Jep 14 4 23

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 14, Number 4—Fall 2000—Pages 23–48
Beyond Computation: Information

Technology, Organizational
Transformation and Business
Performance
Erik Brynjolfsson and Lorin M. Hitt
H ow do computers contribute to business performance and economic growth?

Even today, most people who are asked to identify the strengths of computers
tend to think of computational tasks like rapidly multiplying large numbers.
Computers have excelled at computation since the Mark I (1939), the first modern
computer, and the ENIAC (1943), the first electronic computer without moving parts.
During World War II, the U.S. government generously funded research into tools for
calculating the trajectories of artillery shells. The result was the development of some of
the first digital computers with remarkable capabilities for calculation—the dawn of the
computer age.
However, computers are not fundamentally number crunchers. They are symbol
processors. The same basic technologies can be used to store, retrieve, organize, transmit,
and algorithmically transform any type of information that can be digitized—numbers,
text, video, music, speech, programs, and engineering drawings, to name a few. This is
fortunate because most problems are not numerical problems. Ballistics, code breaking,
parts of accounting, and bits and pieces of other tasks involve lots of calculation. But the
everyday activities of most managers, professionals, and information workers involve
other types of
y Erik Brynjolfsson is Associate Professor of Information Technology and Management,

Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts and Co-director of the Center for eBusiness at MIT. Lorin M. Hitt is
Assistant Professor of Operations and Information Management, Wharton School,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Their e-mail addresses are
^erikb@mit.edu& and ^lhitt@wharton.upenn.edu& and their websites are
24 Journal of Economic Perspectives
^http://ebusiness.mit.edu/erik& and ^http://grace.wharton.upenn.edu/;lhitt&,
respectively.
thinking. As computers become cheaper and more powerful, the business value of
computers is limited less by computational capability and more by the ability of managers
to invent new processes, procedures and organizational structures that leverage this
capability. As complementary innovations continue to develop, the applications of
computers will expand well beyond computation for the foreseeable future.
The fundamental economic role of computers becomes clearer if one thinks about
organizations and markets as information processors (Galbraith, 1977; Simon, 1976;
Hayek, 1945). Most of our economic institutions and intuitions emerged in an era of
relatively high communications cost and limited computational capability. Information
technology, defined as computers as well as related digital communication technology,
has the broad power to reduce the costs of coordination, communications, and
information processing. Thus, it is not surprising that the massive reduction in computing
and communications costs has engendered a substantial restructuring of the economy. The
majority of modern industries are being significantly affected by computerization.
As a result, information technology is best described not as a traditional capital
investment, but as a “general purpose technology” (Bresnahan and Trajtenberg, 1995). In
most cases, the economic contributions of general purpose technologies are substantially
larger than would be predicted by simply multiplying the quantity of capital investment
devoted to them by a normal rate of return. Instead, such technologies are economically
beneficial mostly because they facilitate complementary innovations.
Earlier general purpose technologies, such as the telegraph, the steam engine and the
electric motor, illustrate a pattern of complementary innovations that eventually lead to
dramatic productivity improvements. Some of the complementary innovations were
purely technological, such as Marconi’s “wireless” version of telegraphy. However, some
of the most interesting and productive developments were organizational innovations. For
example, the telegraph facilitated the formation of geographically dispersed enterprises
(Milgrom and Roberts, 1992); while the electric motor provided industrial engineers more
flexibility in the placement of machinery in factories, dramatically improving
manufacturing productivity by enabling workflow redesign (David, 1990). The steam
engine was at the root of a broad cluster of technological and organizational changes that
helped ignite the first industrial revolution.
In this paper, we review the evidence on how investments in information technology
are linked to higher productivity and organizational transformation, with emphasis on
studies conducted at the firm level. Our central argument is twofold: first, that a
significant component of the value of information technology is its ability to enable
complementary organizational investments such as business processes and work
practices; second, these investments, in turn, lead to productivity increases by reducing
costs and, more importantly, by enabling firms to increase output quality in the form of
new products or in improvements in intangible aspects of existing products like
convenience, timeliness, quality, and Erik Brynjolfsson and Lorin M. Hitt
25
variety.1 There is substantial evidence in both the case literature on individual firms and
multi-firm econometric analyses supporting both these points, which we review and
discuss in the first half of this paper. This emphasis on firm-level evidence stems in part
from our own research focus but also because firm-level analysis has significant
measurement advantages for examining intangible organizational investments and
product and service innovation associated with computers.
Moreover, as we argue in the latter half of the paper, these factors are not well
captured by traditional macroeconomic measurement approaches. As a result, the
economic contributions of computers are likely to be understated in aggregate level
analyses. Placing a precise number on this bias is difficult, primarily because of issues
about how private, firm-level returns aggregate to the social, economy-wide benefits and
assumptions required to incorporate complementary organizational factors into a growth
accounting framework. However, our analysis suggests that the returns to computer
investment may be substantially higher than what is assumed in traditional growth
accounting exercises. Furthermore, total capital stock (including intangible assets)
associated with the computerization of the economy may be understated by a factor of
ten. Taken together, these considerations suggest the bias is on the same order of
magnitude as the currently measured benefits of computers.
Thus, while the recent macroeconomic evidence about computer contributions is
encouraging, our views are more strongly influenced by the microeconomic data. The
micro data suggest that the surge in productivity that we now see in the macro statistics
has its roots in over a decade of computer-enabled organizational investments. The recent
productivity boom can in part be explained as a return on this large, but intangible form of
capital.
Case Examples
Companies using information technology to change the way they conduct business
often say that their investment in information technology complements changes in other
aspects of the organization. These complementarities have a number of implications for
understanding the value of computer investment. To be successful, firms typically need to
adopt computers as part of a “system” or “cluster” of mutually reinforcing organizational
changes (Milgrom and Roberts, 1990). Changing incrementally, either by making
computer investments without organizational change, or only partially implementing
some organizational changes, can create significant productivity losses as any benefits of
computerization are more than outweighed by negative interactions with existing
organizational practices (Brynjolfsson, Renshaw and Van Alstyne, 1997). The need for
“all or nothing” changes between complementary systems was part of the logic behind the
organizational reengineering wave of the 1990s and the slogan “Don’t Automate,
Obliterate” (Hammer, 1990). It can also explain why many large scale information
technology projects fail (Kemerer and Sosa, 1991), while successful information
technology adopters earn significant rents.
1 For a more general treatment of the literature on information technology value, see reviews by Brynjolfsson
(1993); Wilson (1995); and Brynjolfsson and Yang (1996). For a discussion of the problems in economic
measurement of computers contributions at the macroeconomic level, see Baily and Gordon (1988), Siegel
(1997), and Gullickson and Harper (1999).
Many of the past century’s most successful and popular organizational practices
reflect the historically high cost of information processing. For example, hierarchical
organizational structures can reduce communications costs because they minimize the
number of communications links required to connect multiple economic actors, as
compared with more decentralized structures (Malone, 1987; Radner, 1993). Similarly,
producing simple, standardized products is an efficient way to utilize inflexible, scale-
intensive manufacturing technology. However, as the cost of automated information
processing has fallen by over 99.9 percent since the 1960s, it is unlikely that the work
practices of the previous era will also be the same ones that best leverage the value of
cheap information and flexible production. In this spirit, Milgrom and Roberts (1990)
construct a model in which firms’ transition from “mass production” to flexible,
computer-enabled, “modern manufacturing” is driven by exogenous changes in the price
of information technology. Similarly, Bresnahan (1999) and Bresnahan, Brynjolfsson and
Hitt (2000) show how changes in information technology costs and capabilities lead to a
cluster of changes in work organization and firm strategy that increase the demand for
skilled labor.
In this section we will discuss case evidence on three aspects of how firms have
transformed themselves by combining information technology with changes in work
practices, strategy, and products and services; they have transformed the firm, supplier
relations, and the customer relationship. These examples provide qualitative insights into
the nature of the changes, making it easier to interpret the more quantitative econometric
evidence that follows.
Transforming the Firm

The need to match organizational structure to technology capabilities and the
challenges of making the transition to an information technology-intensive production
process is concisely illustrated by a case study of “MacroMed” (a pseudonym), a large
medical products manufacturer (Brynjolfsson, Renshaw and Van Alstyne, 1997). In a
desire to provide greater product customization and variety, MacroMed made a large
investment in computer integrated manufacturing. This investment also coincided with an
enumerated list of other major changes including: the elimination of piece rates, giving
workers authority for scheduling machines, changes in decision rights, process and
workflow innovation, more frequent and richer interactions with customers and suppliers,
increased lateral communication and teamwork, and other changes in skills, processes,
culture, and structure (see Table 1).
However, the new system initially fell well short of management expectations for
greater flexibility and responsiveness. Investigation revealed that line workers still
retained many elements of the now-obsolete old work practices, not necessarily from any
conscious effort to undermine the change effort, but simply as an Beyond Computation:
Information Technology and Organizational Transformation
Table 1
Work Practices at MacroMed as Described in the Corporate Vision Statement
(introduction of computer-based equipment was accompanied by a large set of
complementary changes)
27
Principles of the “old” factory Principles of the “new” factory
• Designated equipment • Flexible computer-based equipment

• Large inventories • Low inventories
• Pay tied to amount produced • All operators paid same flat rate
• Keep line running no matter what • Stop line if not running at speed
• Thorough final inspection by quality assurance • Operators responsible for quality
• Raw materials made in-house • All materials outsourced
• Narrow job functions • Flexible job responsibilities
• Areas separated by machine type • Areas organized in work cells
• Salaried employees make decisions • All employees contribute ideas
• Hourly workers carry them out • Supervisors can fill in on line
• Functional groups work independently • Concurrent engineering
• Vertical communication flow • Line rationalization
• Several management layers (6) • Few management layers (3–4)
inherited pattern. For example, one earnest and well-intentioned worker explained that
“the key to productivity is to avoid stopping the machine for product changeovers.” While
this heuristic was valuable with the old equipment, it negated the flexibility of the new
machines and created large work-in-process inventories. Ironically, the new equipment
was sufficiently flexible that the workers were able to get it to work much like the old
machines! The strong complementarities within the old cluster of work practices and
within the new cluster greatly hindered the transition from one to the other.
Eventually, management concluded that the best approach was to introduce the new
equipment in a “greenfield” site with a handpicked set of young employees who were
relatively unencumbered by knowledge of the old practices. The resulting productivity
improvements were significant enough that management ordered all the factory windows
painted black to prevent potential competitors from seeing the new system in action.
While other firms could readily buy similar computercontrolled equipment, they would
still have to make the much larger investments in organizational learning before fully
benefiting from them and the exact recipe for achieving these benefits was not trivial to
invent (see Brynjolfsson, Renshaw, and Van Alstyne, 1997 for details). Similarly, large
changes in work practices have been documented in case studies of information
technology adoption in a variety of settings (Hunter, Bernhardt, Hughes and Skuratowicz,
2000; Levy, Beamish, Murnane and Autor, 2000; Malone and Rockart, 1991; Murnane,
Levy and Autor, 1999; Orlikowski, 1992).
Changing Interactions with Suppliers

Due to problems coordinating with external suppliers, large firms often produce
many of their required inputs in-house. General Motors is the classic example of a
company whose success was facilitated by high levels of vertical integration. However,
technologies such as electronic data interchange, Internet-based procurement systems, and
other interorganizational information systems have significantly reduced the cost, time
and other difficulties of interacting with suppliers. For example, firms can place orders
with suppliers and receive confirmations electronically, eliminating paperwork and the
delays and errors associated with manual processing of purchase orders (Johnston and
Vitale, 1988). However, even greater benefits can be realized when interorganizational
systems are combined with new methods of working with suppliers.
An early successful interorganizational system is the Baxter ASAP system, which
lets hospitals electronically order supplies directly from wholesalers (Vitale and
Konsynski, 1988; Short and Venkatraman, 1992). The system was originally designed to
reduce the costs of data entry—a large hospital could generate 50,000 purchase orders
annually which had to be written out by hand by Baxter’s field sales representatives at an
estimated cost of $25-35 each. However, once Baxter computerized its ordering and had
data available on levels of hospital stock, it took increasing responsibility for the entire
supply operation: designing stockroom space, setting up computer-based inventory
systems, and providing automated inventory replenishment. The combination of the
technology and the new supply chain organization substantially improved efficiency for
both Baxter (no paper invoices, predictable order flow) and the hospitals (elimination of
stockroom management tasks, lower inventories, and less chance of running out of items).
Later versions of the ASAP system let users order from other suppliers, creating an
electronic marketplace in hospital supplies.
ASAP was directly associated with costs savings on the order of $10 to $15 million
per year, which allowed them to recover rapidly the $30 million up front investment and
approximately $3 million annual operating costs. However, management at Baxter
believed that even greater benefits were being realized through incremental product sales
at the 5500 hospitals that had installed the ASAP system, not to mention the possibility of
a reduction of logistics costs borne by the hospitals themselves, an expense which
consumes as much as 30 percent of a hospital’s budget.
Computer-based supply chain integration has been especially sophisticated in the
consumer packaged goods industries. Traditionally, manufacturers promoted products
such as soap and laundry detergent by offering discounts, rebates, or even cash payments
to retailers to stock and sell their products. Because many consumer products have long
shelf lives, retailers tended to buy massive amounts during promotional periods, which
increased volatility in manufacturing schedules and distorted manufacturers’ view of their
market. In response, manufacturers sped up their packaging changes to discourage
stockpiling of products and developed internal audit departments to monitor retailers’
purchasing behavior for contractual violations (Clemons, 1993).
To eliminate these inefficiencies, Procter and Gamble pioneered a program called
“efficient consumer response” (McKenney and Clark, 1995). In this approach, each
retailer’s checkout scanner data goes directly to the manufacturer; Erik Brynjolfsson and
Lorin M. Hitt
ordering, payments, and invoicing are fully automated through electronic data
interchange; products are continuously replenished on a daily basis; and promotional
efforts are replaced by an emphasis on “everyday low pricing.” Manufacturers also
involved themselves more in inventory decisions and moved toward “category
management,” where a lead manufacturer would take responsibility for an entire retail
category (say, laundry products), determining stocking levels for their own and other
manufacturers’ products, as well as complementary items.
These changes, in combination, greatly improved efficiency. Consumers benefited
from lower prices and increased product variety, convenience, and innovation. Without
the direct computer-computer links to scanner data and the electronic transfer of
29
payments and invoices, they could not have attained the levels of speed and accuracy
needed to implement such a system.
Technological innovations related to the commercialization of the Internet have
dramatically decreased the cost of building electronic supply chain links. Computer-
enabled procurement and on-line markets enable a reduction in input costs through a
combination of reduced procurement time and more predictable deliveries, which reduces
the need for buffer inventories and reduces spoilage for perishable products, reduced price
due to increasing price transparency and the ease of price shopping, and reduced direct
costs of purchase order and invoice processing. Where they can be implemented, these
innovations are estimated to lower the costs of purchased inputs by 10 to 40 percent,
depending on the industry (Goldman Sachs, 1999).
Some of these savings clearly represent a redistribution of rents from suppliers to
buyers, with little effect on overall economic output. However, many of the other changes
represent direct improvements in productivity through greater production efficiency and
indirectly by enabling an increase in output quality or variety without excessive cost. To
respond to these opportunities, firms are restructuring their supply arrangements and
placing greater reliance on outside contractors. Even General Motors, once the exemplar
of vertical integration, has reversed course and divested its large internal suppliers. As
one industry analyst recently stated, “What was once the greatest source of strength at
General Motors—its strategy of making parts in-house—has become its greatest
weakness” (Schnapp, 1998). To get some sense of the magnitude of this change, the
spinoff in 1999 of Delphi Automotive Systems, only one of GM’s many internal supply
divisions, created a separate company that by itself has $28 billion in sales.
Changing Customer Relationships

The Internet has opened up a new range of possibilities for enriching interactions
with customers. Dell Computer has succeeded in attracting customer orders and
improving service by placing configuration, ordering, and technical support capabilities
on the web (Rangan and Bell, 1999). It coupled this change with systems and work
practice changes that emphasize just-in-time inventory management, build-to-order
production systems, and tight integration between sales and production planning. Dell has
implemented a consumer-driven build-to-order business model, rather than using the
traditional build-to-stock model of selling computers through retail stores, which gives
Dell as much as a 10 percent advantage over its rivals in production cost. Some of these
savings represent the elimination of wholesale distribution and retailing costs. Others
reflect substantially lower levels of inventory throughout the distribution channel.
However, a subtle but important by-product of these changes in production and
distribution is that Dell can be more responsive to customers. When Intel releases a new
microprocessor, as it does several times each year, Dell can sell it to customers within
seven days compared to eight weeks or more for some less Internet-enabled competitors.
This is a nontrivial difference in an industry where adoption of new technology and
obsolescence of old technology is rapid, margins are thin, and many component prices
drop by 3 to 4 percent each month.
Other firms have also built closer relations with their customer via the web and
related technologies. For instance, web retailers like Amazon.com provide personalized
recommendations to visitors and allow them to customize numerous aspects of their
shopping experience. As described by Denise Caruso (1998), “Amazon’s on-line account
maintenance system provides its customers with secure access to everything about their
account at any time. [S]uch information flow to and from customers would paralyze most
old-line companies.” Merely providing Internet access to a traditional bookstore would
have had a relatively minimal impact without the cluster of other changes implemented by
firms like Amazon.
An increasingly ubiquitous example is using the web for handling basic customer
inquiries. For instance, UPS now handles a total of 700,000 package tracking requests via
the Internet every day. It costs UPS 10¢ per piece to serve that information via the Web
vs. $2 to provide it over the phone (Seybold and Marshak, 1998). Consumers benefit, too.
Because customers find it easier to track packages over the web than via the phone, UPS
estimates that two-thirds of the web users would not have bothered to check on their
packages if they did not have web access.
Large-Sample Empirical Evidence on Information Technology,

Organization and Productivity
The case study literature offers many examples of strong links between information
technology and investments in complementary organizational practices. However, to
reveal general trends and to quantify the overall impact, we must examine these effects
across a wide range of firms and industries. In this section we explore the results from
large-sample statistical analyses. First, we examine studies on the direct relationship
between information technology investment and business value. We then consider studies
that measured organizational factors and their correlation with information technology
use, as well as the few initial studies that have linked this relationship to productivity
increases.
Information Technology and Productivity

Much of the early research on the relationship between technology and productivity
used economy-level or sector-level data and found little evidence of a Beyond
Computation: Information Technology and Organizational Transformation
relationship. For example, Roach (1987) found that while computer investment per white-
collar worker in the service sector rose several hundred percent from 1977 to 1989, output
per worker, as conventionally measured, did not increase discernibly. In several papers,
Morrison and Berndt examined Bureau of Economic Analysis data for manufacturing
industries at the two-digit SIC level and found that the gross marginal product of “high-
tech capital” (including computers) was less than its cost and that in many industries these
supposedly labor-saving investments were associated with an increase in labor demand
(Berndt and Morrison, 1995; Morrison, 1996). Robert Solow (1987) summarized this kind
of pattern in his well-known remark: “[Y]ou can see the computer age everywhere except
in the productivity statistics.”
However, by the early 1990s, analyses at the firm-level were beginning to find
evidence that computers had a substantial effect on firms’ productivity levels. Using data
from over 300 large firms over the period 1988-92, Brynjolfsson and Hitt (1995, 1996)
31
and Lichtenberg (1995) estimated production functions that use the firm’s output (or
value-added) as the dependent variable and include ordinary capital, information
technology capital, ordinary labor, information technology labor, and a variety of dummy
variables for time, industry, and firm. 2 The pattern of these relationships is summarized in
Figure 1, which compares firm-level information technology investment with multifactor
productivity (excluding computers) for the firms in the Brynjolfsson and Hitt (1995)
dataset. There is a clear positive relationship, but also a great deal of individual variation
in firms’ success with information technology.
Estimates of the average annual contribution of computer capital to total output
generally exceed $.60 per dollar of capital stock often by a substantial margin, depending
on the analysis and specification (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 1995, 1996; Lichtenberg, 1995;
Dewan and Min, 1997). These estimates are statistically different from zero, and in most
cases significantly exceed the expected rate of return of about $.42 (the Jorgensonian
rental price of computers—see Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000). This suggests either
abnormally high returns to investors or the existence of unmeasured costs or barriers to
investment. Similarly, most estimates of the contribution of information systems labor to
output exceed $1 for every $1 of labor costs.
Several researchers have also examined the returns to information technology using
data on the use of various technologies rather than the size of the investment. Greenan
and Mairesse (1996) matched data on French firms and workers to measure the
relationship between a firm’s productivity and the fraction of its employees who report
using a personal computer at work. Their estimates of computers’ contribution to output
are consistent with earlier estimates of the computer’s output elasticity.
Other micro-level studies have focused on the use of computerized manufacFigure 1
Productivity Versus Information Technology Stock (Capital plus Capitalized Labor)
for Large Firms (1988–1992), Adjusted for Industry
2 These studies assumed a standard form (Cobb-Douglas) for the production function, and measured the
variables in logarithms. Later work using different functional forms, such as the transcendental logarithmic
(translog) production function, has little effect on the measurement of output elasticities.
turing technologies. Kelley (1994) found that the most productive metal-working plants
use computer-controlled machinery. Black and Lynch (1996) found that plants where a
larger percentage of employees use computers are more productive in a sample containing
multiple industries. Computerization has also been found to increase productivity in
government activities both at the process level, such as package sorting at the post office
or toll collection (Muhkopadhyay, Rajiv and Srinivasan, 1997) and at higher levels of
aggregation (Lehr and Lichtenberg, 1998).
Taken collectively, these studies suggest that information technology is associated
with substantial increases in output and productivity. Questions remain about the
mechanisms and direction of causality in these studies. Perhaps instead of information
technology causing greater output, “good firms” or average firms with unexpectedly high
sales disproportionately spend their windfall on computers. For example, while Doms,
Dunne and Troske (1997) found that plants using more advanced manufacturing
technologies had higher productivity and wages, they also found that this was commonly
the case even before the technologies were introduced.
Efforts to disentangle causality have been limited by the lack of good instrumental
variables for factor investment at the firm-level. However, attempts to correct for this bias
using available instrumental variables typically increase the estimated coefficients on
information technology even further (for example, Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 1996; 2000).
Thus, it appears that reverse causality is not driving the results: firms with an unexpected
increase in free cash flow invest in other factors, such as labor, before they change their
spending on information technolErik Brynjolfsson and Lorin M. Hitt
ogy. Nonetheless, as the case studies underscore, there appears to be a fair amount of
causality in both directions—certain organizational characteristics make information
technology adoption more likely and vice versa.
The firm-level productivity studies can shed some light on the relationship between
information technology and organizational restructuring. For example, productivity
studies consistently find that the output elasticities of computers exceed their (measured)
input shares. One explanation for this finding is that the output elasticities for information
technology are about right, but the productivity studies are underestimating the input
quantities because they neglect the role of unmeasured complementary investments.
Dividing the output of the whole set of complements by only the factor share of
information technology will imply disproportionately high rates of return for information
technology.3
A variety of other evidence suggests that hidden assets play an important role in the
relationship between information technology and productivity. Brynjolfsson and Hitt
(1995) estimated a firm fixed effects productivity model. This method can be interpreted
as dividing firm-level information technology benefits into two parts; one part is due to
variation in firms’ information technology investments over time, the other to fixed firm
characteristics. Brynjolfsson and Hitt found that in the firm effects model, the coefficient
on information technology was about 50 percent lower, compared to the results of an
ordinary least squares regression, while the coefficients on the other factors, capital and
labor, changed only slightly. This change suggests that unmeasured and slowly changing
3 Hitt (1996) and Brynjolfsson and Hitt (2000) present a formal analysis of this issue.
33
organizational practices (the “fixed effect”) significantly affect the returns to information
technology investment.
Another indirect implication from the productivity studies comes from evidence that
effects of information technology are substantially larger when measured over longer time
periods. Brynjolfsson and Hitt (2000) examined the effects of information technology on
productivity growth rather than productivity levels, which had been the emphasis in most
previous work, using data that included more than 600 firms over the period 1987 to
1994. When one-year differences in information technology are compared to one-year
differences in firm productivity, the measured benefits of computers are approximately
equal to their measured costs. However, the measured benefits rise by a factor of two to
eight as longer time periods are considered, depending on the econometric specification
used. One interpretation of these results is that short-term returns represent the direct
effects of information technology investment, while the longer-term returns represent the
effects of information technology when combined with related investments in
organizational change. Further analysis, based on earlier results by Schankerman (1981)
in the R&D context, suggested that these omitted factors were not simply information
technology investments and complements that were erroneously misclassified as capital
or labor. Instead, to be consistent with the econometric results, the omitted factors had to
have been accumulated in ways that would not appear on the current balance sheet. Firm-
specific human capital and “organizational capital” are two examples of omitted inputs
that would fit this description.4
A final perspective on the value of these organizational complements to information
technology can be found using financial market data, drawing on the literature on Tobin’s
q. This approach measures the rate of return of an asset indirectly, based on comparing
the stock market value of the firm to the replacement value of the various capital assets it
owns. Typically, Tobin’s q has been employed to measure the relative value of observable
assets such as R&D or physical plant. However, as suggested by Hall (1999a, b), Tobin’s
q can also be viewed as providing a measure of the total quantity of capital, including the
value of “technology, organization, business practices, and other produced elements of
successful modern corporation.” Using an approach along these lines, Brynjolfsson and
Yang (1997) found that while one dollar of ordinary capital is valued at approximately
one dollar by the financial markets, one dollar of information technology capital appears
to be correlated with on the order of $10 of additional stock market value for Fortune
1000 firms using data spanning 1987 to 1994. Since these results, for the most part, apply
to large, established firms rather than new high-tech start-ups, and since they predate most
of the massive increase in market valuations for technology stocks in the late 1990s, these
results are not likely to be sensitive to the possibility of a recent “high-tech stock bubble.”
A more likely explanation for these results is that information technology capital is
disproportionately associated with intangible assets like the costs of developing new
software, populating a database, implementing a new business process, acquiring a more
highly skilled staff, or undergoing a major organizational transformation, all of which go
uncounted on a firm’s balance sheet. In this interpretation, for every dollar of information
technology capital, the typical firm has also accumulated about $9 in additional intangible
4 Part of the difference in coefficients between short and long difference specifications could also be explained
by measurement error (which tends to average out over longer time periods). Such errorsin-variables can bias
down coefficients based on short differences, but the size of the change is too large to be attributed solely to this
effect (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000).
assets. A related explanation is that firms must occur substantial “adjustment costs”
before information technology is effective. These adjustment costs drive a wedge between
the value of a computer resting on the loading dock and one that is fully integrated into
the organization.
The evidence from both the productivity and Tobin’s q analyses provides some
insights into the properties of information technology-related intangible assets, even if we
cannot measure these assets directly. Such assets are large, potentially several multiples
of the measured information technology investment. They are unmeasured in the sense
that they do not appear as a capital asset or as other components of firm input, although
they do appear to be unique characteristics of particular firms as opposed to industry
effects. Finally, they have more effect in the long term than the short term, suggesting that
multiple years of adaptation and investment is required before their influence is
maximized.
Beyond Computation: Information Technology and Organizational Transformation
Direct Measurement of the Interrelationship between Information Technology and

Organization
Some studies have attempted to measure organizational complements directly, and to
determine whether they are correlated with information technology investment, or
whether firms that combine complementary factors have better economic performance.
Finding correlations between information technology and organizational change, or
between these factors and measures of economic performance, is not sufficient to prove
that these practices are complements, unless a full structural model specifies the
production relationships and demand drivers for each factor. Athey and Stern (1997)
discuss issues in the empirical assessment of complementarity relationships. However,
after empirically evaluating possible alternative explanations and combining correlations
with performance analyses, complementarities are often the most plausible explanation
for observed relationships between information technology, organizational factors, and
economic performance.
The first set of studies in this area focuses on correlations between use of
information technology and extent of organizational change. An important finding is that
information technology investment is greater in organizations that are decentralized and
have a greater investment in human capital. For example, Bresnahan, Brynjolfsson and
Hitt (2000) surveyed approximately 400 large firms to obtain information on aspects of
organizational structure like allocation of decision rights, workforce composition, and
investments in human capital. They found that greater levels of information technology
are associated with increased delegation of authority to individuals and teams, greater
levels of skill and education in the workforce, and greater emphasis on pre-employment
screening for education and training. In addition, they find that these work practices are
correlated with each other, suggesting that they are part of a complementary work system.
Kelley (1994) found that the use of programmable manufacturing equipment is correlated
with several aspects of human resource practices.
Research on jobs within specific industries has begun to explore the mechanisms
within organizations that create these complementarities. Drawing on a case study on the
automobile repair industry, Levy, Beamish, Murnane and Autor (2000) argue that
35
computers are most likely to substitute for jobs that rely on rulebased decision-making
while complementing nonprocedural cognitive tasks. In banking, researchers have found
that many of the skill, wage and other organizational effects of computers depend on the
extent to which firms couple computer investment with organizational redesign and other
managerial decisions (Hunter, Bernhardt, Hughes and Skuratowicz, 2000; Murnane, Levy
and Autor, 1999). Researchers focusing at the establishment level have also found
complementarities between existing technology infrastructure and firm work practices to
be a key determinant of the firm’s ability to incorporate new technologies (Bresnahan and
Greenstein, 1997); this also suggests a pattern of mutual causation between computer
investment and organization.
A variety of industry-level studies also show a strong connection between investment
in high technology equipment and the demand for skilled, educated workers (Berndt,
Morrison and Rosenblum, 1992; Berman, Bound and Griliches, 1994; Autor, Katz and
Krueger, 1998). Again, these findings are consistent with the idea that increasing use of
computers is associated with a greater demand for human capital.
Several researchers have also considered the effect of information technology on
macro-organizational structures. They have typically found that greater levels of
investment in information technology are associated with smaller firms and less vertical
integration. Brynjolfsson, Malone, Gurbaxani and Kambil (1994) found that increases in
the level of information technology capital in an economic sector were associated with a
decline in average firm size in that sector, consistent with information technology leading
to a reduction in vertical integration. Hitt (1999), examining the relationship between a
firm’s information technology capital stock and direct measures of its vertical integration,
arrived at similar conclusions. These results corroborate earlier case analyses and
theoretical arguments that suggested that information technology would be associated
with a decrease in vertical integration because it lowers the costs of coordinating
externally with suppliers (Malone, Yates and Benjamin, 1987; Gurbaxani and Whang,
1991; Clemons and Row, 1992).
One difficulty in interpreting the literature on correlations between information
technology and organizational change is that some managers may be predisposed to try
every new idea and some managers may be averse to trying anything new at all. In such a
world, information technology and a “modern” work organization might be correlated in
firms because of the temperament of management, not because they are economic
complements. To rule out this sort of spurious correlation, it is useful to bring measures of
productivity and economic performance into the analysis. If combining information
technology and organizational restructuring is economically justified, then firms that
adopt these practices as a system should outperform those that fail to combine
information technology investment with appropriate organizational structures.
In fact, firms that adopt decentralized organizational structures and work structures
do appear to have a higher contribution of information technology to productivity
(Bresnahan, Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000). For example, firms that are more decentralized
than the median firm (as measured by individual organizational practices and by an index
of such practices), have, on average, a 13 percent greater information technology
elasticity and a 10 percent greater investment in information technology than the median
firm. Firms that are in the top half of both information technology investment and
decentralization are on average 5 percent more productive than firms that are above
average only in information technology investment or only in decentralization.
Similar results also appear when economic performance is measured as stock market
valuation. Firms in the top third of decentralization have a 6 percent higher market value
after controlling for all other measured assets; this is consistent with the theory that
organizational decentralization behaves like an intangible asset. Moreover, the stock
market value of a dollar of information technology capital is between $2 and $5 greater in
decentralized firms than in centralized firms (per standard deviation of the
decentralization measure), and as shown in Figure 2 this Erik Brynjolfsson and Lorin M.
Hitt
Figure 2
Market Value as a Function of Information Technology and Work Organization
Source: This graph was produced by nonparametric local regression models using data from Brynjolfsson, Hitt
and Yang (2000).
relationship is particularly striking for firms that are simultaneously extensive users of
information technology and highly decentralized (Brynjolfsson, Hitt and Yang, 2000).
The weight of the firm-level evidence shows that a combination of investment in
technology and changes in organizations and work practices facilitated by these
technologies contributes to firms’ productivity growth and market value. However, much
work remains to be done in categorizing and measuring the relevant changes in
organizations and work practices, and relating them to information technology and
productivity.
37
The Divergence of Firm-level and Aggregate Studies on Information
Technology and Productivity
While the evidence indicates that information technology has created substantial
value for firms that have invested in it, it has sometimes been a challenge to link these
benefits to macroeconomic performance. A major reason for the gap in interpretation is
that traditional growth accounting techniques focus on the (relatively) observable aspects
of output, like price and quantity, while neglecting the intangible benefits of improved
quality, new products, customer service and speed. Similarly, traditional techniques focus
on the relatively observable aspects of investment, such as the price and quantity of
computer hardware in the economy, and neglect the much larger intangible investments in
developing complementary new products, services, markets, business processes, and
worker skills. Paradoxically, while computers have vastly improved the ability to collect
and analyze data on almost any aspect of the economy, the current computer-enabled
economy has become increasingly difficult to measure using conventional methods.
Nonetheless, standard growth accounting techniques provide a useful starting point for
any assessment or for the contribution of information technology to economic growth.
Several studies of the contribution of information technology concluded that
technical progress in computers contributed roughly 0.3 percentage points per year to real
output growth when data from the 1970s and 1980s were used (Jorgenson and Stiroh,
1995; Oliner and Sichel, 1994; Brynjolfsson, 1996).
Much of the estimated growth contribution comes directly from the large quality-
adjusted price declines in the computer producing industries. The nominal value of
purchases of information technology hardware in the United States in 1997 was about 1.4
percent of GDP. Since the quality-adjusted prices of computers decline by about 25
percent per year, simply spending the same nominal share of GDP as in previous years
represents an annual productivity increase for the real GDP of 0.3 percentage points (that
is, 1.4 3 .25 5 .35). A related approach is to look at the effect of information technology
on the GDP deflator. Reductions in inflation, for a given amount of growth in output,
imply proportionately higher real growth and, when divided by a measure of inputs,
higher productivity growth as well. Gordon (1998, p. 4) calculates that “computer
hardware is currently contributing to a reduction of U.S. inflation at an annual rate of
almost 0.5 percent per year, and this number would climb toward one percent per year if a
broader definition of information technology, including telecommunications equipment,
were used.”
More recent growth accounting analyses by the same authors have linked the recent
surge in measured productivity in the U.S. to increased investments in information
technology. Using similar methods as in their earlier studies, Oliner and Sichel (this issue)
and Jorgenson and Stiroh (1999) find that the annual contribution of computers to output
growth in the second half of the 1990s is closer to 1.0 or 1.1 percentage points per year.
Gordon (this issue) makes a similar estimate. This is a large contribution for any single
technology, although researchers have raised concerns that computers are primarily an
intermediate input and that the productivity gains are disproportionately visible in
computer-producing industries as opposed to computer-using industries. For instance,
Gordon notes that after he makes adjustments for the business cycle, capital deepening
and other effects, there has been virtually no change in the rate of productivity growth
outside of the durable goods sector. Jorgenson and Stiroh ascribe a larger contribution to
computer-using industries, but still not as great as in the computer-producing industries.
Beyond Computation: Information Technology and Organizational Transformation
Should we be disappointed by the productivity performance of the downstream

firms?
Not necessarily. Two points are worth bearing in mind when comparing upstream
and downstream sectors. First, the allocation of productivity depends on the quality-
adjusted transfer prices used. If a high deflator is applied, the upstream sectors get
credited with more output and productivity in the national accounts, but the downstream
firms get charged with using more inputs and thus have less productivity. Conversely, a
low deflator allocates more of the gains to the downstream sector. In both cases, the
increases in the total productivity of the economy are, by definition, identical. Since it is
difficult to compute accurate deflators for complex, rapidly changing intermediate goods
like computers, one must be careful in interpreting the allocation of productivity across
producers and users.5
The second point is more semantic. Arguably, downstream sectors are delivering on
the information technology revolution by simply maintaining levels of measured total
factor productivity growth in the presence of dramatic changes in the costs, nature and
mix of intermediate computer goods. This reflects a success in costlessly converting
technological innovations into real output that benefits end consumers. If a firm maintains
a constant nominal information technology budget in the face of 50 percent information
technology price declines over two years, it is treated in the national accounts as using
100 percent more real information technology input for production. A commensurate
increase in real output is required merely to maintain the same measured productivity
level as before. Such an output increase is not necessarily automatic since it requires a
significant change in the input mix and organization of production. In the presence of
adjustment costs and imperfect output measures, one might reasonably have expected
measured productivity to decline initially in downstream sectors as they absorb a rapidly
changing set of inputs and introduce new products and services.
Regardless of how the productivity benefits are allocated, these studies show that a
substantial part of the upturn in measured productivity of the economy as a whole can be
linked to increased real investments in computer hardware and declines in their quality-
adjusted prices. However, there are several key assumptions implicit in economy- or
industry-wide growth accounting approaches which can have a substantial influence on
their results, especially if one seeks to know whether investment in computers are
increasing productivity as much as alternate possible investments. The standard growth
accounting approach begins by assuming that all inputs earn “normal” rates of return.
Unexpected windfalls, whether the discovery of a single new oil field, or the invention of
a new process which makes oil fields obsolete, show up not in the growth contribution of
inputs but as changes in the multifactor productivity residual. By construction, an input
5 It is worth noting that if the exact quality change of an intermediate good is mismeasured, then the total
productivity of the economy is not affected, only the allocation between sectors. However, if computer-using
industries take advantage of the radical change in input in their quality to introduce new quality levels output (or
entirely new goods) and these changes are not fully reflected in final output deflators, then total productivity
will be underestimated. In periods of rapid technological change, both phenomena can be expected.
39
can contribute more to output in these analyses only by growing rapidly, not by having an
unusually high net rate of return.
Changes in multifactor productivity growth, in turn, depend on accurate measures of
final output. However, nominal output is affected by whether firm expenditures are
expensed, and therefore deducted from value-added, or capitalized and treated as
investment. As emphasized throughout this paper, information technology is only a small
fraction of a much larger complementary system of tangible and intangible assets.
However, current statistics typically treat the accumulation of intangible capital assets,
such as new business processes, new production systems and new skills, as expenses
rather than as investments. This leads to a lower level of measured output in periods of
net capital accumulation. Second, current output statistics disproportionately miss many
of the gains that information technology has brought to consumers such as variety, speed,
and convenience. We will consider these issues in turn.
The magnitude of investment in intangible assets associated with computerization
may be large. Analyses of 800 large firms by Brynjolfsson and Yang (1997) suggest that
the ratio of intangible assets to information technology assets may be 10 to 1. Thus, the
$167 billion in computer capital recorded in the U.S. national accounts in 1996 may have
actually been only the tip of an iceberg of $1.67 trillion of information technology-related
complementary assets in the United States.
Examination of individual information technology projects indicates that the 10:1
ratio may even be an underestimate in many cases. For example, a survey of a common
category of software projects—namely, “enterprise resource planning”— found that the
average spending on computer hardware accounted for less than 4 percent of the typical
start-up cost of $20.5 million, while software licenses and development were another 16
percent of total costs (Gormely et al., 1998). The remaining costs included hiring outside
and internal consultants to help design new business processes and to train workers in the
use of the system. The time of existing employees, including top managers, that went into
the overall implementation were not included, although it too is typically quite
substantial.
The up-front costs were almost all treated as current expenses by the companies
undertaking the implementation projects. However, insofar as the managers who made
these expenditures expected them to pay for themselves only over several years, the
nonrecurring costs are properly thought of as investments, not expenses, when
considering the impact on economic growth. In essence, the managers were adding to the
nation’s capital stock not only of easily visible computers, but also of less visible business
processes and worker skills.
How might these measurement problems affect economic growth and productivity
calculations? In a steady state, it makes little difference, because the amount of new
organizational investment in any given year is offset by the “depreciation” of
organizational investments in previous years. The net change in capital stock is zero.
Thus, in a steady state, classifying organizational investments as expenses does not bias
overall output growth as long as it is done consistently from year to year. However, the
economy has hardly been in a steady state with respect to computErik Brynjolfsson and
Lorin M. Hitt
ers and their complements. Instead, the U.S. economy has been rapidly adding to its stock
of both types of capital. To the extent that this net capital accumulation has not been
counted as part of output, output and output growth have been underestimated.
The software industry offers a useful example of the impact of classifying a category
of spending as expense or investment. Historically, efforts on software development have
been treated as expenses, but recently the government has begun recognizing that
software is an intangible capital asset. Software investment by U.S. businesses and
governments grew from $10 billion in 1979 to $159 billion in 1998 (Parker and Grimm,
2000). Properly accounting for this investment has added 0.15 to 0.20 percentage points
to the average annual growth rate of real GDP in the 1990s. While capitalizing software is
an important improvement in our national accounts, software is far from the only, or even
most important, complement to computers.
If the wide array of intangible capital costs associated with computers were treated as
investments rather than expenses, the results would be striking. According to some
preliminary estimates from Yang (2000), building on estimates of the intangible asset
stock derived from stock market valuations of computers, the true growth rate of U.S.
GDP, after accounting for the intangible complements to information technology
hardware, has been increasingly underestimated by an average of over 1 percent per year
since the early 1980s, with the underestimate getting worse over time as net information
technology investment has grown. Productivity growth has been underestimated by a
similar amount. This reflects the large net increase in intangible assets of the U.S.
economy associated with the computerization that was discussed earlier. Over time, the
economy earns returns on past investment, converting it back into consumption. This has
the effect of raising GDP growth as conventionally measured by a commensurate amount
even if the “true” GDP growth remains unchanged.
While the quantity of intangible assets associated with information technology is
difficult to estimate precisely, the central lesson is that these complementary changes are
very large and cannot be ignored in any realistic attempt to estimate the overall economic
contributions of information technology.
The productivity gains from investments in new information technology are
underestimated in a second major way: failure to account fully for quality change in
consumable outputs. It is typically much easier to count the number of units produced
than to assess intrinsic quality—especially if the desired quality may vary across
customers. A significant fraction of value of quality improvements due to investments in
information technology—like greater timeliness, customization, and customer service—is
not directly reflected as increased industry sales, and thus is implicitly treated as
nonexistent in official economic statistics.
These issues have always been a concern in the estimation of the true rate of inflation
and the real output of the U.S. economy (Boskin et al., 1997). If output mismeasurement
for computers was similar to output mismeasurement for previous technologies, estimates
of long-term productivity trends would be unaffected (Baily and Gordon, 1988).
However, there is evidence that in several specific ways, computers are associated with an
increasing degree of mismeasurement that is likely to lead to increasing underestimates of
productivity and economic growth.
The production of intangible outputs is an important consideration for information
technology investments whether in the form of new products or improvements in existing
products. Based on a series of surveys of information services managers conducted in
41
1993, 1995 and 1996, Brynjolfsson and Hitt (1997) found that customer service and
sometimes other aspects of intangible output (specifically quality, convenience, and
timeliness) ranked higher than cost savings as the motivation for investments in
information services. Brooke (1992) found that information technology was also
associated with increases in product variety.
Indeed, government data show many inexplicable changes in productivity, especially
in the sectors where output is measured poorly and where changes in quality may be
especially important (Griliches, 1994). Moreover, simply removing anomalous industries
from the aggregate productivity growth calculation can change the estimate of U.S.
productivity growth by 0.5 percent or more (Corrado and Slifman, 1999). The problems
with measuring quality change and true output growth are illustrated by selected industry-
level productivity growth data over different time periods, shown in Table 2. According
to official government statistics, a bank today is only about 80 percent as productive as a
bank in 1977; a health care facility is only 70 percent as productive and a lawyer only 65
percent as productive as they were 1977.
These statistics seem out of touch with reality. In 1977, virtually all banking was
conducted via the teller windows; today, customers can access a network of 139,000
automatic teller machines (ATMs) 24 hours a day, seven days a week (Osterberg and
Sterk, 1997), as well as a vastly expanded array of banking services via the Internet. The
more than tripling of cash availability via ATMs required an incremental investment on
the order of $10 billion compared with over $70 billion invested in physical bank
branches. Computer controlled medical equipment has facilitated more successful and
less invasive medical treatment. Many procedures that previously required extensive
hospital stays can now be performed on an outpatient basis; instead of surgical
procedures, many medical tests now use noninvasive imaging devices such as x-rays,
MRI, or CT scanners. Information technology has supported the research and analysis
that has led to these advances plus a wide array of improvements in medication and
outpatient therapies. A lawyer today can access a much wider range of information
through on-line databases and manage many more legal documents. In addition, some
basic legal services, such as drafting a simple will, can now be performed without a
lawyer using inexpensive software packages such as Willmaker.
One of the most important types of unmeasured benefits arises from new goods.
Sales of new goods are measured in the GDP statistics as part of nominal output, although
this does not capture the new consumer surplus generated by such goods, which causes
them to be preferred over old goods. Moreover, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has often
failed to incorporate new goods into price indices until many years after their
introduction; for example, it did not incorporate the VCR into the consumer price index
until 1987, about a decade after they Beyond Computation: Information Technology and
Organizational Transformation
Table 2
Annual (Measured) Productivity Growth for Selected Industries (based on dividing
BEA gross output by industry figures by BLS hours worked by industry for comparable
sectors)
Industry 1948–1967 1967–1977 1977–1996
Depository Institutions .03% .21% 21.19%

Health Services .99% .04% 21.81%
Legal Services .23% 22.01% 22.13%
Source: Partial reproduction from Gordon (1998, Table 3).
began selling in volume. This leads the price index to miss the rapid decline in price that
many new goods experience early in their product cycle. In a related example, in 1990,
sales of the printed multi-volume Encyclopedia Britannica were $650 million and the
production cost for each set was over $250, plus up to $500 for the salesperson’s
commission (Evans and Wurster, 2000). Producing a CD-ROM with the same
information now costs less than $1, and presenting it via a website like
www.britannica.com, costs but a fraction of that. Sales of the printed version of all
encyclopedias, including Britannica, collapsed by over 80 percent in the 1990s, as the
content was bundled for “free” with office software or delivered on the web. The GDP
statistics captured this collapse in sales, but not the value of the content that is now free or
nearly free. As a result, the inflation statistics overstate the true rise in the cost of living,
and when the nominal GDP figures are adjusted using that price index, the real rate of
output growth is understated (Boskin et al., 1997). The problem extends beyond new
high-tech products, like personal digital assistants and web browsers. Computers enable
more new goods to be developed, produced, and managed in all industries. For instance,
the number of new products introduced in supermarkets has grown from 1281 in 1964, to
1831 in 1975, and then to 16,790 in 1992 (Nakamura, 1997); the data management
requirements to handle so many products would have overwhelmed the computerless
supermarket of earlier decades. Consumers have voted with their pocketbooks for the
stores with greater product variety.
This collection of results suggests that information technology may be associated
with increases in the intangible component of output, including variety, customer
convenience, and service. Because it appears that the amount of unmeasured output value
is increasing with computerization, this measurement problem not only creates an
underestimate of output level, but also errors in measurement of output and productivity
growth when compared with earlier time periods which had a smaller bias due to
intangible outputs.
Just as the Bureau of Economic Analysis successfully reclassified many software
expenses as investments and is making quality adjustments, perhaps we will also find
ways to measure the investment component of spending on intangible organizational
capital and to make appropriate adjustments for the value of all gains attributable to
improved quality, variety, convenience and service. Unfortunately, addressing these
problems can be difficult even for single firms and products, and the complexity and
number of judgments required to address them at the macroeconomic level is extremely
high. Moreover, because of the increasing service component of all industries (even basic
manufacturing), which entails product and service innovation and intangible investments,
these problems cannot be easily solved by focusing on a limited number of “hard to
measure” industries—they are pervasive throughout the economy.
43
Meanwhile, however, firm-level studies can overcome some of the difficulties in
assessing the productivity gains from information technology. For example, it is
considerably easier at the firm level to make reasonable estimates of the investments in
intangible organizational capital and to observe changes in organizations, while it is
harder to formulate useful rules for measuring such investment at the macroeconomic
level.
Firm-level studies may be less subject to aggregation error when firms make
different levels of investments in computers and thus could have different capabilities for
producing higher value products (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 1996, 2000). Suppose a firm
invests in information technology to improve product quality and consumers recognize
and value these benefits. If other firms do not make similar investments, any difference in
quality will lead to differences in the equilibrium product prices that each firm can
charge. When an analysis is conducted across firms, variation in quality will contribute to
differences in output and productivity and thus, will be measured as increases in the
output elasticity of computers. However, when firms with high quality products and firms
with low quality products are combined together in industry data (and subjected to the
same quality-adjusted deflator for the industry), both the information technology
investment and the difference in revenue will average out, and a lower correlation
between information technology and (measured) output will be detected. Interestingly,
Siegel (1997) found that the measured effect of computers on productivity was
substantially increased when he used a structural equation framework to directly model
the errors in production input measurement in industry-level data.
However, firm-level data can be an unreliable way to capture the social gains from
improved product quality. For example, not all price differences reflect differences in
product or service quality. When price differences are due to differences in market power
that are not related to consumer preferences, then firm-level data will lead to inaccurate
estimates of the productivity effects of information technology. Similarly, increases in
quality or variety (like new product introductions in supermarkets) can be a by-product of
anticompetitive product differentiation strategies, which may or may not increase total
welfare. Moreover, firm-level data will not fully capture the value of quality
improvements or other intangible benefits if these benefits are ubiquitous across an
industry, because then there will not be any interfirm variation in quality and prices.
Instead, competition will pass the gains on to consumers. In this case, firm-level data will
also understate the contribution of information technology investment to social welfare.
Erik Brynjolfsson and Lorin M. Hitt
Conclusion
Concerns about an information technology “productivity paradox” were raised in the
late 1980s. Over a decade of research since then has substantially improved our
understanding of the relationship between information technology and economic
performance. The firm-level studies in particular suggest that, rather than being
paradoxically unproductive, computers have had an impact on economic growth that is
disproportionately large compared to their share of capital stock or investment, and this
impact is likely to grow further in coming years.
In particular, both case studies and econometric work point to organizational
complements such as new business processes, new skills and new organizational and
industry structures as a major driver of the contribution of information technology. These
complementary investments, and the resulting assets, may be as much as an order of
magnitude larger than the investments in the computer technology itself. However, they
go largely uncounted in our national accounts, suggesting that computers have made a
much larger real contribution to the economy than previously believed.
The use of firm-level data has cast a brighter light on the black box of production in
the increasingly information technology-based economy. The outcome has been a better
understanding of the key inputs, including complementary organizational assets, as well
as the key outputs including the growing roles of new products, new services, quality,
variety, timeliness and convenience. Measuring the intangible components of
complementary systems will never be easy. But if researchers and business managers
recognize the importance of the intangible costs and benefits of computers and undertake
to evaluate them, a more precise assessment of these assets needn’t be beyond
computation.
y Portions of this manuscript are to appear in MIS Review and in an edited volume, The
Puzzling Relations Between Computer and the Economy, Nathalie Greenan, Yannick
Lhorty and Jacques Mairesse, eds., MIT Press, 2001.
The authors thank David Autor, Brad De Long, Robert Gordon, Shane Greenstein,
Dale Jorgenson, Alan Krueger, Dan Sichel, Robert Solow, Kevin Stiroh and Timothy
Taylor for valuable comments on (portions of) earlier drafts. This work is funded in part
by NSF Grant
IIS-9733877. Berndt, E. R. and C. J. Morrison. 1995.
“Hightech Capital Formation and Economic
Performance in U.S. Manufacturing Industries: An
Exploratory Analysis.” Journal of Econometrics.
January, 65:1, pp. 9–43.
Berndt, E. R., C. J. Morrison and L. S.
Rosenblum. 1992. “High-Tech Capital, Economic
Performance and Labor Composition in U.S.
Manufacturing Industries: An Exploratory
References Analysis.” MIT Working Paper 3414EFA.
Black, S.E. and L.M. Lynch. 1996. “How to
Athey, S. and S. Stern. 1997. “An Empirical Compete: The Impact of Workplace Practices and
Framework for Testing Theories about IT on Productivity.” Harvard University,
Complementarities in Organizational Design,” Cambridge, MA and U.S. Department of Labor,
Mimeo, MIT. Washington, D.C., September. Boskin, Michael J.,
Autor, D., L. F. Katz and A. B. Krueger. 1998. Ellen R. Dulberger, Robert J. Gordon, Zvi
“Computing Inequality: Have Computers Changed Griliches and Dale Jorgenson. 1997. “The CPI
the Labor Market?” Quarterly Journal of Commission: Findings and Recommendations.”
Economics. November, 113:4, pp. 1169–1213. American Economic Review. 87:2, pp. 78–83.
Baily, M. N. and R. J. Gordon. 1988. “The Bresnahan, T.F. 1999. “Computerization and
Productivity Slowdown, Measurement Issues, and Wage Dispersion: An Analytic Reinterpretation.”
the Explosion of Computer Power,” in Economic Journal. June, 109:456, pp. F390–415.
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. W. C. Bresnahan, T., E. Brynjolfsson and L. Hitt.
Brainard and G. L. Perry, ed. Washington, DC, The 2000. “IT, Workplace Organization and the Demand
Brookings Institution, pp. 347–431. for Skilled Labor: A Firm-level Analysis.” Mimeo,
Berman, E., J. Bound and Z. Griliches. 1994. MIT, Stanford, and Wharton.
“Changes in the Demand for Skilled Labor within Bresnahan, T. F. and M. Trajtenberg. 1995.
U.S. Manufacturing Industries.” Quarterly Journal “General Purpose Technologies: ‘Engines of
of Economics. May, 109, pp. 367–98. Growth’?” Journal of Econometrics. 65, pp. 83–
45
108. Bresnahan, T.F. and S. Greenstein. 1997. Corrado, C. and L. Slifman. 1999.
“Technical Progress and Co-Invention in “Decomposition of Productivity and Unit Costs.”
Computing and in the Use of Computers.” American Economic Review. 89:2, pp. 328–32.
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Clemons, Eric K. and Michael C. Row. 1992.
Microeconomics. January, pp. 1–78. “Information Technology and Industrial
Brooke, G. M. 1992. “The Economics of Cooperation: The Changing Economics of
Information Technology: Explaining the Coordination and Ownership.” Journal of
Productivity Paradox.” MIT Sloan School of Management Information Systems. 9:2, pp. 9–28.
Management Center for Information Systems Clemons, Eric K. 1993. “Reengineering the
Research Working Paper No. 238, April. Sales Function: Reengineering Internal Operations.”
Brynjolfsson, E. 1993. “The Productivity Teaching Case, The Wharton School.
Paradox of Information Technology.” Clemons, Eric K., Matt E. Thatcher and
Communications of the ACM. 35:12, pp. 66–77. Michael C. Row. 1995. “Identifying Sources of
Brynjolfsson, E. 1996. “The Contribution of Reengineering Failures: A Study of the Behavioral
Information Technology to Consumer Welfare.” Factors Contributing to Reengineering Risks.
Information Systems Research. 7:3, pp. 281–300. Journal of Management Information Systems. 12:2,
Brynjolfsson, E., T. Malone, V. Gurbaxani and pp. 9–36.
A. Kambil. 1994. “Does Information Technology David, P. A. 1990. “The Dynamo and the
Beyond Computation: Information Technology and Organizational
Transformation
Lead to Smaller Firms?” Management Science. Computer: A Historical Perspective on the Modern
40:12, pp. 1628–1644. Productivity Paradox.” American Economic Review
Brynjolfsson, E. and L. Hitt. 1995. “Information Papers and Proceedings. l:2, pp. 355–61.
Technology as a Factor of Production: The Role of Dewan, S. and C. K. Min. 1997. “Substitution of
Differences Among Firms.” Economics of Information Technology for Other Factors of
Innovation and New Technology. 3:4, pp. 183–200. Production: A Firm-level Analysis.” Management
Brynjolfsson, E. and L. Hitt. 1996. “Paradox Science. 43:12, pp. 1660–1675.
Lost? Firm-level Evidence on the Returns to Doms, Mark, Timothy Dunne and Kenneth R.
Information Systems Spending.” Management Troske. 1997. “Workers, Wages, and Technology.”
Science 42:4, pp. 541–58. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 112:1, pp.
Brynjolfsson, E. and L. Hitt. 1997. “Breaking 253–90.
Boundaries.” Informationweek. September, 22, pp. Evans, Phillip and Thomas Wurster. 2000.
54–61. Blown to Bits. Boston: Harvard Business School
Brynjolfsson, E. and L. Hitt. 2000. “Computing Press.
Productivity: Are Computers Pulling Their Galbraith, J. 1977. Organizational Design.
Weight?” Mimeo, MIT and Wharton. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Brynjolfsson, E. and S. Yang. 1996. Gordon, Robert J. 1998. “Monetary Policy in
“Information Technology and Productivity: A the Age of Information Technology: Computers and
Review of the Literature,” in Advances in the Solow Paradox.” Working Paper, Northwestern
Computers. M. Zelkowitz, ed, Vol. 43. University.
Brynjolfsson, E. and S. Yang. 1997. “The Goldman Sachs. 1999. B2B: To Be or Not 2B?
Intangible Benefits and Costs of Computer High Technology Group Whitepaper, November.
Investments: Evidence from Financial Markets,” in Gormley, J., W. Bluestein, J. Gatoff and H.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Chun. 1998. “The Runaway Costs of Packaged
Information Systems. Atlanta, GA. Revised, 2000. Applications.” The Forrester Report. 3:5,
Brynjolfsson, E., A. Renshaw and M. Van Cambridge, MA.
Alstyne. 1997. “The Matrix of Change.” Sloan Greenan, N. and J. Mairesse. 1996. “Computers
Management Review, Winter. and Productivity in France: Some Evidence,” NBER
Brynjolfsson, E., L. Hitt and S.K. Yang. 2000. Working Paper 5836, November.
“Intangible Assets: How the Interaction of Griliches, Z. 1994. “Productivity, R&D and the
Information Systems and Organizational Structure Data Constraint.” American Economic Review. 84:2,
Affects Stock Market Valuations,” mimeo, MIT and pp. 1–23.
Wharton. A previous version appeared in the Gullickson, W. and M.J. Harper. 1999.
Proceedings of the International Conference on “Possible Measurement Bias in Aggregate
Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland, 1998. Productivity Growth.” Monthly Labor Review.
Caruso, Denise. 1998. “Digital Commerce.” The February, 122:2, pp. 47–67.
New York Times. May 11. Gurbaxani, V. and S. Whang. 1991. “The
Impact of Information Systems on Organizations
and Markets.” Communications of the ACM. 34:1, Malone, T. W., J. Yates and R. I. Benjamin.
pp. 59–73. 1987. “Electronic Markets and Electronic
Hall, R. E. 1999a. “The Stock Market and Capital Hierarchies.” Communications of the ACM. 30:6,
Accumulation,” NBER Working Paper 7180, June. pp. 484–97.
Hall, R. E. 1999b. “Reorganization,” NBER McKenney, J.L. and T.H. Clark. 1995. “Proctor
Working Paper 7181, June. and Gamble: Improving Consumer Value through
Hammer, M. 1990. “Reengineering Work: Don’t Process Redesign.” Harvard Business School Case
Automate, Obliterate.” Harvard Business Review. Study 9-195-126.
July-August, pp. 104–12. Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts. 1990. “The
Hitt, L. 1996. Economic Analysis of Information Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology,
Technology and Organization. Unpublished Strategy, and Organization.” American Economic
doctoral dissertation, MIT Sloan School of Review. 80:3, pp. 511–28.
Management. Milgrom, Paul and John Roberts. 1992.
Hitt, Lorin M. 1999. “Information Technology Economics, Organization and Management. New
and Firm Boundaries: Evidence from Panel York: Prentice-Hall.
Data.” Information Systems Research. June, 10:9, Morrison, Catherine J. 1996. “Assessing the
pp. 134–49. Productivity of Information Technology Equipment
Hunter, Larry W., Annette Bernhardt, in U.S. Manufacturing Industries.” Review of
Katherine L. Hughes and Eva Skuratowicz. 2000. Economics and Statistics. 79:3, pp. 471– 81.
“It’s Not Just the ATMs: Firm Strategies, Work Mukhopadhyay, Tridas, Surendra Rajiv and
Restructuring and Workers’ Earnings in Retail Kannan Srinivasan. 1997. “Information
Banking,” mimeo, Wharton School. Technology Impact on Process Output and Quality.”
Johnston, H. Russell and Michael R. Vitale. Management Science. 43:12, pp. 1645– 1659.
1988. “Creating Competitive Advantage with Murnane, Richard J., Frank Levy and David
Interorganizational Information Systems.” MIS Autor. 1999. “Technological Change, Computers
Quarterly. 12:2, pp. 153–65. and Skill Demands: Evidence from the Back Office
Jorgenson, Dale W. and Kevin Stiroh. 1995. Operations of a Large Bank,” mimeo, NBER
“Computers and Growth.” Journal of Economics of Economic Research Labor Workshop,
Innovation and New Technology. 3. pp. 295–316. June.
Jorgenson, Dale W. and Kevin Stiroh. 1999. Nakamura, L. I. 1997. “The Measurement of
“Information Technology and Growth.” American Retail Output and the Retail Revolution,” paper
Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings. May, presented at the CSLS Workshop on Service Sector
89:2, pp. 109–15. Productivity and the Productivity Paradox, Ottawa,
Kelley, Maryellen R. 1994. “Productivity and Canada, April.
Information Technology: The Elusive Connection.” Oliner, S. D. and D. E. Sichel. 1994.
Management Science. 40:11, pp. 1406– 1425. “Computers and Output Growth Revisited: How Big
Kemerer, C. F. and G. L. Sosa. 1991. “Systems is the Puzzle?” Brookings Papers on Economic
Development Risks in Strategic Information Activity: Microeconomics. 2, pp. 273–334.
Systems.” Information and Software Technology. Orlikowski, W. J. 1992. “Learning from Notes:
33:3, pp. 212–23. Organizational Issues in Groupware
Lehr, W. and F.R. Lichtenberg. 1998. Implementation,” in Conference on Computer
“Computer Use and Productivity Growth in Federal Supported Cooperative Work. J. Turner and R.
Government Agencies 1987-92.” Journal of Kraut. Toronto, Association for Computing
Industrial Economics. 46:2, pp. 257–79. Machinery, pp. 362– 69.
Levy, Frank, Anne Beamish, Richard J. Osterberg, William P. and Sandy A. Sterk.
Murnane and David Autor. 2000. 1997. “Do More Banking Offices Mean More
“Computerization and Skills: Examples from a Car Banking Services?” Economic Commentary
Dealership,” mimeo, MIT and Harvard. (Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland), 1-5.
Lichtenberg, F. R. 1995. “The Output Parker, Robert and Bruce Grimm. 2000.
Contributions of Computer Equipment and “Recognition of Business and Government
Personal: A Firm-level Analysis.” Economics of Expenditures on Software as Investment:
Innovation and New Technology. 3, pp. 201–17. Methodology and Quantitative Impacts, 1959–98.”
Malone, Thomas W. 1987. “Modelling Working Paper, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Coordination in Organizations and Markets.” Presented at May 5, 2000, Meeting of BEA
Management Science. 33:10, pp. 1317–1332. Advisory Committee.
Malone, Thomas W. and John Rockart. 1991. Radner, R. 1993. “The Organization of
“Computers, Networks, and the Corporation.” Decentralized Information Processing.”
Scientific American. 265:3, pp. 128–36. Econometrica. 62, pp. 1109–1146.
47
Rangan, V. and M. Bell. 1998. Dell Online.
Harvard Business School Case Study 9-598-116.
Roach, Stephen S. 1987. “America’s Technology
Dilemma: A Profile of the Information Economy.”
Morgan Stanley Special Economic Study.
April.
Schankerman, M. 1981. “The Effects of Double-
Counting and Expensing on the Measured Returns
to R&D.” Review of Economics and Statistics. 63,
pp. 454–58.
Schnapp, John. 1998. “An Old Strategy is
Backfiring at G.M.” New York Times. July 12,
section 3:12.
Seybold, Patricia and Ronni Marshak. 1998.
Customers.com: How to Create A Profitable
Business Strategy for the Internet and Beyond.
Times Books.
Short, James E. and N. Venkatraman. 1992.
“Beyond Business Process Redesign: Redefining
Baxter’s Business Network.” Sloan Management
Review. 34:1, pp. 7–20.
Siegel, Donald. 1997. “The Impact of Computers
on Manufacturing Productivity Growth: A Multiple-
Indicators Multiple-Causes Approach.” Review of
Economics and Statistics. 79:1, pp. 68–78.
Simon, Herbert A. 1976. Administrative
Behavior. New York: The Free Press, 3rd Edition.
Solow, R.M. 1987. “We’d Better Watch Out.” New
York Times Book Review. July 12, 36.
Vitale, M. and B. Konsynski. 1988. Baxter
Healthcare Corp.: ASAP Express, Harvard Business
School Case 9-188-080.
Wilson, Diane D. 1995. “IT Investment and its
Productivity Effects: An Organizational
Sociologist’s Perspective on Directions for Future
Research.” Economics of Innovation and New
Technology. 3, pp. 235–51.
Yang, Shinkyu. 2000. “Productivity
Measurement in the Information Economy: A
Revised Estimate of Total Factor Productivity.’’
Mimeo, New York University.
This article has been cited by:
1. Sara Gerke, Boris Babic, Theodoros Evgeniou, I. Glenn Cohen.

2020. The need for a system view toregulate artificial
intelligence/machine learning-based software as medical device.
npj Digital Medicine 3:1. . [Crossref]
2. Jon Bokrantz, Anders Skoogh, Cecilia Berlin, Thorsten Wuest,
Johan Stahre. 2020. SmartMaintenance: a research agenda for
industrial maintenance management. International Journal of
Production Economics 224, 107547. [Crossref]
3. Ott Velsberg, Ulrika H. Westergren, Katrin Jonsson. 2020.
Exploring smartness in public sectorinnovation - creating smart
public services with the Internet of Things. European Journal of
Information Systems 56, 1-19. [Crossref]
4. Maria Veronica Alderete. 2020. Towards Measuring the Economic
Impact of Open Data by Innovatingand Doing Business.
International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 32.
. [Crossref]
5. Ernesto Cassetta, Umberto Monarca, Ivano Dileo, Claudio Di
Berardino, Marco Pini. 2020. Therelationship between digital
technologies and internationalisation. Evidence from Italian
SMEs. Industry and Innovation 27:4, 311-339. [Crossref]
6. Dongwei He, Chun-Yu Ho, Li Xu. 2020. Risk and return of online
channel adoption in the bankingindustry. Pacific-Basin Finance
Journal 60, 101268. [Crossref]
7. Mareike Bergmann, Christian Brück, Thorsten Knauer, Anja
Schwering. 2020. Digitization of thebudgeting process:
determinants of the use of business analytics and its effect on
satisfaction with the budgeting process. Journal of Management
Control 31:1-2, 25-54. [Crossref]
8. Calogero Guccio, Marco Martorana, Isidoro Mazza, Ilde Rizzo.
2020. Back to the Future: Does the useof information and
communication technology enhance the performance of public
historical archives?. Journal of Cultural Economics 15. .
[Crossref]
9. Giovanni Mastrobuoni. 2020. Crime is Terribly Revealing:
Information Technology and PoliceProductivity. The Review of
Economic Studies 105. . [Crossref]
10.Hadizatou Ali, Jean-Pierre Gueyié, Cédric Okou. 2020. Assessing
the impact of information andcommunication technologies on the
performance of microfinance institutions in Niger. Journal of
Small Business & Entrepreneurship 528, 1-21. [Crossref]
11.Neville A. Stanton, Aaron P. J. Roberts. 2020. Better together?
Investigating new control roomconfigurations and reduced crew
size in submarine command and control. Ergonomics 63:3, 307-323.
[Crossref]
12.Harri Töhönen, Marjo Kauppinen, Tomi Männistö, Timo Itälä. 2020.
A conceptual framework forvaluing IT within a business system.
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 36,
100442. [Crossref]
13.Dirk Nicolas Wagner. 2020. The nature of the Artificially
Intelligent Firm - An economic investigationinto changes that AI
brings to the firm. Telecommunications Policy 101954. [Crossref]
14.Anandasivam Gopal, Sabari Rajan Karmegam, Balaji R. Koka, William
M. Rand. 2020. Is the GrassGreener? On the Strategic Implications
of Moving Along the Value Chain for IT Service Providers.
Information Systems Research 31:1, 148-175. [Crossref]
15.Frank Riemensperger, Svenja Falk. 2020. How to capture the B2B
platform opportunity. Electronic Markets 30:1, 61-63. [Crossref]
16.Steffen Viete, Daniel Erdsiek. 2020. Mobile Information
Technologies and Firm Performance: TheRole of Employee Autonomy.
Information Economics and Policy 100863. [Crossref]
17.Chih-Yang Tseng. 2020. Family firms and long-term orientation of
SG&A expenditures. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting
23. . [Crossref]
18.Wei Wang, Yi Wang, Yi Zhang, Jing Ma. 2020. Spillover of
workplace IT satisfaction onto jobsatisfaction: The roles of job
fit and professional fit. International Journal of Information
Management 50, 341-352. [Crossref]
19.Tendai Kanjanda, Nien-Tsu Tuan. 2020. A Systemic Exploration of
the Risk Factors in ZimbabweanInformation Technology Projects.
Systemic Practice and Action Research 33:1, 77-93. [Crossref]
20.Qing Li, Yanrui Wu. 2020. Intangible capital, ICT and sector
growth in China. Telecommunications Policy 44:1, 101854.
[Crossref]
21.Neville A. Stanton, Aaron P. J. Roberts. 2020. Block off: an
examination of new control roomconfigurations and reduced crew
sizes examining engineered production blocking. Cognition,
Technology & Work 22:1, 29-55. [Crossref]
22.Jorge Rodrigues, Pedro Ruivo, Tiago Oliveira. 2020. Mediation
role of business value and strategy infirm performance of
organizations using software-as-a-service enterprise
applications. Information & Management 103289. [Crossref]
23.Prasanna Tambe, Xuan Ye, Peter Cappelli. 2020. Paying to Program?
Engineering Brand and HighTech Wages. Management Science .
[Crossref]
24.Jan vom Brocke, Alan Hevner, Pierre Majorique Léger, Peter Walla,
René Riedl. 2020. Advancinga NeuroIS research agenda with four
areas of societal contributions. European Journal of Information
Systems 29:1, 9-24. [Crossref]
25.Thanh D. Nguyen. Information Systems Success: Extending the
Theoretical Model from IT BusinessValue Perspective 123-137.
[Crossref]
26.Leonardo Becchetti, Luigino Bruni, Stefano Zamagni. Growth and
the environment in the era ofglobalization 401-443. [Crossref]
27.Soraya Sedkaoui, Salim Moualdi. 2020. ICT Uses and Innovation
Types. International Journal of EEntrepreneurship and Innovation
10:1, 41-55. [Crossref]
28.Ziboud Van Veldhoven, Rongjia Song, Jan Vanthienen. Cross-
language Keyword Analysis of DigitalTransformation for Business
67-80. [Crossref]
29.Per Botolf Maurseth. ICT, Growth and Happiness 31-86. [Crossref]
30.Rafat Mahmood, Michael Jetter. 2020. Communications Technology
and Terrorism. Journal of Conflict Resolution 64:1, 127-166.
[Crossref]
31.. The Power of Digital Transformation 20-44. [Crossref]
32.Thaisaiyi Zephania Opati. Employing Artificial Intelligence and
Algorithms in the Digital LendingIndustry 43-70. [Crossref]
33.Paul Olk, Joel West. 2020. The relationship of industry structure
to open innovation: cooperativevalue creation in pharmaceutical
consortia. R&D Management 50:1, 116-135. [Crossref]
34.Nathan Goldschlag, Javier Miranda. 2020. Business dynamics
statistics of High Tech industries.Journal of Economics &
Management Strategy 29:1, 3-30. [Crossref]
35.Katarzyna Śledziewska, Renata Włoch. Gospodarka cyfrowa. Jak nowe
technologie zmieniają świat .[Crossref]
36.Oksana Pirogova, Vladimir Plotnikov. 2020. Management of
enterprise development based on adaptivevalue model in digital
conditions. E3S Web of Conferences 164, 10024. [Crossref]
37.Pouya Rahmati, Ali R. Tafti, J. Christopher Westland, César
Hidalgo. 2020. When All ProductsAre Digital: Complexity and
Intangible Value in the Ecosystem of Digitizing Firms. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
38.Madjid Tavana, Ghasem Khosrojerdi, Hassan Mina, Amirah Rahman.
2019. A hybrid mathematicalprogramming model for optimal project
portfolio selection using fuzzy inference system and analytic
hierarchy process. Evaluation and Program Planning 77, 101703.
[Crossref]
39.Arsalan Mujahid Ghouri, Venkatesh Mani. 2019. Role of real-time
information-sharing through SaaS:
An industry 4.0 perspective. International Journal of Information
Management 49, 301-315. [Crossref]
40.Anna Thum-Thysen, Peter Voigt, Beñat Bilbao-Osorio, Christoph
Maier, Diana Ognyanova. 2019. Investment dynamics in Europe:
Distinct drivers and barriers for investing in intangible versus
tangible assets?. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 51, 77-
88. [Crossref]
41.Thuy Duong Oesterreich, Frank Teuteberg, Frank Bensberg, Gandalf
Buscher. 2019. The controllingprofession in the digital age:
Understanding the impact of digitisation on the controller's job
roles, skills and competences. International Journal of
Accounting Information Systems 35, 100432. [Crossref]
42.Pratyush Bharati, Abhijit Chaudhury. 2019. Assimilation of Big
Data Innovation: Investigating theRoles of IT, Social Media, and
Relational Capital. Information Systems Frontiers 21:6, 1357-
1368. [Crossref]
43.Carl Philip T. Hedenstierna, Stephen M. Disney, Daniel R. Eyers,
Jan Holmström, Aris A. Syntetos,Xun Wang. 2019. Economies of
collaboration in build‐to‐model operations. Journal of Operations
Management 65:8, 753-773. [Crossref]
44.Dawei (David) Zhang, Barrie R. Nault, Xueqi (David) Wei. 2019.
The Strategic Value of Information
Technology in Setting Productive Capacity. Information Systems
Research 30:4, 1124-1144. [Crossref]
45.Mait Rungi. Digitalization: Size Doesn't Matter, Put Focus on
Product-and-Service, Not on Process741-745. [Crossref]
46.Johannes Weibl, Thomas Hess. 2019. Turning Data into Value –
Exploring the Role of Synergy inLeveraging Value among Data.
Information Systems Management 38, 1-13. [Crossref]
47.Bishwanath Goldar. 2019. Services input and productivity in
Indian manufacturing plants. Indian Growth and Development Review
13:1, 99-124. [Crossref]
48.Tom Fangyun Tan, Serguei Netessine. 2019. At Your Service on the
Table: Impact of TabletopTechnology on Restaurant Performance.
Management Science . [Crossref]
49.Shiyi Chen, Wanlin Liu, Hong Song. 2019. BROADBAND INTERNET, FIRM
PERFORMANCE,AND WORKER WELFARE: EVIDENCE AND MECHANISM. Economic
Inquiry . [Crossref]
50.Abraham Mensah Acquah, Muazu Ibrahim. 2019. Foreign direct
investment, economic growth andfinancial sector development in
Africa. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 26, 1-20.
[Crossref]
51.Luigi Aldieri, Cristian Barra, Concetto Paolo Vinci, Roberto
Zotti. 2019. The joint impact of differenttypes of innovation on
firm's productivity: evidence from Italy. Economics of Innovation
and New Technology 108, 1-32. [Crossref]
52.Gaurav Gupta, Indranil Bose. 2019. Digital transformation in
entrepreneurial firms throughinformation exchange with operating
environment. Information & Management 103243. [Crossref]
53.Rajiv D. Banker, Rong Huang, Ram Natarajan, Sha Zhao. 2019.
Market Valuation of Intangible Asset: Evidence on SG&A
Expenditure. The Accounting Review 94:6, 61-90. [Crossref]
54.Leida Chen, Xiaohan Zhang, Zhensheng Li. 2019. Understanding the
Chinese information cultureand its impact on IT perceptions.
Information Technology & People 33:1, 56-82. [Crossref]
55.Stefan Schweikl, Robert Obermaier. 2019. Lessons from three
decades of IT productivity research: towards a better
understanding of IT-induced productivity effects. Management
Review Quarterly 27. . [Crossref]
56.Manuela Nocker, Vania Sena. 2019. Big Data and Human Resources
Management: The Rise of TalentAnalytics. Social Sciences 8:10,
273. [Crossref]
57.Yu-Hsiang (John) Huang, Yu-Ju (Tony) Tu, Troy J. Strader, Michael
J. Shaw, Ramanath (Ram) Subramanyam. 2019. Selecting the Most
Desirable IT Portfolio Under Various Risk Tolerance Levels.
Information Resources Management Journal 32:4, 1-19. [Crossref]
58.Alberto Ferraris, Alberto Mazzoleni, Alain Devalle, Jerome
Couturier. 2019. Big data analyticscapabilities and knowledge
management: impact on firm performance. Management Decision 57:8,
1923-1936. [Crossref]
59.Woo-Jin Jung, Sang-Yong Tom Lee, Hee-Woong Kim. 2019. Are
information and communicationtechnologies (ICTs) displacing
workers? The relationship between ICT investment and employment.
Information Development 78, 026666691987409. [Crossref]
60.Claudio Vitari, Elisabetta Raguseo. 2019. Big data analytics
business value and firm performance: linking with environmental
context. International Journal of Production Research 25, 1-21.
[Crossref]
61.Fabiano Schivardi, Tom Schmitz. 2019. The IT Revolution and
Southern Europe’s Two Lost Decades.Journal of the European
Economic Association 130. . [Crossref]
62.Rocio Rodriguez, Francisco-Jose Molina-Castillo, Göran Svensson.
2019. Enterprise resource planningand business model innovation:
process, evolution and outcome. European Journal of Innovation
Management ahead-of-print:ahead-of-print. . [Crossref]
63.T. Ravichandran, Simona Ileana Giura. 2019. Knowledge Transfers
in Alliances: Exploring the
Facilitating Role of Information Technology. Information Systems
64.Gabriel A Sanni, John O Adebiyi. 2019. Innovative operating
strategies in build–operate–transfertransport infrastructure in
Nigeria. Infrastructure Asset Management 6:3, 155-165. [Crossref]
65.Fahad Ghabban, Ali Selamat, Roliana Ibrahim, Ondrej Krejcar,
Petra Maresova, Enrique HerreraViedma. 2019. The Influence of
Personal and Organizational Factors on Researchers’ Attitudes
towards
Sustainable Research Productivity in Saudi Universities.
Sustainability 11:17, 4804. [Crossref]
66.Christopher S. Koper, Cynthia Lum. Critic 517-543. [Crossref]
67.María-Luz Martín-Peña, José-María Sánchez-López, Eloísa Díaz-
Garrido. 2019. Servitization anddigitalization in manufacturing:
the influence on firm performance. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing 35:3, 564-574. [Crossref]
68.ARMAND DJOUMESSI, SHU-LING CHEN, STEPHEN CAHOON. 2019.
DECONSTRUCTING LAWSON AND SAMSON’S CONCEPT OF INNOVATION
CAPABILITY: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT AND A REFINEMENT.
International Journal of Innovation Management 23:06, 1950053.
[Crossref]
69.Kristen L. Walker, Nora Moran. 2019. Consumer Information for
Data-Driven Decision Making:
Teaching Socially Responsible Use of Data. Journal of Marketing
Education 41:2, 109-126. [Crossref]
70.Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Laurie Hughes, Elvira Ismagilova, Gert Aarts,
Crispin Coombs, Tom Crick,Yanqing Duan, Rohita Dwivedi, John
Edwards, Aled Eirug, Vassilis Galanos, P. Vigneswara Ilavarasan,
Marijn Janssen, Paul Jones, Arpan Kumar Kar, Hatice Kizgin,
Bianca Kronemann, Banita Lal, Biagio Lucini, Rony Medaglia,
Kenneth Le Meunier-FitzHugh, Leslie Caroline Le Meunier-FitzHugh,
Santosh Misra, Emmanuel Mogaji, Sujeet Kumar Sharma, Jang Bahadur
Singh, Vishnupriya Raghavan, Ramakrishnan Raman, Nripendra P.
Rana, Spyridon Samothrakis, Jak Spencer, Kuttimani Tamilmani,
Annie Tubadji, Paul Walton, Michael D. Williams. 2019. Artificial
Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging
challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and
policy. International Journal of Information Management 101994.
[Crossref]
71.Andrea Szalavetz. 2019. Industry 4.0 and capability development
in manufacturing subsidiaries.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 145, 384-395.
[Crossref]
72.Elisa Gerten, Michael Beckmann, Lutz Bellmann. 2019. Controlling
Working Crowds: The Impactof Digitalization on Worker Autonomy
and Monitoring Across Hierarchical Levels. Jahrbücher für
Nationalökonomie und Statistik 239:3, 441-481. [Crossref]
73.Sabrina Genz, Markus Janser, Florian Lehmer. 2019. The Impact of
Investments in New DigitalTechnologies on Wages – Worker-Level
Evidence from Germany. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und
Statistik 239:3, 483-521. [Crossref]
74.Peter Boxall, Meng-Long Huo, Keith Macky, Jonathan Winterton.
Chapter 1 High-involvementWork Processes and Systems: A Review of
Theory, Distribution, Outcomes, and Tensions 1-52. [Crossref]
75.Rogier van de Wetering, Patrick Mikalef, John Krogstie. Strategic
Value Creation through Big DataAnalytics Capabilities: A
Configurational Approach 268-275. [Crossref]
76.Christian Dietzmann, Rainer Alt. How IT-Related Financial
Innovation Influences Bank Risk-Taking: Results from an Empirical
Analysis of Patent Applications 452-461. [Crossref]
77.Paweena Wanchai. 2019. An Integrated Approach to Performance
Evaluation of Enterprise ResourcePlanning (ERP) System
Implementation. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations
17:3, 1-15. [Crossref]
78.Adel Ben Khalifa. 2019. Direct and Complementary Effects of
Investment in Knowledge-BasedEconomy on Innovation Performance in
Tunisian Firms. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 10:2, 561-589.
[Crossref]
79.Katerina Božič, Vlado Dimovski. 2019. Business intelligence and
analytics for value creation: The roleof absorptive capacity.
International Journal of Information Management 46, 93-103.
[Crossref]
80.José J. Céspedes-Lorente, Amalia Magán-Díaz, Ester Martínez-Ros.
2019. Information technologiesand downsizing: Examining their
impact on economic performance. Information & Management 56:4,
526-535. [Crossref]
81.Serhat Sag, Bülent Sezen, Lütfihak Alpkan. 2019. Determinants of
Open Innovation and theirInterrelations. International Journal of
Innovation and Technology Management 16:04, 1940001. [Crossref]
82.Rocco Frondizi, Chiara Fantauzzi, Nathalie Colasanti, Gloria
Fiorani. 2019. The Evaluation ofUniversities’ Third Mission and
Intellectual Capital: Theoretical Analysis and Application to
Italy. Sustainability 11:12, 3455. [Crossref]
83.Soojung Oh, Young U. Ryu, Hongsuk Yang. 2019. Interaction effects
between supply chain capabilitiesand information technology on
firm performance. Information Technology and Management 20:2, 91-
106. [Crossref]
84.Christian Peukert. 2019. Determinants and heterogeneity of
switching costs in IT outsourcing: estimates from firm-level
data. European Journal of Information Systems 28:3, 291-317.
[Crossref]
85.Ammar Ahmed, Habil Slade Ogalo. 2019. From HRM to E-HRM:
Contemporary Developmentsfrom Scholarly Work. Annals of
Contemporary Developments in Management & HR 1:1, 1-6. [Crossref]
86.Muhammad Haseeb, Hafezali Iqbal Hussain, Beata Ślusarczyk,
Kittisak Jermsittiparsert. 2019. Industry 4.0: A Solution towards
Technology Challenges of Sustainable Business Performance. Social
Sciences 8:5, 154. [Crossref]
87.Christopher Reichstein. 2019. Strategic IT management: how
companies can benefit from anincreasing IT influence. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management 32:2, 251-273. [Crossref]
88.Julien Hanoteau, Jean‐Jacques Rosa. 2019. Information
technologies and entrepreneurship.
Managerial and Decision Economics 40:2, 200-212. [Crossref]
89.Arafat Salih Aydiner, Ekrem Tatoglu, Erkan Bayraktar, Selim Zaim,
Dursun Delen. 2019. Businessanalytics and firm performance: The
mediating role of business process performance. Journal of
Business Research 96, 228-237. [Crossref]
90.Timothy Teo. 2019. Students and Teachers' Intention to Use
Technology: Assessing TheirMeasurement Equivalence and Structural
Invariance. Journal of Educational Computing Research 57:1, 201-
225. [Crossref]
91.Nianxin Wang, Yajiong Xue, Huigang Liang, Zhining Wang, Shilun
Ge. 2019. The dual roles of thegovernment in cloud computing
assimilation: an empirical study in China. Information Technology
& People 32:1, 147-170. [Crossref]
92.Erik E. Lehmann, Julian Schenkenhofer, Katharine Wirsching. 2019.
Hidden champions andunicorns: a question of the context of human
capital investment. Small Business Economics 52:2, 359-374.
[Crossref]
93.Flavio Calvino. 2019. Technological innovation and the
distribution of employment growth: a firmlevel analysis.
Industrial and Corporate Change 28:1, 177-202. [Crossref]
94.Gang Peng, Dawei David Zhang. 2019. Does Information Technology
Substitute for or ComplementHuman Labor? A Dynamic Stratified
Analysis on European Countries. Decision Sciences 130. .
[Crossref]
95.Piotr Jałowiecki, Michał Gostkowski, Tomasz Woźniakowski,
Krzysztof Zmarzłowski. 2019.
PRODUCTIVITY PARADOX IN SELECTED SECTORS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTION
BRANCH IN POLAND. Metody Ilościowe w Badaniach Ekonomicznych 19:4,
366-376. [Crossref]
96.Rolf Alexander Teubner. 2019. An Exploration into IT Programs and
Their Management: FindingsFrom Multiple Case Study Research.
Information Systems Management 36:1, 40-56. [Crossref]
97.Lubinda Haabazoka. A Study of the Effects of Technological
Innovations on the Performance ofCommercial Banks in Developing
Countries - A Case of the Zambian Banking Industry 1246-1260.
[Crossref]
98.Rogier van de Wetering. Enhancing Clinical Decision Support
Through Information ProcessingCapabilities and Strategic IT
Alignment 19-29. [Crossref]
99.Katarzyna Tworek. IT Solutions in Organizations 1-28. [Crossref]
100. Reinhard Schütte. Paradoxien der Nutzung von IT-Systemen 59-
84. [Crossref]
101. Robert Obermaier, Stefan Schweikl. Zur Bedeutung von Solows
Paradoxon: Empirische Evidenz undihre Übertragbarkeit auf
Digitalisierungsinvestitionen in einer Industrie 4.0 529-564.
[Crossref]
102. Eveliina Saari, Sari Käpykangas, Mervi Hasu. The Cinderella
Story: Employees Reaching for NewAgency in the Digital Era 285-
304. [Crossref]
103. Davide Castellani, Mariacristina Piva, Torben Schubert, Marco
Vivarelli. 2019. R&D and productivityin the US and the EU:
Sectoral specificities and differences in the crisis.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 138, 279-291.
[Crossref]
104. Jason Furman, Robert Seamans. 2019. AI and the Economy.
Innovation Policy and the Economy 19, 161-191. [Crossref]
105. Nora Taibouni, Rachid Chalal. A Toolbox for Information System
Evaluation 283-290. [Crossref]
106. Dawei (David) Zhang, Gang Peng. 2019. Artificial Intelligence
or Intelligence Augmentation?Unravelling the Debate through an
Industry-Level Analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
107. Jianjing Lin, Mary K. Olson. 2019. Does Health IT Save Money
and Lives? New Evidence fromVendor Heterogeneity. SSRN Electronic
Journal . [Crossref]
108. Prachi Mishra, Nagpurnanand Prabhala, Raghuram G. Rajan. 2019.
The Relationship Dilemma: Organizational Culture and the Adoption
of Credit Scoring Technology in Indian Banking. SSRN Electronic
109. Susan Helper, Raphael Martins, Robert Seamans. 2019. Who
Profits from Industry 4.0? Theory andEvidence from the Automotive
Industry. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
110. Stefan Greil. 2019. The Arm’s Length Principle in the 21st
Century – Alive and Kicking?. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
111. Prasanna Tambe, Lorin M. Hitt, Daniel Rock, Erik Brynjolfsson.
2019. IT, AI and the Growth ofIntangible Capital. SSRN Electronic
112. Francesco Caputo, Armando Papa, Valentina Cillo, Manlio Del
Giudice. Technology Readiness forEducation 4.0 277-296.
[Crossref]
113. Jamil Civitarese, Armando Martins. 2019. Civic Culture,
Bureaucratic Development, and New SocialMovements: Disentangling
the Impacts of the Internet on the Judicial System. SSRN
114. Jihoi Park, Kihwan Nam. 2019. Group recommender system for
store product placement. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery
33:1, 204-229. [Crossref]
115. Michał Zator. 2019. Digitization and Automation: Firm
Investment and Labor Outcomes. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
116. Diwas Singh KC. 2019. Worker Productivity in Operations
Management. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
117. Rogier van de Wetering. 2018. IT-Enabled Clinical Decision
Support: An Empirical Study onAntecedents and Mechanisms. Journal
of Healthcare Engineering 2018, 1-10. [Crossref]
118. Georg Graetz, Guy Michaels. 2018. Robots at Work. The Review
of Economics and Statistics 100:5, 753-768. [Crossref]
119. James Mlimbila, Ulingeta O. L. Mbamba. 2018. The role of
information systems usage in enhancingport logistics performance:
evidence from the Dar Es Salaam port, Tanzania. Journal of
Shipping and Trade 3:1. . [Crossref]
120. R. Vedapradha, Hariharan Ravi. 2018. Application of Artificial
Intelligence in Investment Banks.Review of Economic and Business
Studies 11:2, 131-136. [Crossref]
121. Sangita Dutta Gupta, Ajitava Raychaudhuri, Sushil Kumar
Haldar. 2018. Information technology andprofitability: evidence
from Indian banking sector. International Journal of Emerging
Markets 13:5, 1070-1087. [Crossref]
122. Sylvestre Uwizeyemungu, Louis Raymond, Placide Poba-Nzaou,
Josée St-Pierre. 2018. Thecomplementarity of IT and HRM
capabilities for competitive performance: a configurational
analysis of manufacturing and industrial service SMEs. Enterprise
Information Systems 12:10, 1336-1358. [Crossref]
123. Björn Asdecker, Vanessa Felch. 2018. Development of an
Industry 4.0 maturity model for the deliveryprocess in supply
chains. Journal of Modelling in Management 13:4, 840-883.
[Crossref]
124. Timothy DeStefano, Richard Kneller, Jonathan Timmis. 2018.
Broadband infrastructure, ICT useand firm performance: Evidence
for UK firms. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 155,
110-139. [Crossref]
125. Benedict J. Drasch, André Schweizer, Nils Urbach. 2018.
Integrating the ‘Troublemakers’: A taxonomyfor cooperation
between banks and fintechs. Journal of Economics and Business
100, 26-42. [Crossref]
126. Thilina Halloluwa, Hakim Usoof, Dhaval Vyas. 2018.
Sociocultural Practices that Make Microfinance
Work. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
2:CSCW, 1-22. [Crossref]
127. Yugang He. 2018. A Study on the Impact of Artificial
Intelligence Industry on Macroeconomy: Evidence from United
States of America. The East Asian Journal of Business Management
8:4, 37-44. [Crossref]
128. Davide Di Fatta, Francesco Caputo, Gandolfo Dominici. 2018. A
relational view of start-up firms insidean incubator: the case of
the ARCA consortium. European Journal of Innovation Management
21:4, 601-619. [Crossref]
129. Krista Timeus, Mila Gascó. 2018. Increasing innovation
capacity in city governments: Do innovationlabs make a
difference?. Journal of Urban Affairs 40:7, 992-1008. [Crossref]
130. Jeong-Hoon Hyun, Hyungjin Cho. 2018. Deleveraging and decline
in revenue-expense matching overtime. Journal of Business Finance
& Accounting 45:9-10, 1031-1050. [Crossref]
131. Peter Bogetoft, Lene Kromann. 2018. Evaluating treatment
effects using data envelopment analysison matched samples: An
analysis of electronic information sharing and firm performance.
European Journal of Operational Research 270:1, 302-313.
[Crossref]
132. Davide Antonioli, Grazia Cecere, Massimiliano Mazzanti. 2018.
Information communicationtechnologies and environmental
innovations in firms: joint adoptions and productivity effects.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61:11, 1905-
1933. [Crossref]
133. Mohammad Salehan, Dan J. Kim, Jae-Nam Lee. 2018. Are there any
relationships betweentechnology and cultural values? A country-
level trend study of the association between information
communication technology and cultural values. Information &
134. Eric Bartelsman, Eva Hagsten, Michael Polder. 2018. Micro
Moments Database for cross-countryanalysis of ICT, innovation,
and economic outcomes. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy
27:3, 626-648. [Crossref]
135. Wen Chen. 2018. Cross-Country Income Differences Revisited:
Accounting for the Role of IntangibleCapital. Review of Income
and Wealth 64:3, 626-648. [Crossref]
136. Feiqi Huang, He Li, Tawei Wang. 2018. Information Technology
Capability, Management ForecastAccuracy, and Analyst Forecast
Revisions. Accounting Horizons 32:3, 49-70. [Crossref]
137. Virginia Barba-Sánchez, María José Calderón-Milán, Carlos
Atienza-Sahuquillo. 2018. A STUDYOF THE VALUE OF ICT IN IMPROVING
CORPORATE PERFORMANCE: A CORPORATE
COMPETITIVENESS VIEW. Technological and Economic Development of
Economy 24:4, 1388-1407. [Crossref]
138. Suraksha Gupta, Pantea Foroudi, Dorothy Yen. 2018.
Investigating relationship types for creatingbrand value for
resellers. Industrial Marketing Management 72, 37-47. [Crossref]
139. Lynn Wu, Fujie Jin, Lorin M. Hitt. 2018. Are All Spillovers
Created Equal? A Network Perspectiveon Information Technology
Labor Movements. Management Science 64:7, 3168-3186. [Crossref]
140. Peter Appiahene, Najim Ussiph, Yaw M Missah. 2018. Information
Technology Impacton Productivity. International Journal of
Information Communication Technologies and Human Development
10:3, 39-61. [Crossref]
141. Ariyan Fazlollahi, Ulrik Franke. 2018. Measuring the impact of
enterprise integration on firmperformance using data envelopment
analysis. International Journal of Production Economics 200, 119-
129. [Crossref]
142. Anna Kochanova, Zahid Hasnain, Bradley Larson. 2018. Does E-
Government Improve GovernmentCapacity? Evidence from Tax
Compliance Costs, Tax Revenue, and Public Procurement
Competitiveness. The World Bank Economic Review 24. . [Crossref]
143. Saša Baškarada, Andy Koronios. 2018. The 5S organizational
agility framework: a dynamic capabilitiesperspective.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis 26:2, 331-342.
[Crossref]
144. James B. Martin, Joyendu Bhadury, James Cordeiro, Melissa L.
Waite, Kwasi Amoako-Gyampah.2018. Service operations in DMV
(division of motor vehicles) offices of the USA - a comparative
study. Management Research Review 41:4, 504-523. [Crossref]
145. Diego Aboal, Ezequiel Tacsir. 2018. Innovation and
productivity in services and manufacturing: therole of ICT.
146. Kwok Hung Lau, Tri Lam, Booi Hon Kam, Mathews Nkhoma, Joan
Richardson, Susan Thomas.2018. The role of textbook learning
resources in e-learning: A taxonomic study. Computers & Education
118, 10-24. [Crossref]
147. Naveed Iqbal, Mansoor Ahmad, Matthew M.C. Allen, Muhammad
Mustafa Raziq. 2018. Does eHRM improve labour productivity? A
study of commercial bank workplaces in Pakistan. Employee
Relations 40:2, 281-297. [Crossref]
148. Sunil Misra, Kailash B. L. Srivastava. 2018. Team-building
Competencies, Personal Effectiveness andJob Satisfaction: The
Mediating Effect of Transformational Leadership and Technology.
Management and Labour Studies 43:1-2, 109-122. [Crossref]
149. Ludivine Martin. 2018. How to retain motivated employees in
their jobs?. Economic and Industrial Democracy 7,
0143831X1774152. [Crossref]
150. Martin Schneider. Digitalization of Production, Human Capital,
and Organizational Capital 39-52. [Crossref]
151. Jonas Köster. Video for Learning 1-13. [Crossref]
152. K. Lakshmaiah, S. Murali Krishna, B. Eswara Reddy. An Overview
of Bio-Inspired Computing481-492. [Crossref]
153. Eida Nadirah Roslin, Shamsuddin Ahmed, Siti Zawiah Md Dawal,
Jamel Othman, MohamadAsmidzam Ahamat, Norazwani Mohammad Zain.
2018. A Full-Blown Concept of Lean
Manufacturing System in Automotive Industry. Journal of
Industrial and Intelligent Information 14-22. [Crossref]
154. Fabiano Schivardi, Tom Schmitz. 2018. The IT Revolution and
Southern Europe's Two Lost Decades.SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
155. Steffen Viete, Daniel Erdsiek. 2018. Trust-Based Work Time and
the Productivity Effects of Mobile
Information Technologies in the Workplace. SSRN Electronic
156. Jason Furman, Robert Seamans. 2018. AI and the Economy. SSRN
157. Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah. 2018. Why and Who Will Adopt Extended
Reality Technology?Literature Review, Synthesis, and Future
Research Agenda. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
158. Omar León, Juan Ignacio Igartua, Jaione Ganzarain. 2018.
Performance and internationalization effectsof the use of ICT in
diversified companies. Small Business International Review 2:1,
16-28. [Crossref]
159. Farrukh Saleem, Naomie Salim, Abdulrahman Altalhi, Abdullah
Al-Malaise Al-Ghamdi, Zahid Ullah,Noor ul Qayyum. 2018.
Developing a Holistic Model for Assessing the ICT Impact on
Organizations: A Managerial Perspective. Intelligent Automation
and Soft Computing 71, 1-21. [Crossref]
160. Arturo Cordón-Pérez, Pedro Solana-González, Daniel Pérez-
González, Sara Trigueros-Preciado.
Innovation Management in Research and Development Projects 117-
137. [Crossref]
161. Derya Findik, Aysit Tansel. Resources on the Stage 978-999.
[Crossref]
162. Rogier van de Wetering, Patrick Mikalef, Adamantia Pateli.
2018. Strategic Alignment Between ITFlexibility and Dynamic
Capabilities. International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and
Governance 9:1, 1-20. [Crossref]
163. Georges Harb. 2017. The economic impact of the Internet
penetration rate and telecom investmentsin Arab and Middle
Eastern countries. Economic Analysis and Policy 56, 148-162.
[Crossref]
164. Ian William Marsh, Ana Rincon-Aznar, Michela Vecchi, Francesco
Venturini. 2017. We see ICTspillovers everywhere but in the
econometric evidence: a reassessment. Industrial and Corporate
Change 26:6, 1067-1088. [Crossref]
165. Ignacio Marin-Garcia, Patricia Chavez-Burbano, Victor Guerra,
Jose Rabadan, Rafael Perez-Jimenez.2017. Considerations on
Visible Light Communication security by applying the Risk Matrix
methodology for risk assessment. PLOS ONE 12:11, e0188759.
[Crossref]
166. Jacob Z. Haislip, Vernon J. Richardson. 2017. The effect of
Customer Relationship Managementsystems on firm performance.
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 27, 16-
29. [Crossref]
167. Khuong M. Vu. 2017. ICT diffusion and production in ASEAN
countries: Patterns, performance, andpolicy directions.
Telecommunications Policy 41:10, 962-977. [Crossref]
168. Tao Zhang, Xinchun Wang, Guijun Zhuang. 2017. Building channel
power: the role of IT resourcesand information management
capability. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 32:8,
1217-1227. [Crossref]
169. L. Colombo, H. Dawid, M. Piva, M. Vivarelli. 2017. Does easy
start-up formation hamper incumbents’R&D investment?. Small
Business Economics 49:3, 513-531. [Crossref]
170. Rogier van de Wetering, Patrick Mikalef, Remko Helms. 2017.
Driving organizational sustainabilityoriented innovation
capabilities: a complex adaptive systems perspective. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 28, 71-79. [Crossref]
171. John G. Fernald. 2017. Paradox resolved? A review of the Rise
and Fall of American Growth, by RobertJ. Gordon. Business
Economics 52:4, 265-267. [Crossref]
172. Steven Ji-fan Ren, Samuel Fosso Wamba, Shahriar Akter,
Rameshwar Dubey, Stephen J. Childe. 2017. Modelling quality
dynamics, business value and firm performance in a big data
analytics environment. International Journal of Production
173. Harald Edquist, Magnus Henrekson. 2017. Swedish lessons: How
important are ICT and R&D toeconomic growth?. Structural Change
and Economic Dynamics 42, 1-12. [Crossref]
174. Joseph K. Nwankpa, Pratim Datta. 2017. Balancing exploration
and exploitation of IT resources: theinfluence of Digital
Business Intensity on perceived organizational performance.
European Journal of Information Systems 26:5, 469-488. [Crossref]
175. Bishwanath Goldar, Yashobanta Parida. 2017. Intangible Capital
and Firm Productivity. South Asia Economic Journal 18:2, 246-275.
[Crossref]
176. Liuying Zhu, Sai On Cheung. 2017. Harvesting Competitiveness
through Building OrganizationalInnovation Capacity. Journal of
Management in Engineering 33:5, 04017020. [Crossref]
177. Cecilia Lindh, Emilia Rovira Nordman. 2017. Information
technology and performance in industrialbusiness relationships:
the mediating effect of business development. Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing 32:7, 998-1008. [Crossref]
178. Wei Jin, ZhongXiang Zhang. 2017. The tragedy of product
homogeneity and knowledge nonspillovers: explaining the slow pace
of energy technological progress. Annals of Operations Research
255:1-2, 639-661. [Crossref]
179. E.A. Pärn, D.J. Edwards. 2017. Conceptualising the FinDD API
plug-in: A study of BIM-FMintegration. Automation in Construction
80, 11-21. [Crossref]
180. Brian Paul Cozzarin. 2017. Impact of organizational innovation
on product and process innovation.Economics of Innovation and New
Technology 26:5, 405-417. [Crossref]
181. Héctor Eduardo Díaz Rodríguez. 2017. Tecnologías de la
información y comunicación y crecimientoeconómico. Economía
Informa 405, 30-45. [Crossref]
182. Terry W. Mason, John J. Morris. 2017. The Impact of
Organizational Slack and Lag Time on
Economic Productivity. International Journal of Enterprise
183. Eva Hagsten, Anna Sabadash. 2017. A neglected input to
production: the role of ICT-schooledemployees in firm
performance. International Journal of Manpower 38:3, 373-391.
[Crossref]
184. Amani Elnasri, Kevin J. Fox. 2017. The contribution of
research and innovation to productivity.Journal of Productivity
Analysis 47:3, 291-308. [Crossref]
185. Graham Palmer. 2017. Energetic Implications of a Post-
industrial Information Economy: The CaseStudy of Australia.
BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality 2:2. . [Crossref]
186. Jeff Baker, Jaeki Song, Donald R. Jones. 2017. Closing the
loop: Empirical evidence for a positivefeedback model of IT
business value creation. The Journal of Strategic Information
187. Susan V. Scott, John Van Reenen, Markos Zachariadis. 2017. The
long-term effect of digital innovationon bank performance: An
empirical study of SWIFT adoption in financial services. Research
Policy 46:5, 984-1004. [Crossref]
188. Vladimir Mau. 2017. Lessons in stabilization and prospects for
growth: Russia's economic policy in2016. Russian Journal of
189. Hernan Galperin, M. Fernanda Viecens. 2017. Connected for
Development? Theory and evidenceabout the impact of Internet
technologies on poverty alleviation. Development Policy Review
35:3, 315-336. [Crossref]
190. Ram Kumar Dhurkari. 2017. Information Technology and
Organizational Change: Review of Theoriesand Application to a
Case of Indian Railways. Management and Labour Studies 42:2, 135-
151. [Crossref]
191. Pablo Casas-Arce, F. Asis Martínez-Jerez, V. G. Narayanan.
2017. The Impact of Forward-LookingMetrics on Employee Decision-
Making: The Case of Customer Lifetime Value. The Accounting
Review 92:3, 31-56. [Crossref]
192. Sulin Ba, Barrie R. Nault. 2017. Emergent Themes in the
Interface Between Economics of InformationSystems and Management
of Technology. Production and Operations Management 26:4, 652-
666. [Crossref]
193. Vageesh Jain, S A M Stevelink, N T Fear. 2017. What are the
best and worst things about having afather in UK Armed Forces?
Analysis of free text responses. Journal of the Royal Army
Medical Corps 163:2, 115-118. [Crossref]
194. Ana Felicitas Gargallo Castel, Carmen Galve Górriz. 2017.
Family involvement and the impact ofinformation and communication
technology on performance. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de
Administración 30:1, 23-39. [Crossref]
195. Riccardo Leoni, Paola Gritti. 2017. Institutional Wage
Setting, Distinctive Competencies and WagePremia. Italian
Economic Journal 3:1, 71-111. [Crossref]
196. Paolo Neirotti, Elisabetta Raguseo. 2017. On the contingent
value of IT-based capabilities for thecompetitive advantage of
SMEs: Mechanisms and empirical evidence. Information & Management
54:2, 139-153. [Crossref]
197. Petr Polák. 2017. The productivity paradox: A meta-analysis.
Information Economics and Policy 38, 38-54. [Crossref]
198. Jerry Luftman, Kalle Lyytinen, Tal ben Zvi. 2017. Enhancing
the measurement of informationtechnology (IT) business alignment
and its influence on company performance. Journal of Information
199. Derek C. Jones, Panu Kalmi, Takao Kato, Mikko Mäkinen. 2017.
Complementarities between
Employee Involvement and Financial Participation. ILR Review
70:2, 395-418. [Crossref]
200. V. Mau. 2017. The lessons of stabilization and prospects of
growth:Russia’s economic policy in 2016. Voprosy Ekonomiki :2, 5-
29. [Crossref]
201. Michel Ehrenhard, Fons Wijnhoven, Tijs van den Broek, Marc
Zinck Stagno. 2017. Unlocking howstart-ups create business value
with mobile applications: Development of an App-enabled Business
Innovation Cycle. Technological Forecasting and Social Change
115, 26-36. [Crossref]
202. Bianca K. Frogner, Xiaoli Wu, Jeongyoung Park, Patricia
Pittman. 2017. The Association of ElectronicHealth Record
Adoption with Staffing Mix in Community Health Centers. Health
Services Research 52, 407-421. [Crossref]
203. Jonghak Sun. 2017. The effect of information technology on IT-
facilitated coordination, IT-facilitatedautonomy, and decision-
makings at the individual level. Applied Economics 49:2, 138-155.
[Crossref]
204. Margarita Billon, Fernando Lera-Lopez, Rocío Marco. 2017.
Patterns of Combined ICT Use andInnovation in the European
Regions. Journal of Global Information Technology Management
20:1, 28-42. [Crossref]
205. Özgün Imre. Learning by Negotiation: Stake and Salience in
Implementing a Journal ManagementSystem 369-383. [Crossref]
206. Margarita Billon, Jorge Crespo, Fernando Lera-López. Internet,
Educational Disparities, and
Economic Growth: Differences Between Low-Middle and High-Income
Countries 51-68. [Crossref] 207. Chrisanthi Avgerou. Theoretical
Framing of ICT4D Research 10-23. [Crossref]
208. Amy Van Looy. A Quantitative Study of the Link Between
Business Process Management and DigitalInnovation 177-192.
[Crossref]
209. Daniela Haugeneder. Information and Communication Technology
as a Driver for Institutional andOrganisational Changes in
Austrian Hospitals 95-110. [Crossref]
210. Samuel Fosso Wamba, Angappa Gunasekaran, Shahriar Akter,
Steven Ji-fan Ren, Rameshwar Dubey,Stephen J. Childe. 2017. Big
data analytics and firm performance: Effects of dynamic
capabilities. Journal of Business Research 70, 356-365.
[Crossref]
211. Antonio Cordella, Tito Cordella. 2017. Motivations, monitoring
technologies, and pay forperformance. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization 133, 236-255. [Crossref]
212. Abhipsa Pal, Abhoy Kumar Ojha. Institutional Isomorphism due
to the Influence of InformationSystems and Its Strategic
Position 147-154. [Crossref]
213. Prema Sankaran, Sankaran Bheeman, K. Hari Priya, Xujuan Zhou,
Raj Gururajan. Factors impactingemployee engagement on
enterprise social media 1114-1121. [Crossref]
214. 백 백 백 . 2017. The Effect of E-Business on Firm’s Growth and
Profitability in the Distribution Industry.Journal of
Distribution Science 15:1, 123-130. [Crossref]
215. Eric J. Bartelsman, Eva Hagsten. 2017. Micro Moments Database
for Cross-Country Analysis of ICT,Innovation, and Economic
Outcomes. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
216. Gang Peng, Antino Kim, Debabrata Dey. 2017. Service Job
Displacement: A Task-Based Analysis ofthe Impact of Information
Technology. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
217. Giovanni Mastrobuoni. 2017. Crime is Terribly Revealing:
Information Technology and PoliceProductivity. SSRN Electronic
218. Tom Tan, Serguei Netessine. 2017. At Your Service on the
Table: Impact of Tabletop Technology onRestaurant Performance.
SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
219. Hae Won (Henny) Jung, Dalida Kadyrzhanova. 2017. Technological
Knowledge and CorporateGovernance. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
220. Amr Ali. 2017. A Heuristic Model of the Spatial Interaction
between Job Locations & the Potential
Employees in Urban Metropolitan Areas. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
221. Aparna Gosavi. 2017. Use of the Internet and its Impact on
Productivity and Sales Growth in FemaleOwned Firms: Evidence
from India. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and
Innovation 13:2, 155-178. [Crossref]
222. Younjun Kim, Peter F. Orazem. 2017. Broadband Internet and New
Firm Location Decisions in RuralAreas. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 99:1, 1-18. [Crossref]
223. Meriem Skik, Anis Bouzaiene, Lubica Hikkerova. 2017. Les
préalables à la mise en place d’un CRMbancaire : Le cas d’une
banque tunisienne. Gestion 2000 34:1, 181. [Crossref]
224. Johanna Habib, Mathias Béjean, Jean-Paul Dumond. 2017.
Appréhender les transformationsorganisationnelles de la santé
numérique à partir des perceptions des acteurs. Systèmes
d'information & management 22:1, 39. [Crossref]
225. Emek Basker, Timothy S. Simcoe. 2017. Upstream, Downstream:
Diffusion and Impacts of theUniversal Product Code. SSRN
226. François Deltour, Sébastien Le Gall, Virginie Lethiais. 2016.
Le numérique transforme-t-il le lienentre territoire et
innovation ? Une étude empirique sur les PME. Revue d'économie
industrielle :156, 23-55. [Crossref]
227. Stephan Löbel, Benedikt Paulowitsch, Tino Schuppan. 2016.
Intermediaries in the public sector andthe role of information
technology. Information Polity 21:4, 335-346. [Crossref]
228. . References 373-386. [Crossref]
229. Xiaobo Xu, Weiyong Zhang, Ling Li. 2016. The impact of
technology type and life cycle onIT productivity variance: A
contingency theoretical perspective. International Journal of
Information Management 36:6, 1193-1204. [Crossref]
230. Chrisanthi Avgerou, Niall Hayes, Renata Lèbre La Rovere. 2016.
Growth in ICT Uptake inDeveloping Countries: New Users, New
Uses, New Challenges. Journal of Information Technology 31:4,
329-333. [Crossref]
231. Martin Junge, Battista Severgnini, Anders Sørensen. 2016.
Product-Marketing Innovation, Skills, andFirm Productivity
Growth. Review of Income and Wealth 62:4, 724-757. [Crossref]
233. Saeed Moshiri. 2016. ICT spillovers and productivity in
Canada: provincial and industry analysis.Economics of Innovation
and New Technology 25:8, 801-820. [Crossref]
234. Pei Li, Yi Lu, Jin Wang. 2016. Does flattening government
improve economic performance? Evidencefrom China. Journal of
Development Economics 123, 18-37. [Crossref]
235. Ajayi Binyamin Adeniyi, Ahlan Abdul Rahman, Olanrewaju
Rashidah Funke. Re-Emphasizing theDimensions and Impacts of
Complementary IT Resources through Governance 7-12. [Crossref]
236. John G. Fernald, J. Christina Wang. 2016. Why Has the
Cyclicality of Productivity Changed? WhatDoes It Mean?. Annual
Review of Economics 8:1, 465-496. [Crossref]
237. Teresa C. Fort. 2016. Technology and Production Fragmentation:
Domestic versus Foreign Sourcing.The Review of Economic Studies
122, rdw057. [Crossref]
238. Janet H. Marler, Emma Parry. 2016. Human resource management,
strategic involvement and e-HRMtechnology. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 27:19, 2233-2253.
[Crossref]
239. Bharat Arora, Zillur Rahman. 2016. Information technology
investment strategies: a review andsynthesis of the literature.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 28:9, 1073-1094.
[Crossref]
240. Peiqin Zhang, Kexin Zhao, Ram L. Kumar. 2016. Impact of IT
Governance and IT Capability onFirm Performance. Information
Systems Management 33:4, 357-373. [Crossref]
241. Valeriano Balloni, Floriano Bonfigli. Preliminary Notes on the
Organizational and ManagementImplications of ICT Adoption 72-76.
[Crossref]
242. Valeria Belvedere, Alberto Grando. 2016. ICT-enabled time
performance: an investigation of valuecreation mechanisms.
Production Planning & Control 25, 1-14. [Crossref]
243. Gilbert Cette, John Fernald, Benoît Mojon. 2016. The pre-Great
Recession slowdown in productivity.European Economic Review 88,
3-20. [Crossref]
244. Hailin Liao, Bin Wang, Baibing Li, Tom Weyman-Jones. 2016. ICT
as a general-purpose technology: The productivity of ICT in the
United States revisited. Information Economics and Policy 36,
10-25. [Crossref]
245. Spyros Arvanitis, Euripidis N. Loukis, Vasiliki
Diamantopoulou. 2016. Are ICT, WorkplaceOrganization, and Human
Capital Relevant for Innovation? A Comparative Swiss/Greek
Study. International Journal of the Economics of Business 23:3,
319-349. [Crossref]
246. Wai-Peng Wong, Vito Veneziano, Imran Mahmud. 2016. Usability
of Enterprise Resource Planningsoftware systems: an evaluative
analysis of the use of SAP in the textile industry in
Bangladesh. Information Development 32:4, 1027-1041. [Crossref]
247. Margaret H. Christ, Andreas I. Nicolaou. 2016. Integrated
Information Systems, Alliance Formation,and the Risk of
Information Exchange between Partners. Journal of Management
Accounting Research 28:3, 1-18. [Crossref]
248. Jose-Luis Hervas-Oliver, Francisca Ripoll-Sempere, Carles
Boronat Moll. 2016. Does managementinnovation pay-off in SMEs?
Empirical evidence for Spanish SMEs. Small Business Economics
47:2, 507-533. [Crossref]
249. Arash Porssa, Hojjat Mirzazadeh. 2016. Develop an Information
Technology Model to ImproveCustomer Service in NIGCS1. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences 229, 167-174. [Crossref]
250. . Evaluation of Meeting and Event Technology 157-180.
[Crossref]
251. Roberto Antonietti. 2016. From outsourcing to productivity,
passing through training: microeconometric evidence from Italy.
Industry and Innovation 23:5, 407-425. [Crossref]
252. Kawika Pierson, Fred Thompson. 2016. How you buy affects what
you get: Technology acquisitionby state governments. Government
Information Quarterly 33:3, 494-505. [Crossref]
253. Toma LANKAUSKIENĖ. 2016. APPLICATION OF THE GROWTH
ACCOUNTINGMETHOD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. Journal of
Business Economics and
254. Erik Brynjolfsson, Kristina McElheran. 2016. The Rapid
Adoption of Data-Driven Decision-Making.American Economic Review
106:5, 133-139. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
255. Wen Chen, Thomas Niebel, Marianne Saam. 2016. Are intangibles
more productive in ICT-intensiveindustries? Evidence from EU
countries. Telecommunications Policy 40:5, 471-484. [Crossref]
256. Alex Coad, Gabriele Pellegrino, Maria Savona. 2016. Barriers
to innovation and firm productivity.Economics of Innovation and
New Technology 25:3, 321-334. [Crossref]
257. Seetharaman, Krishna Moorthy, Saravanan, Santhikumar Pitta.
2016. Impact of Selling, General andAdministrative Expenses on
Financial Sustainability of IT Companies Listed in S&P 500.
Journal of Distribution Science 14:4, 13-20. [Crossref]
258. Robert Wentrup, Patrik Ström, H. Richard Nakamura. 2016.
Digital oases and digital deserts in SubSaharan Africa. Journal
of Science and Technology Policy Management 7:1, 77-100.
[Crossref]
259. Luis Garicano, Luis Rayo. 2016. Why Organizations Fail: Models
and Cases. Journal of Economic Literature 54:1, 137-192.
[Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
260. Susan A Brown, Anne P Massey, Kerry W Ward. 2016. Handle
mergers and acquisitions with care:
the fragility of trust between the IT-service provider and end-
users. European Journal of Information Systems 25:2, 170-186.
[Crossref]
261. Piriya Pholphirul, Veera Bhatiasevi. 2016. IT investment and
constraints in developing countries.Information Development
32:2, 186-202. [Crossref]
262. Riaan Rudman, Rikus Bruwer. 2016. Defining Web 3.0:
opportunities and challenges. The Electronic Library 34:1, 132-
154. [Crossref]
263. Simona Popa, Pedro Soto-Acosta, Euripidis Loukis. 2016.
Analyzing the complementarity of webinfrastructure and
eInnovation for business value generation. Program 50:1, 118-
134. [Crossref]
264. Christina Windmark, Carin Andersson. 2016. Cost modelling as
decision support when locatingmanufacturing facilities.
International Journal of Production Management and Engineering
4:1, 15. [Crossref]
265. . Delivering services 152-188. [Crossref]
266. Gianfranco Walsh, Peter Walgenbach, Heiner Evanschitzky, Mario
Schaarschmidt. 2016. ServiceProductivity: What Stops Service
Firms from Measuring It?. Journal of Organisational
Transformation & Social Change 13:1, 5-25. [Crossref]
267. Ime Asangansi. 2016. Is mHealth Disrupting the Status Quo?
Evidence from ImplementationsHighlighting Network vs.
Hierarchical Institutional Logics. The Electronic Journal of
Information Systems in Developing Countries 72:1, 1-27.
[Crossref]
268. Kevin J. Stiroh. 2001: Information Technology and the U.S.
Productivity Revival: a Review of theEvidence 279-290.
[Crossref]
269. Konstantinos Vergos, Apostolos G. Christopoulos, Quyan Pan,
Petros Kalantonis. The IT Industryand the Economic Crisis:
Empirical Findings from the USA 199-206. [Crossref]
270. Marko Nöhren. Theoretical and Conceptual Foundation 11-56.
[Crossref]
271. Francisco J. Martínez-López, Rafael Anaya-Sánchez, Rocio
Aguilar-Illescas, Sebastián Molinillo.Evolution of the Web 5-15.
[Crossref]
272. Selena Aureli, Massimo Ciambotti, Attila Jóczik, Peter
Sasvari. Interpreting the Correlation Betweenthe Capacity of
Generating Added Value and the Use of Business Information
Systems Through the Example of SMEs 29-41. [Crossref]
273. Elena Bruno, Giuseppina Iacoviello, Arianna Lazzini. The
Adequacy of Information Systems forSupporting the Asset Quality
Review Process in Banks. Evidence from an Italian Case Study 59-
75. [Crossref]
274. Danila Scarozza, Alessandro Hinna, Stefano Scravaglieri, Marta
Trotta. The Value of ICTApplications: Linking Performance,
Accountability and Transparency in Public Administrations 51-70.
[Crossref]
275. Kevin Kativu, Dalenca Pottas. A Community Assets
Infrastructure for the Secure Use of MobileComputing Devices in
the Rural Health Landscape 96-106. [Crossref]
276. Peiqin Zhang, Lucian L. Visinescu, Kexin Zhao, Ram L. Kumar.
Using Text Mining Analytics toUnderstand IT Internal Control
Weaknesses 155-160. [Crossref]
277. Daniel W. E. Hein, Philipp A. Rauschnabel. Augmented Reality
Smart Glasses and KnowledgeManagement: A Conceptual Framework
for Enterprise Social Networks 83-109. [Crossref]
278. Héctor Cuevas-Vargas, Salvador Estrada, Emigdio Larios-Gómez.
2016. The Effects of ICTs AsInnovation Facilitators for a
Greater Business Performance. Evidence from Mexico. Procedia
Computer Science 91, 47-56. [Crossref]
279. Omar A. León, Juan I. Igartua, Jaione Ganzarain. 2016.
Relationship between the Use of ICT andthe Degree and Type of
Diversification. Procedia Computer Science 100, 1191-1199.
[Crossref]
280. Matteo Grazzi, Juan Jung. Information and Communication
Technologies, Innovation, and
Productivity: Evidence from Firms in Latin America and the
Caribbean 103-135. [Crossref]
281. Ram C. Acharya. 2016. ICT use and total factor productivity
growth: intangible capital or productiveexternalities?. Oxford
Economic Papers 68:1, 16-39. [Crossref]
282. Niki Kyriakou, Euripides Loukis, Spyros Arvanitis. Enterprise
Systems and Innovation -- An EmpiricalInvestigation 4686-4696.
[Crossref]
283. Linda Veiga, Tomasz Janowski, Luís Soares Barbosa. Digital
Government and Administrative BurdenReduction 323-326.
[Crossref]
284. Erik Brynjolfsson, Kristina McElheran. 2016. Data in Action:
Data-Driven Decision Making in U.S.Manufacturing. SSRN
285. Dieter Ernst, Linsu Kim. 2016. Global Production Networks,
Knowledge Diffusion and LocalCapability Formation. SSRN
286. Gilbert Cette, Benoit Mojon. 2016. The Pre-Great Recession
Slowdown in Productivity. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
287. Erik Gielstra. 2016. The Design of a Methodology for the
Justification and Implementation of ProcessMining. SSRN
288. Po-Hsuan Hsu, Wei Yang. 2016. General Purpose Technologies,
Financial Market Integration, andthe Cross Section of Stock
Returns. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
289. Irene Bertschek, Wolfgang Briglauer, Kai HHschelrath, Thomas
Niebel. 2016. The Economic Impactsof Telecommunications Networks
and Broadband Internet: A Survey. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
290. Victor Manuel Bennett. 2016. Changes in Persistence of
Performance Over Time. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
291. Seth G. Benzell, Marshall W. Van Alstyne. 2016. The Role of
APIs in Firm Performance. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
292. Teresa Fort. 2016. Technology and Production Fragmentation:
Domestic versus Foreign Sourcing.SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
293. Hyungjin Cho, Jeong-Hoon Hyun. 2016. The Influence of
Differential Treatment between the Costsof Debt and Equity on
Earnings Attributes: Evidence from the Matching between Revenues
and Expenses. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
294. Nathan Goldschlag, Javier Miranda. 2016. Business Dynamics
Statistics of High Tech Industries.SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
295. Dimitrios Vyzirgiannakis. 2016. Public Sector e-Recruitment
Practices in Greece: The Case of the
Supreme Council for Civil Personnel Selection (Asep) Website. SSRN
296. Tiago Oliveira, Gurpreet Dhillon. From Adoption to
Routinization of B2B e-Commerce 1477-1497. [Crossref]
297. Héctor Cuevas-Vargas, Gabriela Citlalli López-Torres, María
del Carmen Martínez Serna. 2016. Theinfluence of information and
communication technologies on organizational innovation. A
perspective of Mexican SMEs. Risk Governance and Control:
Financial Markets and Institutions 6:4, 155-160. [Crossref]
298. Edward M. Roche, Michael J. Blaine. 2015. Asygnosis and
asygnotic networks. Netcom :29-3/4, 419-450. [Crossref]
299. Der-Fang Hung. 2015. Sustained Competitive Advantage and
Organizational Inertia: The CostPerspective of Knowledge
Management. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 6:4, 769-789.
[Crossref]
300. Francesco Vona, Davide Consoli. 2015. Innovation and skill
dynamics: a life-cycle approach. Industrial and Corporate Change
24:6, 1393-1415. [Crossref]
301. Olena Ivus, Matthew Boland. 2015. The employment and wage
impact of broadband deployment inCanada. Canadian Journal of
Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique 48:5, 1803-1830.
[Crossref]
302. Christopher S. Koper, Cynthia Lum, Julie Hibdon. 2015. The
Uses and Impacts of Mobile ComputingTechnology in Hot Spots
Policing. Evaluation Review 39:6, 587-624. [Crossref]
303. Alberto Bayo-Moriones, Jonathan Calleja-Blanco, Fernando Lera-
López. 2015. The relationshipbetween ICTs and HPWPs across
occupations. International Journal of Manpower 36:8, 1164-1180.
[Crossref]
304. Masayuki Morikawa. 2015. Are large headquarters unproductive?.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 119, 422-436.
[Crossref]
305. Zainal Arifin, Frmanzah. 2015. The Effect of Dynamic
Capability to Technology Adoption and itsDeterminant Factors for
Improving Firm's Performance; Toward a Conceptual Model.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 207, 786-796.
[Crossref]
306. Alon Brav, Wei Jiang, Hyunseob Kim. 2015. The Real Effects of
Hedge Fund Activism: Productivity,Asset Allocation, and Labor
Outcomes. Review of Financial Studies 28:10, 2723-2769.
[Crossref]
307. JANE BOURKE, FRANK CROWLEY. 2015. THE ROLE OF HRM AND
ICTCOMPLEMENTARITIES IN FIRM INNOVATION: EVIDENCE FROM
TRANSITION
ECONOMIES. International Journal of Innovation Management 19:05,
1550054. [Crossref]
308. Olfa Hajjem, Pierre Garrouste, Mohamed Ayadi. 2015. Effets des
innovations technologiqueset organisationnelles sur la
productivité : une extension du modèle CDM. Revue d'économie
industrielle :151, 101-125. [Crossref]
309. Lin-Kung Chen, Wei-Ning Yang. 2015. Perceived service quality
discrepancies betweentelecommunication service provider and
customer. Computer Standards & Interfaces 41, 85-97. [Crossref]
310. Dawei Zhang, Zhuo (June) Cheng, Hasan A. Qurban H. Mohammad,
Barrie R. Nault. 2015. ResearchCommentary—Information Technology
Substitution Revisited. Information Systems Research 26:3, 480-
495. [Crossref]
311. William Jones. 2015. Building a Better World with our
Information: The Future of PersonalInformation Management, Part
3. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and
Services 7:4, 1-203. [Crossref]
312. Maria Veronica Alderete. 2015. Does digital proximity between
countries impact entrepreneurship?.info 17:5, 46-65. [Crossref]
313. Luay Anaya, Mohammed Dulaimi, Sherief Abdallah. 2015. An
investigation into the role of enterpriseinformation systems in
enabling business innovation. Business Process Management
Journal 21:4, 771-790. [Crossref]
314. Roya Gholami, Dolores Añón Higón, Ali Emrouznejad. 2015.
Hospital performance: Efficiency orquality? Can we have both
with IT?. Expert Systems with Applications 42:12, 5390-5400.
[Crossref]
315. Encarnación Moral-Pajares, Adoración Mozas-Moral, Enrique
Bernal-Jurado, Miguel Jesús MedinaViruel. 2015. Efficiency and
exports: Evidence from Southern European companies. Journal of
Business Research 68:7, 1506-1511. [Crossref]
316. Shiyi Chen, Zhen Xie. 2015. Is China's e-governance
sustainable? Testing Solow IT productivityparadox in China's
context. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 96, 51-61.
[Crossref]
317. Seunghee Yu, Abhay Nath Mishra, Anandasivam Gopal, Sandra
Slaughter, Tridas Mukhopadhyay.2015. E-Procurement Infusion and
Operational Process Impacts in MRO Procurement: Complementary or
Substitutive Effects?. Production and Operations Management
24:7, 1054-1070. [Crossref]
318. Youngcheol Kang, William J. O’Brien, James T. O’Connor. 2015.
Information-Integration MaturityModel for the Capital Projects
Industry. Journal of Management in Engineering 31:4, 04014061.
[Crossref]
319. Hyun-Sun Ryu, Jae-Nam Lee. 2015. How Should Service Innovation
Strategy be Aligned withBusiness Strategy? : Focused on the
Moderating Effect of IT Capability. Journal of the Korea society
of IT services 14:2, 195-229. [Crossref]
320. Linda M. Pittenger. 2015. Emotional and social competencies
and perceptions of the interpersonalenvironment of an
organization as related to the engagement of IT professionals.
Frontiers in Psychology 6. . [Crossref]
321. Cristiano Antonelli, Francesco Crespi, Giuseppe Scellato.
2015. Productivity growth persistence: firmstrategies, size and
system properties. Small Business Economics 45:1, 129-147.
[Crossref]
322. Sonal Daulatkar, Purnima S. Sangle. 2015. Causality in
information technology business value: areview. Business Process
Management Journal 21:3, 482-516. [Crossref]
323. Adam B. Jaffe. Technology Diffusion 1-15. [Crossref]
324. Adol Esquivel, Dean Sittig, Daniel Murphy, Hardeep Singh.
ASSESSMENT OF CLINICIANTOCLINICIAN E-COMMUNICATION 341-366.
[Crossref]
325. Anjali Gupta, Karen J. Calfas, Simon J. Marshall, Thomas N.
Robinson, Cheryl L. Rock, JeannieS. Huang, Melanie Epstein-
Corbin, Christina Servetas, Michael C. Donohue, Gregory J.
Norman, Fredric Raab, Gina Merchant, James H. Fowler, William G.
Griswold, B.J. Fogg, Kevin Patrick. 2015. Clinical trial
management of participant recruitment, enrollment, engagement,
and retention in the SMART study using a Marketing and
Information Technology (MARKIT) model. Contemporary Clinical
Trials 42, 185-195. [Crossref]
326. Marlies Van der Wee, Sofie Verbrugge, Bert Sadowski, Menno
Driesse, Mario Pickavet. 2015. Identifying and quantifying the
indirect benefits of broadband networks for e-government and
ebusiness: A bottom-up approach. Telecommunications Policy 39:3-
4, 176-191. [Crossref]
327. Stan Maklan, Joe Peppard, Philipp Klaus. 2015. Show me the
money. European Journal of Marketing 49:3/4, 561-595. [Crossref]
328. Mahmood Hajli, Julian M. Sims, Valisher Ibragimov. 2015.
Information technology (IT) productivityparadox in the 21st
century. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
329. Raquel Ortega-Argilés, Mariacristina Piva, Marco Vivarelli.
2015. The productivity impact of R&Dinvestment: are high-tech
sectors still ahead?. Economics of Innovation and New Technology
24:3, 204-222. [Crossref]
330. Fardad Zand, Sam Solaimani, Cees van Beers. 2015. A Role-based
Typology of InformationTechnology: Model Development and
Assessment. Information Systems Management 32:2, 119-135.
[Crossref]
331. Marianna Belloc, Paolo Guerrieri. 2015. Impact of ICT
diffusion and adoption on sectoral industrialperformance:
evidence from a panel of European countries. Economia Politica
32:1, 67-84. [Crossref]
332. G. Battisti, M. G. Colombo, L. Rabbiosi. 2015. Simultaneous
versus sequential complementarity inthe adoption of
technological and organizational innovations: the case of
innovations in the design sphere. Industrial and Corporate
333. Birger Wernerfelt. 2015. The Comparative Advantages of Firms,
Markets and Contracts: a UnifiedTheory. Economica 82:326, 350-
367. [Crossref]
334. Amir Gholam Abri, Mahmoud Mahmoudzadeh. 2015. Impact of
information technology onproductivity and efficiency in Iranian
manufacturing industries. Journal of Industrial Engineering
International 11:1, 143-157. [Crossref]
335. Francesco Venturini. 2015. The modern drivers of productivity.
Research Policy 44:2, 357-369. [Crossref]
336. Sergei Koulayev, Emilia Simeonova. 2015. Can health IT
adoption reduce health disparities?. Health Systems 4:1, 55-63.
[Crossref]
337. Daeheon Choi. 2015. A Study of Effects of Interorganizational
Relationship Factors on TechnologyDiffusion in Supply Chain
Networks. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation
Society 16:2, 1006-1015. [Crossref]
338. Noelle Chesley, Britta E. Johnson. Technology Use and the New
Economy: Work Extension, NetworkConnectivity, and Employee
Distress and Productivity 61-99. [Crossref]
339. Andrew Gemino, Blaize Horner Reich, Chris Sauer. 2015. Plans
versus people: Comparing knowledgemanagement approaches in IT-
enabled business projects. International Journal of Project
340. Crispin R. Coombs. 2015. When planned IS/IT project benefits
are not realized: a study of inhibitorsand facilitators to
benefits realization. International Journal of Project
341. Cornelia Storz, Federico Riboldazzi, Moritz John. 2015.
Mobility and innovation: A cross-countrycomparison in the video
games industry. Research Policy 44:1, 121-137. [Crossref]
342. L. Martin, N. Omrani. 2015. An assessment of trends in
technology use, innovative work practicesand employees’
attitudes in Europe. Applied Economics 47:6, 623-638. [Crossref]
343. Rameshwar Dubey, Angappa Gunasekaran, Anindya Chakrabarty.
2015. Ubiquitous manufacturing:
overview, framework and further research directions. International
Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing 11, 1-14. [Crossref]
345. Miriam Scaglione, Roland Schegg. The Case of Switzerland
During the Last 20 Years 175-201. [Crossref]
346. Helmut Krcmar. Ausgewählte Führungsaufgaben des
Informationsmanagements 113-161. [Crossref]
347. Jocildo Figueiredo Correia Neto, Jaci Corrêa Leite.
Investimentos em Tecnologia da Informação 1-39. [Crossref]
348. Hannes Lindblad, Susanna Vass. 2015. BIM Implementation and
Organisational Change: A CaseStudy of a Large Swedish Public
Client. Procedia Economics and Finance 21, 178-184. [Crossref]
349. Fernando Suárez-Warden, Eduardo González Mendívil, Alejandro
Fonseca Ramírez, Salvador GarcíaLumbreras. 2015. Profit Model
for Incorporating AR Technology in Assembly Tasks of
Aeronautical Maintenance. Procedia Computer Science 75, 113-122.
[Crossref]
350. John G. Fernald. 2015. Productivity and Potential Output
before, during, and after the Great Recession.NBER
Macroeconomics Annual 29:1, 1-51. [Crossref]
351. Merima Ali, Abdulaziz Shifa, Abebe Shimeles, Firew B Woldeyes.
2015. Information Technology and
Fiscal Capacity in a Developing Country: Evidence from Ethiopia.
352. Peng Huang, Henry C. Lucas. 2015. IT Capabilities, IT
Governance Structure, and the Adoptionof MOOCs in Higher
Education: An Absorptive Capacity Perspective. SSRN Electronic
353. Pei Li, Yi Lu, Jin Wang. 2015. Does Flattening Government
Improve Economic Performance?. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
354. Lene Kromann, Anders Sorensen. 2015. Automation, Performance
and International Competition: FirmmLevel Comparisons of Process
Innovation. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
355. Ludivine Martin. 2015. Innovative Work Practices, ICT Use and
Employees' Motivations. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
356. Wei Jin, ZhongXiang Zhang. 2015. Product Homogeneity,
Knowledge Spillovers, and Innovation: Why Energy Sector is
Perplexed by a Slow Pace of Technological Progress. SSRN
357. Steffen Viete. 2015. Mobile Information and Communication
Technologies, Flexible WorkOrganization and Labor Productivity:
Firm-Level Evidence. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
358. Tiago Oliveira, Gurpreet Dhillon. 2015. From Adoption to
Routinization of B2B e-Commerce. Journal of Global Information
359. Jiayu Chi, Ling Sun. 2015. IT and Competitive Advantage: A
Study from Micro Perspective. Modern Economy 06:03, 404-410.
[Crossref]
360. Ludivine Martin, Thuc Uyen Nguyen-Thi. 2015. The Relationship
Between Innovation andProductivity Based on R&D and ict Use.
Revue économique 66:6, 1105. [Crossref]
361. Hyun-Sun Ryu, Jung Lee. How Non-technological Innovation
Reinforces the Effect of TechnologicalInnovation on Firm
Performance?: An Empirical Study of Korean Manufacturing
Industry 176-182. [Crossref]
362. Bryan Soh Yuen Liew, T. Ramayah, Jasmine A. L. Yeap. Market
Orientation, Customer RelationshipManagement (CRM)
Implementation Intensity, and CRM Performance 149-172.
[Crossref]
363. Euripidis Loukis, Yannis Charalabidis, Vasiliki
Diamantopoulou. The Multidimensional BusinessValue of
Information Systems Interoperability 137-155. [Crossref]
364. Yan Chen, Grace YoungJoo Jeon, Yong-Mi Kim. 2014. A day
without a search engine: an experimentalstudy of online and
offline searches. Experimental Economics 17:4, 512-536.
[Crossref]
365. Yen-Chun Chou, Howard Hao-Chun Chuang, Benjamin B.M. Shao.
2014. The impacts ofinformation technology on total factor
productivity: A look at externalities and innovations.
International Journal of Production Economics 158, 290-299.
[Crossref]
366. Cindy Felio. 2014. Le rapport aux TIC des cadres : réflexions
sur l’usage de l’entretien biographiquedans une perspective
longitudinale. Études de communication :43, 145-164. [Crossref]
367. Adi Masli, Vernon J. Richardson, Juan Manuel Sanchez, Rodney
E. Smith. 2014. TheInterrelationships Between Information
Technology Spending, CEO Equity Incentives, and Firm Value.
Journal of Information Systems 28:2, 41-65. [Crossref]
368. Rinaldo Evangelista, Paolo Guerrieri, Valentina Meliciani.
2014. The economic impact of digitaltechnologies in Europe.
Economics of Innovation and New Technology 23:8, 802-824.
[Crossref]
369. Jose Manuel Esteves. 2014. An empirical identification and
categorisation of training best practices forERP implementation
projects. Enterprise Information Systems 8:6, 665-683.
[Crossref]
370. Francesco D. Sandulli, Paul M.A. Baker, José I. López-Sánchez.
2014. Jobs mismatch and productivityimpact of information
technology. The Service Industries Journal 34:13, 1060-1074.
[Crossref]
371. Landon Kleis, Barrie R. Nault, Albert S. Dexter. 2014.
Producing Synergy: Innovation, IT, andProductivity. Decision
Sciences 45:5, 939-969. [Crossref]
372. Hemant K. Bhargava, Abhay Nath Mishra. 2014. Electronic
Medical Records and PhysicianProductivity: Evidence from Panel
Data Analysis. Management Science 60:10, 2543-2562. [Crossref]
373. Md. Al Mamun, Guneratne B. Wickremasinghe. 2014. Dynamic
linkages between diffusion ofInformation Communication
Technology and labour productivity in South Asia. Applied
374. Mark Ballin. Next Frontier: Sharing the Airspace with
Increased Autonomy 779-794. [Crossref]
375. Juha-Miikka Nurmilaakso. 2014. Coordination costs and ICT
investments: an economic analysis.NETNOMICS: Economic Research
and Electronic Networking 15:2, 57-67. [Crossref]
376. Concetta Castiglione, Davide Infante. 2014. ICTs and time-span
in technical efficiency gains. Astochastic frontier approach
over a panel of Italian manufacturing firms. Economic Modelling
41, 55-65. [Crossref]
377. Eric C. Y. Ng, Malick Souare. 2014. On investment and
exchange-rate movements. Applied Economics 46:19, 2301-2315.
[Crossref]
378. Robert G. Fichman, Nigel P. Melville. 2014. How Posture-
Profile Misalignment in IT InnovationDiminishes Returns:
Conceptual Development and Empirical Demonstration. Journal of
Management Information Systems 31:1, 203-240. [Crossref]
379. Cristian Berrío-Zapata, Hernando Rojas-Hernández. 2014. The
Digital Divide in the University: TheAppropriation of ICT in
Higher Education Students from Bogota, Colombia. Comunicar
22:43, 133-142. [Crossref]
380. Pekka Ilmakunnas, Hannu Piekkola. 2014. Intangible investment
in people and productivity. Journal of Productivity Analysis
41:3, 443-456. [Crossref]
381. Kristina McElheran. 2014. Delegation in Multi-Establishment
Firms: Evidence from I.T. Purchasing.Journal of Economics &
Management Strategy 23:2, 225-258. [Crossref]
382. Prasanna Tambe. 2014. Big Data Investment, Skills, and Firm
Value. Management Science 60:6, 1452-1469. [Crossref]
383. 백 백 백 . 2014. Elasticity of Substitution between ICT Capital
and Labor: Its Implications on the CreativeEconomy in Korea.
Productivity Review 28:2, 51-86. [Crossref]
384. Heikki Topi. Evolving Discipline of Information Systems 1-1-1-
26. [Crossref]
385. Ellen Hoadley, Rajiv Kohli. Business Value of IS Investments
71-1-71-14. [Crossref]
386. Sunil Mithas, Henry Lucas. Information Technology and Firm
Value 72-1-72-20. [Crossref]
387. Ana Salomé García-Muñiz, María Rosalía Vicente. 2014. ICT
technologies in Europe: A study oftechnological diffusion and
economic growth under network theory. Telecommunications Policy
38:4, 360-370. [Crossref]
388. James T. Murphy, Pádraig Carmody, Björn Surborg. 2014.
Industrial transformation or businessas usual? Information and
communication technologies and Africa's place in the global
information economy. Review of African Political Economy 41:140,
264-283. [Crossref]
389. Pier Paolo Patrucco. 2014. The Evolution of Knowledge
Organization and the Emergence of a Platformfor Innovation in
the Car Industry. Industry and Innovation 21:3, 243-266.
[Crossref]
390. Martin Hilbert. 2014. Technological information inequality as
an incessantly moving target: Theredistribution of information
and communication capacities between 1986 and 2010. Journal of
the Association for Information Science and Technology 65:4,
821-835. [Crossref]
391. Freddy Moises Brofman Epelbaum, Marian Garcia Martinez. 2014.
The technological evolution of foodtraceability systems and
their impact on firm sustainable performance: A RBV approach.
International Journal of Production Economics 150, 215-224.
[Crossref]
392. Anup Srivastava. 2014. Why have measures of earnings quality
changed over time?. Journal of Accounting and Economics 57:2-3,
196-217. [Crossref]
393. Prasanna Tambe, Lorin M. Hitt. 2014. Measuring Information
Technology Spillovers. Information Systems Research 25:1, 53-71.
[Crossref]
394. Xiaoyu Yu, Yi Chen, Bang Nguyen, Wenhong Zhang. 2014. Ties
with government, strategic capability,and organizational
ambidexterity: evidence from China’s information communication
technology industry. Information Technology and Management 14. .
[Crossref]
395. Evgeniya Yushkova. 2014. Impact of ICT on trade in different
technology groups: analysis andimplications. International
Economics and Economic Policy 11:1-2, 165-177. [Crossref]
396. Noor Hazarina Hashim, Jamie Murphy, Olaru Doina, Peter
O’Connor. 2014. Bandwagon andleapfrog effects in Internet
implementation. International Journal of Hospitality Management
37, 91-98. [Crossref]
397. Pedro Soto-Acosta, Ricardo Colomo-Palacios, Simona Popa. 2014.
Web knowledge sharing and itseffect on innovation: an empirical
investigation in SMEs. Knowledge Management Research & Practice
12:1, 103-113. [Crossref]
398. Benny M.E. de Waal, Ronald Batenburg. 2014. The process and
structure of user participation: a BPMsystem implementation case
study. Business Process Management Journal 20:1, 107-128.
[Crossref]
399. Marijn G. A. Plomp, Ronald S. Batenburg, Pim den Hertog. ICT
Policy to Foster InterorganisationalICT Adoption by SMEs: The
Netherlands Goes Digital Case 123-139. [Crossref]
400. Maria N. Pérez-Aróstegui, Francisco J. Martínez-López. IT
Competence-Enabled BusinessPerformance and Competitive Advantage
109-138. [Crossref]
401. Jens Lauterbach, Benjamin Mueller. Adopt, Adapt, Enact or Use?
8-29. [Crossref]
402. Mohamed Kossaï, Patrick Piget. 2014. Adoption of information
and communication technologyand firm profitability: Empirical
evidence from Tunisian SMEs. The Journal of High Technology
Management Research 25:1, 9-20. [Crossref]
403. Günther Schuh, Till Potente, Rawina Varandani, Carlo Hausberg,
Bastian Fränken. 2014. Collaboration Moves Productivity to the
Next Level. Procedia CIRP 17, 3-8. [Crossref]
404. Günther Schuh, Till Potente, Cathrin Wesch-Potente, Anja Ruth
Weber, Jan-Philipp Prote. 2014. Collaboration Mechanisms to
Increase Productivity in the Context of Industrie 4.0. Procedia
CIRP 19, 51-56. [Crossref]
405. Xueming Luo, Bin Gu, Cheng Zhang. IT Investments and Firm
Stock Market Value: The MediatingRole of Stock Analysts 4093-
4102. [Crossref]
406. Gianluca Misuraca, Gianluigi Viscusi. Digital governance in
the public sector 146-154. [Crossref]
407. Hernan Galperin, Maria Fernanda Viecens. 2014. Connected for
Development? Theory and EvidenceAbout the Impact of Internet
Technologies on Poverty Alleviation. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
408. Francois-Xavier de Vaujany, Nathalie N. Mitev, Matthew Smith,
Isabelle Walsh. 2014. Renewing
Literature Reviews in MIS Research? A Critical Realist Approach.
409. Juan Jung. 2014. Impacto De La Banda Ancha En La Actividad
Innovadora: Evidencia Desde AmmricaLatina (Broadband Impact On
The Innovative Activity: Evidence From Latin America). SSRN
410. Kevin A. Hassett, Robert J. Shapiro. 2014. The Impact of Title
II Regulation of Internet Providerson Their Capital Investments.
411. Robert J. Shapiro. 2014. The U.S. Software Industry as an
Engine for Economic Growth andEmployment. SSRN Electronic
412. Pilar Ficapal-Cusí, Joan Torrent-Sellens. 2014. New Human
Resource Management Systems in NonBased-Knowledge Firms:
Applications for Decision Making on the Business Performance.
Modern Economy 05:02, 139-151. [Crossref]
413. Amélie Bohas, Nathalie Dagorn, Nicolas Poussing. 2014.
Responsabilité Sociale de l'Entreprise : quelsimpacts sur
l'adoption de pratiques de Green IT ?. Systèmes d'information &
management 19:2, 9. [Crossref]
414. Alma L. Culén, Mark Kriger. Creating Competitive Advantage in
IT-Intensive Organizations: ADesign Thinking Perspective 492-
503. [Crossref]
415. George Leal Jamil. Why Quality? Why Value? Is it Information
Related to These Aspects? 1-18. [Crossref]
416. Antonio-Juan Briones-Peñalver, José Poças Rascão. Information
Technologies (ICT), NetworkOrganizations, and Information
Systems for Business Cooperation 324-348. [Crossref]
417. Jorge A. Romero. Business Value of Information Technology 82-
90. [Crossref]
418. Saulius Kuzminskis, Giedrė Česonytė, Vladislav V. Fomin. The
Effects of E-Journal System onOrganizational and Study Processes
302-316. [Crossref]
419. Changmok Hong, Jin-Hyang Jung. 2013. Determinants of
Information Technology Personnel Size inKorean Listed
Companies:A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Journal of the Korea
society of IT services 12:4, 91-108. [Crossref]
420. Derek C. Jones, Jeffrey Pliskin. Information Technology and
High Performance Workplace Practices: Evidence on Their
Incidence from Upstate New York Establishments 61-81. [Crossref]
421. Davide Arduini, Mario Denni, Matteo Lucchese, Alessandra
Nurra, Antonello Zanfei. 2013. The roleof technology,
organization and contextual factors in the development of e-
Government services: An empirical analysis on Italian Local
Public Administrations. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics
27, 177-189. [Crossref]
422. Maria del Mar Alonso-Almeida, Josep Llach. 2013. Adoption and
use of technology in small businessenvironments. The Service
Industries Journal 33:15-16, 1456-1472. [Crossref]
423. Mariela Dal Borgo, Peter Goodridge, Jonathan Haskel, Annarosa
Pesole. 2013. Productivity andGrowth in UK Industries: An
Intangible Investment Approach *. Oxford Bulletin of Economics
and Statistics 75:6, 806-834. [Crossref]
424. Paul P. Tallon, Ronald V. Ramirez, James E. Short. 2013. The
Information Artifact in IT Governance: Toward a Theory of
Information Governance. Journal of Management Information
425. Adol Esquivel, Daniel Murphy, Hardeep Singh. Improving the
Effectiveness of Electronic HealthRecord-Based Referral
Processes 261-277. [Crossref]
426. Youngcheol Kang, William J. O'Brien, Stephen P. Mulva. 2013.
Value of IT: Indirect impact ofIT on construction project
performance via Best Practices. Automation in Construction 35,
383-396. [Crossref]
427. Tjahjanto, Benhard Sitohang, Sudarso Kaderi Wiryono. A system
design of productivity measurementinternet bandwidth usage 1-5.
[Crossref]
428. Jonathan G. Koomey, H. Scott Matthews, Eric Williams. 2013.
Smart Everything: Will Intelligent
Systems Reduce Resource Use?. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources 38:1, 311-343. [Crossref]
429. Spyros Arvanitis, Euripidis Loukis, Vasiliki Diamantopoulou.
2013. The effect of soft ICT capital oninnovation performance of
Greek firms. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 26:6,
679-701. [Crossref]
430. Oleg Badunenko, Daniel J. Henderson, R. Robert Russell. 2013.
Polarization of the worldwidedistribution of productivity.
Journal of Productivity Analysis 40:2, 153-171. [Crossref]
431. Francesco D. Sandulli, Paul M.A. Baker, José I. López-Sánchez.
2013. Can small and mediumenterprises benefit from skill-biased
technological change?. Journal of Business Research 66:10, 1976-
1982. [Crossref]
432. Robert E. Overstreet, Benjamin T. Hazen, Terry Anthony Byrd,
Dianne J. Hall. 2013. Innovativenessin the motor carrier
industry. International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications 16:5, 367-379. [Crossref]
433. Daeheon Choi. 2013. Adoption and Diffusion Speed of New
Technology with Network Externality ina Two-level Supply Chain :
An Approach to Relative Factors in Buyer-Supplier Relationships.
Journal of the Korean Operations Research and Management Science
434. Ahmad Fareed Ismail, Steffen Frank Zorn, Huey Chern Boo,
Sambasivan Murali, Jamie Murphy.2013. Information technology
diffusion in Malaysia's foodservice industry. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology 4:3, 200-210. [Crossref]
435. Marco Giovanni Mariani, Matteo Curcuruto, Ivan Gaetani. 2013.
Training opportunities, technologyacceptance and job
satisfaction. Journal of Workplace Learning 25:7, 455-475.
[Crossref]
436. Massimo G. Colombo, Annalisa Croce, Luca Grilli. 2013. ICT
services and small businesses’productivity gains: An analysis of
the adoption of broadband Internet technology. Information
Economics and Policy 25:3, 171-189. [Crossref]
437. Benjamin Engelstätter, Miruna Sarbu. 2013. Why adopt social
enterprise software? Impacts andbenefits. Information Economics
and Policy 25:3, 204-213. [Crossref]
438. M. Cardona, T. Kretschmer, T. Strobel. 2013. ICT and
productivity: conclusions from the empiricalliterature.
Information Economics and Policy 25:3, 109-125. [Crossref]
439. Young Bong Chang, Vijay Gurbaxani. 2013. An Empirical Analysis
of Technical Efficiency: The Roleof IT Intensity and
Competition. Information Systems Research 24:3, 561-578.
[Crossref]
440. A.R. Thurik, E. Stam, D.B. Audretsch. 2013. The rise of the
entrepreneurial economy and the futureof dynamic capitalism.
Technovation 33:8-9, 302-310. [Crossref]
441. Matthew J. Bidwell. 2013. What Happened to Long-Term
Employment? The Role of Worker Powerand Environmental Turbulence
in Explaining Declines in Worker Tenure. Organization Science
24:4, 1061-1082. [Crossref]
442. Yun Wu, Casey G. Cegielski, Benjamin T. Hazen, Dianne J. Hall.
2013. Cloud Computing in Supportof Supply Chain Information
System Infrastructure: Understanding When to go to the Cloud.
Journal of Supply Chain Management 49:3, 25-41. [Crossref]
443. Elizabeth Mack, Alessandra Faggian. 2013. Productivity and
Broadband. International Regional Science Review 36:3, 392-423.
[Crossref]
444. Jason Dedrick, Kenneth L. Kraemer, Eric Shih. 2013.
Information Technology and Productivityin Developed and
Developing Countries. Journal of Management Information Systems
30:1, 97-122. [Crossref]
445. Sanjay Mohapatra. 2013. Sustainability in E-Commerce Adoption
in Small and Medium Enterprises(SMEs). International Journal of
Green Computing 4:2, 12-23. [Crossref]
446. Benjamin Engelstätter, Miruna Sarbu. 2013. Does enterprise
software matter for service innovation?Standardization versus
customization. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 22:4,
412-429. [Crossref]
447. C. Corrado, J. Haskel, C. Jona-Lasinio, M. Iommi. 2013.
Innovation and intangible investment inEurope, Japan, and the
United States. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 29:2, 261-286.
[Crossref]
448. Farley Simon Nobre. Fuzzy Theory in cognition, economic man
and organization behavior 471-477. [Crossref]
449. Sooyoung Yoo, Seok Kim, Seungja Lee, Kee-Hyuck Lee, Rong-Min
Baek, Hee Hwang. 2013. Astudy of user requests regarding the
fully electronic health record system at Seoul National
University Bundang Hospital: Challenges for future electronic
health record systems. International Journal of Medical
Informatics 82:5, 387-397. [Crossref]
450. Kai Eriksson, Henri Vogt. 2013. On self-service democracy.
European Journal of Social Theory 16:2, 153-173. [Crossref]
451. Euripidis Loukis, Pedro Soto-Acosta, Konstantinos Pazalos.
2013. Using structural equation modellingfor investigating the
impact of e-business on ICT and non-ICT assets, processes and
business performance. Operational Research 13:1, 89-111.
[Crossref]
452. Bronwyn H. Hall, Francesca Lotti, Jacques Mairesse. 2013.
Evidence on the impact of R&D andICT investments on innovation
and productivity in Italian firms. Economics of Innovation and
453. Youngcheol Kang, William J. O’Brien, Jiukun Dai, Stephen P.
Mulva, Stephen P. Thomas, RobertE. Chapman, David Butry. 2013.
Interaction Effects of Information Technologies and Best
Practices on Construction Project Performance. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 139:4, 361-371.
[Crossref]
454. Alberto Bayo‐Moriones, Margarita Billón, Fernando Lera‐López.
2013. Perceived performance effectsof ICT in manufacturing SMEs.
Industrial Management & Data Systems 113:1, 117-135. [Crossref]
455. Matej Marinč. 2013. Banks and information technology:
marketability vs. relationships. Electronic Commerce Research
13:1, 71-101. [Crossref]
456. Guido Schryen. 2013. Revisiting IS business value research:
what we already know, what we still needto know, and how we can
get there. European Journal of Information Systems 22:2, 139-
169. [Crossref]
457. Kamil J. Mizgier, Matthias P. Jüttner, Stephan M. Wagner.
2013. Bottleneck identification in supplychain networks.
International Journal of Production Research 51:5, 1477-1490.
[Crossref]
458. Cristiana Donati, Domenico Sarno. 2013. The impact of ICT on
productivity of Italian firms:
evaluation of the micro-complementarity hypothesis. Applied
Economics Letters 20:4, 349-352. [Crossref]
459. Mary E. Deily, Tianyan Hu, Sabrina Terrizzi, Shin-Yi Chou,
Chad D. Meyerhoefer. 2013. The Impactof Health Information
Technology Adoption by Outpatient Facilities on Pregnancy
Outcomes. Health Services Research 48:1, 70-94. [Crossref]
460. FRANZISKA GÜNZEL, ANNA B. HOLM. 2013. ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT
ALL— UNDERSTANDING THE FRONT-END AND BACK-END OF BUSINESS MODEL
INNOVATION. International Journal of Innovation Management 17:01,
1340002. [Crossref]
461. Valeria Belvedere, Alberto Grando, Paola Bielli. 2013. A
quantitative investigation of the role ofinformation and
communication technologies in the implementation of a product-
service system. International Journal of Production Research
51:2, 410-426. [Crossref]
462. Gianfranco Giulioni, Edgardo Bucciarelli, Marcello Silvestri,
Paola D’Orazio. Towards a KnowledgeDriven Application Supporting
Entrepreneurs Decision-Making in an Uncertain Environment 33-39.
[Crossref]
463. Yasin Ozcelik. Effects of Business Process Reengineering on
Firm Performance: An EconometricAnalysis 99-110. [Crossref]
464. Vincenzo Morabito. Organizational Absorptive Capacity and the
Use of Information 129-142. [Crossref]
465. Crispin R. Coombs, Neil F. Doherty, Irina Neaga. Measuring and
Managing the Benefits from ITProjects: A Review and Research
Agenda 257-269. [Crossref]
466. Ranjith Nayar, K. Venugopalan, Rajeshwari Narendran, Smitha
Nayar. Semantic Web as an InnovationEnabler 475-486. [Crossref]
467. N. S. Siddharthan, K. Narayanan. Human Capital and
Development: Introduction 1-9. [Crossref]
468. Murillo Campello, John R. Graham. 2013. Do stock prices
influence corporate decisions? Evidencefrom the technology
bubble. Journal of Financial Economics 107:1, 89-110. [Crossref]
469. Patrick Mikalef, Adamantia Pateli, Ronald Batenburg, Rogier
van de Wetering. 2013. Investigating theImpact of Procurement
Alignment on Supply Chain Management Performance. Procedia
Technology 9, 310-319. [Crossref]
470. Robert Pellerin, Nathalie Perrier, Xavier Guillot, Pierre-
Majorique Léger. 2013. Project ManagementSoftware Utilization
and Project Performance. Procedia Technology 9, 857-866.
[Crossref]
471. Carl Åke Walldius, Ann Lantz. 2013. Exploring the use of
design pattern maps for aligning newtechnical support to new
clinical team meeting routines. Behaviour & Information
472. Danielle Galliano, Luis Orozco. 2013. New Technologies and
Firm Organization: The Case of
Electronic Traceability Systems in French Agribusiness. Industry &
473. Nigel P. Melville, Terence Saldanha. Information Systems for
Managing Energy and Carbon EmissionInformation: Empirical
Analysis of Adoption Antecedents 935-944. [Crossref]
474. Martin Hilbert. 2013. Big Data for Development: From
Information - to Knowledge Societies. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
475. Ariel C. Avgar, Prasanna Tambe, Lorin M. Hitt. 2013.
Organizational Learning during ITOutsourcing: Evidence from EMR
Implementations. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
476. Spyros Arvanitis, Euripidis N. Loukis, Vasiliki
Diamantopoulou. 2013. Are ICT, WorkplaceOrganization and Human
Capital Relevant for Innovation? A Comparative Study Based on
Swiss and Greek Micro Data. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
477. Dennis Campbell, Maria Loumioti. 2013. Monitoring and the
Portability of Soft Information. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
478. Luca Colombo, Herbert Dawid, Mariacristina Piva, Marco
Vivarelli. 2013. Does Easy Start-UpFormation Hamper Incumbents'
R&D Investment? A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. SSRN
479. Prasanna Tambe. 2013. Big Data Investment, Skills, and Firm
Value. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
480. Dirk Crass, Franz Schwiebacher. 2013. Do Trademarks Diminish
the Substitutability of Products inInnovative Knowledge-
Intensive Services?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
481. Xueming Luo, Bin Gu, Zhang Cheng. 2013. IT Applications,
Financial Analyst Recommendations,and Firm Stock Market Value.
482. Shivraj Kanungo, Vikas Jain. Organizational Culture and E-
Government Performance 141-163. [Crossref]
483. Tomáš Lechner. 2013. Economic Impacts of ICT Implementation in
Public Administration: Evidencefrom the Czech Republic.
Politická ekonomie 61:5, 675-690. [Crossref]
484. Glòria Estapé-Dubreuil, Consol Torreguitart-Mirada. ICT
Adoption in the Small and Medium-SizeSocial Enterprises in Spain
200-220. [Crossref]
485. Bryan Soh Yuen Liew, T. Ramayah, Jasmine Yeap Ai Leen.
Customer Relationship Management(CRM) Implementation Intensity
and Performance 233-244. [Crossref]
486. Adol Esquivel, Dean F Sittig, Daniel R Murphy, Hardeep Singh.
2012. Improving the Effectivenessof Electronic Health Record-
Based Referral Processes. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision
Making 12:1. . [Crossref]
487. Gimun Kim, Bongsik Shin, Ohbyung Kwon. 2012. Investigating the
Value of Sociomaterialism inConceptualizing IT Capability of a
Firm. Journal of Management Information Systems 29:3, 327-362.
[Crossref]
488. René Riedl. 2012. On the biology of technostress. ACM SIGMIS
Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems 44:1,
18-55. [Crossref]
489. Jaime Gómez, Idana Salazar, Pilar Vargas. 2012. El acceso a
canales de información y la adopción detecnologías de proceso.
Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa 15:4, 169-180.
[Crossref]
490. K. Sapprasert, T. H. Clausen. 2012. Organizational innovation
and its effects. Industrial and Corporate Change 21:5, 1283-
1305. [Crossref]
491. Francisco J. Mata, Ariella Quesada, Keynor Ruiz, Jeffrey
Orozco. The relationship between informationand communication
technology and productivy in Costa Rican companies 1-6.
[Crossref]
492. Euripidis Loukis, Spyros Arvanitis, Vasiliki Diamantopoulou.
An Empirical Investigation of the Effectof Hard and Soft ICT
Investment on Innovation Activity of Greek Firms 31-36.
[Crossref]
493. Otavio Prospero Sanchez, Alexandre Cappellozza. 2012.
Antecedentes da adoção da computação emnuvem: efeitos da
infraestrutura, investimento e porte. Revista de Administração
Contemporânea 16:5, 646-663. [Crossref]
494. Anna Giunta, Annamaria Nifo, Domenico Scalera. 2012.
Subcontracting in Italian Industry: LabourDivision, Firm Growth
and the North–South Divide. Regional Studies 46:8, 1067-1083.
[Crossref]
495. Young Bong Chang, Vijay Gurbaxani. 2012. The Impact of IT-
Related Spillovers on Long-RunProductivity: An Empirical
Analysis. Information Systems Research 23:3-part-2, 868-886.
[Crossref]
496. Prasanna Tambe, Lorin M. Hitt. 2012. The Productivity of
Information Technology Investments: New Evidence from IT Labor
Data. Information Systems Research 23:3-part-1, 599-617.
[Crossref]
497. R. Evangelista, A. Vezzani. 2012. The impact of technological
and organizational innovations onemployment in European firms.
498. Farley Simon Nobre. Contributions of fuzzy logic and bounded
rationality to cognitive machines inorganizations 1-6.
[Crossref]
499. Benjamin T. Hazen, Yun Wu, Chetan S. Sankar. 2012. Factors
That Influence Dissemination inEngineering Education. IEEE
Transactions on Education 55:3, 384-393. [Crossref]
500. R. E. DeVor, S. G. Kapoor, J. Cao, K. F. Ehmann. 2012.
Transforming the Landscape ofManufacturing: Distributed
Manufacturing Based on Desktop Manufacturing (DM)2. Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering 134:4. . [Crossref]
501. José David Vicente‐Lorente, José Ángel Zúñiga‐Vicente. 2012.
Effects of process and product‐orientedinnovations on employee
downsizing. International Journal of Manpower 33:4, 383-403.
[Crossref]
502. Jean-Jacques Rosa, Julien Hanoteau. 2012. The Shrinking Hand:
Why Information Technology Leadsto Smaller Firms. International
Journal of the Economics of Business 19:2, 285-314. [Crossref]
503. Anjana Susarla. 2012. Contractual Flexibility, Rent Seeking,
and Renegotiation Design: An EmpiricalAnalysis of Information
Technology Outsourcing Contracts. Management Science 58:7, 1388-
1407. [Crossref]
504. Patrick Besson, Frantz Rowe. 2012. Strategizing information
systems-enabled organizationaltransformation: A
transdisciplinary review and new directions. The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems 21:2, 103-124. [Crossref]
505. ANNE-LAURE MENTION, ANNA-LEENA ASIKAINEN. 2012. INNOVATION &
PRODUCTIVITY: INVESTIGATING EFFECTS OF OPENNESS IN SERVICES.
International
Journal of Innovation Management 16:03, 1240004. [Crossref]
506. Guodong (Gordon) Gao, Lorin M. Hitt. 2012. Information
Technology and Trademarks: Implicationsfor Product Variety.
Management Science 58:6, 1211-1226. [Crossref]
507. Concetta Castiglione. 2012. Technical efficiency and ICT
investment in Italian manufacturing firms.
Applied Economics 44:14, 1749-1763. [Crossref]
508. Sharon G. Levin, Paula E. Stephan, Anne E. Winkler. 2012.
Innovation in academe: the diffusion ofinformation technologies.
Applied Economics 44:14, 1765-1782. [Crossref]
509. Prasanna Tambe, Lorin M. Hitt, Erik Brynjolfsson. 2012. The
Extroverted Firm: How ExternalInformation Practices Affect
Innovation and Productivity. Management Science 58:5, 843-859.
[Crossref]
510. Hwan-Joo Seo, Young Soo Lee, Jai-Joon Hur, Jin Ki Kim. 2012.
The impact of information andcommunication technology on skilled
labor and organization types. Information Systems Frontiers
14:2, 445-455. [Crossref]
511. René Riedl, Harald Kindermann, Andreas Auinger, Andrija Javor.
2012. Technostress aus einerneurobiologischen Perspektive.
WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 54:2, 59-68. [Crossref]
512. René Riedl, Harald Kindermann, Andreas Auinger, Andrija Javor.
2012. Technostress from aNeurobiological Perspective. Business &
Information Systems Engineering 4:2, 61-69. [Crossref]
513. Benjamin Engelstätter. 2012. It is not all about performance
gains – enterprise software andinnovations. Economics of
Innovation and New Technology 21:3, 223-245. [Crossref]
514. Rahul C. Basole, Mark L. Braunstein, William B. Rouse. 2012.
Enterprise Transformation ThroughMobile ICT: a Framework and
Case Study in Healthcare. Journal of Enterprise Transformation
2:2, 130-156. [Crossref]
515. Riccardo Leoni. 2012. Workplace Design, Complementarities
among Work Practices, and theFormation of Key Competencies:
Evidence from Italian Employees. ILR Review 65:2, 316-349.
[Crossref]
516. Charles Bérubé, Marc Duhamel, Daniel Ershov. 2012. Market
Incentives for Business Innovation: Results from Canada. Journal
of Industry, Competition and Trade 12:1, 47-65. [Crossref]
517. Jee-Hae Lim, Theophanis C. Stratopoulos, Tony S. Wirjanto.
2012. Role of IT executives in thefirm's ability to achieve
competitive advantage through IT capability. International
Journal of Accounting Information Systems 13:1, 21-40.
[Crossref]
518. Youngcheol Kang, William J. O'Brien, James T. O'Connor. 2012.
Analysis of information integrationbenefit drivers and
implementation hindrances. Automation in Construction 22, 277-
289. [Crossref]
519. Charles Steinfield, Robert LaRose, Han Ei Chew, Stephanie Tom
Tong. 2012. Small and MediumSized Enterprises in Rural Business
Clusters: The Relation Between ICT Adoption and Benefits Derived
From Cluster Membership. The Information Society 28:2, 110-120.
[Crossref]
520. Benjamin T. Hazen, Yun Wu, Chetan S. Sankar, L. Allison Jones-
Farmer. 2012. A ProposedFramework for Educational Innovation
Dissemination. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 40:3,
301-321. [Crossref]
521. Godfrey E. Ekata. 2012. The IT Productivity Paradox: Evidence
from the Nigerian Banking Industry.The Electronic Journal of
Information Systems in Developing Countries 51:1, 1-25.
[Crossref]
522. Thanos Papadopoulos, Udechukwu Ojiako, Maxwell Chipulu,
Kwangwook Lee. 2012. The Criticalityof Risk Factors in Customer
Relationship Management Projects. Project Management Journal
43:1, 65-76. [Crossref]
523. Danny Leung, Yi Zheng. 2012. What affects MFP in the long-run?
Evidence from Canadian industries.Applied Economics 44:6, 727-
738. [Crossref]
524. Nagy K. Hanna. Why National e-Transformation Strategies? 1-40.
[Crossref]
525. Pierre Valére Nketcha Nana, Christophe Péguy Choub Faha.
Information and CommunicationTechnologies and Firms Productivity
in Cameroon 177-186. [Crossref]
526. Steven C. Michael. 2012. Monitoring technical managers:
Theory, evidence, and prescriptions. The
Journal of High Technology Management Research 23:1, 36-45.
[Crossref]
527. Ja-Shen Chen, Hung-Tai Tsou. 2012. Performance effects of IT
capability, service process innovation,and the mediating role of
customer service. Journal of Engineering and Technology
528. J. David Brown, John S. Earle, Hanna Vakhitova, Vitaliy Zheka.
Innovation, Adoption, Ownershipand Productivity: Evidence from
Ukraine 76-97. [Crossref]
529. Serge Allegrezza, Anne Dubrocard. Introduction 1-10.
[Crossref]
530. Adel Ben Youssef, David Castillo Merino, Walid Hadhri.
Determinants of Intra-firm Diffusion Processof ICT: Theoretical
Sources and Empirical Evidence from Catalan Firms 288-312.
[Crossref]
531. Leila Ben Aoun, Anne Dubrocard. Does ICT Enable Innovation in
Luxembourg? An Empirical Study313-335. [Crossref]
532. Marco Vincenzi. Information Technology, Complementary Capital,
and the Transatlantic ProductivityDivergence 13-42. [Crossref]
533. Pierre J Richard, Tim R Coltman, Byron W Keating. 2012.
Designing IS service strategy: aninformation acceleration
approach. European Journal of Information Systems 21:1, 87-98.
[Crossref]
534. Lawton Robert Burns, Douglas R. Wholey, Jeffrey S. McCullough,
Peter Kralovec, Ralph Muller.The Changing Configuration of
Hospital Systems: Centralization, Federalization, or
Fragmentation? 189-232. [Crossref]
535. Loukis Euripidis, Michailidou Fotini. ERP and E-Business
Systems Development, Innovation andBusiness Performance--An
Empirical Investigation 4682-4691. [Crossref]
536. Francis Green. 2012. Employee Involvement, Technology and
Evolution in Job Skills: A Task-BasedAnalysis. ILR Review 65:1,
36-67. [Crossref]
537. Matej Marinc. 2012. Banks and Information Technology:
Marketability vs. Stability. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
538. Marco Di Maggio, Marshall W. Van Alstyne. 2012. Information
Sharing, Social Norms andPerformance. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
539. Hein Bogaard, Jan Svejnar. 2012. Incentive Pay and
Performance: Insider Econometrics in a MultiUnit Bank. SSRN
540. Bronwyn H. Hall, Francesca Lotti, Jacques Mairesse. 2012.
Evidence on the Impact of R&D and ICTInvestment on Innovation
and Productivity in Italian Firms. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
541. Mark Ford, Jim Cox, Jim Hagar, Robb Kirkman. 2012. Risk-Based
Benefit–Cost Analysis ofInformation Technology Tools for Program
Management. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 2297:1, 104-111. [Crossref]
542. Jason G. Caudill. Tools That Drive Innovation 640-652.
[Crossref]
543. A.S. Litwin, A.C. Avgar, P.J. Pronovost. 2012. Measurement
Error in Performance Studies of HealthInformation Technology:
Lessons from the Management Literature. Applied Clinical
Informatics 03:02, 211-220. [Crossref]
544. A.C. Avgar, A.S. Litwin, P.J. Pronovost. 2012. Drivers and
Barriers in Health IT Adoption. Applied Clinical Informatics
03:04, 488-500. [Crossref]
545. Irene Bertschek. 2011. Wissensvermittlung versus
Legitimationsfunktion. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 81:12,
1379-1399. [Crossref]
546. S. Moshiri, W. Simpson. 2011. Information technology and the
changing workplace in Canada: firmlevel evidence. Industrial and
Corporate Change 20:6, 1601-1636. [Crossref]
547. Elena Vasilchenko, Sussie Morrish. 2011. The Role of
Entrepreneurial Networks in the Explorationand Exploitation of
Internationalization Opportunities by Information and
Communication
Technology Firms. Journal of International Marketing 19:4, 88-
105. [Crossref]
548. Jee-Hae Lim, Theophanis C. Stratopoulos, Tony S. Wirjanto.
2011. Path Dependence of DynamicInformation Technology
Capability: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Management
549. Christina W. Y. Wong, Kee-hung Lai, T. C. E. Cheng. 2011.
Value of Information Integration toSupply Chain Management:
Roles of Internal and External Contingencies. Journal of
Management Information Systems 28:3, 161-200. [Crossref]
550. Day‐Yang Liu, Shou‐Wei Chen, Tzu‐Chuan Chou. 2011. Resource
fit in digital transformation.Management Decision 49:10, 1728-
1742. [Crossref]
551. Oluwole Alfred Olatunji. 2011. Modelling the costs of
corporate implementation of buildinginformation modelling.
Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction
16:3, 211-231. [Crossref]
552. Adi Masli, Vernon J. Richardson, Juan Manuel Sanchez, Rodney
E. Smith. 2011. The Business Valueof IT: A Synthesis and
Framework of Archival Research. Journal of Information Systems
25:2, 81-116. [Crossref]
553. Changling Chen, Jee-Hae Lim, Theophanis C. Stratopoulos. 2011.
IT Capability and a Firm's Abilityto Recover from Losses:
Evidence from the Economic Downturn of the Early 2000s. Journal
of Information Systems 25:2, 117-144. [Crossref]
554. Yanfei Li, Shuntian Yao, Wai‐Mun Chia. 2011. Demand
uncertainty, information processing ability,and endogenous firm.
Nankai Business Review International 2:4, 447-474. [Crossref]
555. Jenny Meyer. 2011. Workforce age and technology adoption in
small and medium-sized service firms.Small Business Economics
37:3, 305-324. [Crossref]
556. Stefanie A. Haller, Iulia Siedschlag. 2011. Determinants of
ICT adoption: evidence from firm-leveldata. Applied Economics
43:26, 3775-3788. [Crossref]
557. Gerry Kerr. 2011. What Simon said: the impact of the major
management works of Herbert Simon.Journal of Management History
17:4, 399-419. [Crossref]
558. Tim Jacks, Prashant Palvia, Richard Schilhavy, Lei Wang. 2011.
A framework for the impact of ITon organizational performance.
Business Process Management Journal 17:5, 846-870. [Crossref]
559. Young Bong Chang. 2011. Does RFID improve firms’ financial
performance? an empirical analysis.Information Technology and
560. Sonali Bhattacharya. 2011. Innovation in India: A Path to
Knowledge Economy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 2:3, 419-
431. [Crossref]
561. Martin Hilbert. 2011. The end justifies the definition: The
manifold outlooks on the digital divideand their practical
usefulness for policy-making. Telecommunications Policy 35:8,
715-736. [Crossref]
562. Spyros Arvanitis, Euripidis Loukis, Vasiliki Diamantopoulou.
Information Systems and Innovation inGreek Firms - An Empirical
Investigation 315-320. [Crossref]
563. Rajiv D. Banker, Rong Huang, Ramachandran Natarajan. 2011.
Equity Incentives and Long-TermValue Created by SG&A
Expenditure*. Contemporary Accounting Research 28:3, 794-830.
[Crossref]
564. Robin Cowan, Bulat Sanditov, Rifka Weehuizen. 2011.
Productivity effects of innovation, stress andsocial relations.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 79:3, 165-182.
[Crossref]
565. Guangming Cao. The Benefits and Limitations of Pairwise
Understanding of IT Business Value 1-4. [Crossref]
566. Gaaitzen J. De Vries, Michael Koetter. 2011. ICT Adoption and
Heterogeneity in ProductionTechnologies: Evidence for Chilean
Retailers*. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 73:4,
539-555. [Crossref]
567. Tom R. Eikebrokk, Jon Iden, Dag H. Olsen, Andreas L. Opdahl.
2011. Understanding thedeterminants of business process
modelling in organisations. Business Process Management Journal
17:4, 639-662. [Crossref]
568. Rafi Ashrafi. 2011. Strategic Value of IT in Private Sector
Organizations in a Developing Country: Oman. The Electronic
Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 47:1, 1-
25. [Crossref]
569. She-I Chang, David C. Yen, Celeste See-Pui Ng, I-Cheng Chang,
Sheng-Yu Yu. 2011. An ERP systemperformance assessment model
development based on the balanced scorecard approach.
Information Systems Frontiers 13:3, 429-450. [Crossref]
570. Winston T. Lin, Chung-Yean Chiang. 2011. The impacts of
country characteristics upon the valueof information technology
as measured by productive efficiency. International Journal of
Production Economics 132:1, 13-33. [Crossref]
571. Kunsoo Han, Young Bong Chang, Jungpil Hahn. 2011. Information
Technology Spillover andProductivity: The Role of Information
Technology Intensity and Competition. Journal of Management
572. He Da Zhang, Yan Mei Liu. 2011. The Impact of IT Capability on
Firm Performance Perspectiveson the Mediating Effects of
Business Process Transform Mode. Advanced Materials Research
268-270, 1986-1991. [Crossref]
573. Albert Boonstra, Manda Broekhuis, Marjolein van Offenbeek,
Hans Wortmann. 2011. Strategicalternatives in telecare design.
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20:2, 198-214.
[Crossref]
574. Chon Abraham, Iris Junglas. 2011. From cacophony to harmony: A
case study about the ISimplementation process as an opportunity
for organizational transformation at Sentara Healthcare. The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20:2, 177-197.
[Crossref]
575. Jisun Lim, Elias Sanidas. 2011. The impact of organisational
and technical innovations onproductivity: the case of Korean
firms and sectors. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 19:1,
21-35. [Crossref]
576. Linda M. Pittenger, Dick Boland, Sheri Perelli. Stretching
role breadth: Overachieving IT managersin underperforming IT
organizations 89-99. [Crossref]
577. António Madureira, Nico Baken, Harry Bouwman. 2011. Value of
digital information networks:
a holonic framework. NETNOMICS: Economic Research and Electronic
Networking 12:1, 1-30. [Crossref]
578. Derek C. Jones, Panu Kalmi, Antti Kauhanen. 2011. Firm and
employee effects of an enterpriseinformation system: Micro-
econometric evidence. International Journal of Production
579. Kemal Altinkemer, Yasin Ozcelik, Zafer D. Ozdemir. 2011.
Productivity and Performance Effects ofBusiness Process
Reengineering: A Firm-Level Analysis. Journal of Management
580. Byungdeok Kang, Kristina Jaskyte. 2011. Congregational
Leaders' Perceptions of OrganizationalInnovation. Administration
in Social Work 35:2, 161-179. [Crossref]
581. Achim Hecker. 2011. Specialization, implicit coordination and
organizational performance: tradingoff common and idiosyncratic
knowledge. Review of Managerial Science 5:1, 19-47. [Crossref]
582. Nagy K. Hanna. 2011. E-Sri Lanka as a Deliberate and Emergent
Strategy Process. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 2:1, 3-37.
[Crossref]
583. Richard T. Watson, Marie-Claude Boudreau, Adela J. Chen,
Héctor Hito Sepúlveda. 2011. Greenprojects: An information
drives analysis of four cases. The Journal of Strategic
584. Debabrata Dey, Ming Fan, Gang Peng. 2011. Computer use and
wage returns. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems
2:1, 1-21. [Crossref]
585. Guangming Cao, Frank Wiengarten, Paul Humphreys. 2011. Towards
a Contingency Resource-BasedView of IT Business Value. Systemic
Practice and Action Research 24:1, 85-106. [Crossref]
586. Polly S. Rizova. 2011. Finding Testable Causal Mechanisms to
Address Critical Public ManagementIssues. Journal of Comparative
Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 13:1, 105-114. [Crossref]
587. Davide Antonioli, Massimiliano Mazzanti, Paolo Pini. 2011.
Innovation, industrial relations andemployee outcomes: evidence
from Italy. Journal of Economic Studies 38:1, 66-90. [Crossref]
588. Nagy K. Hanna. E-Sri Lanka as a Deliberate and Emergent
Strategy Process 189-227. [Crossref]
589. Suraksha Gupta, Jyoti Navare, T.C. Melewar. 2011.
Investigating the implications of business andculture on the
behaviour of customers of international firms. Industrial
Marketing Management 40:1, 65-77. [Crossref]
590. Gholamreza Torkzadeh, Jerry Cha-Jan Chang, Andrew M Hardin.
2011. Usage and impact oftechnology enabled job learning.
European Journal of Information Systems 20:1, 69-86. [Crossref]
591. Diego Comin, Bart Hobijn. 2011. Technology Diffusion and
Postwar Growth. NBER Macroeconomics Annual 25:1, 209-246.
[Crossref]
592. Andreas I. Nicolaou. Integrated Information Systems and
Interorganizational Performance: The Roleof Management
Accounting Systems Design 117-141. [Crossref]
593. Susan A Sherer. Value Realization from Adoption of Integrated
Electronic Health Records 1-10. [Crossref]
594. Shirish C. Srivastava, Thompson S.H. Teo. 2011. Development
and impact of e-government: theintertwined role of e-commerce
from a cross-country stakeholder's perspective. Electronic
Government, an International Journal 8:2/3, 144. [Crossref]
595. Fred Thompson, Polly S. Rizova, Henry H. Bi. 2011. Governing
Public School Districts: Insightsfrom Economics, Political
Science, and Business Management. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
596. Birger Wernerfelt. 2011. Efficient Adaptation Versus Gains
from Specialization: Procuring LaborServices. SSRN Electronic
597. Hemant K. Bhargava, Abhay Mishra. 2011. Electronic Medical
Records and Physician Productivity: Evidence from Panel Data
Analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
598. Markos Zachariadis. 2011. Diffusion and Use of Financial
Telecommunication: An Empirical Analysisof SWIFT Adoption. SSRN
599. Ramanath Subramanyam, Anjana Susarla. 2011. Contracting for
Knowledge Intensive Services: AnEmpirical Investigation of IT
Sourcing Arrangements. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
600. Anjana Susarla, Anitesh Barua, Prabhudev Konana, Andrew B.
Whinston. 2011. An EmpiricalInvestigation of Complementarity in
IT-Enabled Supply Chain Initiatives. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
601. Knut Blind. 2011. The Internet as Enabler for New Forms of
Innovation: New Challenges for Research.SSRN Electronic
602. Carol A. Corrado. 2011. Communication Capital, Metcalfe's Law,
and U.S. Productivity Growth.SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
603. Pedro Soto Acosta, Ricardo Colomo-Palacios, Euripidis Loukis.
E-Innovation as Source of BusinessValue in Firms 86-97.
[Crossref]
604. Dieter Spath, Wilhelm Bauer, Claus-Peter Praeg. IT Service
Quality Management 1-21. [Crossref]
605. Saeid Khajeh dangolani. 2011. The Impact of Information
Technology in Banking System (A Case
Study in Bank Keshavarzi IRAN). Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 30, 13-16. [Crossref]
606. Hossein Ahmadirezaei. 2011. The Effect of Information
Technology in Saderat Banking System.Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 30, 23-26. [Crossref]
607. Patrick Besson, Frantz Rowe. 2011. Perspectives sur le
phénomène de la transformationorganisationnelle. Systèmes
d'information & management 16:1, 3. [Crossref]
608. Lee J. Yao, Chunhui Liu, Siew H. Chan. 2010. The influence of
firm specific context on realizinginformation technology
business value in manufacturing industry. International Journal
of Accounting Information Systems 11:4, 353-362. [Crossref]
609. Ing-Long Wu, Cheng-Hung Chuang. 2010. Examining the diffusion
of electronic supply chainmanagement with external antecedents
and firm performance: A multi-stage analysis. Decision Support
610. Rinaldo Evangelista, Antonio Vezzani. 2010. The economic
impact of technological and organizationalinnovations. A firm-
level analysis. Research Policy 39:10, 1253-1263. [Crossref]
611. Naresh Khatri, Alok Baveja, Narendra M. Agrawal, Gordon D.
Brown. 2010. HR and IT capabilitiesand complementarities in
knowledge-intensive services. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management 21:15, 2889-2909. [Crossref]
612. G. Dosi, S. Lechevalier, A. Secchi. 2010. Introduction:
Interfirm heterogeneity--nature, sources andconsequences for
industrial dynamics. Industrial and Corporate Change 19:6, 1867-
1890. [Crossref]
613. A. J. Gilbert Silvius, Benny de Waal. Assessing Business and
IT Alignment in EducationalOrganizations 1-7. [Crossref]
614. Raluca Bunduchi, Alison U. Smart. 2010. Process Innovation
Costs in Supply Networks: A Synthesis.International Journal of
Management Reviews 12:4, 365-383. [Crossref]
615. Leonardo Becchetti, Annalisa Castelli, Iftekhar Hasan. 2010.
Investment–cash flow sensitivities, creditrationing and
financing constraints in small and medium-sized firms. Small
Business Economics 35:4, 467-497. [Crossref]
616. Grazia Ietto-Gillies. 2010. The current economic crisis and
international business. Can we say anythingmeaningful about
future scenarios?. Futures 42:9, 910-919. [Crossref]
617. Jenny Meyer. 2010. Does Social Software Support Service
Innovation?. International Journal of the Economics of Business
17:3, 289-311. [Crossref]
618. Ellen R. McGrattan,, Edward C. Prescott. 2010. Unmeasured
Investment and the Puzzling US Boomin the 1990s. American
Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 2:4, 88-123. [Abstract] [View
PDF article] [PDF with links]
619. Jouni Kauremaa, Juha-Miikka Nurmilaakso, Kari Tanskanen. 2010.
E-business enabled operationallinkages: The role of RosettaNet
in integrating the telecommunications supply chain.
International Journal of Production Economics 127:2, 343-357.
[Crossref]
620. Rachael E. Goodhue, Sandeep Mohapatra, Gordon C. Rausser.
2010. Interactions Between IncentiveInstruments: Contracts and
Quality in Processing Tomatoes. American Journal of Agricultural
621. Someshwar Rao, Jianmin Tang, Weimin Wang. 2010. ICT Capital
and MFP Growth: Evidence fromCanadian and U.S. Industries.
Transnational Corporations Review 2:3, 59-71. [Crossref]
622. Sonali Bhattacharya. 2010. Knowledge Economy in India:
Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Information & Knowledge
623. Guido Schryen. 2010. Ökonomischer Wert
von Informationssystemen. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 52:4, 225-
237. [Crossref]
624. Guido Schryen. 2010. Preserving Knowledge on IS Business
Value. Business & Information Systems Engineering 2:4, 233-244.
[Crossref]
625. Corey M. Angst, Ritu Agarwal, V. Sambamurthy, Ken Kelley.
2010. Social Contagion and InformationTechnology Diffusion: The
Adoption of Electronic Medical Records in U.S. Hospitals.
Management Science 56:8, 1219-1241. [Crossref]
626. Saggi Nevo, Michael Wade, Wade D. Cook. 2010. An empirical
study of IT as a factor of production: The case of Net-enabled
IT assets. Information Systems Frontiers 12:3, 323-335.
[Crossref]
Productivity, innovation strategies andindustrial relations in
SMEs. Empirical evidence for a local production system in
northern Italy. International Review of Applied Economics 24:4,
453-482. [Crossref]
628. Wang Yanting, Li Feng, Li Dan. The research on the coupling
development between IT policy andindustry 557-560. [Crossref]
629. James Arrowsmith, Paul Marginson. 2010. The decline of
incentive pay in British manufacturing.Industrial Relations
630. George Liagouras. 2010. What can we learn from the failures of
technology and innovation policiesin the European periphery?.
European Urban and Regional Studies 17:3, 331-349. [Crossref]
631. Eric K. Clemons. 2010. The Power of Patterns and Pattern
Recognition When DevelopingInformation-Based Strategy. Journal
of Management Information Systems 27:1, 69-96. [Crossref]
632. Daniel Q. Chen, David S. Preston, Weidong Xia. 2010.
Antecedents and Effects of CIO Supply-Sideand Demand-Side
Leadership: A Staged Maturity Model. Journal of Management
633. J. Gilbert Silvius. 2010. A Conceptual Model for Aligning IT
Valuation Methods. International Journal of IT/Business
Alignment and Governance 1:3, 36-54. [Crossref]
634. Brian P. Cozzarin, Jennifer C. Percival. 2010. IT,
productivity and organizational practices: largesample,
establishment-level evidence. Information Technology and
635. Keld Laursen, Valentina Meliciani. 2010. The role of ICT
knowledge flows for international marketshare dynamics. Research
636. S. K. Majumdar, O. Carare, H. Chang. 2010. Broadband adoption
and firm productivity: evaluatingthe benefits of general purpose
technology. Industrial and Corporate Change 19:3, 641-674.
[Crossref]
637. ELIE GEISLER. 2010. MEASURING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
KNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT SYSTEMS TO THE STRATEGIC COMPETITIVENESS OF
ORGANIZATIONS: A REVIEW AND A MODEL. International Journal of
Innovation and
Technology Management 07:02, 89-107. [Crossref]
638. Abhay Nath Mishra, Ritu Agarwal. 2010. Technological Frames,
Organizational Capabilities, andIT Use: An Empirical
Investigation of Electronic Procurement. Information Systems
639. Paul Chwelos, Ronald Ramirez, Kenneth L. Kraemer, Nigel P.
Melville. 2010. Research Note —DoesTechnological Progress Alter
the Nature of Information Technology as a Production Input? New
Evidence and New Results. Information Systems Research 21:2,
392-408. [Crossref]
640. Guangming Cao. 2010. A four-dimensional view of IT business
value. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27:3, 267-284.
[Crossref]
641. Jeffrey S. McCullough, Eli M. Snir. 2010. Monitoring
technology and firm boundaries: Physician–hospital integration
and technology utilization. Journal of Health Economics 29:3,
457-467. [Crossref]
642. Matthias Fuchs, Wolfram Höpken, Andreas Föger, Martin Kunz.
2010. E-Business Readiness,Intensity, and Impact: An Austrian
Destination Management Organization Study. Journal of Travel
643. Hans Ulrich Buhl, Peter Mertens, Matthias Schumann, Nils
Urbach, Stefan Smolnik, GeroldRiempp. 2010. Leserbrief:
Stellungnahme zum Beitrag von Urbach et al. aus Heft 4/2009.
WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 52:2, 109-114. [Crossref]
644. Hans Ulrich Buhl, Peter Mertens, Matthias Schumann, Nils
Urbach, Stefan Smolnik, Gerold Riempp.2010. Letter to the
Editor: Statements on the Contribution by Urbach et al. from
Issue 4/2009. Business & Information Systems Engineering 2:2,
109-120. [Crossref]
645. S. Helper, M. Sako. 2010. Management innovation in supply
chain: appreciating Chandler in thetwenty-first century.
646. Mitzi M. Montoya, Anne P. Massey, Vijay Khatri. 2010.
Connecting IT Services Operations to ServicesMarketing
Practices. Journal of Management Information Systems 26:4, 65-
85. [Crossref]
647. Benjamin Mueller, Goetz Viering, Christine Legner, Gerold
Riempp. 2010. Understanding theEconomic Potential of Service-
Oriented Architecture. Journal of Management Information Systems
26:4, 145-180. [Crossref]
648. Euripidis Loukis, Ioakim Sapounas. 2010. Innovation,
Information Systems Strategic Alignment andBusiness Value.
International Journal of Strategic Information Technology and
Applications 1:2, 38-54. [Crossref]
649. Michael J. Davern, Carla L. Wilkin. 2010. Towards an
integrated view of IT value measurement.International Journal of
Accounting Information Systems 11:1, 42-60. [Crossref]
650. Ky-hyang Yuhn, Seung R. Park. 2010. Information Technology,
Organizational Transformation andProductivity Growth: An
Examination of the Brynjolfsson-Hitt Proposition. Asian Economic
651. Giuliana Battisti, Paul Stoneman. 2010. How Innovative are UK
Firms? Evidence from the Fourth UKCommunity Innovation Survey on
Synergies between Technological and Organizational Innovations.
British Journal of Management 21:1, 187-206. [Crossref]
652. Govindan Marthandan, Chun Meng Tang. 2010. Information
technology evaluation: issues andchallenges. Journal of Systems
and Information Technology 12:1, 37-55. [Crossref]
653. S J Ho, S K Mallick. 2010. The impact of information
technology on the banking industry. Journal of the Operational
Research Society 61:2, 211-221. [Crossref]
654. Maria F.O. Martins, Tiago Oliveira. 2010. Semiparametric
Estimation of Information TechnologyDiffusion Models: A Study
Based on Portuguese Firm-Level Data. American Journal of
Mathematical and Management Sciences 30:3-4, 257-283. [Crossref]
655. A. D. Elyakov. 2010. The nature of the modern information
society. Scientific and Technical Information Processing 37:1,
60-73. [Crossref]
656. Nagy K. Hanna. Implications of the ICT Revolution for Business
27-58. [Crossref]
657. Miriam Scaglione, Ahmad Fareed Ismail, Jean-Philippe
Trabichet, Jamie Murphy. An Investigationof Leapfrogging and Web
2.0 Implementation 441-453. [Crossref]
658. Kabiru Touray, Timothy Jung. Exploratory Study on
Contributions of ICTs to Sustainable TourismDevelopment in
Manchester 493-505. [Crossref]
659. Shane Greenstein. Innovative Conduct in Computing and Internet
Markets 477-537. [Crossref]
660. Paul Stoneman, Giuliana Battisti. The Diffusion of New
Technology 733-760. [Crossref]
661. Timothy Bresnahan. General Purpose Technologies 761-791.
[Crossref]
662. Yasin Ozcelik. 2010. Do business process reengineering
projects payoff? Evidence from the UnitedStates. International
Journal of Project Management 28:1, 7-13. [Crossref]
663. Simon Commander. How Do Emerging Markets Innovate? Evidence
from Brazil and India 211-217. [Crossref]
664. Luis Garicano, Paul Heaton. 2010. Information Technology,
Organization, and Productivity in the
Public Sector: Evidence from Police Departments. Journal of Labor
665. Naresh Khatri, Kalyan Pasupathy, Lanis L. Hicks. The crucial
role of people and information in healthcare organizations 195-
211. [Crossref]
666. Tom R. Eikebrokk, Jon Iden, Dag H. Olsen, Andreas L. Opdahl.
Determinants to the Use of BusinessProcess Modeling 1-10.
[Crossref]
667. Ariel Avgar, Lorin M Hitt, Prasanna Tambe. The Effects of
Organizational Factors on Healthcare ITAdoption Costs: Evidence
from New York Nursing Homes 1-9. [Crossref]
668. Anna Giunta, Annamaria A. Nifo, Domenico Scalera. 2010.
Subcontracting in the Italian Industry: Labour Division, Firm
Growth and the North-South Divide. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
669. Changling Chen, Jee-Hae Lim, Theophanis C. Stratopoulos. 2010.
Persistent Profits & TransitoryLosses: Role of IT Innovation
Capability. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
670. Robert G. Fichman, Nigel P. Melville. 2010. Electronic
Networking Technologies, Innovation Misfitand Plant Performance.
671. Ferdinand Mahr, Tobias Kretschmer. 2010. Complementarities
between IT and Organizational
Structure: The Role of Corporate Exploration and Exploitation. SSRN
672. Julien Hanoteau, Jean-Jacques Rosa. 2010. The Shrinking Hand:
Why Information Technology Leadsto Smaller Firms. SSRN
673. Michael Polder, George van Leeuwen, Pierre Mohnen, Wladimir
Raymond. 2010. Product, Processand Organizational Innovation:
Drivers, Complementarity and Productivity Effects. SSRN
674. Derek C. Jones, Panu Kalmi, Antti Kauhanen. 2010. Firm and
Employee Effects of an EnterpriseInformation System: Micro-
Econometric Evidence. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
675. Irene Bertschek, Jenny Meyer. 2010. IT is Never Too Late for
Changes? Analysing the RelationshipBetween Process Innovation,
IT and Older Workers. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
676. Ken A. Smith, Fred Thompson. 2010. Budgets? We Don’t Need No
Stinkin Budgets: Ten Things
We Think We Think We Know about Budgets and Performance. SSRN
677. Diego A. Comin, Bart Hobijn. 2010. Technology Diffusion and
Postwar Growth. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
678. Diego Cardona. 2010. ICT and its Impact on Organizational
Learning. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
679. Kristina Steffenson McElheran. 2010. Delegation in Multi-
Establishment Firms: The OrganizationalStructure of I.T.
Purchasing Authority. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
680. Luis Rubalcaba, David Gago, Jorge Gallego. 2010. On the
differences between goods and servicesinnovation. Journal of
Innovation Economics 5:1, 17. [Crossref]
681. John Wang, Bin Zhou, Jeffrey Hsu. 2010. Assessment and
Contrast of the Effects of Information andCommunication
Technology. International Journal of Information Communication
Technologies and Human Development 2:1, 18-42. [Crossref]
682. Govindan Marthandan, Tang Chun Meng. 2010. Thirst for Business
Value of InformationTechnology. International Journal of
Technology Diffusion 1:1, 28-40. [Crossref]
683. Gensheng (Jason) Liu, Kathleen McKone-Sweet, Rachna Shah.
2009. Assessing the performanceimpact of supply chain planning
in net-enhanced organizations. Operations Management Research
2:1-4, 33-43. [Crossref]
684. Chin S. Ou, David C. Yen, Chia-Sheng Hung. 2009. Determinants
of information technologyinvestments: The case of ATM in an
emerging economy. Advances in Accounting 25:2, 278-283.
[Crossref]
685. Takuji Fueki, Takuji Kawamoto. 2009. Does information
technology raise Japan's productivity?. Japan and the World
686. Hans Peter Grüner. 2009. Information technology: Efficient
restructuring and the productivity puzzle.Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization 72:3, 916-929. [Crossref]
687. Mariacristina Piva, Marco Vivarelli. 2009. The role of skills
as a major driver of corporate R&D.International Journal of
Manpower 30:8, 835-852. [Crossref]
688. Farley S. Nobre, Andrew M. Tobias, David S. Walker. 2009. The
impact of cognitive machines oncomplex decisions and
organizational change. AI & SOCIETY 24:4, 365-381. [Crossref]
689. Peter Wood. 2009. Service Competitiveness and Urban Innovation
Policies in the UK: TheImplications of the ‘London Paradox’.
Regional Studies 43:8, 1047-1059. [Crossref]
690. E. Loukis, K. Pazalos, St. Georgiou. 2009. An empirical
investigation of the moderating effects ofBPR and TQM on ICT
business value. Journal of Enterprise Information Management
22:5, 564-586. [Crossref]
691. Susanna Mancinelli, Massimiliano Mazzanti. 2009. Innovation,
networking and complementarity:
evidence on SME performances for a local economic system in
North-Eastern Italy. The Annals of Regional Science 43:3, 567-
597. [Crossref]
692. Rita Santos, Ronald Wennersten, Eduardo B.L. Oliva, Walter
Leal Filho. 2009. Strategies forcompetitiveness and
sustainability: Adaptation of a Brazilian subsidiary of a
Swedish multinational corporation. Journal of Environmental
693. Yao Lu, Hong-wen Zhu. An approach for quantifying enterprise
value of information (EVI) 594-600. [Crossref]
694. Guangming Cao. A Contingency and Resource-Based View of Fit
between IT and OrganisationalFactors 1-5. [Crossref]
695. Ben Dolman. 2009. What Happened to Australia's Productivity
Surge?. Australian Economic Review 42:3, 243-263. [Crossref]
696. Ivan Ricardo Gartner, Ronaldo Zwicker, Wilhelm Rödder. 2009.
Investimentos em tecnologia dainformação e impactos na
produtividade empresarial: uma análise empírica à luz do
paradoxo da produtividade. Revista de Administração
Contemporânea 13:3, 391-409. [Crossref]
697. Sung-Yul Ryoo, Woo-Jong Suh, Chul-Mo Koo. 2009. An Empirical
Study on Joint Decision Makingand Business Performance between
Corporations. The Journal of Information Systems 18:3, 89-110.
[Crossref]
698. Yueh H. Chen, Winston T. Lin. 2009. Analyzing the
relationships between information technology,inputs substitution
and national characteristics based on CES stochastic frontier
production models. International Journal of Production Economics
120:2, 552-569. [Crossref]
700. Sanjay Kumar, Anurag Keshan. 2009. Erp Implementation In Tata
Steel: Focus On Benefits And Roi.Journal of Information
Technology Case and Application Research 11:3, 68-103.
[Crossref]
701. Forrest V. Morgeson, Sunil Mithas. 2009. Does E-Government
Measure Up to E-Business?Comparing End User Perceptions of U.S.
Federal Government and E-Business Web Sites. Public
Administration Review 69:4, 740-752. [Crossref]
702. Leire San-Jose, Txomin Iturralde, Amaia Maseda. 2009. The
influence of informationcommunications technology (ICT) on cash
management and financial department performance: An explanatory
model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue
Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration 26:2, 150-169.
[Crossref]
703. Alfons Palangkaraya, Andreas Stierwald, Jongsay Yong. 2009. Is
Firm Productivity Related to Size andAge? The Case of Large
Australian Firms. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade
9:2, 167-195. [Crossref]
704. Andrew J. Clarke, Alok Johri. 2009. PROCYCLICAL SOLOW
RESIDUALS WITHOUTTECHNOLOGY SHOCKS. Macroeconomic Dynamics 13:3,
366-389. [Crossref]
705. Caroline Chibelushi, Pat Costello. 2009. Challenges facing W.
Midlands ICT‐oriented SMEs. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development 16:2, 210-239. [Crossref]
706. Peter Brödner. 2009. The misery of digital organisations and
the semiotic nature of IT. AI & SOCIETY 23:3, 331-351.
[Crossref]
707. David M. Hart. 2009. Accounting for change in national systems
of innovation: A friendly critiquebased on the U.S. case.
Research Policy 38:4, 647-654. [Crossref]
708. Euripidis N. Loukis, Ioakim A. Sapounas, Alexandros E.
Milionis. 2009. The effect of hard and softinformation and
communication technologies investment on manufacturing business
performance in Greece – A preliminary econometric study.
Telematics and Informatics 26:2, 193-210. [Crossref]
709. R. Gholami, Xiaojia Guo, M.D.A. Higon, S.-Y.T. Lee. 2009.
Information and CommunicationsTechnology (ICT) International
Spillovers. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 56:2,
329-340. [Crossref]
Innovation, Working Conditions andIndustrial Relations: Evidence
for a Local Production System. Economic and Industrial Democracy
30:2, 157-181. [Crossref]
711. Vivek Ghosal, Usha Nair-Reichert. 2009. Investments in
modernization, innovation and gains inproductivity: Evidence
from firms in the global paper industry. Research Policy 38:3,
536-547. [Crossref]
712. Neeraj Mittal, Barrie R. Nault. 2009. Research Note —
Investments in Information Technology: Indirect Effects and
Information Technology Intensity. Information Systems Research
20:1, 140-154. [Crossref]
713. Spyros Arvanitis, Euripidis N. Loukis. 2009. Information and
communication technologies, humancapital, workplace organization
and labour productivity: A comparative study based on firm-level
data for Greece and Switzerland. Information Economics and
714. Mariela Badescu, Concepción Garcés-Ayerbe. 2009. The impact of
information technologies on firmproductivity: Empirical evidence
from Spain. Technovation 29:2, 122-129. [Crossref]
715. Changi Nam, Youngsun Kwon, Seongcheol Kim, Hyeongjik Lee.
2009. Estimating scale economies ofthe wireless
telecommunications industry using EVA data. Telecommunications
Policy 33:1-2, 29-40. [Crossref]
716. Jenny Meyer. Older Workers and the Adoption of New
Technologies in ICT-Intensive Services 85-119. [Crossref]
717. Massimo G. Colombo, Luca Grilli. The Diffusion of Broadband-
Based Applications Among ItalianSmall and Medium Enterprises
175-186. [Crossref]
718. Paola Bielli, Andras Nemeslaki. Reinventing Organizations with
Information and CommunicationTechnologies 94-115. [Crossref]
719. Stephen T Parente. 2009. Health Information Technology and
Financing's Next Frontier: The
Potential of Medical Banking. Business Economics 44:1, 41-50.
[Crossref]
720. Madjid Tavana, Mohammad H. Khakbaz, Mohsen Jafari Songhori.
2009. Information technology'simpact on productivity in
conventional power plants. International Journal of Business
Performance Management 11:3, 187. [Crossref]
721. Irene Bertschek, Jenny Meyer. 2009. Do Older Workers Lower IT-
Enabled Productivity?. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und
Statistik 229:2-3. . [Crossref]
722. Robert W. Hahn. 2009. Government Policy Toward Open Source
Software. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
723. Adi Masli, Vernon J. Richardson, Juan Manuel Sanchez, Rod E.
Smith. 2009. The InterrelationshipsBetween Information
Technology Expenditures, CEO Compensation and Firm Value. SSRN
724. Jenny Meyer. 2009. Does Social Software Support Service
Innovation?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
725. Yanfei Li. 2009. The Roles of Information and Communication
Technology in Firm Performance.SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
726. Rafael L. Myro Sánchez, Josefa Vega, Elisa Álvarez. 2009.
Information Technologies and EconomicGrowth: Do the Physical
Measures Tell Us Something?. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
727. A. Yadollahi, Z. Shojaei Asadiyeh. 2009. Some Physiological
Parameters and Sugar ConcentrationChanging of Sugar Beet (Beta
vulgaris L.) Under Controlled Climatical Conditions. Asian
Journal of Crop Science 1:1, 49-57. [Crossref]
728. Chiara Francalanci, Vincenzo Morabito. 2008. IS Integration
and Business Performance: TheMediation Effect of Organizational
Absorptive Capacity in SMEs. Journal of Information Technology
23:4, 297-312. [Crossref]
729. Davide Consoli. 2008. Systems of Innovation and Industry
Evolution: The Case of Retail Banking inthe UK. Industry and
730. Luis Alarcen, Sergio Maturana, Ignacio Schonherr. Benefits of
Using E-Marketplace in ConstructionCompanies 17-1-17-19.
[Crossref]
731. Jun Yang, Kenneth J. Klassen. 2008. How financial markets
reflect the benefits of self‐servicetechnologies. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management 21:5, 448-467. [Crossref]
732. Maria Åkesson, Bo Edvardsson. 2008. Effects of e‐government on
service design as perceived byemployees. Managing Service
Quality: An International Journal 18:5, 457-478. [Crossref]
733. Philipp Koellinger. 2008. The relationship between technology,
innovation, and firm performance—Empirical evidence from e-
business in Europe. Research Policy 37:8, 1317-1328. [Crossref]
734. SUSHANTA K. MALLICK, SHIRLEY J. HO. 2008. ON NETWORK
COMPETITION ANDTHE SOLOW PARADOX: EVIDENCE FROM US BANKS.
Manchester School 76, 37-57.
[Crossref]
735. STEVEN PENNINGS, ROD TYERS. 2008. Increasing Returns,
Financial Capital Mobility and RealExchange Rate Dynamics*.
Economic Record 84, S141-S158. [Crossref]
736. Mario I. Kafouros. 2008. Economic returns to industrial
research. Journal of Business Research 61:8, 868-876. [Crossref]
737. Oleg Badunenko, Daniel J. Henderson, Valentin Zelenyuk. 2008.
Technological Change andTransition: Relative Contributions to
Worldwide Growth During the 1990s*. Oxford Bulletin of Economics
and Statistics 70:4, 461-492. [Crossref]
738. Helana Scheepers, Rens Scheepers. 2008. A process-focused
decision framework for analyzing thebusiness value potential of
IT investments. Information Systems Frontiers 10:3, 321-330.
[Crossref]
739. Stephen D. Oliner, Daniel E. Sichel, Kevin J. Stiroh. 2008.
Explaining a productive decade. Journal of Policy Modeling 30:4,
633-673. [Crossref]
740. Nicholas C. Georgantzas, Evangelos G. Katsamakas. 2008.
Information systems research with systemdynamics. System
Dynamics Review 24:3, 247-264. [Crossref]
741. Thomas Hempell, Thomas Zwick. 2008. NEW TECHNOLOGY, WORK
ORGANISATION, ANDINNOVATION. Economics of Innovation and New
742. Jonathan C. Javitt, James B. Rebitzer, Lonny Reisman. 2008.
Information technology and medicalmissteps: Evidence from a
randomized trial. Journal of Health Economics 27:3, 585-602.
[Crossref]
743. Gianfranco E. Atzeni, Oliviero A. Carboni. 2008. The effects
of grant policy on technology investmentin Italy. Journal of
Policy Modeling 30:3, 381-399. [Crossref]
744. Bruce S. Tether, Abdelouahid Tajar. 2008. The organisational-
cooperation mode of innovation andits prominence amongst
European service firms. Research Policy 37:4, 720-739.
[Crossref]
745. Jim Spohrer, Paul P. Maglio. 2008. The Emergence of Service
Science: Toward Systematic ServiceInnovations to Accelerate Co-
Creation of Value. Production and Operations Management 17:3,
238-246. [Crossref]
746. Juha-Miikka Nurmilaakso. 2008. EDI, XML and e-business
frameworks: A survey. Computers in Industry 59:4, 370-379.
[Crossref]
747. Heinz Hollenstein, Martin Woerter. 2008. Inter- and intra-firm
diffusion of technology: The exampleof E-commerce. Research
748. Pingsheng Tong, Jean L. Johnson, U.N. Umesh, Ruby P. Lee.
2008. A typology of interfirmrelationships: the role of
information technology and reciprocity. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing 23:3, 178-192. [Crossref]
749. George R.G. Clarke. 2008. Has the internet increased exports
for firms from low and middle-incomecountries?. Information
750. Mordechai Ben-Menachem. 2008. Towards management of software
as assets: A literature review withadditional sources.
Information and Software Technology 50:4, 241-258. [Crossref]
751. Massimiliano Mazzanti, Roberto Zoboli. 2008.
Complementarities, firm strategies and environmentalinnovations:
empirical evidence for a district based manufacturing system.
Environmental Sciences 5:1, 17-40. [Crossref]
752. K. Stiroh. 2008. Information Technology and Productivity: Old
Answers and New Questions. CESifo Economic Studies 54:3, 358-
385. [Crossref]
753. Dale W. Jorgenson, Mun S. Ho, Kevin J. Stiroh. 2008. A
Retrospective Look at the U.S. ProductivityGrowth Resurgence.
Journal of Economic Perspectives 22:1, 3-24. [Abstract] [View
754. Toshihiko Takemura, Hiroyuki Ebara. Spam Mail Reduces Economic
Effects 20-24. [Crossref]
755. René Kemp, Massimiliano Volpi. 2008. The diffusion of clean
technologies: a review with suggestionsfor future diffusion
analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 16:1, S14-S21.
[Crossref]
756. Shane Greenstein. Computer Industry 1-4. [Crossref]
757. Elaine Ramsey, Patrick Ibbotson, Patrick Mccole. 2008. The
mitigating effects of uncertainty on‘e’ innovation propensity:
some service sector evidence. The Service Industries Journal
28:1, 53-72. [Crossref]
758. Adi Masli, Vernon J. Richardson, Juan Manuel Sanchez, Rod E.
Smith. 2008. Information TechnologyInvestments, CEO Compensation
and Market Valuation. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
759. Ludivine Martin, Nathalie Colombier, Thierry Pénard. 2008. Are
Employees Really Satisfied withICT?. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
760. Saul Lach, Gil Shiff, Manuel Trajtenberg. 2008. Together but
Apart: ICT and Productivity Growthin Israel. SSRN Electronic
761. Bin Gu, Ling Xue, Gautam Ray. 2008. IT Governance and IT
Investment Performance: An EmpiricalAnalysis. SSRN Electronic
762. Jenny Meyer. 2008. The Adoption of New Technologies and the
Age Structure of the Workforce.SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
763. B. K. Atrostic, Kazuyuki Motohashi, Sang V. Nguyen. 2008.
Computer Network Use and Firms'Productivity Performance: The
United States vs. Japan. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
764. Benoit Dostie, Rajshri Jayaraman. 2008. Organizational
Redesign, Information Technologies andWorkplace Productivity.
765. Daniel K. N. Johnson, Kristina M. Lybecker. 2008. Does HAVA
Help the Have-Nots? U.S. Adoptionof New Election Equipment,
1980-2008. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
766. Daniel Cerquera. 2008. ICT, Consulting and Innovative
Capabilities. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
767. Irene Bertschek, Jenny Meyer. 2008. Do Older Workers Lower IT-
Enabled Productivity? Firm-LevelEvidence from Germany. SSRN
768. Erik Brynjolfsson, Andrew McAfee, Michael Sorell, Feng Zhu.
2008. Scale Without Mass: BusinessProcess Replication and
Industry Dynamics. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
769. Michael K. Fung. 2008. To What Extent Are Labor-Saving
Technologies Improving Efficiencyin the Use of Human Resources?
Evidence from the Banking Industry. Production and Operations
770. Minseong Kim, Soonkyoung Youn, Minjeong Park, Kyoung-Oh Song,
Tacksoo Shin, Jeongmin Chi,Jongho Shin, Deokhee Seo, Sungdoo
Hong. 2007. A review of human competence in educational
research: Levels of K- 12, College, Adult, and Business
Education. Asia Pacific Education Review 8:3, 500-520.
[Crossref]
771. PETER DOLTON, GERRY MAKEPEACE, HELEN ROBINSON. 2007. USE IT OR
LOSEIT? THE IMPACT OF COMPUTERS ON EARNINGS. The Manchester
School 75:6, 673-694.
[Crossref]
772. Neil Fligstein, Taekjin Shin. 2007. Shareholder Value and the
Transformation of the U.S. Economy,1984-2000 1. Sociological
Forum 22:4, 399-424. [Crossref]
773. Sundar Bharadwaj, Anandhi Bharadwaj, Elliot Bendoly. 2007. The
Performance Effects ofComplementarities Between Information
Systems, Marketing, Manufacturing, and Supply Chain Processes.
Information Systems Research 18:4, 437-453. [Crossref]
774. Oana Velcu. 2007. Exploring the effects of ERP systems on
organizational performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems
107:9, 1316-1334. [Crossref]
775. Richard Klein. 2007. Customization and real time information
access in integrated eBusiness supplychain relationships.
Journal of Operations Management 25:6, 1366-1381. [Crossref]
776. Giuliana Battisti, Heinz Hollenstein, Paul Stoneman, Martin
Woerter. 2007. INTER AND INTRAFIRM DIFFUSION OF ICT IN THE
UNITED KINGDOM (UK) AND SWITZERLAND (CH) AN INTERNATIONALLY
COMPARATIVE STUDY BASED ON FIRM-LEVEL DATA.
[Crossref]
777. Chung-Jen Chen. 2007. Information Technology, Organizational
Structure, and New ProductDevelopment---The Mediating Effect of
Cross-Functional Team Interaction. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management 54:4, 687-698. [Crossref]
778. Jungsoo Park, Seung Kyoon Shin, Hyun-Han Shin. 2007. The
Intensity and Externality Effectsof Information Technology
Investments on National Productivity Growth. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management 54:4, 716-728. [Crossref]
779. Bernardo Bátiz-Lazo, Peter Wardley. 2007. Banking on change:
information systems and technologiesin UK high street banking,
1919–1969. Financial History Review 14:2, 177-205. [Crossref]
780. CLAUDIO MICHELACCI, DAVID LOPEZ-SALIDO. 2007. Technology
Shocks and Job Flows.
Review of Economic Studies 74:4, 1195-1227. [Crossref]
781. Sinan Aral, Peter Weill. 2007. IT Assets, Organizational
Capabilities, and Firm Performance: HowResource Allocations and
Organizational Differences Explain Performance Variation.
Organization Science 18:5, 763-780. [Crossref]
782. Steven C. Michael. 2007. Can information technology enable
profitable diversification? An empiricalexamination. Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management 24:3, 167-185. [Crossref]
783. Lourens Broersma, Bart Van Ark. 2007. ICT, BUSINESS SERVICES
AND LABOURPRODUCTIVITY GROWTH. Economics of Innovation and New
Technology 16:6, 433-449.
[Crossref]
784. Helaiel Almutairi. 2007. Information System and Productivity
in Kuwaiti Public Organizations: Looking Inside the Black Box.
International Journal of Public Administration 30:11, 1263-1290.
[Crossref]
785. Todd A. Watkins. 2007. DO WORKFORCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL
PRACTICES EXPLAINTHE MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION
ADVANTAGE OF SMALL DEFENSE CONTRACTORS OVER NON‐DEFENSE
ESTABLISHMENTS?. Defence and Peace
786. Zhuo (June) Cheng, Barrie R. Nault. 2007. Industry Level
Supplier-Driven IT Spillovers. Management Science 53:8, 1199-
1216. [Crossref]
787. Mojisola Olugbode, Rhodri Richards, Tom Biss. 2007. The role
of information technology inachieving the organisation's
strategic development goals: A case study. Information Systems
32:5, 641-648. [Crossref]
788. Elena Beccalli. 2007. Does IT investment improve bank
performance? Evidence from Europe. Journal of Banking & Finance
31:7, 2205-2230. [Crossref]
789. Nakil Sung. 2007. Information technology, efficiency and
productivity: evidence from Korean localgovernments. Applied
790. Francis Green, Alan Felstead, Duncan Gallie, Ying Zhou. 2007.
Computers and Pay. National Institute Economic Review 201, 63-
75. [Crossref]
791. A. Albadvi, A. Keramati, J. Razmi. 2007. Assessing the impact
of information technology on firmperformance considering the
role of intervening variables: organizational infrastructures
and business processes reengineering. International Journal of
Production Research 45:12, 2697-2734. [Crossref]
792. Rachna Shah, Hojung Shin. 2007. Relationships among
information technology, inventory, andprofitability: An
investigation of level invariance using sector level data.
Journal of Operations Management 25:4, 768-784. [Crossref]
793. Alberto Bayo-Moriones, Fernando Lera-López. 2007. A firm-level
analysis of determinants of ICTadoption in Spain. Technovation
27:6-7, 352-366. [Crossref]
794. Anna Giunta, Francesco Trivieri. 2007. Understanding the
determinants of information technologyadoption: evidence from
Italian manufacturing firms. Applied Economics 39:10, 1325-1334.
[Crossref]
795. H.-J. Engelbrecht, V. Xayavong. 2007. THE ELUSIVE CONTRIBUTION
OF ICT TO PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN NEW ZEALAND: EVIDENCE FROM AN
EXTENDED INDUSTRY-LEVEL GROWTH ACCOUNTING MODEL. Economics of
Innovation and New
796. Vasant Dhar, Arun Sundararajan. 2007. Issues and Opinions—
Information Technologies in Business: A Blueprint for Education
and Research. Information Systems Research 18:2, 125-141.
[Crossref]
797. Antao Moura, Jacques Sauve, Claudio Bartolini. Research
Challenges of Business-Driven ITManagement 19-28. [Crossref]
798. Susanto Basu, John Fernald. 2007. Information and
Communications Technology as a GeneralPurpose Technology:
Evidence from US Industry Data. German Economic Review 8:2, 146-
173. [Crossref]
799. Darrene Hackler, Gregory D. Saxton. 2007. The Strategic Use of
Information Technology byNonprofit Organizations: Increasing
Capacity and Untapped Potential. Public Administration Review
67:3, 474-487. [Crossref]
800. Sotiris K. Papaioannou, Sophia P. Dimelis. 2007. Information
Technology as a Factor of EconomicDevelopment: Evidence from
Developed and Developing Countries. Economics of Innovation and
801. Yasuharu Ukai, Toshihiko Takemura. 2007. Spam mails impede
economic growth. The Review of Socionetwork Strategies 1:1, 14-
22. [Crossref]
802. Urban J. Jermann, Vincenzo Quadrini. 2007. Stock market boom
and the productivity gains of the1990s. Journal of Monetary
803. Nicos Koussis, Spiros H. Martzoukos, Lenos Trigeorgis. 2007.
Real R&D options with time-to-learnand learning-by-doing. Annals
of Operations Research 151:1, 29-55. [Crossref]
804. Andrew Atkeson, Patrick J. Kehoe. 2007. Modeling the
Transition to a New Economy: Lessonsfrom Two Technological
Revolutions. American Economic Review 97:1, 64-88. [Abstract]
[View PDF article] [PDF with links]
805. J. Cremer, L. Garicano, A. Prat. 2007. Language and the Theory
of the Firm. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122:1, 373-407.
[Crossref]
806. David Gago, Luis Rubalcaba. 2007. Innovation and ICT in
service firms: towards a multidimensionalapproach for impact
assessment. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 17:1, 25-44.
[Crossref]
807. Margarita Billón Currás, Fernando Lera López, Salvador Ortiz
Serrano. 2007. Evidencias del impactode las TIC en la
productividad de la empresa. ¿Fin de la «paradoja de la
productividad»?. Cuadernos de Economía 30:82, 5-36. [Crossref]
808. W. Erwin Diewert, Alice O. Nakamura. Chapter 66 The
Measurement of Productivity for Nations4501-4586. [Crossref]
809. Bou-Wen Lin. 2007. Information technology capability and value
creation: Evidence from the USbanking industry. Technology in
810. José María González González, Constancio Zamora Ramírez,
Bernabé Escobar Pérez. 2007. Lareingeniería de procesos de
negocio (BPR) aplicada a la gestión de tesorería: su estudio en
una compañía de electricidad española. Spanish Journal of
Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación y
Contabilidad 36:135, 537-568. [Crossref]
811. John Ward, Steven Hertogh, Stijn Viaene. Managing Benefits
from IS/IT Investments: An EmpiricalInvestigation into Current
Practice 206a-206a. [Crossref]
812. Jenny Meyer. 2007. Older Workers and the Adoption of New
Technologies. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
813. Harald Edquist. 2007. Parallel Development? Productivity
Growth Following Electrification and theICT Revolution. SSRN
814. Jörg Ohnemus. 2007. Does IT Outsourcing Increase Firm Success?
An Empirical Assessment UsingFirm-Level Data. SSRN Electronic
815. Stephen D. Oliner, Daniel E. Sichel, Kevin J. Stiroh. 2007.
Explaining a Productive Decade. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
816. Prasanna Tambe, Lorin M. Hitt. 2007. Measuring Information
Technology Spillovers. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
817. Murillo Campello, John R. Graham. 2007. Do Stock Prices
Influence Corporate Decisions? Evidencefrom the Technology
Bubble. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
818. Vivek Ghosal, Usha Nair-Reichert. 2007. Targeted Investments
in Modernization and Gains in
Productivity: Evidence from Firms in the Global Paper Industry. SSRN
819. Dale W. Jorgenson, Mun S. Ho, Kevin J. Stiroh. 2007. A
Retrospective Look at the U.S. ProductivityGrowth Resurgence.
820. Heinz Hollenstein, Martin Woerter. 2007. Inter- and Intra-Firm
Diffusion of Technology: TheExample of E-Commerce: An Analysis
Based on Swiss Firm-Level Data. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
821. Massimiliano Mazzanti, Roberto Zoboli. 2007. Environmental
Efficiency, Emission Trends and LabourProductivity: Trade-Off or
Joint Dynamics? Empirical Evidence Using NAMEA Panel Data. SSRN
822. Massimiliano Mazzanti, Susanna Mancinelli. 2007. SME
Performance, Innovation and Networking Evidence on
Complementarities for a Local Economic System. SSRN Electronic
823. Nizamettin Bayyurt. 2007. The Performance of Turkish
Manufacturing Firms in Stable And UnstableEconomic Periods.
South East European Journal of Economics and Business 2:2. .
[Crossref]
824. Niño Alejandro Q. Manalo, Jose D. V. Camacho. 2007. IT And
Firm-Level Performance in thePhilippines, 1999–2006.
International Journal of Economic Policy Studies 2:1, 139-160.
[Crossref]
825. Rong-Ruey Duh, Chee W. Chow, Hueiling Chen. 2006. Strategy, IT
applications for planning andcontrol, and firm performance: The
impact of impediments to IT implementation. Information &
826. Irene Bertschek, Helmut Fryges, Ulrich Kaiser. 2006. B2B or
Not to Be: Does B2B E‐CommerceIncrease Labour Productivity?.
International Journal of the Economics of Business 13:3, 387-
405. [Crossref]
827. G. Udechukwu Ojiako, Stuart Maguire. 2006. Divestiture as a
strategic option for change in NITEL: lessons from the BT and
AT&T experience. info 8:6, 79-94. [Crossref]
828. Mark Beukers, Johan Versendaal, Ronald Batenburg, Sjaak
Brinkkemper. 2006. The procurementalignment framework
construction and application. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 48:5, 323-
330. [Crossref]
829. Daniel Beimborn, Jochen Franke, Peter Gomber, Heinz-Theo
Wagner, Tim Weitzel. 2006. Die Bedeutung des Alignment von IT
und Fachressourcen in Finanzprozessen Eine empirische
Untersuchung. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 48:5, 331-339. [Crossref]
830. Roberto M. Samaniego. 2006. Organizational capital, technology
adoption and the productivityslowdown. Journal of Monetary
831. Marcin Piatkowski. 2006. Can Information and Communication
Technologies Make a Difference inthe Development of Transition
Economies?. Information Technologies and International
Development 3:1, 39-53. [Crossref]
832. Shirley Gregor, Michael Martin, Walter Fernandez, Steven
Stern, Michael Vitale. 2006. Thetransformational dimension in
the realization of business value from information technology.
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15:3, 249-270.
[Crossref]
833. Chiang Ku Fan, Chen-Liang Cheng. 2006. A study to identify the
training needs of life insurancesales representatives in Taiwan
using the Delphi approach. International Journal of Training and
834. Seda Turan, Selmin Danis, Sitki Gozlu. Performance Criteria
for Radio Frequency IdentificationTechnology: Cases of Vehicle
Identification Systems in Gas Stations and Automobile
Manufacturing 1647-1656. [Crossref]
835. Nancy Roberts, Fred Thompson. 2006. "Netcentric" Organization.
Public Administration Review 66:4, 619-622. [Crossref]
836. Gianfranco E. Atzeni, Oliviero A. Carboni. 2006. ICT
productivity and firm propensity to innovativeinvestment:
Evidence from Italian microdata. Information Economics and
837. Heiko Schmiedel, Markku Malkamäki, Juha Tarkka. 2006.
Economies of scale and technologicaldevelopment in securities
depository and settlement systems. Journal of Banking & Finance
30:6, 1783-1806. [Crossref]
838. Dilip Mookherjee. 2006. Decentralization, Hierarchies, and
Incentives: A Mechanism DesignPerspective. Journal of Economic
Literature 44:2, 367-390. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF
with links]
839. Shyamal K. Chowdhury. 2006. Investments in ICT-capital and
economic performance of small andmedium scale enterprises in
East Africa. Journal of International Development 18:4, 533-552.
[Crossref]
840. Abbas Keramati ., Amir Albadvi .. 2006. A Proposal for a
Framework of Research Approaches onInformation Technology
Impacts on Corporate Level Productivity. Information Technology
841. Terry Anthony Byrd, Bruce R. Lewis, Robert W. Bryan. 2006. The
leveraging influence of strategicalignment on IT investment: An
empirical examination. Information & Management 43:3, 308-321.
[Crossref]
842. Ing-Long Wu, Jian-Liang Chen. 2006. A hybrid performance
measure system for e-businessinvestments in high-tech
manufacturing: An empirical study. Information & Management
43:3, 364-377. [Crossref]
843. Metka Stare, Andreja Jaklič, Patricia Kotnik. 2006. Exploiting
ICT potential in service firms intransition economies. The
Service Industries Journal 26:3, 287-302. [Crossref]
844. Rinaldo Evangelista, Valeria Mastrostefano. 2006. Firm size,
sectors and countries as sources of varietyin innovation.
[Crossref]
845. Neil Dias Karunaratne. 2006. The New Economy and The Dollar
Puzzle**Originally published asThe University of Queensland
School of Economics Discussion Paper No. 305; republished with
permission. Economic Analysis and Policy 36:1-2, 25-43.
[Crossref]
846. Hans-Jürgen Engelbrecht, Vilaphonh Xayavong. 2006. ICT
intensity and New Zealand’s productivitymalaise: Is the glass
half empty or half full?. Information Economics and Policy 18:1,
24-42. [Crossref]
847. J. Sarkis, R.P. Sundarraj. 2006. Evaluation of enterprise
information technologies: a decision modelfor high-level
consideration of strategic and operational issues. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C
(Applications and Reviews) 36:2, 260-273. [Crossref]
848. Lex Borghans, Bas ter Weel. 2006. The Division of Labour,
Worker Organisation, and TechnologicalChange. The Economic
Journal 116:509, F45-F72. [Crossref]
849. Robert W. Fairlie. 2006. The Personal Computer and
Entrepreneurship. Management Science 52:2, 187-203. [Crossref]
850. Mariacristina Piva, Enrico Santarelli, Marco Vivarelli. 2006.
Technological and organizational changesas determinants of the
skill bias: evidence from the Italian machinery industry.
Managerial and Decision Economics 27:1, 63-73. [Crossref]
851. Dirk Engel, Georg Metzger. Direct Employment Effects of New
Firms 75-93. [Crossref]
853. Yong Yeop Sohn, Hun-Wha Yang. Information Technology,
Corporate Performance and Firm Size203-214. [Crossref]
854. Erisa K. Hines, Jayakanth Srinivasan. IT Enabled Enterprise
Transformation: Perspectives UsingProduct Data Management 963-
972. [Crossref]
855. Chris Forman, Avi Goldfarb. Chapter 1 Diffusion of Information
and Communication Technologiesto Businesses 1-52. [Crossref]
856. Marcin Piatkowski. Can ICT Make a Difference in the
Development of Transition Economies? 89-109. [Crossref]
857. Sumit K. Lodhia. 2006. Corporate perceptions of web‐based
environmental communication. Journal of Accounting &
Organizational Change 2:1, 74-88. [Crossref]
858. P. Davamanirajan, R.J. Kauffman, C.H. Kriebel, T.
Mukhopadhyay. Systems Design, ProcessPerformance and Economic
Outcomes 168c-168c. [Crossref]
859. D.S. Soper, H. Demirkan, M. Goul, R. St. Louis. The Impact of
ICT Expenditures onInstitutionalized Democracy and Foreign
Direct Investment in Developing Countries 65b-65b. [Crossref]
860. O. Prokein, T. Faupel. Using Web Services for Intercompany
Cooperation & 백 8212; An EmpiricalStudy within the German
Industry 103a-103a. [Crossref]
861. Philippe Askenazy, David Thesmar, Mathias Thoenig. 2006. On
the Relation Between OrganisationalPractices and New
Technologies: The Role of (Time Based) Competition. The Economic
862. Susanto Basu, John G. Fernald. 2006. Information and
Communications Technology as a GeneralPurpose Technology:
Evidence from U.S Industry Data. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
863. Veneta Andonova, Luis Diaz-Serrano. 2006. Political
Institutions and the Development ofTelecomunications. SSRN
864. Rajiv D. Banker, Rong Huang, Ramachandra (Ram) Natarajan.
2006. Does SG&A Expenditure Createa Long-Term Asset?*. SSRN
865. Hian Teck Hoon, Edmund S. Phelps. 2006. Effects of
Technological Improvement in the ICTProducing Sector on Business
Activity. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
866. Barrie R. Nault, Dr. Neeraj Mittal. 2006. Investments in
Information Technology: Indirect Effectsand Information
Technology Intensity. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
867. Morten L. Bech, Bart Hobijn. 2006. Technology Diffusion within
Central Banking: The Case ofReal-Time Gross Settlement. SSRN
868. John A. Murray, Mairead Brady, Louis Brennan, Corinne
Armstrong. 2006. The Business Case forRFID; Challenges and
Opportunities. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
869. Sinan Aral, Erik Brynjolfsson, D. J. Wu. 2006. Which Came
First, it or Productivity? Virtuous Cycleof Investment and Use
in Enterprise Systems. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
870. Peter Brödner. 2006. BEHIND THE IT PRODUCTIVITY PARADOX: THE
SEMIOTICNATURE OF COMPUTER ARTIFACTS. IFAC Proceedings Volumes
39:4, 295-300. [Crossref]
871. Pierre-Alain Muet. 2006. Impacts économiques de la révolution
numérique. Revue économique 57:3, 347. [Crossref]
872. Gianfranco E. Atzeni, Oliviero A. Carboni. 2006. The Effects
of Subsidies on Investment: an EmpiricalEvaluation on ICT in
Italy. Revue de l'OFCE 97 bis:5, 279. [Crossref]
873. June Cheng, Barrie R. Nault. 2006. Industry Level Supplier-
Driven IT Spillovers. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
874. Chinkook Lee. 2005. Information Technology for the Food
Manufacturing Industry. Journal of International Food &
Agribusiness Marketing 17:2, 165-193. [Crossref]
875. Hartmut Egger, Volker Grossmann. 2005. Non-Routine Tasks,
Restructuring of Firms, and WageInequality Within and Between
Skill-Groups. Journal of Economics 86:3, 197-228. [Crossref]
876. Dale W. Jorgenson, Kazuyuki Motohashi. 2005. Information
technology and the Japanese economy.Journal of the Japanese and
International Economies 19:4, 460-481. [Crossref]
877. Stephen Broadberry, Sayantan Ghosal. 2005. Technology,
organisation and productivity performancein services: lessons
from Britain and the United States since 1870. Structural Change
and Economic Dynamics 16:4, 437-466. [Crossref]
878. Spyros Arvanitis. 2005. Modes of labor flexibility at firm
level: Are there any implications forperformance and innovation?
Evidence for the Swiss economy. Industrial and Corporate Change
14:6, 993-1016. [Crossref]
879. Robert Inklaar, Mary O'Mahony, Marcel Timmer. 2005. ICT AND
EUROPE's PRODUCTIVITYPERFORMANCE: INDUSTRY-LEVEL GROWTH ACCOUNT
COMPARISONS WITH THE
UNITED STATES. Review of Income and Wealth 51:4, 505-536.
[Crossref]
880. Robert S Rhodes, Andrew Resnick. 2005. Towards optimal
surgical outcomes. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes
881. Luis Garicano, Richard A. Posner. 2005. Intelligence Failures:
An Organizational EconomicsPerspective. Journal of Economic
Perspectives 19:4, 151-170. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF
with links]
882. Marco Vivarelli. 2005. Boyer, R.:The Future of Economic
Growth: As New Becomes Old. Journal of Economics 86:2, 191-195.
[Crossref]
883. Martin Falk. 2005. ICT-linked firm reorganisation and
productivity gains. Technovation 25:11, 1229-1250. [Crossref]
884. Mary O'Mahony, Michela Vecchi. 2005. Quantifying the Impact of
ICT Capital on Output Growth: A Heterogeneous Dynamic Panel
Approach. Economica 72:288, 615-633. [Crossref]
885. Teck-Yong Eng. 2005. The Influence of a Firm's Cross-
Functional Orientation on Supply ChainPerformance. The Journal
of Supply Chain Management 41:4, 4-16. [Crossref]
886. Marcel P. Timmer, Bart van Ark. 2005. Does information and
communication technology drive EUUS productivity growth
differentials?. Oxford Economic Papers 57:4, 693-716. [Crossref]
887. Satish Jayachandran, Subhash Sharma, Peter Kaufman, Pushkala
Raman. 2005. The Role of RelationalInformation Processes and
Technology Use in Customer Relationship Management. Journal of
Marketing 69:4, 177-192. [Crossref]
888. David Boddy, Robert Paton. 2005. Maintaining Alignment over
the Long-Term: Lessons from theEvolution of an Electronic Point
of Sale System. Journal of Information Technology 20:3, 141-151.
[Crossref]
889. Leonardo Becchetti, Fabrizio Adriani†. 2005. Does the digital
divide matter? The role of informationand communication
technology in cross-country level and growth estimates.
[Crossref]
890. B. K. ATROSTIC, SANG V. NGUYEN. 2005. IT AND PRODUCTIVITY IN
U.S.MANUFACTURING: DO COMPUTER NETWORKS MATTER?. Economic
Inquiry 43:3,
493-506. [Crossref]
891. Nicola Matteucci, Mary O'Mahony, Catherine Robinson, Thomas
Zwick. 2005. PRODUCTIVITY,
WORKPLACE PERFORMANCE AND ICT: INDUSTRY AND FIRM-LEVEL EVIDENCE
FOR EUROPE AND THE US. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 52:3,
359-386. [Crossref]
892. Steve Weber, Jennifer Bussell. 2005. Will Information
Technology Reshape the North-SouthAsymmetry of Power in the
Global Political Economy?. Studies in Comparative International
893. Daniela Andrén, John S. Earle, Dana Săpătoru. 2005. The wage
effects of schooling under socialismand in transition: Evidence
from Romania, 1950–2000. Journal of Comparative Economics 33:2,
300-323. [Crossref]
894. Spyros Arvanitis. 2005. Computerization, workplace
organization, skilled labour and firm productivity: Evidence for
the Swiss business sector. Economics of Innovation and New
895. Thomas Hempell. 2005. Does experience matter? innovations and
the productivity of information andcommunication technologies in
German services. Economics of Innovation and New Technology
14:4, 277-303. [Crossref]
896. Osman Kulak, Cengiz Kahraman, Başar Öztayşi, Mehmet Tanyaş.
2005. Multi‐attribute informationtechnology project selection
using fuzzy axiomatic design. Journal of Enterprise Information
897. Taichi Maki, Koichi Yotsuya, Tadashi Yagi. 2005. Economic
growth and the riskiness of investmentin firm-specific skills.
European Economic Review 49:4, 1033-1049. [Crossref]
898. Enrico Santarelli. 2005. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization 57:1, 131-133. [Crossref]
899. George Liagouras. 2005. The Political Economy of Post-
Industrial Capitalism. Thesis Eleven 81:1, 20-35. [Crossref]
900. Bonnie Rubenstein Montano, Robin Dillon. 2005. The Impact of
Technology on Relationships withinOrganizations. Information
Technology and Management 6:2-3, 227-251. [Crossref]
901. Mariacristina Piva, Enrico Santarelli, Marco Vivarelli. 2005.
The skill bias effect of technological andorganisational change:
Evidence and policy implications. Research Policy 34:2, 141-157.
[Crossref]
902. M.J. Gallivan, R. Benunan-Fich. 2005. A framework for
analyzing levels of analysis issues in studiesof e-
collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
48:1, 87-104. [Crossref]
903. Qing Hu, Jing “Jim” Quan. 2005. Evaluating the impact of IT
investments on productivity: a causalanalysis at industry level.
International Journal of Information Management 25:1, 39-53.
[Crossref]
904. GAVIN A. WOOD, JOHN B. PARR. 2005. Transaction Costs,
Agglomeration Economies, andIndustrial Location*. Growth and
905. Dale W. Jorgenson. Chapter 10 Accounting for Growth in the
Information Age 743-815. [Crossref]
906. Andreas Hornstein, Per Krusell, Giovanni L. Violante. The
Effects of Technical Change on LaborMarket Inequalities 1275-
1370. [Crossref]
907. Fredri William Swiercze, Pritam K. Shrestha, Clemens Bechter.
2005. Information Technology,Productivity and Profitability in
Asia-Pacific Banks. Journal of Global Information Technology
908. Jinghua Huang, Hui Wang, Chunjun Zhao. E-commerce success
factors: exploratory and empiricalresearch on the Chinese
publishing industry 465-472. [Crossref]
909. Patrick Laplagne, Maurice Glover, Tim Fry. 2005. The Growth of
Labour Hire Employment inAustralia. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
910. Thomas Hempell, Thomas Zwick. 2005. Technology Use,
Organisational Flexibility and Innovation:
Evidence for Germany. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
911. Alan Hughes, Michael S. Scott Morton. 2005. ICT and
Productivity Growth - The Paradox Resolved?.SSRN Electronic
912. Cédric Audenis, Julien Deroyon, Nathalie Fourcade. 2005.
L'impact des Nouvelles Technologies del'Information et de la
Communication sur l'économie française. Revue économique 56:1,
99. [Crossref]
913. Dean Parham. 2005. Les gains de productivité au moyen de
l’usage des technologies de l’information : l’expérience
australienne. L'Actualité économique 81:1-2, 143-164. [Crossref]
914. Tarek M. Harchaoui, Faouzi Tarkhani. 2005. Qu’en est-il des
externalités du capital des technologiesde l’information?.
L'Actualité économique 81:1-2, 231-253. [Crossref]
915. Barbara K. Atrostic, Peter Boegh-Nielsen, Kazuyuki Motohashi,
Sang Nguyen. 2005. Technologies del’information, productivité et
croissance des entreprises : résultats basés sur de nouvelles
microdonnées internationales. L'Actualité économique 81:1-2,
255-279. [Crossref]
916. Stephen D. Oliner, Daniel E. Sichel. 2005. Les technologies de
l’information et la productivité : situation actuelle et
perspectives d’avenir. L'Actualité économique 81:1-2, 339-400.
[Crossref]
917. Petr Očko. 2005. Definition and topical problems of the
information economy. Politická ekonomie 53:3, 383-404.
[Crossref]
918. Hal R. Varian, Joseph Farrell, Carl Shapiro. The Economics of
Information Technology . [Crossref]
919. Anitesh Barua, P.L Brockett, W.W Cooper, Honghui Deng, Barnett
R Parker, T.W Ruefli, AWhinston. 2004. DEA evaluations of long-
and short-run efficiencies of digital vs. physical product “dot
com” companies. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 38:4, 233-253.
[Crossref]
920. Matteo Bugamelli, Patrizio Pagano *. 2004. Barriers to
investment in ICT. Applied Economics 36:20, 2275-2286.
[Crossref]
921. Roghieh Gholami, Saeed Moshiri, Sang-Yong Tom Lee. 2004. ICT
and Productivity of theManufacturing Industries in Iran. The
Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing
Countries 19:1, 1-19. [Crossref]
922. Tsutomu Miyagawa, Yukiko Ito, Nobuyuki Harada. 2004. The IT
revolution and productivity growthin Japan. Journal of the
Japanese and International Economies 18:3, 362-389. [Crossref]
923. Heinz Hollenstein. 2004. Determinants of the adoption of
Information and CommunicationTechnologies (ICT). Structural
Change and Economic Dynamics 15:3, 315-342. [Crossref]
924. Stephan KUDYBA. 2004. The productivity pay-off from effective
allocation of IT and non-IT labour.International Labour Review
143:3, 235-247. [Crossref]
925. Stephan KUDYBA. 2004. Trabajo con tecnologías de la
información y productividad empresarial.Revista Internacional
del Trabajo 123:3, 269-282. [Crossref]
926. Walter W. Powell, Kaisa Snellman. 2004. The Knowledge Economy.
Annual Review of Sociology 30:1, 199-220. [Crossref]
927. Stephen Broadberry, Mary O'Mahony. 2004. Britain's
Productivity Gap with the United States andEurope: A Historical
Perspective. National Institute Economic Review 189, 72-85.
[Crossref]
928. George R G Clarke. 2004. Effect of Enterprise Ownership and
Foreign Competition on InternetDiffusion in the Transition
Economies. Comparative Economic Studies 46:2, 341-370.
[Crossref]
929. Ira Lewis, Alexander Talalayevsky. 2004. Improving the
interorganizational supply chain throughoptimization of
information flows. Journal of Enterprise Information Management
17:3, 229-237. [Crossref]
930. Anne Leahy, Joanne Loundes, Elizabeth Webster, Jongsay Yong.
2004. Industrial Capabilities in
Victoria. The Economic and Labour Relations Review 15:1, 74-98.
[Crossref]
931. Roger W. Ferguson Jr., William L. Wascher. 2004. Distinguished
Lecture on Economics inGovernment: Lessons from Past
Productivity Booms. Journal of Economic Perspectives 18:2, 3-28.
932. Nicholas Crafts. 2004. Steam as a General Purpose Technology:
A Growth Accounting Perspective.The Economic Journal 114:495,
338-351. [Crossref]
933. Irene Bertschek, Ulrich Kaiser. 2004. Productivity Effects of
Organizational Change: Microeconometric Evidence. Management
Science 50:3, 394-404. [Crossref]
934. G.R. Arabsheibani, J.M. Emami, A. Marin. 2004. The Impact of
Computer Use On Earnings in theUK. Scottish Journal of Political
935. Nirvikar Singh. Digital Economy . [Crossref]
936. Elias Sanidas. 2004. Technology, technical and organizational
innovations, economic and societalgrowth. Technology in Society
26:1, 67-84. [Crossref]
937. Henry van der Wiel, George van Leeuwen. ICT and Productivity
93-114. [Crossref]
938. Tarek M. Harchaoui, Kais Dachraoui. 2004. Whatever Happened to
Canada-United States Economic
Growth and Productivity Performance in the Information Age?. SSRN
939. Wulong Gu, Gera Surendra. 2004. The Effect of Organizational
Innovation and InformationTechnology on Firm Performance. SSRN
940. Andreas Hornstein, Per L. Krusell, Giovanni L. Violante. 2004.
The Effects of Technical Change onLabor Market Inequalities.
941. Thomas Hempell, George van Leeuwen, Henry van der Wiel. 2004.
ICT, Innovation and BusinessPerformance in Services: Evidence
for Germany and the Netherlands. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
942. Irene Bertschek, Helmut Fryges, Ulrich Kaiser. 2004. B2b or
Not to Be: Does B2b E-CommerceIncrease Labour Productivity?.
943. John S. Earle, Daniela Andren, Dana Sapatoru. 2004. The Wage
Effects of Schooling Under Socialismand in Transition: Evidence
from Romania, 1950-2000. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
944. Olaf Hübler. 2003. Fördern oder behindern Betriebsräte die
Unternehmensentwicklung?. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik
4:4, 379-397. [Crossref]
945. D. H. Autor, F. Levy, R. J. Murnane. 2003. The Skill Content
of Recent Technological Change: AnEmpirical Exploration. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 118:4, 1279-1333. [Crossref]
946. Erik Brynjolfsson, Lorin M. Hitt. 2003. Computing
Productivity: Firm-Level Evidence. Review of Economics and
Statistics 85:4, 793-808. [Crossref]
947. Marianna Sigala. 2003. The information and communication
technologies productivity impact on theUK hotel sector.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management
23:10, 1224-1245. [Crossref]
948. Phillip J. Bryson. 2003. The New Economy is dead, long live
the information economy. Intereconomics 38:5, 276-282.
[Crossref]
949. Giampiero Giacomello, Lucio Picci. 2003. My scale or your
meter? Evaluating methods of measuringthe Internet. Information
950. Alfonso Vargas, M.Jesús Hernández, Sebastián Bruque. 2003.
Determinants of information technologycompetitive value.
Evidence from a western European industry. The Journal of High
Technology Management Research 14:2, 245-268. [Crossref]
951. Fredric William Swierczek, Pritam K. Shrestha. 2003.
Information technology and productivity: acomparison of Japanese
and Asia-Pacific banks. The Journal of High Technology
Management Research 14:2, 269-288. [Crossref]
952. DALE W. JORGENSON, MUN S. HO, KEVIN J. STIROH. 2003. Growth of
US Industriesand Investments in Information Technology and
Higher Education. Economic Systems Research 15:3, 279-325.
[Crossref]
953. John Laitner, Dmitriy Stolyarov. 2003. Technological Change
and the Stock Market. American Economic Review 93:4, 1240-1267.
954. Reggie Davidrajuh. 2003. Realizing a new e‐commerce tool for
formation of a virtual enterprise.Industrial Management & Data
955. Stephen D. Oliner, Daniel E. Sichel. 2003. Information
technology and productivity: where are wenow and where are we
going?. Journal of Policy Modeling 25:5, 477-503. [Crossref]
956. Alfredo Del Monte, Erasmo Papagni. 2003. R&D and the growth of
firms: empirical analysis of apanel of Italian firms. Research
957. Shantanu Bagchi, Shivraj Kanungo, Subhasish Dasgupta. 2003.
Modeling use of enterprise resourceplanning systems: a path
analytic study. European Journal of Information Systems 12:2,
142-158. [Crossref]
958. Frank Beurskens. 2003. The Economics of Dot.coms and E-
commerce in the Agrifood Sector. Review of Agricultural
959. Rajiv Kohli, Sarv Devaraj. 2003. Measuring Information
Technology Payoff: A Meta-Analysis ofStructural Variables in
Firm-Level Empirical Research. Information Systems Research
14:2, 127-145. [Crossref]
960. Thomas Zwick. 2003. The Impact of ICT Investment on
Establishment Productivity. National Institute Economic Review
184, 99-110. [Crossref]
961. Bart van Ark, Robert Inklaar, Robert H. McGuckin, Marcel P.
Timmer. 2003. The EmploymentEffects of the ‘New Economy’. A
Comparison of the European Union and the United States. National
Institute Economic Review 184, 86-98. [Crossref]
962. John Rolfe, Shirley Gregor, Don Menzies. 2003. Reasons why
farmers in Australia adopt the Internet.Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications 2:1, 27-41. [Crossref]
963. Albert Lejeune, Tom Roehl. 2003. Hard and Soft Ways to Create
Value from Information Flows: Lessons from the Canadian
Financial Services Industry. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration
20:1, 35-53. [Crossref]
964. Jason Dedrick, Vijay Gurbaxani, Kenneth L. Kraemer. 2003.
Information technology and economicperformance. ACM Computing
Surveys (CSUR) 35:1, 1-28. [Crossref]
965. Casey Ichniowski, Kathryn Shaw. 2003. Beyond Incentive Pay:
Insiders' Estimates of the Valueof Complementary Human Resource
Management Practices. Journal of Economic Perspectives 17:1,
155-180. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
966. Kathryn Shaw. Technology Shocks and Problem-Solving Capacity
235-258. [Crossref]
967. Stephen D. Oliner, Daniel E. Sichel. Information Technology
and Productivity: Where Are We Nowand Where Are We Going? 41-94.
[Crossref]
968. Paul Timmers. Lessons from B2B E-Business Models 121-140.
[Crossref]
969. Kevin J. Stiroh. Economic Impacts of Information Technology 1-
14. [Crossref]
970. Catherine L. Mann. 2003. Information Technologies and
International Development: ConceptualClarity in the Search for
Commonality and Diversity. Information Technologies and
International Development 1:2, 67-79. [Crossref]
971. Gilbert Cette, Christian Pfister. 2003. The Challenges of the
'New Economy' for Monetary Policy.
972. Erik Brynjolfsson, Lorin M. Hitt. 2003. Computing
Productivity: Firm-Level Evidence. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
973. Elke Wolf, Thomas Zwick. 2003. Reassessing the Impact of High
Performance Workplaces. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
974. Francesco Daveri, Andrea Mascotto. 2003. The I.T. Revolution
across the U.S. States. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
975. Leonardo Becchetti, Fabrizio Adriani. 2003. Does the Digital
Divide Matter? The Role of Informationand Communication
Technology in Cross-country Level and Growth Estimates?. SSRN
976. Giuseppe Medda, Claudio Antonio Gius Piga, Donald Siegel.
2003. On the Relationship BetweenR&D and Productivity: A
Treatment Effect Analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
977. Thomas Hempell. 2003. Do Computers Call for Training? Firm-
level Evidence on ComplementaritiesBetween ICT and Human Capital
Investments. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
978. Starling David Hunter. 2003. Information Technology,
Organizational Learning, and the MarketValue of the Firm. SSRN
979. Susanto Basu, John G. Fernald, Nicholas Oulton, Sylaja
Srinivasan. 2003. The Case of the MissingProductivity Growth:
Or, does Information Technology Explain why Productivity
Accelerated in the United States but not the United Kingdom?.
980. Lucio Fuentelsaz, Juan Pablo Maicas‐López, Yolanda Polo. 2002.
Assessments of the “new economy”scenario. Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal 5:4, 301-310. [Crossref]
981. Kevin J. Stiroh. 2002. Information Technology and the U.S.
Productivity Revival: What Do theIndustry Data Say?. American
Economic Review 92:5, 1559-1576. [Citation] [View PDF article]
[PDF with links]
982. Jonathan G Koomey. 2002. Information technology and resource
use: editor's introduction to thespecial issue. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 36:3, 169-173. [Crossref]
983. Ana R. del Águila, Sebastián Bruque, Antonio Padilla. 2002.
Global Information TechnologyManagement and Organizational
Analysis: Research Issues. Journal of Global Information
Technology Management 5:4, 18-37. [Crossref]
984. Karl Whelan. 2002. Computers, Obsolescence, and Productivity.
Review of Economics and Statistics 84:3, 445-461. [Crossref]
985. John Cornwall, Wendy Cornwall. 2002. A demand and supply
analysis of productivity growth.Structural Change and Economic
Dynamics 13:2, 203-229. [Crossref]
986. James Bessen. 2002. Technology Adoption Costs and Productivity
Growth: The Transition toInformation Technology. Review of
Economic Dynamics 5:2, 443-469. [Crossref]
987. David H. Autor, Frank Levy, Richard J. Murnane. 2002.
Upstairs, Downstairs: Computers and Skillson Two Floors of a
Large Bank. ILR Review 55:3, 432-447. [Crossref]
988. T. F. Bresnahan, E. Brynjolfsson, L. M. Hitt. 2002.
Information Technology, WorkplaceOrganization, and the Demand
for Skilled Labor: Firm-Level Evidence. The Quarterly Journal of
989. Werner Röger. Structural Changes and New Economy in the EU and
the US 7-27. [Crossref]
990. Manuel Balmaseda, Carmen Hernansanz, Angel Melguizo, Miguel
Sebastian. The New Economy inSpain: Situation and Prospects 53-
86. [Crossref]
991. Howard Cox, Marion Frenz, Martha Prevezer. 2002. Patterns of
Innovation in UK Industry: Exploringthe CIS Data to Contrast
High and Low Technology Industries. Journal of Interdisciplinary
Economics 13:1-3, 267-304. [Crossref]
992. Martin Neil Baily. 2002. Macroeconomic Implications of the New
Economy. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
993. Thomas Hempell. 2002. Does Experience Matter? Innovations and
the Productivity of ICT in GermanServices. SSRN Electronic
994. Thomas Hempell. 2002. What's Spurious, What's Real? Measuring
the Productivity Impacts of ICTat the Firm-Level. SSRN
995. Irene Bertschek, Helmut Fryges. 2002. The Adoption of
Business-to-Business E-Commerce: Empirical Evidence for German
Companies. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
996. Irene Bertschek, Ulrich Kaiser. 2002. Productivity Effects of
Organizational Change: Microeconometric Evidence. SSRN
997. James Morsink, Markus Haacker. 2002. You Say You Want a
Revolution: Information Technologyand Growth. IMF Working Papers
02:70, 1. [Crossref]
998. Michael T Kiley. 2001. Computers and growth with frictions:
aggregate and disaggregate evidence.Carnegie-Rochester
Conference Series on Public Policy 55:1, 171-215. [Crossref]
999. Andreas Hornstein. 2001. Computers and growth with frictions:
aggregate and disaggregate evidenceA comment. Carnegie-Rochester
Conference Series on Public Policy 55:1, 217-228. [Crossref]
1000. Hans-Jürgen Engelbrecht. 2001. Statistics for the information
age. Information Economics and Policy 13:3, 339-349. [Crossref]
1001. Danielle Galliano, Pascale Roux, Maryline Filippi. 2001.
Organisational and Spatial Determinants ofICT Adoption: The Case
of French Industrial Firms. Environment and Planning A: Economy
and Space 33:9, 1643-1663. [Crossref]
1002. John Reenen. 2001. The New Economy: Reality and Policy. Fiscal
Studies 22:3, 307-336. [Crossref]
1003. Hans-Jürgen Engelbrecht. 2001. Gender and the Information Work
Force: New Zealand Evidence andIssues. Prometheus 19:2, 135-145.
[Crossref]
1004. Martin Neil Baily,, Robert Z. Lawrence. 2001. Do We Have a New
E-conomy?. American Economic Review 91:2, 308-312. [Citation]
[View PDF article] [PDF with links]
1005. JOHN FREEBAIRN. 2001. SOME MARKET EFFECTS OF E-COMMERCE. The
Singapore
Economic Review 46:01, 49-62. [Crossref]
1006. Dale W. Jorgenson. 2001. Information Technology and the U.S.
Economy. American Economic Review 91:1, 1-32. [Citation] [View
1007. Henk J. de Vries, George W. J. Hendrikse. 2001. The Dutch
Banking Chipcard Game. International Studies of Management &
Organization 31:1, 106-125. [Crossref]
1008. David H. Autor,. 2001. Wiring the Labor Market. Journal of
Economic Perspectives 15:1, 25-40. [Abstract] [View PDF article]
[PDF with links]
1009. J. Zysman, S. Weber. Electronic Economy: Governance Issues
4399-4405. [Crossref]
1010. Dale W. Jorgenson. 2001. Information Technology and the U.S.
Economy. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1011. David H. Autor, Frank S. Levy, Richard J. Murnane. 2001. The
Skill Content of Recent TechnologicalChange: An Empirical
Exploration. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1012. Thomas N. Hubbard. 2001. Information, Decisions, And
Productivity: On-Board Computers AndCapacity Utilization In
Trucking. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1013. David H. Autor, Frank S. Levy, Richard J. Murnane. 2001.
Upstairs, Downstairs: Computers AndSkills On Two Floors Of A
Large Bank. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1014. Kevin J. Stiroh. 2001. Information Technology and the U.S.
Productivity Revival: What do theIndustry Data Say?. SSRN
1015. IMF. Research Dept.. World Economic Outlook, October 2001: The
Information TechnologyRevolution . [Crossref]
1016. N. Forbes. 2000. Biologically inspired computing. Computing in
Science & Engineering 2:6, 83-87. [Crossref]
1017. David H. Autor. 2000. Wiring the Labor Market. SSRN Electronic
1018. Nicos Koussis, Spiros H. Martzoukos, Lenos Trigeorgis. Real
Options with Random Controls, RareEvents, and Risk-to-Ruin 251-
271. [Crossref]
1019. Irene Bertschek, Marlene Müller. Productivity Effects of IT-
Outsourcing: Semiparametric Evidencefor German Companies 130-
154. [Crossref]
1020. . Literaturverzeichnis 301-338. [Crossref]
1021. Marco Alderighi. Some Conjectures on the Tie Between Digital
Divide and Regional Disparities193-214. [Crossref]
1022. Lilia Filipova, Peter Welzel. Unternehmen und Märkte in einer
Welt allgegenwärtiger Computer: DasBeispiel der Kfz-Versicherer
161-184. [Crossref]
1023. Russel J. Cooper, Gary Madden. ICT, the New Economy and
Growth: The Potential for EmergingMarkets 45-68. [Crossref]
1024. Nicola Acocella, Riccardo Leoni. Introduction 1-11. [Crossref]
1025. Bruce A. Weinberg. New technologies, skills obsolescence, and
skill complementarity 101-118. [Crossref]
1026. Chris Forman, Avi Goldfarb, Shane Greenstein. WHICH INDUSTRIES
USE THE INTERNET?47-72. [Crossref]
1027. Harald Edquist, Magnus Henrekson. Technological Breakthroughs
and Productivity Growth 1-53. [Crossref]
1028. James B. Rebitzer, Mari Rege, Christopher Shepard. Influence,
information overload, and informationtechnology in health care
43-69. [Crossref]
1029. Fred Thompson, Lawrence R. Jones. Chapter 8 Cultural Evolution
of Organizations from Bureaucracyto Hyperarchy and
Netcentricity: Reaping the Advantages of It and Modern
Technology 203-230. [Crossref]
1030. Ronald S. Batenburg, Werner Raub, Chris Snijders. CONTACTS AND
CONTRACTS: DYADICEMBEDDEDNESS AND THE CONTRACTUAL BEHAVIOR OF
FIRMS 135-188. [Crossref]
1031. Lori Anderson Snyder, Deborah E. Rupp, George C. Thornton.
Personnel Selection of InformationTechnology Workers: The
People, the Jobs, and Issues for Human Resource Management 305-
376. [Crossref]
1032. Ke Li, Li Li. The comparative efficiency and pricing model of
on-line brokerage 934-939. [Crossref]
1033. Kim Huat Goh, R.J. Kauffman. Towards a Theory of Value Latency
for IT Investments 231a-231a.[Crossref]
1034. K. Pechter. Dis-organizing structure as a policy reform
objective: public-private networks in Japan'sinnovation system
46-51. [Crossref]
1035. John Wang, Bin Zhou, Jeffrey Hsu. Assessment and Contrast of
the Effects of Information andCommunication Technology 15-32.
[Crossref]
1036. Govindan Marthandan, Tang Chun Meng. Thirst for Business Value
of Information Technology29-43. [Crossref]
1037. J. Gilbert Silvius. A Conceptual Model for Aligning IT
Valuation Methods 182-201. [Crossref] 1038. Euripidis Loukis,
Yannis Charalabidis, Vasiliki Diamantopoulou. The
Multidimensional Business Value of Information Systems
Interoperability 77-95. [Crossref]
1039. Sangeeta Sharma. Evolving Verifiable Causal Mechanisms through
Governometrics to Study CriticalPolicy Issues 1-23. [Crossref]
1040. Li Chen. Mobile Technostress 732-744. [Crossref]
1041. Derya Findik, Aysit Tansel. Resources on the Stage 106-126.
[Crossref]
1042. Felichesmi Selestine Lyakurwa, Joseph Sungau. Information and
Communication Technologies(ICTs) for Industrial Development 306-
319. [Crossref]
1043. Gabriele Gabrielli, Francesca Zaccaro. Human Resource
Management in Post-BureaucraticOrganizations 252-273. [Crossref]
1044. Thomas Ochs, Ute Anna Riemann. IT Strategy Follows
Digitalization 873-887. [Crossref]
1045. Irene Martín, Mercedes Ramos, Luis Alberto Rivas Herrero.
Intrapreneurship in Business Innovation153-174. [Crossref]
1046. Sanjay Mohapatra. Sustaining Competitive Advantage in SME
Sector Through Green Computing165-182. [Crossref]
1047. George Leal Jamil. Reviewing Information Quality 315-332.
[Crossref]
1048. Thomas Ochs, Ute Anna Riemann. IT Strategy Follows
Digitalization 491-507. [Crossref]
1049. Vincenzo Morabito, Gianluigi Viscusi. Organizational
Assimilation Capacity and IT Business Value2929-2933. [Crossref]
1050. Stephen Burgess. The Use of ICTs in Small Business 3921-3927.
[Crossref]
1051. Shirish C. Srivastava, Thompson S.H. Teo. A Framework for
Understanding Returns from EGovernment 113-131. [Crossref]
1052. Bryan Soh Yuen Liew, T. Ramayah, Jasmine Yeap Ai Leen.
Customer Relationship Management
(CRM) Implementation Intensity and Performance 129-140.
[Crossref]
1053. Robert van Wessel. IT, Business Processes & Performance 50-77.
[Crossref]

Jep 14 4 23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jep 14 4 23

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jep 14 4 23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 14, Number 4—Fall 2000—Pages 23–48

Beyond Computation: Information

H ow do computers contribute to business performance and economic growth?

y Erik Brynjolfsson is Associate Professor of Information Technology and Management,

Transforming the Firm

• Designated equipment • Flexible computer-based equipment

Changing Interactions with Suppliers

Changing Customer Relationships

Large-Sample Empirical Evidence on Information Technology,

Information Technology and Productivity

Direct Measurement of the Interrelationship between Information Technology and

Should we be disappointed by the productivity performance of the downstream

Depository Institutions .03% .21% 21.19%

1. Sara Gerke, Boris Babic, Theodoros Evgeniou, I. Glenn Cohen.

You might also like