Sequential IT Investment: Can the Risk of IT Implementation Failure Be Your Friend?

References

• Andriole S (2016) The death of big software—How complexity/cloud/cost/digital transformation killed the code giants. Forbes Online (June 14), https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveandriole/2016/06/14/the-death-of-big-software-how-complexitycloudcostdigital-transformation-killed-the-code-giants.Google Scholar
• Aral S, Weill P (2007) IT assets, organizational capabilities, and firm performance: How resource allocations and organizational differences explain performance variation. Organ. Sci. 18(5):763–780.Google Scholar
• Arrow K (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research & Committee on Economic Growth of the Social Science Research Council, Authors, eds. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ), 609–626.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barua A, Kriebel CH, Mukhopadhyay T (1991) An economic analysis of strategic information technology investments. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 15(3):313–331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessen J, Maskin E (2009) Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation. RAND J. Econom. 40(4):611–635.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L (1996) Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending. Management Sci. 42(4):541–558.Link, Google Scholar
• Carpenter GS, Nakamoto K (1989) Consumer preference formation and pioneering advantage. J. Marketing Res. 26(3):285–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carr NG (2003) IT doesn’t matter. Harvard Bus. Rev. 81:41–49.Google Scholar
• Choi JP (1993) Cooperative R&D with product market competition. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 11(4):553–571.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christen M (2005) Research note—Cost uncertainty is bliss: The effect of competition on the acquisition of cost information for pricing new products. Management Sci. 51(4):668–676.Link, Google Scholar
• d’Aspremont C, Jacquemin A (1988) Cooperative and noncooperative R & D in duopoly with spillovers. Amer. Econom. Rev. 78(5):1133–1137.Google Scholar
• d’Aspremont C, Gabszewicz JJ, Thisse JF (1979) On Hotelling’s “Stability in competition.” Econometrica 47(5):1145–1150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Demirhan D, Jacob VS, Raghunathan S (2005) Information technology investment strategies under declining technology cost. J. Management Inform. Systems 22(3):321–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Demirhan D, Jacob VS, Raghunathan S (2007) Strategic IT investments: The impact of switching cost and declining IT cost. Management Sci. 53(2):208–226.Link, Google Scholar
• Dwivedi YK, Wastell D, Laumer S, Henriksen HZ, Myers MD, Bunker D, Elbanna A, Ravishankar MN, Srivastava SC (2015) Research on information systems failures and successes: Status update and future directions. Inform. Systems Frontiers 17(1):143–157.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fudenberg D, Tirole J (1984) The fat-cat effect, the puppy-dog ploy, and the lean and hungry look. Amer. Econom. Rev. 74(2):361–366.Google Scholar
• Green JR, Scotchmer S (1995) On the division of profit in sequential innovation. RAND J. Econom. 26(1):20–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitt LM, Brynjolfsson E (1996) Productivity, business profitability, and consumer surplus: Three different measures of information technology value. MIS Quart. 121–142.Google Scholar
• Hoppe HC (2000) Second-mover advantages in the strategic adoption of new technology under uncertainty. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 18(2):315–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hotelling H (1929) Stability in competition. Econom. J. (London) 39(153):41–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kerin RA, Varadarajan PR, Peterson RA (1992) First-mover advantage: A synthesis, conceptual framework, and research propositions. J. Marketing 56(4):33–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lieberman MB, Montgomery DB (1988) First‐mover advantages. Strategic Management J. 9(S1):41–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lieberman MB, Montgomery DB (1998) First-mover (dis) advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource-based view. Strategic Management J. 19(12):1111–1125.Google Scholar
• Matsumura T, Matsushima N (2004) Endogenous cost differentials between public and private enterprises: A mixed duopoly approach. Economica 71(284):671–688.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson RR (2007) IT project management: Infamous failures, classic mistakes, and best practices. MIS Quart. Executive 6(2):67–78.Google Scholar
• Radner R (2003) Viscous demand. J. Econom. Theory 112(2):189–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reinganum JF (1983) Uncertain innovation and the persistence of monopoly. Amer. Econom. Rev. 73(4):741–748.Google Scholar
• Reinganum JF (1989) The timing of innovation: Research, development, and diffusion. Schmalensee RL, Willig RD, eds., Handbook of Industrial Organization, vol. 1 (North Holland), 849–908.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ren F, Dewan S (2015) Industry-level analysis of information technology return and risk: what explains the variation? J. Management Inform. Systems 32(2):71–103.Google Scholar
• Schmalensee R (1978) Entry deterrence in the ready-to-eat breakfast cereal industry. Bell J. Econom. 9(2):305–327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schumpeter JA (2010) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (Routledge, London), 81–87.Google Scholar
• Spence AM (1981) The learning curve and competition. Bell J. Econom. 12(1):49–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spulber DF (1995) Bertrand competition when rivals’ costs are unknown. J. Indust. Econom. 43(1):1–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thatcher ME, Pingry DE (2004) An economic model of product quality and IT value. Inform. Systems Res. 15(3):268–286.Link, Google Scholar
• Villas-Boas JM, Schmidt-Mohr U (1999) Oligopoly with asymmetric information: Differentiation in credit markets. RAND J. Econom. 30(3):375–396.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xin M, Choudhary V (2019) IT Investment under competition: The role of implementation failure. Management Sci. 65(4):1909–1925.Link, Google Scholar
• Zhu K, Weyant JP (2003) Strategic decisions of new technology adoption under asymmetric information: A game‐theoretic model. Decision Sci. 34(4):643–675.Crossref, Google Scholar