Information Economics

on the basis of an IT investment’s lifetime of two years, compared with not implementing the projectweb.

None of the identified benefits could be categorised as effectiveness benefits so therefore this result is not applicable either for IHD or ProjectNet.

20 performance benefits were identified as valid in both projectwebs, however, many of them are not estimated as equally important. For IHD six of the performance benefits were judged as being very significant (rated as A), three of them were rated as being significant (B), five were rated as being moderate (C) and six were rated as being low (D). Many of the non-measurable benefits are therefore do not have a great influence on the overall result. For ProjectNet nine of the non-measurable benefits are rated as very significant (rated as A), five of them were rated as being significant (B), six were rated as being moderate (C) and none were rated as being low (D). In general the non-measurable benefit for ProjectNet is rated higher than for IHD and therefore has significantly better output.

From Table 15 and Table 16 it can be concluded that using either IHD or ProjectNet can save a relatively small amount of money (when no data on the cost is included). A large proportion of the identified benefits was categorised as non-measurable for both projectweb alternatives, however, IHD’s non-measurable benefits were rated significantly lower. The output from MBITI for both projectwebs show a positive, but low, effect on the company and should therefore be a topic of discussion at the strategic level of the company.

The ROI factor has, because of a relatively low cash flow in both projectwebs, resulted in a ROI score of, respectively, 21.2% and 64.8 % (50 % would mean break-even for both projectwebs). The low ROI results in a low mark of 1 for both projectwebs. The ROI for IHD implies that the IT investment costs are higher than the benefits achieved through the IT investment lifetime, whereas ProjectNet’s ROI is above break even. Even though there is a significant difference in the

profitability of the two projectwebs, they are still given the same mark.

The risk factor called IS infrastructure risk was, for ProjectNet, given the best mark (which is 0). It was judged that the IS infrastructure of ProjectNet was already in place and would therefore not be the source of additional costs. Analysing IHD with respect to this risk factor revealed that some minor changes in the IS infrastructure were needed and therefore it was given the mark 1. The worst mark given to any of the risk factors is 2. In general it can be concluded that the risk factors are higher for IHD than ProjectNet. Nevertheless the risk factors result in a relatively low total risk for both projectwebs.

Four factors have been assigned a weight of 5 and these are: Strategic match (SM), Competitive advantage (CA), Competitive response (CR) and Strategic IS architecture (SA). These four factors are regarded as the most important ones. None of the factors have being given a weight of 0. This means that all 10 factors can have an impact on the final score.

The total value for IHD is calculated as 67. Taking into consideration that the two extremes are 0 and 150, the final score is in the middle of the scale. This is considered as relatively good. The total value for ProjectNet is calculated as 67 which, surprisingly, is the same as for IHD. This means theoretically that the two projectwebs are equally desirable.

The total risk is, for IHD and ProjectNet, calculated to be respectively, 26 and 24. This indicates that the risk is considered higher if the projectweb is developed in-house than if it is ProjectNet. The difference in total risk is however small and the conclusions derived on the basis of this should be made with some caution.

Using IE has identified and estimated that ProjectNet is reasonably profitable in terms of reaching break-even, whereas IHD has a lower ROI. This might however be strongly influenced by the short lifetime of the IT investment. Two factors in the IT evaluation have a significant impact on the total value by each contributing a value of 20. This is valid for both projectwebs: Strategic match and Competitive advantage. IE has furthermore identified that the risk factors are considered as moderate (the total risk is, for IHD and ProjectNet, estimated as, respectively, 26 and 24). This means that the projectwebs are largely considered as IT investments with a relatively low risk.

Overall it can be concluded that the projectwebs have a moderately positive impact on the company and that total risk is relatively small. Using IE would probably result in approval of both of the projectwebs. Comparing the projectwebs using this method would mean that ProjectNet is the best projectweb, but some caution has to be taken when conclusions are derived on the basis of such a small difference between the output from IE.

6.5.5 Critical Success Factors

The four interviewed stakeholders identified several different critical success factors. One of the stakeholders focused on the critical success factors of IHD and another on ProjectNet. Summaries of the stakeholder interviews upon which the critical success factors have been derived can be seen in Appendix E10. A combined list of the critical success factors is found in Appendix E10 p. 138.

The critical success factors are, in the following, listed in random order, but grouped according to the evaluated IT investment:

General critical success factors

The project leaders have to trust and believe in the projectweb as an important tool (2) The project leaders have to make sure that the projectweb is implemented and used properly in all of the project’s collaborating companies

The project leaders have to act as role models by using the projectweb themselves instead of sending paper copies

The end users’ IT capabilities should be upgraded through education or courses

The ability to differentiate between the electronic documents’ importance for one’s own job should be emphasised (2)

The projectweb should have an improved functionality focusing on sorting the relevant information stored on the server

More responsibility and resources (earmarked for the projectweb) need to be given to the project leader

The projectweb should reduce the cost of building projects

The administration of user rights has to be organised and some possibility for sorting the documents has to be enabled

The possibility of registering the usage of the projectweb (logging-on) has to be in place The interfaces (browsers) that enable the end-user to see the documents are important for a projectweb (if not the end-user will have to install the full versions of the IT applications used to generate the documents)

The communication lines to the building sites have to capable of running the projectweb The communication lines (their bandwidth) have to be big enough to meet the data transfer needs

The top management support for using the projectweb has to be in place (3)

The end users have to experience the projectweb as beneficial to their working procedures and not as an administrative procedure

IHD

The end users have to accept the new IT technology especially the project leaders

Better facilities for assigning new project members that can be given certain rights in the projectweb

The usability of the in-house developed projectweb has to be high or else the project

members will reject the IT system because it will be a constraint on their working activities.

The type of projectwebs used have to be adjusted to the actual need or, either the costs will be too high, or the need for functionality will not be fulfilled.

ProjectNet

The project members and partner are motivated and involved in using the ProjectNet.

The computer (hardware and software) should be fast enough.

The subcontractors should have the necessary IT maturity and capacity for using the ProjectNet.

A good introduction to the ProjectNet

The working procedures have to be adjusted to the use of ProjectNet.

The structure of directories and documents on the projectweb has to be standardised.

Whenever a similar critical success factor is identified by several of the stakeholders the multiple number is written in brackets.

The three most important factors for ensuring success with a projectweb were identified to be the following:

The top management support for using the projectweb has to be in place. (3)

The project members and partners are motivated and involved in using the projectweb.

The usability of the projectweb has to be high or else the project members will reject using the IT system because the system will be seen as a constraint on their working activities.

A wide range of critical success factors has been identified from the education of end-users, to strategic level approval, to technical requirements. One of them is specifically referring to the economic impact of the IT investment.

On the basis of the identified critical success factors it is again difficult to conclude whether the choice of projectweb should be IHD or ProjectNet. It should be acknowledged that the identified critical success factors might provide valuable inputs to the identification of requirements for the chosen projectweb. In this perspective the method provides useful output.

All four stakeholders considered the usage of a projectweb as a beneficial IT investment.

6.5.6 Comments on the methods’ output

Again the most negative output is produced by NPV and the conclusion would, on the basis of the output, have to be a rejection of both projectwebs. ProjectNet is the projectweb that has the lowest negative net present value and therefore should be regarded as the best IT investment.

IE has produced two output that imply a moderate total value (67) for both projectwebs and a low risk (26 (IHD) and 24 (ProjectNet)). Depending on how the company analyses the output of the method, the output can be used as an argument for either approving or rejecting the IT investment.

With regard to choosing between the projectwebs it would, on the basis of IE’s output, be

ProjectNet. However, choosing ProjectNet because of a difference of two points in the total risk is problematic because of the uncertainties in the data used to derive the output.

The third method, MBITI, produces more multi-dimensional output. The conclusions, which can be drawn from the output, are generally positive and both projectwebs would, on the basis of this output, therefore most likely be approved. This is, however, depending on the company’s approval criteria. Using this method it can be concluded that ProjectNet has the best output. The difference in the efficiency output is small between the projectwebs but, comparing the performance benefits, it can be seen that ProjectNet has significantly better output than IHD.

The last method, CSF, has identified many critical success factors which are useful for identifying the company’s requirements for the choice of projectweb. Using the method’s output to derive a conclusion on which projectweb they should choose is difficult because of the format of the output.

It cannot therefore be concluded which of the projectwebs is the best for H&S on the basis of the output from this method.

6.6 Troels Jørgensen A/S

The fifth and last case study described is evaluating the implementation of a CITRIX application (see chapter 5 for a more detailed description of the IT investment) in Troels Jørgensen A/S. The output from four methods, and a few general comments on the output from the methods, are presented.