Determining the appropriate spend for information and systems: which evaluation technique balances expected benefits against expected costs to guide investment decisions?

Introduction / Context:
Organizations must justify investments in information systems by weighing total costs against anticipated benefits. A structured appraisal prevents overspending on low-value features and underinvesting in high-impact capabilities.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Costs include acquisition, implementation, training, support, and risk.
• Benefits include savings, revenue uplift, risk reduction, and compliance.
• We seek the method that considers both sides simultaneously.

Concept / Approach:
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) compares total expected costs with total expected benefits over a defined horizon, often computing net present value (NPV), payback period, or internal rate of return (IRR). CBA supports transparent decisions and portfolio prioritization across competing projects.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Capital budgeting practices require evaluating both costs and benefits; analyzing only one side yields biased decisions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Cost analysis: Looks only at costs; incomplete.
• Benefit analysis: Looks only at benefits; incomplete.
• Any of the above: Incorrect because the balanced method is specifically CBA.
• None: Wrong since CBA is the standard approach.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring intangible benefits, overestimating savings, or neglecting change-management costs; not discounting future cash flows appropriately.

Final Answer:
cost-benefit analysis