Reference Hub8
A Systematic Literature Review on 30 Years of Empirical Research on Information Systems Business Value

A Systematic Literature Review on 30 Years of Empirical Research on Information Systems Business Value

Ahad ZareRavasan, Michal Krčál
Copyright: © 2021 |Volume: 29 |Issue: 6 |Pages: 37
ISSN: 1062-7375|EISSN: 1533-7995|EISBN13: 9781799872627|DOI: 10.4018/JGIM.288894
Cite Article Cite Article

MLA

Ahad ZareRavasan, and Michal Krčál. "A Systematic Literature Review on 30 Years of Empirical Research on Information Systems Business Value." JGIM vol.29, no.6 2021: pp.1-37. http://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.288894

APA

Ahad ZareRavasan & Krčál, M. (2021). A Systematic Literature Review on 30 Years of Empirical Research on Information Systems Business Value. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 29(6), 1-37. http://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.288894

Chicago

Ahad ZareRavasan, and Michal Krčál. "A Systematic Literature Review on 30 Years of Empirical Research on Information Systems Business Value," Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM) 29, no.6: 1-37. http://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.288894

Export Reference

Mendeley
Favorite Full-Issue Download

Abstract

Information Systems Business Value (ISBV) has been a key research topic for the IS research community. While the vast majority of ISBV research demonstrates the positive relationship between IS and firm performance, the fundamental question of the causal relationships between IS and business value remains partly unexplained. Moreover, researchers do not share a unified understanding of ISBV concepts. Therefore, this research intends to synthesize the past 30 years of empirical ISBV research, identify the gaps and shortcomings, conceptualize the ISBV concepts, and propose possibilities for further research that will widen the current narrowly shared ISBV bottom line. We aim to synthesize (1) different operationalization of concepts in existing ISBV research; (2) IS determinants, consequences, and the relations among the variables; (3) the role of contextual factors; and (4) the adopted theoretical views.