Value Implications of Investments in Information Technology

References

• Abarbanell J., Bushee B. Fundamental analysis, future earnings, and stock prices. J. Accounting Res. (1997) 35(1):1–24Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amir E. The market valuation of accounting information: The case of postretirement benefits other than pensions. Accounting Rev. (1993) 68(4):703–724Google Scholar
• Armstrong C., Sambamurthy V. Information technology assimilation in firms: The influence of senior leadership and IT infrastructures. Inform. Systems Res. (1999) 10(1):304–327Link, Google Scholar
• Barney J. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy. Management Sci. (1986) 32(10):1231–1241Link, Google Scholar
• Belsley D., Kuh E., Welsch R.Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Collinearity (1980) (Wiley, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bharadwaj A. A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quart. (2000) 24(1):169–196Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bharadwaj A., Bharadwaj S., Konsynski B. Information technology effects on firm performance as measured by Tobin's q. Management Sci. (1999) 45(7):1008–1024Link, Google Scholar
• Bowen T. Did Y2K brace IT for new Storms? InfoWorld (2000) April 10):91Google Scholar
• Brynjolfsson E. The productivity paradox of information technology. Comm. ACM (1993) 36(12):66–77Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brynjolfsson E., Hitt L. Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending. Management Sci. (1996) 42(4):541–558Link, Google Scholar
• Brynjolfsson E., Yang S. Intangible benefits and costs of computer investments: Evidence from the financial market. (1999) . Working paper, MIT Sloan School, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
• Brynjolfsson E., Hitt L., Yang S. Intangible assets: Computers and organizational capital. Brookings Papers Econom. Activity (2002) 1):137–199Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buchner M. Year 2000—Disaster or opportunity? Midrange Systems (1999) September 13):20Google Scholar
• Carr N. IT doesn't matter. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2003) 81(May):41–50Google Scholar
• Carr N.Does IT Matter: Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive Advantage (2004) (Harvard Business School Publishing, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Chandler A.Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (1962) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Chatterjee D., Richardson V., Zmud R. Examining the shareholder wealth effects of new CIO position announcements. MIS Quart. (2001) 25(1):43–70Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen E., Dixon W. Estimates of parameters of a censored regression sample. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1972) 67(339):664–671Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clemons E., Row M. Sustaining IT advantage: The role of structural differences. MIS Quart. (1991) 15(3):275–292Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dehning B., Richardson V., Zmud R. The value relevance of announcements of transformational information technology investments. MIS Quart. (2003) 27(4):637–656Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dixit A., Nalebuff B.Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics and Everyday Life (1991) (Norton, New York) Google Scholar
• Dos Santos B., Peffers K., Mauer D. The impact of information technology investment announcements on the market value of the firm. Inform. Systems Res. (1993) 4(1):1–23Link, Google Scholar
• Foremski T. U.S. sector—Companies focus on task of reinvention. Financial Times (1999) May 26, Survey Edition 1999):4LondonGoogle Scholar
• Gormley J., Bluestein W., Gatoff J., Chun H. The runaway costs of packaged applications. The Forrester Report (1998) 3(Forrester Research, Cambridge, MA) 5Google Scholar
• Granger C. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica (1969) 37(3):424–438Crossref, Google Scholar
• Griliches Z. Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell J. Econom. (1979) 10(1):92–116Crossref, Google Scholar
• Griliches Z. Market value, R&D, and patents. Econom. Lett. (1981) 7:183–187Crossref, Google Scholar
• Griliches Z., Cockburn I. Industry effects and the appropriability measures in the stock market's valuation of R&D and patents. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1988) 78(2):419–423Google Scholar
• Hall B. The stock market's valuation of R&D investment during the 1980s. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1993a) 83(2):259–264Google Scholar
• Hall B. Industrial research during the 1980s: Did the rate of return fall? Brookings Papers Econom. Activity: Microeconomics (1993b) 1993(2):289–343Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall B., Barrell R., Mason G., O'Mahoney M. Innovation and market value. Productivity, Innovation and Economic Performance (2000) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) 177–198Google Scholar
• Hausman J. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica (1978) 46(6):1251–1271Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitt L., Wu D., Zhou X. Investment in enterprise resource planning: Business impact and productivity measures. J. Management Inform. Systems (2002) 19(1):71–98Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hopkins J., Kessler M. Companies squander billions on tech. USA Today (2002) May 19):A1Google Scholar
• Im K., Dow K., Grover V. A reexamination of IT investment and the market value of the firm—An event study methodology. Inform. Systems Res. (2001) 12(1):103–117Link, Google Scholar
• Kennedy P.A Guide to Econometrics (1987) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Kong D., Seipel T. Was it worth it? Y2K cost is hundred billion dollar question without answer yet. San Jose Mercury News (2000) January 2):1FGoogle Scholar
• Krasker W., Kuh E., Welsch R., Griliches Z., Intriligator M. Estimation for dirty data and flawed models. Handbook of Econometrics (1983) (North Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) 652–698Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kudlow L. Opinion: Y2K cost was investment in productivity. Bridge News (2000) January 4Google Scholar
• Lev B., Sougiannis T. The capitalization, amortization, and value-relevance of R&D. J. Accounting Econom. (1996) 21(1):107–138Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liebmann L. Drug companies use IT to cure what ails them. InformationWeek (1999) September 27):241–245Google Scholar
• Manchester P. Year 2000 pressures. Financial Times (1999) May 26, Survey Edition):3LondonGoogle Scholar
• Mata F., Fuerst W., Barney J. Information technology and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based analysis. MIS Quart. (1995) 19(4):487–505Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milgrom P., Roberts J. Complementarities and fit: Strategy, structure and organizational change in manufacturing. J. Accounting Econom. (1995) 19(2):179–208Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mozes H. Modelling growth in the annual earnings time series. J. Bus. Finance Accounting (1992) 19(6):817–837Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ohlson J. Earnings, book values, and dividends in security valuation. Contemporary Accounting Res. (1995) 11(2):661–687Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porter M. Creating advantage. Executive Excellence (1999) 6(11):13–14Google Scholar
• Rubin P. The expansion of firms. J. Political Econom. (1973) 81(4):936–949Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rumelt R. Diversification strategy and profitability. Strategic Management J. (1982) 3(4):359–369Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rumelt R., Teece D. Theory, strategy and entrepreneurship. The Competitive Challenge (1987) (Balinger Publishing, Cambridge, MA) 137–157Google Scholar
• SAP America, Inc. Mobil scales new heights within its Everest Project by implementing SAP Tinker-Enterprise Solutions globally. Business Wire (1999a) September 9Google Scholar
• SAP America, Inc. Rayovac teams with SAP on seamless ‘big bang’ implementation at eight North American locations in less than 14 months. Business Wire (1999b) August 3Google Scholar
• Scannell E. IDC estimates $70 billion in overspending on Y2K work. InfoWorld (2000) January 5). http://www.infoworld.com/articles/ec/xml/00/01/05/000105ecidcy2k.htmlGoogle Scholar
• Schein E., Kochan T., Useem M. The role of the CEO in the management of change: The case of information technology. Transforming Organizations (1992) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) 80–95Crossref, Google Scholar
• SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) Interpretation: Disclosure of year 2000 issues and consequences by public companies, investment advisers, investment companies and municipal securities issuers. (1998) . (July 30), http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7558.htmGoogle Scholar
• Shapiro S., Wilk M. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika (1965) 52(3/4):591–611Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sloan R. Do stock prices fully reflect information in accruals and cash flows about future earnings? Accounting Rev. (1996) 71(3):289–315Google Scholar
• Strassman P. The Y2K ransom. Computerworld (2000) 34(2):47(January 10)Google Scholar
• Teece D., Teece D. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. The Competitive Challenge (1987) (Balinger Publishing, Cambridge, MA) 185–219Google Scholar
• Telberg R. The top 100: Hitting new highs with heady growth. Accounting Today (2000) March 13–April 2, supplement):4–6Google Scholar
• Tirole J.The Theory of Industrial Organization (1988) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Vitale M. The growing risks of information systems success. MIS Quart. (1986) 10(4):327–334Crossref, Google Scholar
• Watts R., Leftwich R. The time series of annual accounting earnings. J. Accounting Res. (1977) 15(2):253–271Crossref, Google Scholar
• White H. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica (1980) 48(4):817–838Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson O.Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (1975) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Xenakis J. Nothing but net: Part 1 of 3. CFO (2000) 16(2):75–78Google Scholar
• Zellner A., Theil H. Three stage least squares: Simultaneous estimation of simultaneous equations. Econometrica (1962) 30(1):54–78Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuboff S. Automate/informate: The two faces of intelligent technology. Organ. Dynam. (1985) 14(2):5–18Crossref, Google Scholar