An Evaluation Perspective on Environmental Management Information Systems Software Selection using a Principle Agency Framework
Date
2012-04-27
Author
Advisor
Gallagher, Prof. Deborah
Repository Usage Stats
304
views
views
488
downloads
downloads
Abstract
As organizations thrive to become more sustainable there has been a significant increase
in the use of Environmental Management Systems (EMS), specifically adhering to International
Organization for Standardization (ISO), 14001 certification. In response to the increase
in attention to EMS there has been a plethora of software vendors environmental information
system solutions. Due to the contemporary nature of EMS and the voluntary nature
of adherence to ISO 14001, corporations do not have the internal bench-strength to
evaluate Environmental Management Information Systems (EMISs) and rely heavily on
technology consultants for domain expertise and guidance. This presents a typical
‘Principle Agency’ relationship; in addition, to further complicate issues, there
is not a set of industry standard evaluation criteria for EMS. In general, given
the historical failure rate of systems implementation it is important to assess EMIS
based on the right evaluation criteria and understand the influence and bias of EMS
consultants. Successful selection, implementation and maintenance of EMIS are of
paramount importance to help organizations reduce their green house gas emissions.
Type
Master's projectPermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/5334Citation
Mann, Tejinder (2012). An Evaluation Perspective on Environmental Management Information Systems Software
Selection using a Principle Agency Framework. Master's project, Duke University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/5334.Collections
More Info
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: Nicholas School of the Environment
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info