A PLS Path Modeling Approach on the Cause-and-Effect Relationships among BSC Critical Success Factors for IT Organizations

PLS 경로모형을 이용한 IT 조직의 BSC 성공요인간의 인과관계 분석

  • Published : 2007.12.31

Abstract

Measuring Information Technology(IT) organizations' activities have been limited to mainly measure financial indicators for a long time. However, according to the multifarious functions of Information System, a number of researches have been done for the new trends on measurement methodologies that come with financial measurement as well as new measurement methods. Especially, the researches on IT Balanced Scorecard(BSC), concept from BSC measuring IT activities have been done as well in recent years. BSC provides more advantages than only integration of non-financial measures in a performance measurement system. The core of BSC rests on the cause-and-effect relationships between measures to allow prediction of value chain performance measures to allow prediction of value chain performance measures, communication, and realization of the corporate strategy and incentive controlled actions. More recently, BSC proponents have focused on the need to tie measures together into a causal chain of performance, and to test the validity of these hypothesized effects to guide the development of strategy. Kaplan and Norton[2001] argue that one of the primary benefits of the balanced scorecard is its use in gauging the success of strategy. Norreklit[2000] insist that the cause-and-effect chain is central to the balanced scorecard. The cause-and-effect chain is also central to the IT BSC. However, prior researches on relationship between information system and enterprise strategies as well as connection between various IT performance measurement indicators are not so much studied. Ittner et al.[2003] report that 77% of all surveyed companies with an implemented BSC place no or only little interest on soundly modeled cause-and-effect relationships despite of the importance of cause-and-effect chains as an integral part of BSC. This shortcoming can be explained with one theoretical and one practical reason[Blumenberg and Hinz, 2006]. From a theoretical point of view, causalities within the BSC method and their application are only vaguely described by Kaplan and Norton. From a practical consideration, modeling corporate causalities is a complex task due to tedious data acquisition and following reliability maintenance. However, cause-and effect relationships are an essential part of BSCs because they differentiate performance measurement systems like BSCs from simple key performance indicator(KPI) lists. KPI lists present an ad-hoc collection of measures to managers but do not allow for a comprehensive view on corporate performance. Instead, performance measurement system like BSCs tries to model the relationships of the underlying value chain in cause-and-effect relationships. Therefore, to overcome the deficiencies of causal modeling in IT BSC, sound and robust causal modeling approaches are required in theory as well as in practice for offering a solution. The propose of this study is to suggest critical success factors(CSFs) and KPIs for measuring performance for IT organizations and empirically validate the casual relationships between those CSFs. For this purpose, we define four perspectives of BSC for IT organizations according to Van Grembergen's study[2000] as follows. The Future Orientation perspective represents the human and technology resources needed by IT to deliver its services. The Operational Excellence perspective represents the IT processes employed to develop and deliver the applications. The User Orientation perspective represents the user evaluation of IT. The Business Contribution perspective captures the business value of the IT investments. Each of these perspectives has to be translated into corresponding metrics and measures that assess the current situations. This study suggests 12 CSFs for IT BSC based on the previous IT BSC's studies and COBIT 4.1. These CSFs consist of 51 KPIs. We defines the cause-and-effect relationships among BSC CSFs for IT Organizations as follows. The Future Orientation perspective will have positive effects on the Operational Excellence perspective. Then the Operational Excellence perspective will have positive effects on the User Orientation perspective. Finally, the User Orientation perspective will have positive effects on the Business Contribution perspective. This research tests the validity of these hypothesized casual effects and the sub-hypothesized causal relationships. For the purpose, we used the Partial Least Squares approach to Structural Equation Modeling(or PLS Path Modeling) for analyzing multiple IT BSC CSFs. The PLS path modeling has special abilities that make it more appropriate than other techniques, such as multiple regression and LISREL, when analyzing small sample sizes. Recently the use of PLS path modeling has been gaining interests and use among IS researchers in recent years because of its ability to model latent constructs under conditions of nonormality and with small to medium sample sizes(Chin et al., 2003). The empirical results of our study using PLS path modeling show that the casual effects in IT BSC significantly exist partially in our hypotheses.

Keywords

References

  1. 박주석, 정호원, 최경규, "공공부문 정보화 투자평가를 위한 BSC 기법연구," 한국사회와 행정연구, 제16권, 제3호, 2005, pp. 201- 224
  2. 임영희, 손명호, 이희석, "IT 균형성과표를 활용한 IT 성과지표 가중치 비교분석," 경영학연구, 제34권, 제6호, 2005, pp. 1807-1828
  3. 한국전산원, "업종별 정보화 경제성 분석 및 실행지침 개발," 한국전산원, 2001
  4. Barney, J.B., "Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantages," Journal of Manage- ment, Vol. 17, 1991, pp. 99-120
  5. Blumenberg, S.A. and Hinz, D.J., "Enhanc- ing the Prognostic Power of IT Balanced Scorecards with Bayesian Belief Networks," 39th Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-39), 2006
  6. Chin, W.W., "The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling," in Marcoulides, G.A. (Eds), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1998, pp. 295-336
  7. Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., and Newsted, P.R., "A Partial Least Squares Latent Vari- able Modeling Approach for Measuring Inter- action Effects: Results from a Monte Ca- rlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study," Information Systems Research, Vol. 14, No. 2, June 2003, pp. 189-217 https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018
  8. Cohen, J., Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988
  9. Edberg, D.T., "Creating a Balanced is Measurement Program," Information Systems Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, Spring 1997, pp. 32-40 https://doi.org/10.1080/10580539708907043
  10. Erik, B., "The Productivity Paradox of Infor- mation Technology," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 36, No. 12, Dec 1993, pp. 66-77
  11. Fornell, C.R. and Cha, J., "Partial Least Squares," in Bagozzi, R.P. (Ed.), Advanced Methods of Marketing Research, Blackwell, Oxford, 1994, pp. 57-78
  12. Fornell, C.R. and Larcker, D.F., "Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, 1981, pp. 39-50 https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
  13. GAO, "Executive guide: Measuring Performance and Demonstrating Results of Information Technology Investments," GAO/AIMD-98-89, 1998
  14. Gold. R.S., "Enabling the Strategy-Focused IT Organization," Information Systems Control Journal, Vol. 4, 2002, pp. 21-23
  15. Grover, V. and Teng, J., "The Decision to Outsource Information Systems Function," Journal of Systems Management, Vol. 44 No. 11, November 1993, pp. 34-38
  16. Hess, M. and Walton, W., "Balanced scorecards vs IT Scorecard: What's Different?" Gartner, 1998
  17. IT Governance Institute, Board Briefing on IT Governance, IT Governance Institute (Available on http://www.itgi.org), 2001
  18. IT Governance Institute, Board Briefing on IT Governance, 2nd edition, IT Governance Institute(Available on http://www.itgi.org), 2003
  19. IT Governance Institute, Control Objectives Management Guidelines Maturity Models 4.0, ITGI, 2005
  20. IT Governance Institute, Control Objectives Management Guidelines Maturity Models 4.1, ITGI, 2007
  21. Ittner, C.D., Larcker, D.F., and Randall, T., "Performance Implications of Strategic Performance Measurement in Financial Services Firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 28, No. 7-8, October-November 2003, pp. 715-741 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00033-3
  22. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., "The Balanced Scorecard-Measures that Drive Performance," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70, No. 1, January/February 1992, pp. 71-79
  23. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., The Balanced Scorecard-Translating Strategy into Action, Boston, Harvard Business School Press, 1996
  24. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., "Having Trouble with Your Strategy? Then Map It," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, No. 5, September/October 2000, pp. 167-176
  25. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., The Strategy- Focused Organization, Harvard Business School Press, 2001
  26. Malina, M.A., Selto, F.H., "Communicating and Controlling Strategy: An Empirical Study of the Effectiveness of the Balanced Scorecard," Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 13, 2001, pp. 48-90
  27. Martinsons, M., Davison, R., and Tse, D., "The Balanced Scorecard: A Foundation for Strategic Management of Information Systems," Decision Support Systems, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1999, pp. 71-88 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(98)00086-4
  28. Mcfalan F.W. and Nolan R. L., "How to Manage an IT Outsourcing Alliance," Sloan Management review, 1995, pp. 9-23
  29. Meyerson, B., "Using a Balanced Scorecard Framework to Leverage the Value delivered by IS," Eds., W. Van Grembergen: Information Technology Evaluation Methods and Management," IDEA Group Publishing, Hershey PA, 2001, pp. 212-230
  30. Niven, P.R., Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step for Government and Nonprofit Agencies, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, 2003
  31. Norreklit, H., "The Balance on the Balanced Scorecard: A Critical Analysis of Some of its Assumptions," Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, 2000, pp. 65-88 https://doi.org/10.1006/mare.1999.0121
  32. Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978
  33. Saull, R., "The IT Balanced Scorecard-A Roadmap to Effective Governance of a Shared services IT Organization," Information Systems Control Journal, Vol. 2, 2000, pp. 31-38 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010041819361
  34. Smithson, S. and Hirschheim, R., "Analyzing Information Systems Evaluation: Another Look at an Old Problem," European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1998, pp. 158-174 https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000304
  35. Speckbacher, G., Bischof, J., and Pfeiffer, T., "A Descriptive Analysis on the Implementation of Balanced Scorecards in German-speaking Countries," Management Accounting Re- search, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2003, pp. 361-387 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2003.10.001
  36. Strassman, P., "Computers Are Yet to Make Companies More Productive," Computerworld, Sep 15, 1997
  37. Tayler, W., "The Balanced Scorecard As A Strategy-Evaluation Tool: The Effects of Responsibility and Causal-Chain Focus," Working Paper, Cornell University, 2006
  38. Temme, D., Kreis, H., and Hildebrandt, L., "PLS Path Modeling-A Software Review," SFB 649 Discussion Papers, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany, 2006
  39. Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.-M., and Lauro, C., "PLS Path Modeling," Computa- tional Statistics & Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1, 2005, pp. 159-205 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.03.005
  40. Van Grembergen, W. and Van Bruggen, R., "Measuring and Improving Corporate Information Technology through the Balanced Scorecard Technique," Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on the Evaluation of Information Technology, Delft, October 1997, pp. 163-171
  41. Van Grembergen, W. and Timmerman, D., "Monitoring the IT Process through the Balanced Scorecard," Proceedings of the 9th Information Resources Management (IRMA) International Conference, Boston, May 1998, pp. 105-116
  42. Van Grembergen, W. "The Balanced Scorecard and IT Governance," Information Systems Control Journal (previously IS Audit & Control Journal), Vol. 2, 2000, pp. 40-43
  43. Van Grembergen, W. and Saull, R., "Infor- mation Technology Governance through the Balanced Scorecard," eds. W. Van Grember- gen, in: Information Technology Evaluation Methods and Management, IDEA Group Publish- ing, Hershey PA, 2001, pp. 199-211
  44. Van Grembergen, W., Strategies for Informa- tion Technology Governance, Idea Group Publishing, 2003
  45. Van Grembergen, W., De Haes, S., and Guldentops, E., "Structures, Processes and Relational Mechanisms for Information Technology Governance: Theories and Prac- tices," eds. W. Van Grembergen, in Strate- gies for Information Technology Governance, Idea Group Publishing, 2003
  46. Van Grembergen, W. and De Haes, S., "Mea- suring and Improving IT Governance throu- gh the Balanced Scorecard," Information Sys- tems Control Journal, Vol. 2, 2005. pp. 35-42