Introduction

Business Value Creation with IT (BVC)

Andy Weeger

Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences

September 2, 2026

Introduction

Necessity of definitions

Figure 1: He should have defined what “fastest growing” (not) means …

To gain mutual understanding, core terms need to be defined. For this lecture, we need to—at least—figure out what IT and business value means.

Definition

Let’s define some core terms.

IT x digital

IT resources

IT resources are the foundational technological components that organizations leverage.
These include:

• IT assets are tangible or intangible technological components that can be bought or built (e.g., hardware, software, data repos) (Melville et al., 2004a)
• IT capabilities refers to the ability to mobilize and deploy IT assets in combination with other resources (e.g., IT skills or IT management abilities) (Wade & Hulland, 2004)
• IT-enabled resources are organizational resources that are enhanced or created through the application of IT (e.g, IT-enhanced business processes) (Wade & Hulland, 2004)

To create IT-enabled resources organizations need to integrate IT assets, IT capabilities and complementary organizational resources in a way that they create synergies.

Discussion

Now what’s the difference between IT asset and a digital asset?

From IT to digital assets

IT resources, IT-enabled resources, and digital resources (Piccoli et al., 2022, p. 2296)

 

 

Digital resources represent a conceptual evolution of IS resources that focuses on the strategic value created through digital technology. Digital resources are (1) are modular, (2) encapsulate objects of value, assets, and/or capabilities, (3) and are accessible by way of a programmatic interface (Piccoli et al., 2022).

Modularity

Digital resources are like LEGO blocks designed to snap together. They work independently but are specifically designed to be combined with other digital components to create larger, more complex systems. Example: A payment processing API is a self-contained module that can be plugged into various e-commerce platforms, mobile apps, or websites.

Encapsulated value

Digital resources have no inherent value on their own – they only become valuable when someone wants to use what’s inside them. Their value comes from the assets or capabilities they contain and the demand for those capabilities. Example: A machine learning algorithm for predicting customer churn has value only because companies need this prediction capability. Without this demand, the algorithm itself would have no inherent value.

Programmatic interface

Digital resources are accessed through code rather than physical means. They have a software “wrapper” with specific rules about how to interact with them. This wrapper controls access through predefined commands and responses.  Example: Instead of physically handling a document, you access a cloud storage service through its API, using specific commands to upload, download, or modify files.

Figure 2: IT resources, IT-enabled resources, and digital resources (Piccoli et al., 2022, p. 2296)

Digital resources encompass all digitally-enabled components that can create value for an organization. This includes:

• Digital assets are digital components that have value-creating properties and are governed by well-defined property rights. These are the foundational building blocks that enable digital initiatives.
• Digital capabilities refers to the ability to mobilize and deploy digital assets in combination with other resources. These represent an organization’s capacity to conceptualize and execute digital initiatives.

Dynamic capabilities

The resource-based view supports that firms may achieve a competitive advantage based on their bundles of resources and capabilities (Peteraf et al., 2013; Wade & Hulland, 2004).

The dynamic capabilities (DC) view argues that firms have to evolve their resource and capability base in order to ensure a sustained competitive advantage (Peteraf et al., 2013) — two types of resources:

• ordinary or operational capabilities, which allow firms to survive in the present by supporting existing operations
• dynamic capabilities, which are directed towards strategic change of ordinary capabilities and resources

DCs represent an organization’s ability to purposefully create, extend, or modify its resource base to address rapidly changing environments (Teece, 2014).

IS and dynamic capabilities

Nomological net of DC in IS research based on Steininger et al. (2022, p. 454)

 

 

 

 

The multifaceted relationship between IT and dynamic capabilities highlights the complex role that information technology plays in organizational adaptation and renewal in the digital era. IT is not merely a tool but can simultaneously be an enabler, an embedded element, and an outcome of an organization’s dynamic capabilities.

Figure 3: Nomological net of DC in IS research based on Steininger et al. (2022, p. 454)

Value

Discussion

How can value created with IT (including AI) be defined?

IS business value

Value created by IT is—in a business context—usually referred to as IT/IS business value.

IS business value is the impact of investments in particular IS assets on the multidimensional performance and capabilities of economic entities at various levels, complemented by the ultimate meaning of performance in the economic environment. Schryen (2013, p. 141)

The ultimate meaning of performance refers to what is subsequently derived if the outcome is exploited, e.g.

• impact on performance of a workflow management system: faster business processes
• the ultimate meaning: is dependent on the use of gained time and the extent to which competitors have speeded up their processes

The concept of IT/IS business value extends beyond simple financial metrics. Value is context-dependent and multidimensional:

• Value manifests at different organizational levels: individual, team, department, organization, and ecosystem
• Schryen (2013)’s definition importantly separates direct performance impacts from their ultimate business meaning
• For example, if an IT system reduces processing time by 50%, the business value depends on how that time savings is utilized
• Value is also relative to competitive positioning — if all competitors achieve similar efficiency, the competitive advantage is neutralized
• The multidimensional nature includes tangible benefits (cost savings, revenue growth) and intangible benefits (customer satisfaction, innovation capacity)
• Historical perspective: IT value perception has evolved from “cost of doing business” to “strategic enabler of business value”

Taxonomy of IS business value

Taxonomy of IS business value types and examples according to Schryen (2013)

 

 

 

Schryen (2013) presents a conceptual framework that organizes IS business value along two key dimensions, creating a four-field matrix. This matrix provides a comprehensive way to understand the multifaceted nature of value created by information systems.

Figure 4: Taxonomy of IS business value types and examples according to Schryen (2013)

The matrix is organized along two dimensions:

1. Value form: tangible vs. intangible
2. Value location: internal vs. external

This creates four distinct quadrants of IS business value.

Usage as the missing link

The process model of IS value creation (Soh & Markus, 1995, p. 37)

 

 

 

Soh & Markus (1995) proposed a process model that explains how IT investments are transformed into business value. Their model is particularly significant because it identifies the critical processes and necessary conditions that must occur for IT to generate organizational benefits. The model consists of three linked processes, each with its own cause-effect relationship:

• The IT conversion process: from IT expenditure to IT assets
• The IT use process: from IT assets to IT impacts
• The competitive process: from IT impacts to organizational performance

Figure 5: The process model of IS value creation (Soh & Markus, 1995, p. 37)

The central and most critical insight of Soh and Markus’s model is their identification of IT use as the essential missing link in the IT value creation chain. Prior to their work, many researchers focused primarily on the relationship between IT investments and organizational performance, often finding inconsistent results (the “productivity paradox”).

Their model highlights that:

1. The critical path requires actual usage of the technology (IT assets → IT use → IT impacts)
2. Not just any use, but effective and appropriate use is required
3. Usage is necessary but alone does not guarantee value

Adoption and use

Figure 6: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003)

The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) suggests that the actual use of technology is determined by behavioural intention. The perceived likelihood of adopting the technology is dependent on the direct effect of four key constructs, namely performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions. The effect of predictors is moderated by age, gender, experience and voluntariness of use

Effective use

Figure 7: A model for effective use and its effect on performance according to Burton-Jones & Grange (2013)

Key for Figure 7: Solid arrows reflect primary paths; dashed arrows reflect secondary paths; boxed arrows reflect necessary causality (i.e., x enables but does not determine y ). Bolding on “user,” “system” and “task” reflect the relative emphasis on each element of use (bold reflects more emphasis).

The Theory of Effective Use defines effective use as “using a system in a way that helps attain the goals of using the system” (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013, p. 636) and conceptualizes it to consist of three dimensions: transparent interaction, representational fidelity, and informed action.

• Transparent interaction is the extent to which a user is accessing the system’s representations unimpeded by its surface and physical structures.
• Representational fidelity is the extent to which a user is obtaining representations from the system that faithfully reflect the domain being represented.
• Informed action is the extent to which a user acts upon the faithful representations he or she obtains from the system to improve his or her state.

Discussion

How would you measure the business value of an IT investment?

Value determination

Challenges

According to Kohli & Grover (2008), organizations struggle to articulate the full business value of IT beyond cost savings.

Challenges of IT value determination and subsequent realization include:

• IT investments are often viewed as cost centers rather than value creators
• Traditional metrics fail to capture full spectrum of IT value
• Stakeholders have different value perceptions as compared to IT professionals

The challenges of IT value determination stem from multiple factors:

• The “productivity paradox” questions IT’s contribution to productivity growth (Brynjolfsson, 1993)
• Many benefits are second-order effects: IT enables business capabilities that then create value
• Time lag between implementation and value realization creates attribution problems
• Complementary investments (process redesign, training, change management) are often required but overlooked
• Intangible benefits like improved decision quality or customer experience are difficult to quantify
• “Cost center” perception persists because costs are immediate and visible while benefits are distributed and future-oriented
• Kohli & Grover (2008) found that organizations frequently focus on efficiency metrics because they’re easier to measure, not because they’re more important

Business-focused value definition

CIOs must first understand how business stakeholders define value. Usually it is based on their highest priority business objectives. Cannon (2020)

This implies that

• value is defined from the business perspective;
• technical capabilities must be translated to business outcomes;
• and success depends on alignment with strategic objectives

Changes in the value conversation

The business-first approach to IT value changes the fundamental conversation:

IT departments traditionally defined value in technical terms (uptime, processing speed, storage capacity). However, business executives often don’t care about technical specifications unless they connect to business outcomes.

Value translation examples:

• Technical: “99.99% system availability”
  Business: “Continuous customer service availability”
• Technical: “Reduced data latency”
  Business: “Faster market response capability”
• Technical: “Increased automation”
  Business: “Reduced operational errors and improved customer satisfaction”

Primary business objectives

According to Cannon (2020), stakeholders typically define value through:

1. Revenue/value creation
2. Cost optimization
3. Risk mitigation

The three primary business objectives provide a comprehensive framework for categorizing and communicating IT value:

1. Revenue/value creation (tangible value, competitive)

• Most directly connected to business growth and competitive positioning
• Often receives highest executive attention, especially during growth periods
• For commercial enterprises: market share, customer acquisition, and new product development
• Often hardest to attribute directly to IT investments but most strategically important
• Example: Digital customer experience platforms that increase conversion rates

2. Cost optimization (tangible value, internal)

• Often easiest to measure but can lead to short-term focus
• Distinguishing between cost-cutting and value-preserving optimization is crucial
• Automation, standardization, and process efficiency are common approaches
• May include both capital expenditure (CAPEX) reduction and operational expenditure (OPEX) optimization
• Example: Cloud migration that reduces infrastructure costs while increasing flexibility

3. Risk mitigation (intangible value, internal and/or competitive)

• Increasingly prominent in digital business where technology risks directly impact business continuity
• Categories include cybersecurity, compliance, business continuity, and technical debt
• Often undervalued until after a negative event occurs
• Growing board-level interest driven by high-profile breaches and regulatory requirements
• Example: Identity and access management systems that reduce security breach likelihood

Organizational trade-offs between these objectives change based on market conditions, industry trends, and organizational lifecycle stage. Balance is key to sustainable value creation.

Revenue/value creation

IT investments can contribute to firm performance through revenue enhancement mechanisms (Melville et al., 2004b), such as:

• Market share growth
• New revenue streams
• Customer acquisition/retention

Metrics to quantify value potential

• Digital revenue percentage: Revenue from digital channel/product
• Market penetration: contribution to market share
• Customer experience: impact on NPS, satisfaction scores
• Innovation rate: new products/services enabled (share of revenue)

Revenue/value creation through IT has evolved significantly over time: early IT value focused primarily on automation and cost reduction, digital transformation has shifted focus to revenue growth and business model innovation:

• IT enables market responsiveness and customer intimacy
• Technology facilitates product/service innovation
• Digital capabilities create new market opportunities
• Information assets provide competitive intelligence
• IT enables business model transformation

Advanced organizations are developing IT value maps that show the causal chain from IT capabilities to revenue impacts with intermediate indicators.

Cost optimization

Strategic IT investments yield cost benefits through process optimization rather than simple cost-cutting (Mithas et al., 2011), such as:

• Programmatic reduction of costs (vs. arbitrary cuts)
• Efficiency improvements across business processes
• Resource utilization and productivity gains
• Elimination of technical debt and redundancies

Options to quantify the scope of cost optimizations

• Labor productivity (output per employee or labor hour)
• Asset utilization (server utilization rates, real estate efficiency)
• Process efficiency (reduced cycle time, increased throughput, fewer errors)
• Unit cost reduction (cost per transaction, service, or output)

Cost optimization through IT represents a mature value dimension with established practices:

• Tactical cost-cutting (which can harm capabilities) and strategic optimization
• Cost benefits often emerge from second-order effects, not just direct substitution (Mithas et al., 2011)
• Process optimization combines IT changes with business process reengineering for maximum effect
• Resource utilization improvements include both human resources and technology assets
• Technical debt elimination creates long-term cost advantages by reducing maintenance burden

Industry benchmarks provide useful comparisons, such as:

• IT spending as percentage of revenue by industry
• Revenue per employee
• Operational cost ratios (e.g., cost-to-serve)

Risk mitigation

Investments in IT significantly reduce the likelihood and financial impact of risks by enhancing security, compliance, resilience, and operational stability.

• Cyberattacks, fraud, and insider threats
• Regulatory fines and legal penalties
• Supply chain vulnerabilities and disruptions
• Operational downtime and disaster recovery

Options to quantify positive outcomes of IT investments on risk mitigation:

• Expected loss reduction (probability × impact) before and after controls
• Risk transfer valuation (cost of insurance premiums avoided)
• Compliance cost avoidance (fines, penalties, remediation costs)
• Business continuity value (avoided downtime costs)

Risk management value has gained prominence in recent years due to:

• Increased cyber threats and high-profile breaches with business impact
• Expanding regulatory requirements (GDPR, CCPA, industry-specific regulations)
• Digitalization increasing dependence on technology for critical business operations
• Supply chain vulnerabilities highlighted by recent global disruptions

Risk management frameworks like NIST CSF, ISO 27001, and FAIR (Factor Analysis of Information Risk) provide structured approaches to evaluating control effectiveness and residual risk. Many organizations use risk scenarios and simulations to estimate value:

• Tabletop exercises
• Breach cost calculators
• Cyber risk quantification models
• Business impact analyses

Some organizations now maintain “risk registers” with monetized risk exposure and track risk reduction as a value metric for IT investments.

Building a measurement framework

General remarks

Adopting a balanced scorecard approach (Kaplan & Norton, 2004), a measurement framework should consider following insights:

• Balanced approach (covering all three value objectives)
• Multi-level metrics (strategic, tactical, operational)
• Leading indicators (predictive of future value realization)
• Lagging indicators (confirming delivered value)

The multi-perspective approach ensures comprehensive value assessment:

• Financial perspective: cost/benefit metrics
• Customer perspective: service quality and satisfaction
• Internal process perspective: efficiency and effectiveness
• Learning/growth perspective: capability development

Multi-level metrics create a value hierarchy:

• Strategic: enterprise-level outcomes (market share, profitability)
• Tactical: business unit outcomes (productivity, quality)
• Operational: process-level outcomes (cycle time, error rates)

Leading vs. lagging indicators form a value chain:

• Leading indicators (capability improvements) predict future value
• Lagging indicators (business results) confirm realized value
• Both are necessary for a complete view of IT value

A key implementation challenge is to create a clear linkage between levels and indicator types.

Critical assessment

Before assessing the business value of IT solutions, following questions should be considered:

1. What assumptions are we making about value?
2. What stakeholder perspectives might we be missing?
3. How can we validate our value hypotheses?
4. What data would strengthen our value assessment?

Critical assessment of IT value requires questioning assumptions and expanding perspectives:

1. Value assumptions to examine:
   • Time horizon assumptions (short-term vs. long-term value)
   • Attribution assumptions (how much value comes from IT vs. other factors)
   • Contextual assumptions (market conditions, competitive response)
   • Causality assumptions (correlation vs. causation in value linkages)
2. Stakeholder perspectives often overlooked:
   • End users (adoption and usage patterns)
   • Customers (experience and satisfaction)
   • Partners and suppliers (ecosystem impacts)
   • Regulators (compliance and risk considerations)
   • Future stakeholders (sustainability and optionality value)
3. Value hypothesis validation approaches:
   • Pilot projects and controlled experiments
   • A/B testing of digital capabilities
   • Reference customer benchmarking
   • Industry comparisons and case studies
   • Post-implementation reviews
4. Data that strengthens value assessment:
   • Baseline metrics before implementation
   • Comparative data from similar initiatives
   • Usage and adoption statistics
   • Customer feedback and behavioral data
   • Performance data across multiple time periods

The critical thinking process should be iterative throughout the IT investment lifecycle, not just at decision points.

Assessment types

Ward & Daniel (2006) advocates for a mixed-method approach to IT value assessment reflected by balanced IT value scorecards.

Quantitative:

• Financial metrics (ROI, NPV)
• Operational metrics (time, quantity)
• Customer metrics (retention rate)
• Risk metrics (incident reduction)

Qualitative:

• Strategic alignment
• Innovation enablement
• Capability enhancement
• Organizational learning

Discussion

How would you communicate the value of IT to a skeptical stakeholder?

Communicating value

Tailored messages

Value messages need to be tailored to business stakeholders (Peppard, 2016), such as

C-Suite:

• Strategic alignment
• Competitive advantage
• Financial impacts
• Risk portfolio effects

Business unit leaders:

• Operational excellence
• User productivity
• Cost/benefit analysis
• Process improvements

End users:

• Usability improvements
• Time savings
• Quality of work life
• Capability enhancement

Recommendations

Built a rich business case based on the insights you have gained:

• Center on stakeholders’ highest priority objectives.
• Provide evidence-based value projections.
• Include both tangible and intangible benefits.
• Address value realization timeline and dependencies.

Ward & Daniel (2006) discusses as set of tools and frameworks that many organisations are using to increase the benefits realised from their investments. These have great potential to enrich the development of IT business cases.

Building effective IT business cases requires a comprehensive approach:

• Benefits identification: Explicitly linking technology changes to business changes to benefits
• Benefits ownership: Assigning clear responsibility for benefit realization
• Benefits categorization: Financial, quantifiable, measurable, observable
• Benefits realization plan: Timeline and actions required to achieve projected benefits
• Benefits review: Post-implementation assessment of actual vs. projected benefits

Evidence-based value projections can come from multiple sources:

• Internal historical data from similar projects
• Vendor case studies and benchmarks (with appropriate scrutiny)
• Industry research and analyst reports
• Reference customer experiences
• Pilot project results

The value realization timeline should recognize:

• Different benefits emerge at different times (quick wins vs. long-term value)
• Dependencies between technology implementation and business change
• Capability development as a precursor to value realization
• Learning effects that increase benefits over time
• The “total cost of benefit” - investments required to achieve projected value

Common business case pitfalls to avoid:

• Overestimating benefits or underestimating costs
• Focusing solely on financial metrics
• Ignoring adoption and change management requirements
• Failing to account for the organizational context

Modern approaches like lean business cases and minimum viable products (MVPs) allow for incremental value validation.

Q&A

Literature

Brynjolfsson, E. (1993). The productivity paradox of information technology. Communications of the ACM, 36(12), 66–77.

Burton-Jones, A., & Grange, C. (2013). From use to effective use: A representation theory perspective. Information Systems Research, 24(3), 632–658.

Cannon, J. W. (2020). How to measure the business value of IT: 5 measures to consider (Gartner Research G00723855). Gartner, Inc.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Harvard Business School Press.

Kohli, R., & Grover, V. (2008). Business value of IT: An essay on expanding research directions to keep up with the times. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(1), 23–39. https://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol9/iss1/1/

Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004a). Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS Quarterly, 283–322.

Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004b). Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 283–322. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148636

Mithas, S., Ramasubbu, N., & Sambamurthy, V. (2011). How information management capability influences firm performance. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043496

Peppard, J. (2016). Unlocking the performance of the chief information officer (CIO). California Management Review, 58(1), 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2015.58.1.73

Peteraf, M., Di Stefano, G., & Verona, G. (2013). The elephant in the room of dynamic capabilities: Bringing two diverging conversations together. Strategic Management Journal, 34(12), 1389–1410.

Piccoli, G., Rodriguez, J., & Grover, V. (2022). Digital strategic initiatives and digital resources: Construct definition and future research directions. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 46(4), 2289–2316.

Schryen, G. (2013). Revisiting IS business value research: What we already know, what we still need to know, and how we can get there. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(2), 139–169. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.45

Soh, C., & Markus, M. L. (1995). How IT creates business value: A process theory synthesis. ICIS 1995 Proceedings, 4.

Steininger, D. M., Mikalef, P., Pateli, A., & Ortiz-de-Guinea, A. (2022). Dynamic capabilities in information systems research: A critical review, synthesis of current knowledge, and recommendations for future research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(2), 447–490.

Teece, D. J. (2014). A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1), 8–37.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 425–478.

Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 107–142.

Ward, J., & Daniel, E. (2006). Benefits management: Delivering value from IS and IT investments. John Wiley & Sons.