Download PDF
Yearb Med Inform 2008; 17(01): 114-127
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1638591
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart

Assessing the Capital Efficiency of Healthcare Information Technologies Investments: An Econometric Perspective

Rodolphe Meyer
1   University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
3   INSERM - UMRS 872 eq 20, Paris, France
,
Patrice Degoulet
2   Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
3   INSERM - UMRS 872 eq 20, Paris, France
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
07 March 2018 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives To examine the different methods that can be used in the quantification of the added value of information technologies (IT) in the health care sector. This quantification represents a major issue for decision-makers and health care professionals when they have to plan an IT investment.

MethodsArticles were chosen via Medline, internet and the University of Geneva bibliographic portal. Some of the papers were obtained directly from their authors. We examine the most current methods used to evaluate IT return on investment (ROI) in the general business and in the health care sector, drawing attention on methods traditionally used in macro economic studies that could reveal themselves disruptive for IT ROI impact evaluation in hospitals.

Results Financial and accounting methods can provide interesting data on a specific IT project but are usually incomplete for revealing the global IT investment influence. Econometric methods tend to demonstrate the positive impact of health care IT (HIT) on hospital production and productivity. Hospitals having higher levels of IT investment tend to deliver a higher level of clinical quality and show improved hospital cost performances.

Conclusions Information technologies are so intermingled with people and processes that the identification of specific IT benefit remains questionable. Using macro economic tools could be the best way to analyze and compute IT ROI in health care. Econometric tools take into account all types investments (inputs) and all the returns (outputs) enabling the precise measurement of IT investments impact, breakeven points, and possible threshold levels, thus providing helpful intelligence to reach the higher levels of IT governance in hospitals.

Keywords

Econometrics - return on investment (ROI) - health care information technologies - HIT - production function - Cobb-Douglass - productivity
 

  • References

  • 1 Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. editors. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer HealthSystem. Institute of Medicine. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1999
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Arlotto P, Oakes J. Return on investment: maximizing the value of healthcare information technology. Chicago: HIMMS; 2003
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Delone WH, McLean ER. Information Systems Success: The Quest for Dependent Variable. Information Systems Research 1992; 03 (01) 60-95.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Grover V, Jeong SR, Segars AH. Information system effectiveness: the construct pace and patterns of application. Information and Management 1996; 31 (04) 117-91.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Van der Loo RP, Van Gennip EMSJ, Baker AR. Evaluation of automated information systems in health care: an approach to classifying evaluative studies. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1995; 48 (01) 45-52.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Brennan A, Chick S, Davies R. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ 2006; 15: 1295-310.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Pekka T, Hannu S. The Economic evaluation of Medical Information Systems. A research paper presented at the 18th Nordic Health Economists’ Study Group Meeting 22-23 August, 1997; 21.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Gardner RM, Hulse RK, Larsen KG. Assessing the effectiveness of a computerized pharmacy system. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care 1990; Vol. 14: 668-72.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Menachemi N, Saunders C, Chukmaitov A, Brooks R. Hospital quality of care: Does information technology matter? The relationship between information technology adoption and quality of care. Health Care Manage Rev 2008; 33 (01) 51-9.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Menachemi N, Brooks RG. Exploring the return on investment associated with health information technologies. Florida State University College of Medecine: Center for Patient Safety; 2005
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Stroetmann KA, Jones T, Dobrev A, Stroetmann VN. eHealth is worth it: the economic benefits of implemented eHealth solutions at ten European sites. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities; 2006
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Barlow S, Johnson J, Steck J. The economic effect of implementing an EMR in an outpatient clinical setting. J Healthc Inf Manag 2004; 18 (01) 46-51.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Cooper J. Organization, Management, Implementation and Value of EHR Implementation in a Solo Pediatric Practice. J Healthc Inf Manag 2004; 18 (03) 51-5.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Wang SJ, Middleton B, Prosser LA, Bardon CG, Carchidi PJ, Kittler AF. et al. A cost-benefit analysis of electronic medical records in primary care. Am J Med 2003; 114 (05) 397-403.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Featherly K, Garets D, Davis M, Wise P, Becker P. Sharpening the Case for Returns on Investment from Clinical Information Systems. Electronic Healthcare 2006; 05 (03) 101-10.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Meyer R, Degoulet P, Omnes L. Impact of Health Care Information Technology on Hospital Productivity Growth: a Survey in 17 Acute University Hospitals. Medinfo 2007; 12 (01) 203-7.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Ransom SB, Joshi MS, Nash DB. The Healthcare quality book: vision, strategy and tools. Chicago: Health Administration Press; 2004
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Tan J. e-Healthcare Information Systems: An Introduction for Students and Professionals. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2005
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 [Online] March 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment
    PubMed
  • 20 Kaushal R, Jha AK, Franz C, Glaser J, Shetty KD. Return on investment for a computerized physician order entry system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; May-Jun; 13 (03) 365-7.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Anthes G. http://www.computerworld.com/special_report/000/000/100/special_report_000000180_primary_article.jsp [Online].
    PubMed
  • 22 McLean RA. Cost-volume-profit and net present value analysis of health information systems. Top Health Inf Manag 1998; 19 (01) 39-47.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Kaplan JG. The net present value of investments in health. Med Interface 1996; 09 (11) 94-6.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Rendina MC. A net present value analysis of neonatal telecardiology. Telemed Today 2000; 08 (02) 23-5.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Boles K, Fleming S. Breakeven under capitation: pure and simple?. Health Care 1996; 21 (01) 38-47.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Gapenski LC. Accuracy of investment risk models varies. Healthc Financ Manag 1992; 46 (04) 40-4.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Gapenski C. Healthcare Finance: an introduction to accounting and financial management. Chicago: Health Administration Press; 2005
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F. Global Sensitivity Analysis. The Primer. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2007
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 29 Meltzer MI. Introduction to health economics for physicians. The Lancet 2001; 358: 993-8.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Palmer AJ, Annemans L, Roze S, Lamotte M, Lapuerta P, Chen R. et al. Cost-effectiveness of early irbesartan treatment versus control or late irbesartan treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and renal disease. Diabetes Care 2004; 27 (08) 1897-903.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Holmes RL, Schroeder RE, Harrington LF. Objective Risk Adjustment Improves Calculated ROI For Capital Projects. Healthcare Financial Management. 2000 (12).
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 McGrath R, Ferrier WJ, Mendelow AL. Real Options as Engines ofChoice and Heterogeneity. Academy of Management Review 2004; 29 (01) 86-101.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 McGrath R, Nerkar A. Real Options Reasoning and a New Look at the R&D Investment Strategies of Pharmaceutical Firms.” 25: 1-21. Strategic Management Journal 2004; 25: 1-21.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Williams DR, Walker JA, Hammes PH. Real options reasoning in healthcare: an integrative approach and synopsis. J Healthc Manag 2007; 52 (03) 170-86.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Menachemi N, Burkhardt J, Shewchuk R, Burke D, Brooks RG. Hospital Information Technology and Positive Financial Performance: A Different Approach to Finding a ROI. J Healthc Manag. 2006 51(1).
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Burke D, Wang B, Wan T, Diana M. Exploring Hospitals’ Adoption of Information Technology. Journal of Medical Systems 2002; 26 (04) 349-55.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Poon SK, Davis JG, Choi B. Augmenting productivity analysis with data mining: An application on IT business value. Expert Systems with Applications. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.12.028, 2008
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 [Online] March 2008. http://www.ssco.com/
    PubMed
  • 39 [Online] March 2008. http://www.thehackettgroup.com/
    PubMed
  • 40 [Online] March 2008. http://www.thepalladiumgroup.com/
    PubMed
  • 41 [Online] March 2008. http://www.the-betagroup.com/
    PubMed
  • 42 [Online] March 2008. http://www.itpmg.com/
    PubMed
  • 43 [Online] March 2008. http://www.forrester.com/rb/research
    PubMed
  • 44 [Online] March 2008. http://www.gartner.com/
    PubMed
  • 45 Hoffman T. [Online] March 2008. http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/roi/story/0,10801,78541,00.html
    PubMed
  • 46 Ulfelder S. [Online] March 2008. http://www.computerworld.com/special_report/000/000/100/special_report_000000180_primary_article.jsp
    PubMed
  • 47 Christensen CM, Kaufman SP, Shih WC. Innovation Killers: How Financial Tools Destroy Your Capacity to Do New Things. Harvard Business Review 2008; 86 (01) 98-105.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Greene W. Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle river. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc; 2003
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 49 Gujarati D. Basic Econometrics. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Higher Education; 2003
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 50 Brinkerhoff RO, Dressler DE. Productivity measurement: a guide for managers and evaluators. Newbury Park (Calif.): Sage; 1990: 16.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 51 Baier SL, Dwyer GP, Tamura R. How Important Are Capital and Total Factor Productivity for Economic Growth?. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Working Paper No. -. 2005 Vol. 2002, 02.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Barro RJ. Notes on Growth Accounting. National Bureau of Economic Research; 1998 Vol. Working Paper No. W6654.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Romer PM. The Origins of Endogenous Growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994; (08) 01: 3-22.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Cobb CW, Douglas PH. A Theory of Production. American Economic Review 1928; 18 (01) 139-65.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Solow RM. A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 1956; 01 LXX: 65-94.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Hitt LM, Brynjolfsson E. Productivity, business profit-ability, and consumer surplus: three differentf measures of information technology value. MIS Quarterly 1996; 20 (02) 121-42.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Stadelmann D. Fonction de production - illustration des propriétés pour l’analyse économique. Fribourg: Séminaire de l’université de Fribourg; 2003-2004.
  • 58 Alpar P, Kim M. A Comparison of Approaches to the Measurement of IT Value. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Hawaii International Conference on System Science 1990
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Brynjolfsson E, Hitt LM. Paradox lost: Firm level evidence on returns to information systems spending. Management Science 1996; 42: 541-58.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 60 Weill P. The relationship between investment in information technology and firm performance : a study of the valve manufacturing sector. Information Systems Research 1992; 03 (04) 307-33.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 61 Siegel D, Griliches Z. Purchased services, outsourcing, computers, and productivity in manufacturing. In: Griliches Z. Editor, Output measurement in the service sector. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1992: 429-58.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 62 Mahmood M, Mann GJ. Measuring the organizational impact of information technology investment: an exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems 1993; 10 (01) 97-122.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 63 Siegel D. The impact of computers on manufacturing productivity growth: A multiple-indicators, multiple-causes approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1997; 79: 68-78.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 64 Lichtenberg F. The output contributions of computer equipment and personnel: a firm-level analysis. Journal of Economic Innovation and New Technologies 1995; 03 (04) 201-17.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 65 Loveman GW. An assessment of the productivity impact of information technologies. In: Allen TJ, Scott Morton MS. editors. Information Technology and the Corporation of the 1990s: Research Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994: 84-110.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 66 Greenan N, Mairesse J. Computers and productivity in France: Some evidence. NBER Working Paper No. 5836. 1996 Vol. November.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 67 Lehr W, Lichtenberg FR. Computer use and productivity growth in US federal government agencies, 1987-92. Journal of Industrial Economics 1998; 46: 257-79.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 68 McGuckin RH, Streitwieser ML, Doms M. The effect of technology use on productivity growth. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 1998; 07: 1-27.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 69 McGuckin RH, Stiroh KJ. Computers and productivity:Are aggregation effects Important ?. Economic Inquiry 2002; 40 (01) 42-59.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 70 Gera S, Gu W, Lee F. Information technology and labour productivity growth: An empirical analysis for Canada and the United States. Canadian Journal of Economics 1999; 32: 384-407.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 71 Jorgenson DW, Stiroh KJ. Raising the speed limit: US economic growth in the information age. Brookings Papers on Economics Activity 2000; Vol. 1: 125-211.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 72 Barua A, Kriebel C, Mukhopadhyay T. Information Technology and Business Value: An Analytic and Empirical Investigation. University of Texas at Austin Working Paper; May, 1991
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 73 Berndt ER, Morrison CJ. High-Tech Capital Formation and Economic Performance in U.S. Manufacturing Industries: An Exploratory Analysis. Journal of Econometrics 1995; 65 (01) 9-43.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 74 Morrison CJ, Berndt ER. Assessing the Productivity of Information Technology Equipment in the U.S. Manufacturing Industries. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper; 1990. Vol. 3582.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 75 Pilat D. The ICT productivity paradox: insights from micro data. OECD Economic Studies 2004; Vol. 38, 37-65.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 76 Attewell P. Organizational Linkages: Understanding the Productivity Paradox. Washington: National Academic Press; 1994: 13-53.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 77 Marakas GM, Robey D. managing impressions with information technologies. Proceedings of the 1994 computer personnel research conference on Reinventing IS: managing information technology in changing organizations. 1994: 15-22.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 78 Ross A, Ernstberger K. Benchmarking the IT productivity paradox: recent evidence from the manufacturing sector. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 2006; Vol. 44. 30-42.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 79 Brynjolfsson E. The productivity paradox of IT. Communication of the ACM December. 1993 36(12).
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 80 Prasad B, Harker P. Examining the contribution of information technology toward productivity and profitability in US retail banking. Working paper no. 97-09, Financial Institutions Center, The Wharton School; 1997
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 81 Lin WT, Shao BM. The business value of information technology and inputs substitution: the productivity paradox revisited. Decision support systems 2006; Vol. 42. 493-507.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 82 Dewan S, Min CK. The substitution of information technology for other factors of production : a firm level analysis. Management Science 1997; Vol. 43 (12) 1660-75.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 83 Lee B, Menon N. Information technology value through different normative lenses. Journal of Management Information Systems 2000; 16 (04) 99-119.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 84 Bharadwaj A. A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance : an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly 2000; 24 (01) 169-96.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 85 Stratopoulos T, Dehning B. Does successful investment in information technology solves the productivity paradox ?. Information and Management 2000; 38: 103-17.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 86 Shao BM. Investigating the value of information technology in productive efficiency: an analytic and empirical study. [Ph.D. dissertation]. State University of New York; Buffalo: 2000
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 87 Shao BM, Lin WT. Technical efficiency analysis of information technology investments: a two-stage empirical investigation. Information and Management 2002; 39: 391-401.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 88 Shao BM, Lin WT. Examining the determinants of productive efficiency with IT as a production factor. Journal of Computer Information Systems 2000; 41 (01) 25-30.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 89 Shao BM, Lin WT. Measuring the value of information technology in technical efficiency with stochastic production frontiers. Information and Software Technology 2001; 43: 447-56.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 90 Osei-Brison KM, Ko M. Exploring the relationship between information technology investments and firm performance using regression splines analysis. Information & Management 2004; 42: 1-13.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 91 Koc C. The productivity of health care and health production functions. Health Econ 2004; 13 (08) 739-47.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 92 Hollingsworth B, Dawson PJ, Maniadakis N. Efficiency measurement of health care: a review of nonparametric methods and applications. Health Care Manag Sci 1999; 02 (03) 161-72.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 93 Grosskopf S, Valdmanis V. Measuring Hospital performance: a non-parametric approach. Journal of Health Economics 1987; 06: 87-109.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 94 Menon N, Lee B, Eldenburg L. Productivity of Information Systems in the Healthcare Industry. Information Systems Research 2000; 11 (01) 83-92.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 95 Lovell CAK. Production frontiers and production efficiency in The Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications. New-York: Oxford University Press; 1993
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 96 Eubank R. Spline Smoothing and Nonparametric Regression, Marcel. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc; 1987
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 97 Hitt LM, Snir EM. The role of information technology in modern production: complement or substitute to other inputs?. University of pennsylvania papers; January 1999
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 98 Lin WT, Shao BM. Relative sizes of information technology investments and productive efficiency: Their linkage and empirical evidence. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 2000; 01 (07) 1-35.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 99 Bresnahan TF, Brynjolfsson E, Hitt LM. Information technology, Workplace Organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 2002; 117 (01) 339-76.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 100 Beard N, Elo K, Hitt LM, Housman MG, Mansfield G. Information technology and hospital performance: An econometric analysis of costs and quality. [Online] PricewaterhouseCoopers: http://www.pwc.com/healthcare 2007
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 101 Holland M. Perspective on the value of HIT investment. Health Industry Insights. [Online] http://www.healthindustry-insights.com/HII/getdoc.jsp?containerId=HI206330
    PubMed
  • 102 Schulman J, Kuperman GJ, Kharbanda A, Kaushal R. Discovering How to Think about a Hospital Patient Information System by Struggling to Evaluate It: A Committee’s Journal. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 14: 537-41.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 103 Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R. et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. ealth Technology Assessment. 2004 8(36).
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 104 Brynjolfsson E. The IT Productivity GAP. Optimize 2003; 21.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 105 Bleom J, VanDoorn M, Mittal P. Making IT governance work in a Sarbanes-Oxley world. Oboken: Willey & Sons Inc; 2006: 46-90. 153-7.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 106 Hoogeveen D, Oppelland HJ. A socio political model of the relationship between IT investments and business performance. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 2002
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 107 Li R, Ye LR. Information technology and firm performance: linking with environmental, strategic and managerial contexts. Information and Management 1999; 35: 43-51.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 108 Teo TSH, Wong PK, Chia EH. Information Technology (IT) investment and the role of a firm: an exploratory study. International Journal of Information Management 2000; 20: 269-86.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 109 Soh C, Markus ML. How IT creates business value: a process theory synthesis. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Systems, Amsterdam; 1995; 29-41.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 110 Soh C, Markus ML. Banking on information technology: converting IT spending into firm performance. [book auth.] Banker R, Kaufmann R, Mahmood M. Strategic Information Technology Management: Perspectives on Organizational Growth and Competitive Advantage. Hershey: Idea Group Inc. Publishing; 1993: 375-404.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 111 Kumbhakar SC, Tsionas EG. Estimation of stochastic frontier production functions with inputoriented technical efficiency. Journal of Econometrics 2006; 133: 71-96.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 112 Barua A, Mukhopadhyay T. Information technologies and business performance: past, present, and future. [book auth.] Zmud R. Framing the Domains of IT Management Projecting the Future through the Past. Cincinnati: Pinnaflex Education Resources, Inc; 2000
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 113 Maynard A, Kanavos P. Health economics: an evolving paradigm. Health Econ 2000; 09: 183-90.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 114 Kivijarvi H, Saarinen T. Investment in information systems and the financial performance of the f irm. Information and Management 1995; 28: 143-63.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 115 Stiroh K. Reassessing the Impact of IT in the Production Function. New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York; 2002
    Search in Google Scholar