IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jorsoc/v60y2009i2d10.1057_palgrave.jors.2602537.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic information systems selection with incomplete preferences: a case of a Korean electronics company

Author

Listed:
  • S H Choi

    (Gyeongsang National University)

  • S M Bae

    (Gyeongsang National University)

Abstract

This paper presents an interactive procedure with incomplete information for supporting corporate strategic information systems planning (SISP), which is based on a prescriptive group decision-making method showing how to aggregate experts' incomplete preference judgments. The system, named CoSIS, is suggested on the competency leverage concept for selecting technical or organizational enablers to attain organizational business objectives. We put the competencies between the objectives and enablers, measure the importance rates of competencies on the objectives, and derive target enablers for the company. The importance of a competency is calculated using the SISP experts' incomplete preference information regarding relationships of importance rates between competencies on each objective. The Web-based architecture of CoSIS makes it relatively easy for the SISP team to obtain this preference information from distributed experts. Using the system, we carry out the experiments for performance evaluation of our procedure.

Suggested Citation

  • S H Choi & S M Bae, 2009. "Strategic information systems selection with incomplete preferences: a case of a Korean electronics company," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 180-190, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:60:y:2009:i:2:d:10.1057_palgrave.jors.2602537
    DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602537
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602537
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602537?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Avison, DE & Eardley, WA & Powell, P, 1998. "Suggestions for capturing corporate vision in strategic information systems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 443-459, August.
    2. Wei, Chun-Chin & Chien, Chen-Fu & Wang, Mao-Jiun J., 2005. "An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 47-62, April.
    3. King, William R. & Teo, Thompson S. H., 2000. "Assessing the impact of proactive versus reactive modes of strategic information systems planning," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 667-679, December.
    4. Philip, George & Booth, Marilyn E., 2001. "A new six 'S' framework on the relationship between the role of information systems (IS) and competencies in 'IS' management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 233-247, March.
    5. Santhanam, Radhika & Kyparisis, George J., 1996. "A decision model for interdependent information system project selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 380-399, March.
    6. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    7. Somers, Toni M. & Nelson, Klara G., 2003. "The impact of strategy and integration mechanisms on enterprise system value: Empirical evidence from manufacturing firms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 146(2), pages 315-338, April.
    8. Gray, Paul & Vogel, Doug & Beauclair, Renee, 1990. "Assessing GDSS empirical research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 162-176, May.
    9. Kathuria, Ravi & Anandarajan, Murugan & Igbaria, Magid, 1999. "Selecting IT applications in manufacturing: a KBS approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 605-616, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bell, Simon, 2012. "DPSIR=A Problem Structuring Method? An exploration from the “Imagine” approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 222(2), pages 350-360.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. B S Ahn & S H Choi, 2008. "ERP system selection using a simulation-based AHP approach: a case of Korean homeshopping company," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(3), pages 322-330, March.
    2. Rađenović Žarko & Veselinović Ivana, 2017. "Integrated AHP-TOPSIS Method for the Assessment of Health Management Information Systems Efficiency," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 55(1), pages 121-142, March.
    3. Tien-Chin Wang & Ying-Ling Lin, 2009. "Using a Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Approach to Select Merged Strategies for Commercial Banks," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 519-536, November.
    4. Shruti Nagpal & Ashok Kumar & Sunil Kumar Khatri, 2017. "Modeling interrelationships between CSF in ERP implementations: total ISM and MICMAC approach," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 8(4), pages 782-798, December.
    5. Bernroider, Edward W.N. & Schmöllerl, Patrick, 2013. "A technological, organisational, and environmental analysis of decision making methodologies and satisfaction in the context of IT induced business transformations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(1), pages 141-153.
    6. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    7. Fatih Yiğit & Şakir Esnaf, 2021. "A new Fuzzy C-Means and AHP-based three-phased approach for multiple criteria ABC inventory classification," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 1517-1528, August.
    8. Panos Xidonas & Haris Doukas & George Mavrotas & Olena Pechak, 2016. "Environmental corporate responsibility for investments evaluation: an alternative multi-objective programming model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 247(2), pages 395-413, December.
    9. Rachele Corticelli & Margherita Pazzini & Cecilia Mazzoli & Claudio Lantieri & Annarita Ferrante & Valeria Vignali, 2022. "Urban Regeneration and Soft Mobility: The Case Study of the Rimini Canal Port in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-27, November.
    10. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    11. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    12. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    13. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    14. Mangla, Sachin Kumar & Srivastava, Praveen Ranjan & Eachempati, Prajwal & Tiwari, Aviral Kumar, 2024. "Exploring the impact of key performance factors on energy markets: From energy risk management perspectives," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    15. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.
    16. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    17. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.
    18. Jitendar Kumar Khatri & Bhimaraya Metri, 2016. "SWOT-AHP Approach for Sustainable Manufacturing Strategy Selection: A Case of Indian SME," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 17(5), pages 1211-1226, October.
    19. Vlachokostas, Ch. & Michailidou, A.V. & Achillas, Ch., 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis towards promoting Waste-to-Energy Management Strategies: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    20. Cui, Ye & E, Hanyu & Pedrycz, Witold & Fayek, Aminah Robinson, 2022. "A granular multicriteria group decision making for renewable energy planning problems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 1047-1059.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:60:y:2009:i:2:d:10.1057_palgrave.jors.2602537. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.