Abstract
This paper investigates how firms can use synergy to optimize their information technology portfolios. We begin by developing a framework for the portfolio selection by identifying three types of information technology synergy. Next, we use this framework to examine the impact of different types of synergy on the portfolio selection. Analytical models are developed to illustrate the roles of different types of the synergy, and analytical and computational methods are used to investigate the impact of the synergy. The analysis in this paper provides conditions in which synergy enhancement results in a more efficient or a less efficient portfolio. Our study establishes that firms with higher risk thresholds are more likely to obtain more efficient information technology portfolios by enhancing synergy, whereas firms with lower risk thresholds are less likely to benefit from enhancing synergy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Markowitz HM (1994) The general mean-variance portfolio selection problem. Philos T Roy Soc A 347(1684):543–549
Lucas HC (2005) Information technology: strategic decision making for managers. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
Weill P, Vitale M (2002) What it infrastructure capabilities are needed to implement e-business models? Mis Q 1(1):17–34
Jeffery M, Leliveld L (2004) Best practices in it portfolio management. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 45(3):41–49
Nevo S, Wade MR (2010) The formation and value of it-enabled resources: antecedents and consequences of synergistic relationships. Mis Q 34(1):163–183
Tanriverdi H, Ruefli TW (2004) The role of information technology in risk/return relations of firms. J Assoc Inf Syst 5(11/12):421–447
Lucas HCJ (1999) Information technology and the productivity paradox: assessing the value of investing in it. Oxford University Press Inc, New York
Benaroch M, Jeffery M, Kauffman RJ, Shah S (2007) Option-based risk management: a field study of sequential information technology investment decisions. J Manage Inf Syst 24(2):103–140
Benaroch M, Kauffman R (1999) A case for using real options pricing analysis to evaluate information technology project investments. Inf Syst Res 10(1):70–86
Benaroch M, Kauffman RJ (2000) Justifying electronic banking network expansion using real options analysis. Mis Q 24(2):197–225
Benaroch M, Lichtenstein Y, Robinson K (2006) Real options in information technology risk management: an empirical validation of risk-option relationships. Mis Q 30(4):827–864
Benaroch M, Shah S, Jeffery M (2006) On the valuation of multistage information technology investments embedding nested real options. J Manage Inf Syst 23(1):239–261
Bardhan I, Bagchi S, Sougstad R (2004) Prioritizing a portfolio of information technology investment projects. J Manage Inf Syst 21(2):33–60
Myers SC (1984) Finance theory and financial strategy. Interfaces 14(1):126–137
Klein RW, Bawa VS (1976) The effect of estimation risk on optimal portfolio choice. J Financ Econ 3(3):215–231
Tu J, Zhou G (2011) Markowitz meets talmud: a combination of sophisticated and naive diversification strategies. J Financ Econ 99(1):204–215
Markowitz H (1991) Portfolio selection: efficient diversification of investments, 2nd edn. B. Blackwell, Cambridge
Markowitz H (1987) Mean-variance analysis in portfolio choice and capital markets. B. Blackwell, Oxford, OX; New York, NY
Bradley M, Desai A, Kim EH (1983) The rationale behind interfirm tender offers: information or synergy. J Financ Econ 11(1–4):183–206
Eckbo BE (1983) Horizontal mergers, collusion, and stockholder wealth. J Financ Econ 11(1–4):241–273
Kim SM, Mahoney JT (2006) Mutual commitment to support exchange: relation-specific it system as a substitute for managerial hierarchy. Strateg Manag J 27(5):401–423. doi:10.1002/smj.527
Teece DJ (1980) Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise. J Econ Behav Organ 1(3):223–247
Willig RD (1979) Multiproduct technology and market structure. Am Econ Rev 69(2):346–351
Amihud Y, Lev B (1981) Risk reduction as a managerial motive for conglomerate mergers. Bell J Econ 12(2):605–617
Christensen HK, Montgomery CA (1981) Corporate economic-performance–diversification strategy versus market-structure. Strateg Manag J 2(4):327–343
Farjoun M (1998) The independent and joint effects of the skill and physical bases of relatedness in diversification. Strateg Manag J 19(7):611–630
Miller DJ (2004) Firms technological resources and the performance effects of diversification: a longitudinal study. Strateg Manag J 25(11):1097–1119. doi:10.1002/smj.411
Palepu K (1985) Diversification strategy, profit performance and the entropy measure. Strateg Manag J 6(3):239–255
Rumelt RP (1982) Diversification strategy and profitability. Strateg Manag J 3(4):359–369
Sirower ML (1997) The synergy trap. The Free Press, New York
Tanriverdi H, Venkatraman N (2005) Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms. Strateg Manag J 26(2):97–119. doi:10.1002/smj.435
Panzar JC, Willig RD (1981) Economies of scope. Am Econ Rev 71(2):268–272
Hill CWL, Hoskisson RE (1987) Strategy and structure in the multiproduct firm. Acad Manag Rev 12(2):331–341
Robins J, Wiersema MF (1995) A resource-based approach to the multibusiness firm–empirical-analysis of portfolio interrelationships and corporate financial performance. Strateg Manag J 16(4):277–299
Tanriverdi H (2006) Performance effects of information technology synergies in multibusiness firms. Mis Q 30(1):57–77
Milgrom P, Roberts J (1995) Complementarities and fit–strategy, structure, and organizational-change in manufacturing. J Account Econ 19(2–3):179–208
McFarlan FW (1981) Portfolio approach to information-systems. Harv Bus Rev 59(5):142–150
Maizlish B, Handler R (2005) It portfolio management: unlocking the business value of technology. Wiley, New York
Dickinson MW, Thornton AC, Graves S (2001) Technology portfolio management: optimizing interdependent projects over multiple time periods. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 48(4):518–527
Lee JW, Kim SH (2000) Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection. Comput Oper Res 27(4):367–382
Santhanam R, Kyparisis J (1995) A multiple criteria decision-model for information-system project selection. Comput Oper Res 22(8):807–818
Agarwal R, Ferratt TW (2002) Enduring practices for managing it professionals. Commun ACM 45(9):73–79
Feeny DF, Willcocks LP (1998) Core is capabilities for exploiting information technology. Sloan Manag Rev 39(3):9–21
Davis R, Thomas LG (1993) Direct estimation of synergy: a new approach to the diversity performance debate. Manage Sci 39(11):1134–1346
Zhu K (2004) The complementarity of information technology infrastructure and e-commerce capability: a resource-based assessment of their business value. J Manage Inf Syst 21(1):167–202
Kroll Y, Levy H, Markowitz HM (1984) Mean-variance versus direct utility maximization. J Financ 39(1):47–61
Liesiö J, Mild P, Salo A (2008) Robust portfolio modeling with incomplete cost information and project interdependencies. Eur J Oper Res 190(3):679–695
Nayyar PR (1993) Performance effects of information asymmetry and economies of scope in diversified service firms. Acad Manag J 36(1):28–57. doi:10.2307/256511
Armbrust M, Fox A, Griffith R, Joseph AD, Katz R, Konwinski A, Lee G, Patterson D, Rabkin A, Stoica I, Zaharia M (2010) A view of cloud computing. Commun ACM 53(4):50–58. doi:10.1145/1721654.1721672
Tanriverdi H (2005) Information technology relatedness, knowledge management capability, and performance of multibusiness firms. Mis Quart 29(2):311–334
Rahman HA, Martí JR, Srivastava KD (2011) Quantitative estimates of critical infrastructures’ interdependencies on the communication and information technology infrastructure. Int J Crit Infrastruct 7(3):220–242
Hugos MH, Hulitzky D (2011) Business in the cloud: what every business needs to know about cloud computing. Wiley, New Jersey
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Proof for Proposition 1A
The expected return from a portfolio (1 − x, x) is given by
where \( \beta = \beta_{12} . \)
One way of obtaining the efficient frontier is to require \( RT(1 - x,x) = R_{0} , \) where R 0 is a particular expected return desired and then obtain the variance. For a two-fund problem, \( RT(1 - x,x) = R_{0} \) is sufficient to determine the portfolio (1 − \( x^{*} \),\( x^{*} \)).
From \( RT(1 - x,x) = R_{0} , \) we have
We assume that β is a small number; in this case, x has only one solution within the interval [0,1]:
Consider \(R_0 = r_1+\varepsilon \) for an arbitrarily small positive number \( \varepsilon > 0. \) Then
Then the variance v is
Now we obtain competitive statistics for the variance with respect to β:
Thus, when \( \frac{{r_{1} /\sigma_{1} }}{{r_{2} /\sigma_{2} }} > \rho ,\frac{\partial v}{\partial \beta } < 0. \) □
Proof for Proposition 1B
The expected return from a portfolio (1 − x, x) is given by
where \( \beta = \beta_{12} . \)
One way of obtaining the efficient frontier is to require \( RT(1 - x,x) = R_{0} , \) where R 0 is a particular expected return desired and then obtain the variance. For a two-fund problem, \( RT(1 - x,x) = R_{0} \) is sufficient to determine the portfolio (1 − \( x^{*} \), \( x^{*} \))
From \( RT(1 - x,x) = R_{0} \), we have
We assume that β is a small number; in this case, x has only one solution within the interval [0,1]:
Consider \( R_{0} = r_{1} + \varepsilon \) for an arbitrarily small positive number \( \varepsilon > 0. \) Then \( x^{*} = \frac{\varepsilon }{{r_{2} - r_{1} (1 - \beta_{12} )}} + O(\varepsilon^{2} ). \)
Then the variance v is
Now we obtain competitive statistics for the variance with respect to β:
Thus, when \( \frac{{r_{1} /\sigma_{1} }}{{r_{2} /\sigma_{2} }} < \frac{1}{\rho },\frac{\partial v}{\partial \delta } > 0. \) □
Proof for Proposition 2A
We assume symmetric super-additive synergy, where \( \beta^{\prime } = \beta_{12}^{\prime } = \beta_{21}^{\prime } . \) The expected return from a portfolio (1 − x, x) is given by
One way of obtaining the efficient frontier is to require \( RT(1 - x,x) = R_{0} , \) where R 0 is a particular expected return desired and then obtain the variance. For a two-fund problem, \( RT(1 - x,x) = R_{0} \) is sufficient to determine the portfolio (1 − \( x^{*}, x^{*}\)).
From \( RT(1 - x,x) = R_{0} , \) we have
We assume that \( \beta^{\prime } \) is a small number \( \left( {\beta^{\prime } < \frac{{r_{2} - r_{1} }}{{r_{2} + r_{1} }}} \right); \) in this case, x has only one solution within the interval [0,1]:
Consider \( R_{0} = r_{2} - \varepsilon , \) where r is an arbitrarily small positive number \( \varepsilon > 0. \) Then
Then the variance v is
Now we obtain the competitive statistics for the variance with respect to \( \beta^{\prime}: \)
Thus, when \( \frac{{r_{1} /\sigma_{1} }}{{r_{2} /\sigma_{2} }} > \rho ,\frac{\partial v}{{\partial \beta^{\prime } }} < 0. \) □
Proof for Proposition 2B
We assume symmetric super-additive synergy, where \( \beta^{\prime } = \beta_{12}^{\prime } = \beta_{21}^{\prime } . \) The expected return from a portfolio (1 − x, x) is given by
One way of obtaining the efficient frontier is to require \( RT(1 - x,x) = R_{0} , \) where R 0 is a particular expected return desired and then obtain the variance. For a two-fund problem, \( RT(1 - x,x) = R_{0} \) is sufficient to determine the portfolio (1 − \( x^{*} \), \( x^{*} \)).
From \( RT(1 - x,x) = R_{0} \), we have
We assume that β is a small number (\( \delta \le \frac{{r_{2} - r_{1} }}{{r_{1} + r_{2} }} \)); in this case, x has only one solution within the interval [0,1]:
Consider \( R_{0} = r_{1} + \varepsilon , \) where r is an arbitrarily small positive number \( \varepsilon > 0. \) Then
Then the variance v is
Now we obtain competitive statistics for the variance with respect to β:
Thus, when \( \frac{{r_{1} /\sigma_{1} }}{{r_{2} /\sigma_{2} }} < \frac{1}{\rho },\frac{\partial v}{{\partial \beta^{\prime } }} > 0. \) □
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cho, W., Shaw, M.J. & Kwon, H.D. The effect of synergy enhancement on information technology portfolio selection. Inf Technol Manag 14, 125–142 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-012-0150-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-012-0150-9