A. The IT Value Engineering Methodology (ITVEM) Model
Furthermore, the systems engineering processes resulted in the ITVEM model that can be comprehended in Fig. 6. This model is sought to answer the problem above, which can improve the level of competitive advantage in IT-based firms with lower IT capital. Accordingly, this model should meet three model criteria (Ramos, Ferreira, & Barcel´o, 2012), which consist of the model reflects an original target, not all target properties are mapped into the model, and the model should be meaningful that represent the actual target.
The input of the system is the desired output, in this case: the desired revenue (y*t) at period t. This input (y*t) will be afterward divided into four subsystems, namely firm performance (FP), firm core competence (FCC), firm capability (FC), and IT resource (ITR). Each subsystem owns indicators, linking each subsystem to another. For example, FP has indicators profitability, effectiveness, and total-amount value created, and so do the other subsystems. Rationally, those indicators can relate each other in cause-and-effect relationships. In other words, each subsystem has related one to another to form one system. …show more content…
Revenue Invested Capital FP FCC FC ITR Total (billion Rp) %
2004 33,948 34,744 6,414 2,237 5,596 8,204 22,450 12,294 35.4
2005 41,807 37,025 8,311 2,899 7,251 10,630 29,091 7,934 21.4
2006 51,294 43,681 10,811 3,771 9,432 13,828 37,843 5,838 13.4
2007 59,440 49,798 12,557 4,380 10,956 16,062 43,955 5,843 11.7
2008 60,689 54,655 11,588 4,042 10,110 14,822 40,562 14,093 25.8
2009 64,597 61,229 13,050 4,552 11,386 16,692 45,680 15,549 25.4
2010 68,629 66,434 14,095 4,917 12,297 18,028 49,337 17,097 25.7
2011 71,253 65,381 14,496 5,057 12,647 18,542 50,742 14,639 22.4
2012 77,143 70,816 16,677 5,818 14,550 21,331 58,375 12,441 17.6
2013 82,967 80,798 18,226 6,358 15,901 23,313 63,798 17,000 21.0
2014 89,696 91,259 20,259 7,067 17,675 25,913 70,914 20,345
Furthermore, the systems engineering processes resulted in the ITVEM model that can be comprehended in Fig. 6. This model is sought to answer the problem above, which can improve the level of competitive advantage in IT-based firms with lower IT capital. Accordingly, this model should meet three model criteria (Ramos, Ferreira, & Barcel´o, 2012), which consist of the model reflects an original target, not all target properties are mapped into the model, and the model should be meaningful that represent the actual target.
The input of the system is the desired output, in this case: the desired revenue (y*t) at period t. This input (y*t) will be afterward divided into four subsystems, namely firm performance (FP), firm core competence (FCC), firm capability (FC), and IT resource (ITR). Each subsystem owns indicators, linking each subsystem to another. For example, FP has indicators profitability, effectiveness, and total-amount value created, and so do the other subsystems. Rationally, those indicators can relate each other in cause-and-effect relationships. In other words, each subsystem has related one to another to form one system. …show more content…
Revenue Invested Capital FP FCC FC ITR Total (billion Rp) %
2004 33,948 34,744 6,414 2,237 5,596 8,204 22,450 12,294 35.4
2005 41,807 37,025 8,311 2,899 7,251 10,630 29,091 7,934 21.4
2006 51,294 43,681 10,811 3,771 9,432 13,828 37,843 5,838 13.4
2007 59,440 49,798 12,557 4,380 10,956 16,062 43,955 5,843 11.7
2008 60,689 54,655 11,588 4,042 10,110 14,822 40,562 14,093 25.8
2009 64,597 61,229 13,050 4,552 11,386 16,692 45,680 15,549 25.4
2010 68,629 66,434 14,095 4,917 12,297 18,028 49,337 17,097 25.7
2011 71,253 65,381 14,496 5,057 12,647 18,542 50,742 14,639 22.4
2012 77,143 70,816 16,677 5,818 14,550 21,331 58,375 12,441 17.6
2013 82,967 80,798 18,226 6,358 15,901 23,313 63,798 17,000 21.0
2014 89,696 91,259 20,259 7,067 17,675 25,913 70,914 20,345