity, Business Profitability, and Consumer Surplus: Three Different Measures of Information Technology Value , 1996, MIS Q..

[3]  Eric K. Clemons,et al.  Information Systems, Telecommunications, and their effects on Industrial Organization , 1986, ICIS.

[4]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  Namchul Shin,et al.  The impact of information technology on financial performance: the importance of strategic choice , 2001, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[6]  Bill Lehr,et al.  Information technology and its impact on firm-level productivity: evidence from government and private data sources, 1977-1993 , 1999 .

[7]  Qing Hu,et al.  An Empirical Study of the Casual Relationship Between IT Investment and Firm Performance , 2001, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[8]  N. Carr.  IT doesn't matter , 2003, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[9]  Charles H. Kriebel,et al.  Information Technologies and Business Value: An Analytic and Empirical Investigation , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[10]  Theophanis C. Stratopoulos,et al.  Does successful investment in information technology solve the productivity paradox? , 2000, Inf. Manag..

[11]  T. C. Powell,et al.  Information technology as competitive advantage: the role of human , 1997 .

[12]  D. Siegel.  The Impact of Computers on Manufacturing Productivity Growth: A Multiple-Indicators, Multiple-Causes Approach , 1997, Review of Economics and Statistics.

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

[14]  E. Brynjolfsson,et al.  Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance , 2000 .

[15]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Review: Information Technology and Organizational Performance: An Integrative Model of IT Business Value , 2004, MIS Q..

[16]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[17]  Erik Brynjolfsson,et al.  The productivity paradox of information technology , 1993, CACM.

[18]  Bijoy Bordoloi,et al.  A Framework for Assessing the Relationship between Information Technology Investments and Firm Performance , 2000, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[19]  William L. Fuerst,et al.  Information technology and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based analysis , 1995 .

[20]  Robert D. Austin,et al.  Corporate Information Strategy and Management: The Challenges of Managing in a Network Economy (Paperback version) , 2002 .

[21]  Peter Weill,et al.  The Relationship Between Investment in Information Technology and Firm Performance: A Study of the Valve Manufacturing Sector , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[22]  Robert J. Kauffman,et al.  Justifying Electronic Banking Network Expansion Using Real Options Analysis , 2000, MIS Q..

[23]  Pamela S. Tolbert,et al.  Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935 , 1983 .

[24]  M. Porter,et al.  How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage , 1985 .

[25]  E. Brynjolfsson,et al.  Paradox Lost? Firm-Level Evidence on the Returns to Information Systems Spending , 1996 .

[26]  M. Wade,et al.  Review: the resource-based view and information systems research: review, extension, and suggestions for future research , 2004 .

[27]  Varun Grover,et al.  Shaping Agility through Digital Options: Reconceptualizing the Role of Information Technology in Contemporary Firms , 2003, MIS Q..

[28]  Eric K. Clemons,et al.  Sustaining IT Advantage: The Role of Structural Differences , 1991, MIS Q..

[29]  Charles Møller,et al.  Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology , 2005 .

[30]  Vijay Gurbaxani,et al.  A process oriented framework for assessing the business value of information technology , 1995, DATB.

[31]  F. Lichtenberg.  The Output Contributions of Computer Equipment and Personnel: A Firm- Level Analysis , 1993 .

[32]  Anandhi S. Bharadwaj,et al.  A Resource-Based Perspective on Information Technology Capability and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation , 2000, MIS Q..

[33]  Heather A. Haveman.  Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets , 1993 .

[34]  Robert J. Kauffman,et al.  Using Real Options Analysis for Evaluating Uncertain Investments in Information Technology: Insights from the ICIS 2001 Debate , 2002, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..