E-COMPLEMENTARITY - The Link to e-Business Value

Pedro Soto-Acosta, Angel L. Meroño-Cerdan



In recent years, much debate about the value of e-Business and information technology (IT) has been raised. Although the macro-level effect of IT and e-Business is undisputed, a question remains on whether e-Business can provide differential benefits to individual firms. In this sense, there is a need to further investigate whether and how e-Business creates value. To respond to this challenge, this paper develops a conceptual model, grounded in the resource-based theory, which analyzes the complementarity of Internet resources and e-Business capabilities as source of business value. This model posits three relationships: Internet resources and business value, internal e-Business capabilities and business value, and the complementarity of Internet resources and internal e-Business capabilities. To test hypotheses, a sample comprising 1,010 Spanish firms is employed. The results show that, as hypothesized, Internet resources per se are not positively related to business value and that internal e-Business capabilities have a positive significant impact on business value. In addition, the results offer support for the complementarity of Internet resources and internal e-Business capabilities as source of business value.


  1. Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2001) Value creation in e-Business. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 493-520.
  2. Barney, J.B. (1991) Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 7, 99-120
  3. Bharadwaj, A.S. (2000) A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24, 169-196.
  4. Bhatt, G.D. & Grover, V. (2005) Types of information technology capabilities and their role in competitive advantage: an empirical study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22, 253-277.
  5. Boudreau, M., Gefen, D. & Straub D. (2001) Validation in IS research: A state-of-the-art assessment. MIS Quarterly, 25, 1-24.
  6. Browne, M.W. & Cudeck, R. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Testing structural equation models, Bollen, K.A. & Long, J.S. (ed.), pp. 136-162. Beverly Hills: Sage.
  7. Brynjolfsson, E. & Kahin, B. (2002) Understanding the digital economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  8. Carr, N. (2003) IT doesn't matter. Harvard Business Review, May 2003, 41-49.
  9. Churchill, G. A. (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73.
  10. Clemons, E.K. & Row, M.C. (1991) Sustaining IT advantage: the role of structural differences. MIS Quarterly, 15, 275-292.
  11. Day, G.S. (1994) The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58, 37-52.
  12. Devaraj, S. & Kholi, R. (2003) Performance Impacts of Information Technology: Is Actual Usage the Missing Link?. Management Science, 49, 273-289.
  13. Feeny, D.F. and Willcocks, L.P. (1998) Core IS capabilities for exploiting information technology, Sloan Management Review, 39, 9-21.
  14. Fornell, C. & Larcker, F.D. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
  15. Frohlich, M.T. (2002) e-Integration in the supply chain: barriers and performance. Decision Sciences, 33, 537- 555.
  16. Frohlich, M.T. & Westbrook, R. (2002) Demand chain management in manufacturing and services: webbased integration, drivers and performance. Journal of Operations Management, 20, 729-745.
  17. Gefen, D., Straub, D.W. & Boudreau, M.C. (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the AIS, 4, 1-78.
  18. Grant, R.M. (1991) The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33, 114- 135.
  19. Greene, W. (2000) Econometric analysis, Upper Saddle River, 4th edition, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  20. Gunasekaran, A., Love, P.E.D., Rahimi, F. & Miele, R. (2001) A model for investment justification in information technology projects. International Journal of Information Management, 21, 349-364.
  21. Henderson, J. & Venkatraman, N. (1999) Strategic alignment: Leveraging transforming organizations”, IBM Systems Journal, 31, 472-484.
  22. Hoffman, T. (2002) Frugal IT investors top best-performer list. Computerworld, December 6.
  23. Kaplan, S. & Sawhney, M. (2000) E-hubs: the new B2B marketplaces. Harvard Business Review, 70, 71-79.
  24. Kettinger, W.J., Grover, V., Guha, S. and Segars, A.H. (1994) Strategic information systems revisited: a study insustainability and performance, MIS Quarterly, 18, 31-58.
  25. Mahoney, J.T, Pandian, J.R. (1992) The resource-based view of the firm within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 363- 380.
  26. Makadok, R. (2001) Toward a synthesis of the resourcebased and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 387-402.
  27. Mata, F.J., Fuerst, W.L. & Barney, J.B. (1995) Information technology and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based analysis. MIS Quarterly, 19, 487-505.
  28. Powell, T.C. & Dent-micallef, A. (1997) Information technology as competitive advantage: the role of human, business, and technology resources. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 375-405.
  29. Ravichandran, T. & Lertwongsatien, C. (2005) Effect of Information Systems Resources and Capabilities on Firm Performance: A Resource-Based Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21, 237- 276.
  30. Ray, G., Barney, J.B. & Muhanna, W.A. (2004) Capabilities, business processes and competitive advantage: choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 23-37.
  31. Ross, J.W., Beath, C.M. & Goodhue, D.L. (1996) Develop long-term competitiveness through IT assets. Sloan Management Review, 38, 31-42.
  32. Santhanam, R. & Hartono, E. (2003) Issues in linking information technology capability to firm performance. MIS Quarterly, 27, 125-153.
  33. Steinfield, C., Mahler, A. & Bauer, J. (1999) Electronic commerce and the local merchant: opportunities for synergy between physical and Web presence, Electronic Markets, 9, 51-57.
  34. Straub, D.W. (1989) Validating Instruments in MIS Research. MIS Quarterly, 13, 147-169.
  35. Tallon, P., Kraemer, K. & Gurbaxani, V. (2000) Executives' perceptions of the business value of information technology: a process-oriented approach. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16, 137- 165.
  36. Teece D.J, Pisano G. & Shuen A. (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509-533.
  37. Zhu, K. (2004) The complementarity of information technology infrastructure and e-commerce capability: a resource-based assessment of their business value. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21, 167- 202.
  38. Zhu, K. & Kraemer, K.L. (2005) Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-Business by organizations: cross-country evidence from the retail industry. Information Systems Research, 16, 61-84.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Soto-Acosta P. and L. Meroño-Cerdan A. (2008). E-COMPLEMENTARITY - The Link to e-Business Value . In Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Business - Volume 1: ICE-B, (ICETE 2008) ISBN 978-989-8111-58-6, pages 405-412. DOI: 10.5220/0001912504050412

in Bibtex Style

author={Pedro Soto-Acosta and Angel L. Meroño-Cerdan},
title={E-COMPLEMENTARITY - The Link to e-Business Value},
booktitle={Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Business - Volume 1: ICE-B, (ICETE 2008)},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Business - Volume 1: ICE-B, (ICETE 2008)
TI - E-COMPLEMENTARITY - The Link to e-Business Value
SN - 978-989-8111-58-6
AU - Soto-Acosta P.
AU - L. Meroño-Cerdan A.
PY - 2008
SP - 405
EP - 412
DO - 10.5220/0001912504050412