IT as a Resource for Competitive Agility: an Analysis of Firm Performance during Industry Turbulence

INTRODUCTION The contemporary business environment is marked by increasing intensity of competition and a fast pace of change in markets and customer expectations. It is therefore becoming increasingly crucial that firms obtain and exercise the ability to rapidly sense and respond to changes in their environment. This ability is known generally as agility (Dove, 2001) and has been referred to as "strategic agility" (Weill, Subramani, & Broadbent, 2002), "competitive agility" (Goldman, Nagel, & Preiss, 1995), "business agility" (Mathiassen & Pries-Heje, 2006), and "enterprise agility" (Overby, Bharadwaj, & Sambamurthy, 2006) over the course of much recent discussion about this key ingredient to success. We choose the term competitive agility since an agile business will gain a competitive advantage by quickly collecting information about and making sense of changes in its environment, and efficiently responding in kind. Competitive agility is particularly relevant when firms operate in complex and turbulent markets. More "agile" firms attempt to seize competitive advantage in a disruptive period through innovative products, services, and alliances. As part of the endeavor to understand how IT facilitates competitive advantage (Evans & Neu, 2008; Lea, 2005), researchers hypothesize that IT capability enables firms to gather and assimilate information more quickly and effectively and thereby improves their competitive agility in responding to market disruptions (Overby et al., 2006; Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, & Grover, 2003). If so, IT is an enabler of agility and investment in IT will in turn impact the ultimate success of a firm. In fact, for many decades the relationship between investment in IT and firm performance has been tested to varying degrees of success. Researchers have cited conflicting anecdotal and case evidence with regard to the link between IT investment and firm performance. Several studies (Bharadwaj, 2000; Bharadwaj, Bharadwaj, & Konsynski, 1999; Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 1995, 1996, 2003; Dewan & Min, 1997; Melville, Kraemer, Gurbaxani, 2004) have found a positive relation between firm performance and IT expenditures. These studies measure performance in terms of firm productivity/output. A few studies with similar findings supporting the relationship between IT and firm performance have used financial measures of performance (Bharadwaj 2000; Bharadwaj et al., 1999; Kobelsky et al., 2008). Still, other studies failed to find conclusive evidence of the business value of IT (Cron & Sobol, 1983; Stiroh, 1998) and even found some cases of diminishing returns (Evans & Morton, 2004). Researchers refer to the surprising lack of empirical evidence that IT expenditures benefit firms as the "productivity paradox" which has even led to a fierce debate over whether or not IT "matters" (Carr, 2003a, 2003b). Data problems (Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 1996), sample size, data source, and industry (Kohli & Devaraj, 2003) have all been said to affect the findings in information technology payoff studies. Furthermore, even when correlations are detected, direction of causality is often in question. The analysis that follows uses a unique methodological approach to elucidate its IT payoff findings. In addition, there has been little research that examines the impact of industry conditions on the relationship between IT investment and firm performance. Therefore, the following research study identifies this relationship specifically in times of industry turbulence (downturn or growth). Study of the relationship between IT investment and firm performance in the context of industry turbulence will give us insight into the success of IT investments in their role of enhancing the agility of the firms they serve. RESEARCH QUESTION Thus, the goal of the current study is to explore whether IT enhances a firm's agility. To determine this, the following research question underlies our study. …

[1]  Allen M. Weiss,et al.  Marketing in Turbulent Environments: Decision Processes and the Time-Sensitivity of Information , 1993 .

[2]  P. Weill,et al.  Building IT Infrastructure for Strategic Agility , 2002 .

[3]  Marion G. Sobol,et al.  The relationship between computerization and performance: A strategy for maximizing the economic benefits of computerization , 1983, Inf. Manag..

[4]  G. Evans,et al.  The Use of Strategic Forces to Understand Competitive Advantages Provided by Information Technology , 2008, Journal of International Technology and Information Management.

[5]  Elizabeth M. Daniel,et al.  The role of dynamic capabilities in e-business transformation , 2003, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[6]  Dirk S. Hovorka,et al.  Enabling agile adoption practices through network organizations , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[7]  Jos van Hillegersberg,et al.  Towards agility in design in global component-based development , 2008, CACM.

[8]  Sundar G. Bharadwaj,et al.  Information Technology Effects on Firm Performance as Measured by Tobin's q , 1999 .

[9]  Eric Overby,et al.  Enterprise agility and the enabling role of information technology , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  From IT Leveraging Competence to Competitive Advantage in Turbulent Environments: The Case of New Product Development , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[11]  Bernard J. Jaworski,et al.  Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences , 1993 .

[12]  Grover S. Kearns,et al.  The Role of Convergence in Information Systems and Business Planning , 2006, Journal of International Technology and Information Management.

[13]  Jos van Hillegersberg,et al.  Change factors requiring agility and implications for IT , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

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

[15]  Jos van Hillegersberg,et al.  Aligning IT components to achieve agility in globally distributed system development , 2006, CACM.

[16]  Wallace J. Hopp,et al.  Performance Opportunity for Workforce Agility in Collaborative and Noncollaborative Work Systems , 2001 .

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

[18]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  Business agility and diffusion of information technology , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[19]  Sabine B. Reddy,et al.  Competitive agility and the challenge of legacy information systems , 2002, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[20]  R. Nagel,et al.  Agile Competitors and Virtual Organizations: Strategies for Enriching the Customer , 1994 .

[21]  Denise Johnson McManus,et al.  Information Infrastructure Centrality in the Agile Organization , 2002, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[22]  E. Brynjolfsson,et al.  Information Technology As A Factor Of Production: The Role Of Differences Among Firms , 1995 .

[23]  Mark Strathern,et al.  Workforce agility: the new employee strategy for the knowledge economy , 2002, J. Inf. Technol..

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

[25]  Robert W. Palmatier,et al.  Effect of Service Transition Strategies on Firm Value , 2008 .

[26]  E. Brynjolfsson,et al.  Computing Productivity: Firm-Level Evidence , 2003, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[27]  Rakesh Nagi,et al.  A review of agile manufacturing systems , 2001 .

[28]  S. Titman,et al.  Financial Distress and Corporate Performance , 1994 .

[29]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Making Fast Strategic Decisions In High-Velocity Environments , 1989 .

[30]  Neil Morton,et al.  Empirical Evidence of Diminishing Payoff from Successive Generations of Information Systems , 2004 .

[31]  Chung-ki Min,et al.  The substitution of information technology for other factors of production: a Firm Level Analysis , 1997 .

[32]  J. Baum,et al.  STRATEGIC DECISION SPEED AND FIRM PERFORMANCE , 2003 .

[33]  Kevin J. Stiroh,et al.  Computers, Productivity, and Input Substitution , 1998 .

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

[35]  Bih-Ru Lea Leveraging Information Technology to Gain Competitive Advantage: A Case Study on General Electric Consumer Products , 2005 .

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

[37]  P. Schoemaker,et al.  Strategic assets and organizational rent , 1993 .

[38]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES, WHAT ARE THEY? , 2000 .

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

[40]  Dorothy E. Leidner,et al.  How CIOs Manage IT During Economic Decline: Surviving and Thriving Amid Uncertainty , 2003, MIS Q. Executive.

[41]  Raphael Kaplinsky,et al.  Developing manufacturing agility in SMEs , 2000, Int. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag..

[42]  Rick Dove,et al.  Response Ability: The Language, Structure, and Culture of the Agile Enterprise , 2001 .

[43]  Rajiv Kohli,et al.  Measuring Information Technology Payoff: A Meta - Analysis of Structural Variables in Firm - Level Empirical Research , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..