Mindful Engagement in Emerging IT Innovations: A Dynamic Optimization Model Considering Organizational Learning in IT Innovation Investment Evaluation

Companies regularly have to decide whether, when, and to what extent to invest in IT innovations with different maturities. Together with mature IT innovations, companies should incorporate emerging IT innovations in their investment strategy. Emerging IT innovations have not yet been widely accepted. Thus, they are characterized by higher uncertainty about their future evolution but have potentially high long-term returns. To enable mindfulness in these decision-making processes, the literature emphasizes organizational learning through continuous engagement in IT innovations to enhance a company?s ability to understand, successfully adopt, and implement emerging IT innovations. IT innovation literature so far has focused on qualitative work, but lacks of quantitative models for the analysis of ex-ante investment decisions. Therefore, we develop a dynamic optimization model that determines the optimal allocation of an IT innovation budget to mature and emerging IT innovations, considering the impact of organizational learning. Based on our model, we examine relevant causal relationships by analyzing the influence of uncertainty, a company?s initial individual innovativeness, and the market?s average investment share on the optimal engagement. We find that companies should always invest at least a small portion of their budget in emerging IT innovations, regardless of their actual innovativeness. Our results offer new insights into the crucial determinants of investment decisions and provide the basis for future quantitative research on emerging IT innovations.

[1]  Eric Abrahamson.  Managerial Fads and Fashions: The Diffusion and Rejection of Innovations , 1991 .

[2]  Christoph Zott,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND THE EMERGENCE OF INTRAINDUSTRY DIFFERENTIAL FIRM PERFORMANCE: INSIGHTS FROM A SIMULATION STUDY , 2003 .

[3]  R. Daft.  A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation , 1978 .

[4]  Yu Liu,et al.  Environmental Factors, Managerial Processes, and Information Technology Investment Strategies , 2011, Decis. Sci..

[5]  Martin Bichler,et al.  Design science in information systems research , 2006, Wirtschaftsinf..

[6]  Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi,et al.  Contemporary trends and issues in IT adoption and diffusion research , 2009, J. Inf. Technol..

[7]  PetterStacie,et al.  The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems , 2017 .

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

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

[10]  Ying Lu,et al.  Proactive or reactive IT leaders? A test of two competing hypotheses of IT innovation and environment alignment , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[11]  J. Meredith,et al.  Alternative research paradigms in operations , 1989 .

[12]  Jee-Hae Lim,et al.  IT innovation persistence , 2007, Commun. ACM.

[13]  Petra Kaufmann,et al.  Experimental And Quasi Experimental Designs For Research , 2016 .

[14]  Sean R Eddy,et al.  What is dynamic programming? , 2004, Nature Biotechnology.

[15]  Charles P Bonini.  Risk evaluation of investment projects , 1975 .

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

[17]  Geoffrey A. Moore.  Crossing the chasm : marketing and selling technology products to mainstream customers , 1991 .

[18]  J. Wacker.  A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management , 1998 .

[19]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[20]  Robert G. Fichman,et al.  Going Beyond the Dominant Paradigm for Information Technology Innovation Research: Emerging Concepts and Methods , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[21]  J. Ross,et al.  Beyond the Business Case: New Approaches to IT Investment , 2002 .

[22]  Andrew P. McAfee,et al.  Invertir en la TI que sí hace una diferencia competitiva , 2008 .

[23]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  The assimilation of software process innovations: an organizational learning perspective , 1997 .

[24]  C. Marlene Fiol,et al.  Waking Up! Mindfulness in the Face of Bandwagons , 2003 .

[25]  Suleyman Tufekci,et al.  Generalized decision trees: methodology and applications , 1993 .

[26]  Gail Salaway,et al.  An Organizational Learning Approach to Information Systems Development , 1987, MIS Q..

[27]  R. Bellman.  Dynamic programming. , 1957, Science.

[28]  H. Mendelson,et al.  Information Technology and Time-Based Competition in Financial Markets , 1998 .

[29]  Paul Brown,et al.  Organizational Assimilation of Electronic Procurement Innovations , 2009, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[30]  Ping Wang,et al.  Popular Concepts beyond Organizations : Exploring New Dimensions of Information Technology Innovations , 2009 .

[31]  Ping Wang,et al.  Understanding IT Innovations Through Computational Analysis of Discourse , 2009, ICIS.

[32]  Ping Wang,et al.  Community Learning in Information Technology Innovation , 2009, MIS Q..

[33]  Jackie Fenn,et al.  Mastering the Hype Cycle: How to Choose the Right Innovation at the Right Time , 2008 .

[34]  T. Copeland,et al.  Financial Theory and Corporate Policy. , 1980 .

[35]  Xiaobo Zhou,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis , 2017, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[36]  John F. Magee,et al.  Decision Trees for Decision Making , 2010 .

[37]  Eric Abrahamson,et al.  MANAGEMENT FASHION: LIFECYCLES, TRIGGERS, AND COLLECTIVE LEARNING PROCESSES. , 1997 .

[38]  Gregory M. Rose,et al.  Information technology and organizational learning: a review and assessment of research , 2000 .

[39]  R. Handler,et al.  IT Portfolio Management Step-by-Step: Unlocking the Business Value of Technology , 2005 .

[40]  L. B.S. Raccoon.  A learning curve primer for software engineers , 1996, SOEN.

[41]  Varun Grover,et al.  Empirical Evidence on Swanson's Tri-Core Model of Information Systems Innovation , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

[42]  R. Sohi,et al.  IT competency and firm performance: is organizational learning a missing link? , 2003 .

[43]  Linda Argote,et al.  Organizational Learning Curves: A Method for Investigating Intra-Plant Transfer of Knowledge Acquired Through Learning by Doing , 1991 .

[44]  Ping Wang,et al.  Chasing the Hottest IT: Effects of Information Technology Fashion on Organizations , 2010, MIS Q..

[45]  Tridas Mukhopadhyay,et al.  Information Technology and Organizational Learning: An Empirical Analysis , 2004, ICIS.

[46]  U. Haner.  Innovation quality—a conceptual framework , 2002 .

[47]  Björn Häckel,et al.  The Error Of Fixed Strategies In IT Innovation Investment Decisions , 2013, ECIS.

[48]  Erik Brynjolfsson,et al.  That Makes a Competitive Difference , 2008 .

[49]  Harvey M. Wagner,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis , 1995, Oper. Res..

[50]  E. B. Swanson,et al.  Information systems innovation among organizations , 1994 .

[51]  K. Guy,et al.  Innovation and competitiveness: a review , 1998 .

[52]  Florian Moser,et al.  Evaluating IT Fashion Investments regarding Risk and Return , 2011, AMCIS.

[53]  Samir Chatterjee,et al.  A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research , 2008 .

[54]  Kwok Kee Wei,et al.  Organizational Learning Process: Its Antecedents and Consequences in Enterprise System Implementation , 2006, J. Glob. Inf. Manag..

[55]  Heidrun C. Hoppe.  Second-mover advantages in the strategic adoption of new technology under uncertainty , 2000 .

[56]  Florian Moser,et al.  Evaluating Different IT Innovation Investment Strategies from an Ex Ante and Ex Post Evaluation Perspective , 2016 .

[57]  K. Peffers,et al.  Rewards to Investors in Innovative Information Technology Applications: First Movers and Early Followers in ATMs , 1995 .

[58]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Developing Theory Through Simulation Methods , 2006 .

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

[60]  Edmund Chattoe-Brown.  Just How (Un)realistic Are Evolutionary Algorithms As Representations of Social Processes , 1998 .

[61]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Electronic Data Interchange and Small Organizations: Adoption and Impact of Technology , 1995, MIS Q..

[62]  E. Burton Swanson,et al.  Innovating Mindfully with Information Technology , 2004, MIS Q..

[63]  R. Handler,et al.  IT Portfolio Management: Unlocking the Business Value of Technology , 2005 .

[64]  Donna B. Stoddard,et al.  Business reengineering at CIGNA Corporation: experiences and lessons learned from the first five years , 1994 .

[65]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  Now the learning curve affects CASE tool adoption , 1992, IEEE Software.

[66]  Michel Benaroch,et al.  Managing Information Technology Investment Risk: A Real Options Perspective , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[67]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  Implementation, Innovation, and Related Themes Over The Years In Information Systems Research , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[68]  H. Varian.  Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach , 1987 .

[69]  Björn Häckel,et al.  Organizational Learning and the Error of Fixed Strategies in IT Innovation Investment Evaluation , 2013, ICIS.

[70]  Eric K. Clemons,et al.  Strategic Information Technology Investments: Guidelines for Decision Making , 1990, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[71]  David A. Nadler,et al.  The organization of the future: Strategic imperatives and core competencies for the 21st century , 1999 .