By Nancy Moffitt
Wharton's Lorin Hitt studies the impact and implications of the Computer Age
Is computer technology a giant black hole that drains
corporate resources, demands ever-rising levels
of expensive support staff and returns only negligible
productivity increases?
Is the Internet driving down corporate profits as
companies are forced to drop prices in order to compete in an arena
where consumers can easily search for the lowest price?
Do e-commerce and the Internet mean an end to
traditional competitive issues?
It's questions like these that have intrigued Lorin
Hitt since the days he put himself through college at
Brown University writing computer test code and
software. Hitt, assistant professor of operations and
management, studies the evolution of e-commerce, its
influence on corporate performance, and the effect of
information technology on productivity, among other
trends. And in the largely uncharted waters of the
IT revolution, it is information many observers believe
can’t be disseminated fast enough.
As corporate America’s investment in and dependence
on computer technology has mushroomed in
recent years, some industry experts have called its value
into question. A simple but provocative study by
Morgan Stanley’s chief economist Steven Roach first
drew attention to this so-called “productivity paradox”
in 1987, arguing that the tremendous increase in computerization
has in fact had little effect on economic
performance. Hitt, somewhat skeptical of such arguments,
began searching for answers in the early 1990s.
After earning his bachelor’s and master’s degrees
from Brown, Hitt worked briefly as an engineer, then
spent three years as a strategy consultant for Oliver,
Wyman & Co. where he focused on quantitative computer-
based data analysis for the financial services industry.
After growing weary of a near-constant travel
schedule, he decided to pursue his PhD at MIT’s
Sloan School of Management, where his earliest research
on IT and productivity began. Hitt joined
Wharton in 1996.
What has his research on computers and productivity
revealed? Working with Erik Brynjolfsson of
MIT, Hitt examined data from 599 firms across a
broad spectrum of industries, calculating productivity
levels and growth from 1987 to 1994. Hitt and
Brynjolfsson estimated the relationship between
changes in productivity and changes in computerization
and concluded that companies that invested
heavily in computers were in fact more productive
than their industry competitors. Further, these returns
were two to five times greater over a seven year,
versus one year, period. “Our results suggested that
computers increase productivity both directly and by
making new types of work structures possible over
time,” Hitt says.
But despite this overall positive trend, Hitt’s research
found huge variations across organizations:
some spend aggressively on IT with great success,
while others realize little benefit. What explains these
differences? Hitt found that companies that combine
decentralized decision-making processes, training, investment
in employees, and customer-focused strategies
are more productive technology users. Such
companies, he notes, have many of the characteristics
of “new organizations,” a buzzword coined by management
guru Peter Drucker to describe a less hierarchical
corporate structure.
The bottom line: firms that couple IT investments
with work practices that leverage the skills and education
of their employees are about 5 percent more
productive than those that don’t. “Over the next decade,
these decentralized and empowered organizations
may begin to pull away from their industrial
age counterparts … as they are better able to
exploit increasingly inexpensive information technology,”
Hitt says. “These results suggest that it is
becoming more important to organize in ways that
leverage the value of IT.” He warns, however, that companies should never assume that productivity
gains are but a new computer system away. In fact,
simply plugging in new technologies without simultaneous
organizational change can actually have
the opposite effect.
|