An Exploratory study of a comparison between the UK and Czech Republic of the financial models used in the appraisal of ICT and non-ICT capital projects

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHynek, Josef
dc.contributor.authorJaneček, Václav
dc.contributor.authorLefley, Frank
dc.contributor.otherEkonomická fakultacs
dc.date.accessioned2015-06-04
dc.date.available2015-06-04
dc.date.defense2015-06-04
dc.description.abstractOur research is aimed at identifying the current practices in respect of the financial appraisal of information communication technology and non-ICT projects. We look specifically at the UK – a well-established market economy – and the Czech Republic – an emerging market economy. Our research is based on a unique survey, which simultaneously examines the financial appraisal models used in the two types of projects, and addresses these issues from two diverse market economies. An important fi nding is that any differences in the fi nancial models used relate to the two countries rather than between ICT or non-ICT projects. While both countries make extensive use of the payback model, they fully defend the view that this model infl uences a short-term mentality.The Czech Republic, more so than the UK, also support the view that the payback is unsuitable for appraising information communication technology projects, yet they still use it to appraise such projects. The Czech Republic places less importance on the discounted cashfl ow models than the UK, with the Czech Republic preferring the ‘net present value’ to the ‘internal rate of return’. The UK, by using an ‘opportunity cost of capital’ approach in the determination of the ‘discount rate’, may be making it harder to achieve a positive net present value than the Czech Republic, who adopt an approach which is nearer to the true cost of capital. This exploratory study will aid both practitioners and academics in a greater understanding of the appraisal of capital assets and focus future research in a positive way.en
dc.formattext
dc.format.extent89-102 s.cs
dc.identifier.doi10.15240/tul/001/2015-2-007
dc.identifier.eissn2336-5604
dc.identifier.issn12123609
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.tul.cz/handle/15240/9108
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTechnická Univerzita v Libercics
dc.publisherTechnical university of Liberec, Czech Republicen
dc.publisher.abbreviationTUL
dc.relation.isbasedonWARD, J., TAYLOR, P., BOND, P. Evaluation and realisation of IS/IT benefi ts: an empirical study of current practices. European Journal of Information Systems. 1996, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, pp. 214-225. ISSN 0960-085X. DOI:10.1057/ ejis.1996.3.
dc.relation.isbasedonSUNDEM, G.L. Evaluating simplifi ed capital budgeting models using a time-state preference matric. Accounting Review. 1974, Vol. 49, Iss. 2, pp. 306-320. ISSN 0001-4826.
dc.relation.isbasedonSOLOMON, E. The arithmetic of capitalbudgeting decisions. Journal of Business. 1956, Vol. 29, Iss. 2, pp. 124-129. ISSN 0021-9398.
dc.relation.isbasedonSICK, G.A. A certainty-equivalent approach to capital budgeting. Financial Management. 1986, Vol. 15, Iss. 4, pp. 23-32. ISSN 1755-053X.
dc.relation.isbasedonSANDAHL, C., SJÖGREN, S. Capital budgeting methods among Sweden’s largest groups of companies. The state of the art and a comparison with earlier studies. International Journal of Production Economics. 2003, Vol. 84, Iss. 1, pp. 51-69. ISSN 0925-5273. DOI:10.1016/ S0925-5273(02)00379-1.
dc.relation.isbasedonSAMUELS, J.M., WILKES, F.M., BRAYSHAW, R.E. Management of Company Finance. 5th ed. London: Chapman and Hall, 1990. ISBN 0412374706.
dc.relation.isbasedonROBBICHEK, A.A., MYERS, S.C. Conceptual problems in the use of risk-adjusted discount rates. Journal of Finance. 1966, Vol. 21, Iss. 4, pp. 727-730. ISSN 1540-6261.
dc.relation.isbasedonREUL, R.I. Profi tability index for investments. Harvard Business Review. 1957, Vol. 35, Iss. 4, pp. 116-132. ISSN 0017-8012.
dc.relation.isbasedonRAPPAPORT, A. The discounted payback period. Management Services. 1965, Iss. July/ August, pp. 30-36. ISSN 0025-1917.
dc.relation.isbasedonPIKE, R.H. An empirical study of the adoption of sophisticated capital budgeting practices and decision-making effectiveness. Accounting and Business Research. 1988, Vol. 18, Iss. 72, pp. 341-351. ISSN 0001-4788.
dc.relation.isbasedonPIKE, R.H. Disenchantment with DCF promotes IRR. Certifi ed Accountant. 1985, Iss. July, pp.14-17. ISSN 0306-2406.
dc.relation.isbasedonPEARSON, G. The strategic discount – protecting new business projects against DCF. Long Range Planning. 1986, Vol. 19, Iss. 1, pp. 18-24. ISSN 0024-6301.
dc.relation.isbasedonNARAYANAN, M.P. Observability and the payback criterion. Journal of Business. 1985, Vol. 58, Iss. 3, pp. 309-323. ISSN 0021-9398.
dc.relation.isbasedonMERRETT, A.J., SYKES, A. Capital Budgeting and Company Finance. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1973. ISBN 0582450586.
dc.relation.isbasedonMAO, J.C.T. The internal rate of return as a ranking criteria. Engineering Economist. 1966, Vol. 11, Iss. 4, pp. 1-13. ISSN 0013-791X.
dc.relation.isbasedonLUMBY, S. Investment Appraisal and Financial Decisions. London: Chapman and Hall, 1994. ISBN 1861522576.
dc.relation.isbasedonLOHMANN, J.R., BAKSH, S.N. The IRR, NPV and payback period and their relative performance in common capital budgeting decision procedures for dealing with risk. Engineering Economist. 1993, Vol. 39, Iss. 1, pp. 17-47. ISSN 0013-791X.
dc.relation.isbasedonLIN, S.A.Y. The modifi ed internal rate of return and investment criterion. Engineering Economist. 1976, Vol. 21, Iss. 4, pp. 237-247. ISSN 0013-791X.
dc.relation.isbasedonLEVY, H., SARNAT, M. Capital Investment & Financial Decisions. 5th ed. New York: Prentice Hall, 1994. ISBN 978-0-131-15882-5.
dc.relation.isbasedonLEFLEY, F., SARKIS, J. The decline of the accounting rate of return (ARR). Management Accounting. 1997, Vol. 75, Iss. 6, pp. 50-52. ISSN 0025-1690.
dc.relation.isbasedonLEFLEY, F. A new dimension: calculating the modifi ed internal rate of return from the net present value. International Accountant. 2005- 05-27, pp. 24–25. ISSN 1465-5144.
dc.relation.isbasedonLEFLEY, F. The sometimes overlooked discounted payback method. Management Accounting. 1997, Vol. 75, Iss. 10, pp. 36. ISSN 0025-1690.
dc.relation.isbasedonLEFLEY, F. The payback method of investment appraisal: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Production Economics. 1996, Vol. 44, Iss. 3, pp. 207-224. ISSN 0925-5273.
dc.relation.isbasedonKELLY, G., TIPPETT, M. Economic and accounting rates of return: a statistical model. Accounting and Business Research. 1991, Vol. 21, Iss. 84, pp. 321-329. ISSN 0001-4788.
dc.relation.isbasedonKEE, R., BUBLITZ, B. The role of payback in the investment process. Accounting and Business Research. 1988, Vol. 18, Iss. 70, pp. 149-155. ISSN 0001-4788.
dc.relation.isbasedonICMA. The Profi table Use of Capital in Industry. London: ICMA, 1965.
dc.relation.isbasedonHENDRICKS, J.A. Capital Budgeting Decisions: NPV or IRR? Cost and Management. 1980, Iss. March/April, pp. 16-20. ISSN 0010- 9592.
dc.relation.isbasedonHARRIS, E.P., EMMANUEL, C.R., KOMAKECH, S. Managerial Judgement and Strategic Investment Decisions – A Cross- Sectional Survey. Oxford: CIMA/Elsevier, 2009. ISBN 18561782310.
dc.relation.isbasedonHÁJEK, L., HYNEK, J., JANEČEK, V., LEFLEY, F., WHARTON, F. Investment appraisal of advanced manufacturing technology in the Czech Republic, USA and United Kingdom. Prague Economic Papers. 2001, Vol. 10, Iss. 2, pp. 174-188. ISSN 1210-0455.
dc.relation.isbasedonGUNASEKARAN, A., LOVE, P.E.D., RAHIMI, F., MlELE, R. A model for investment justifi cation in information technology projects. International Journal of Information Management. 2001, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 349- 364. ISSN 1873-4707. DOI:10.1016/S0268- 4012(01)00024-X.
dc.relation.isbasedonGREGORY, A., RUTTERFORD, J., ZAMAN, M. The Cost of Capital in the UK: A Comparison of the Perceptions of Industry and the City. London: CIMA, 1999. ISBN 1859713351.
dc.relation.isbasedonGLAUTIER, M.W.E., UNDERWOOD, B. Accounting Theory and Practice. London: Pitman Publishing, 1991. ISBN 0-273-03311-5.
dc.relation.isbasedonGALLO, P., PECCATI, L. The appraisal of industrial investments: A new method and a case study. International Journal of Production Economics. 1993, Vol. 30-31, Iss. July, pp. 465- 476. ISSN 0925-5273. DOI:10.1016/0925- 5273(93)90113-Y.
dc.relation.isbasedonFRANKFORT-NACHMIAS, C., NACHMIAS, D. Research Methods in the Social Sciences. 5th ed. London: Arnold, 1996. ISBN 0340662263.
dc.relation.isbasedonFOTR, J., PLEVNÝ, M., ŠVECOVÁ, L., VACÍK, E. Multi-criteria Project Portfolio Optimization under Risk and Specifi c Limitation. E+M Ekonomie a Management. 2013, Vol. 16, Iss. 4, pp. 71-88. ISSN 1212-3609.
dc.relation.isbasedonFISHER, E.L., NOF, S. Knowledge-based economic analysis of manufacturing systems. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 1987, Vol. 6, Iss. 2, pp. 137-150. ISSN 1878-6642.
dc.relation.isbasedonDRURY, C., BRAUND, S., OSBORNE, P., TAYLES, M. A Survey of Management Accounting Practices in UK Manufacturing Companies. London: Chartered Association of Certifi ed Accountants. 1993. ISBN 0900094915.
dc.relation.isbasedonDEAN, J. Measuring the productivity of capital. Harvard Business Review. 1954, Vol. 32, Iss. 1, pp. 120-130. ISSN 0017-8012.
dc.relation.isbasedonCOULTHURST, N.J. Accounting for infl ation in capital investment: the state of the art and science. Accounting and Business Research. 1986, Vol. 17, Iss. 65, pp. 33-42. ISSN 0001-4788.
dc.relation.isbasedonCOTTON, W.D.J., SCHINSKI, M. Justifying capital expenditures in new technology: A survey. Engineering Economist. 1999, Vol. 44, Iss. 4, pp. 362-376. ISSN 0013-791X. DOI:10.1080/00137919908967529 .
dc.relation.isbasedonBREALEY, R.A., MYERS, S.C. Teorie a praxe firemních financí. Praha: Victoria Publishing, 1992. ISBN 80-85605-24-4.
dc.relation.isbasedonBERRY, J. Canadian public relations students’ interest in government communication – An exploratory study. Management Research Review. 2013, Vol. 36, Iss. 5, pp. 528-544. ISSN 2040-8269. DOI:http://dx.doi. org/10.1108/01409171311327262.
dc.relation.isbasedonBEAVES, R.G. Net present value and rate of return: implicit and explicit reinvestment assumptions. Engineering Economist. 1988, Vol. 33, Iss. 4, pp. 275-302. ISSN 0013-791X.
dc.relation.isbasedonBALLANTINE, J., STRAY, S. Information systems and other capital investments: evaluation practices compared. Logistics Information Management. 1999, Vol. 12, Iss. 1-2, pp. 78-93. ISSN 0957-6053. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/09576059910256286.
dc.relation.isbasedonBALLANTINE, J., STRAY, S. Financial appraisal and the IS/IT investment decision 100 2015, XVIII, 2 Ekonomika a management making process. Journal of Information Technology. 1998, Vol. 13, Iss.1, pp. 3-14. ISSN 0268-3962. DOI:10.1080/026839698344927.
dc.relation.isbasedonBALDWIN, R.H. How to assess investment proposals. Harvard Business Review. 1959, Vol. 37, Iss. 3, pp. 98-104. ISSN 0017-8012.
dc.relation.ispartofEkonomie a Managementcs
dc.relation.ispartofEconomics and Managementen
dc.relation.isrefereedtrue
dc.rightsCC BY-NC
dc.subjectmarket exiten
dc.subjectmanagement’s decisionsen
dc.subjectnon-nested microeconomic modelsen
dc.subjectSloveniaen
dc.subject.classificationDCF
dc.subject.classificationD22
dc.subject.classificationD24
dc.subject.classificationD81
dc.titleAn Exploratory study of a comparison between the UK and Czech Republic of the financial models used in the appraisal of ICT and non-ICT capital projectsen
dc.typeArticleen
local.accessopen
local.citation.epage102
local.citation.spage89
local.facultyFaculty of Economics
local.fulltextyes
local.relation.abbreviationE&Men
local.relation.abbreviationE+Mcs
local.relation.issue2
local.relation.volume18
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
EM_2_2015_7.pdf
Size:
826.45 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Číslo 2