文档库 最新最全的文档下载
当前位置:文档库 › ISIT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia

ISIT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia

ISIT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia
ISIT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia

Chad Lin

School of Management Information Systems, Edith Cowan University

Joondalup Campus, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia

elin123au@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/ae6363365.html,.au

Graham Pervan

School of Information Systems, Curtin University of Technology

Perth, WA 6845, Australia

graham.pervan@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/ae6363365.html,.au

Donald McDermid

School of Computing and Information Science, Edith Cowan University

Joondalup Campus, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia

d.mcdermid@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/ae6363365.html,.au

Information systems/information technology represents substantial financial investment for many organizations. It has been shown that IS/IT investments in many organizations are huge and increasing rapidly every year and yet there is still a lack of understanding of the impact of the proper IS/IT investment evaluation processes and practices in these organizations. Thus, a survey and an in-depth case study of these practices and processes in two large governmental depart-ments with several major IS/IT projects was conducted. The key issues presented here in some detail are of interest to practitioners concerned with making decisions about project investment and realizing benefits, as well as researchers.

ACM Classification: H.0 (Information Systems – General)

1. INTRODUCTION

Information systems and information technology (IS/IT) is a large investment, with the average organization spending more than 4.2% of annual revenue on IT(G ormoloski, G rigg and Potter, 2001). In recent times, IS/IT managers have found it increasingly difficult to justify rising IS/IT expenditures (Counihan, Finnegan and Sammon, 2002) and are often under immense pressure to find a way to measure the contribution of their organizations’IS/IT investments to business performance, as well as to find reliable ways to ensure that the business benefits from IS/IT investments are actually realized (Ballantine, Galliers and Stray, 1999). This problem has become more complex as the nature of IS/IT investments and the benefits they can deliver have changed rapidly (Murphy and Simon, 2002). Moreover, the evaluation of these IS/IT investments requires multi-dimensional measures and is a complex tangle of financial, organizational, social, procedural and technical threads, many of which are currently either avoided or dealt with ineffectively (Cronk and Fitzgerald, 2002; Mirtidis and Serafeimidis, 1994). Given the complexity of the decisions and Copyright?2005, Australian Computer Society Inc. General permission to republish, but not for profit, all or part of this material is granted, provided that the JRPIT copyright notice is given and that reference is made to the publication, to its date of issue, and to the fact that reprinting privileges were granted by permission of the Australian Computer Society Inc.

Manuscript received: 9 August 2004

Communicating Editor: John Grundy

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia

the large expenditure involved, a better understanding of the basis and practice of IS/IT investment and evaluation in organizations is essential. The difficulties of evaluation and benefits realization processes are often the determining factors in the application of any formal methodology, and must be addressed if the processes are to be understood (Ballantine et al, 1999).

1.1. IS/IT Investment Evaluation

Gaining business value from, and justifying current investment in information technology are often identified as the most critical but difficult management issues in Australia, UK and the US (Pervan, 1997). Yet, while IT is seen as a competitive weapon there is still a lack of understanding of the impact of the proper IT investment evaluation and benefits realization process (A.T. Kearney, 1990). The difficulties in measuring benefits and costs are often the cause for uncertainty about the expected benefits of IT investment and hence are the major constraints to IS/IT investments (Farbey, Land and Targett, 1992; Willcocks and Lester, 1997). According to Baker and Berenblum (1996), investment in IS/IT is one of the major factors determining the success or failure of organizations.

It is important for practitioners to be aware that IS/IT spending as a share of corporate capital budgets is expected to increase (Sechrest, 2003). This trend reflects the recognition of IS/IT transformation from an overhead expense to a strategic enterprise asset with value and benefits that will be felt over a long time and across different business areas (Sechrest, 2003). Globally, Gartner has estimated that total spending on IT will rise to $2.53 trillion in 2006 (De Souza, Narisawa, Goodwin and Hazra, 2003). In Australia, the Federal Government invested heavily in IS/IT via key IT programs such as Networking the Nation (A$77 million), Building on IT Strengths (A$2.9 billion), and Backing Australia’s Ability (A$464 million) (ALIA, 2003). In addition, G artner forecasts that the IS/IT spending in Asia-Pacific region will reach US$289 billion in 2006 (De Souza et al, 2003).

So, globally IS/IT spending by organizations is huge and increasing. However, senior managers not only need to evaluate their IS/IT investments in terms of business measures and productivity gains but also want to find out where and in what ways value has arisen in many areas of the organization.

There are many methodologies that can help to evaluate IS/IT investments. According to Andresen, Baldwin, Betts, Carter, Hamilton, Stokes and Thorpe (2000), there are at least 30 currently available IS/IT investment evaluation methodologies (e.g. SESAME (Willcocks, 1992), Return on Management (ROM) (Strassman, 1990), Information Economics Approach (Parker, Benson and Trainor, 1988), Kobler Unit Framework (Hochstrasser, 1994), Multi-object, Multi-criteria Methods (Farbey et al, 1992), Value Analysis (Farbey et al, 1992), Options Theory (Dos Santos, 1994)). According to a study carried out by Tallon, Kraemer and G urbaxani (2000), organizations that make extensive use of IS/IT evaluation methodologies or measures had higher perceived payoffs from IS/IT. However, many of these methodologies are difficult and/or costly for organizations to implement and relatively little research has been carried out in Australia to establish how widespread these methodologies are and what perceived value they bring.

Despite the availability of many evaluation methodologies, and the increased spending on IT, many managers still do not understand the importance of the investment evaluation process (Willcocks and Lester, 1997). Consequently, the inability of many organizations to assimilate and apply IT both, inter- and intra-organizationally is resulting in missed opportunities and a lack of business value (van G rembergen and van Bruggen, 1998). The difficulties associated with determining the benefits and costs of IT are deemed to be the major constraint to investment justification (Enzweiler, 1996). The difficulty in evaluation centres on the fact that both benefits and

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia costs are difficult to quantify (Andresen et al, 2000). Therefore, evaluation is often ignored or carried out inefficiently or ineffectively because it is deemed an elusive and complex process (Serafeimidis and Smithson, 2003).

For example, Dhillon and Backhouse (1996) have observed that a considerable amount of IT projects realize no net benefits at all. Sohal and Ng (1998) found that in large Australian organizations the potential of IS/IT has not been utilized to meet the competitive challenges due to inadequate and inappropriate appraisals/evaluation of the proposed IS/IT investment projects. Moreover, they reported that 45% of the responding organizations did not evaluate whether IS/IT systems were still consistent with business objectives and 59% did not determine whether expected benefits were being achieved.

Renkema (1998) revealed that around 70% of all IT investments are claimed to give no adequate return on investment. Another survey by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2003) found that organizations achieved expected benefits only 25–75% of the time. Other studies have reported that 75% of large-scale systems do not function as intended or are not used (McGunagle, 1995). Failure to plan for and, derive the benefits from an IS/IT investment can have detrimental consequences on organizational performance.

Furthermore, the measurement of the business value of IS/IT investment has been the subject of considerable debate by many academics and practitioners and the term “productivity paradox”appears in studies that reveal static productivity and rising IS/IT expenditure (Brynjolfsson, 2003; Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2003; Grover, Teng, Segar and Fiedler, 1998). Despite large investments in IS/IT over many years, it has been difficult to determine where the IS/IT benefits have actually occurred, if indeed there have been any. Some studies have suggested that IS/IT investment produces negligible benefits (e.g. Strassmann, 1997), while others report a positive relationship between organizational performance and IS/IT spending (e.g. Sircar, Turnbow and Bordoloi, 2000).

Some researchers (Hitt and Brynjolfsson, 1996; Rai, Patnayakuni and Patnayakuni, 1997) take the position that the confusion over IS/IT benefits is due to mis-measurement of outputs and inputs (inappropriate units of analysis), the difficulty of establishing the overall value of IS/IT, the choice of inappropriate methods of evaluation, lags in learning and adjustments, redistribution (IS/IT may be beneficial to individual firms but unproductive from the standpoint of the industry), confusion about terms such as expenses and revenue, and dissipation of profits, mismanagement by developers and users of IS/IT, and lack of effective IS/IT evaluation and benefits realization management practices.

A recent article entitled “IT Doesn’t Matter” has argued that IT has become a commodity because it has become widespread, as happened to other innovations such as engines and telephones (Carr, 2003). According to Carr (2003), IT has become the infrastructural technologies and therefore, are often subject to over-investment and may cause economic troubles such as the “Internet Bubble”. This paper has generated a lot of debate amongst IT researchers. However, Carr’s (2003) views on IT are not shared by most IT practitioners and academics who argue that IT still has a lot to offer in the future and can deliver competitive advantages to organizations (Broadbent, McG ee, and McDonald, 2003; McFarlan and Nolan, 2003; Strassmann, 2003; Vandenbosch and Lyytinen, 2004).

More recent evidence suggests that many organizations simply got carried away with IS/IT and spent money unwisely in late 1990s (Farrell, 2003). According to a study by the McKinsey Global Institute, more successful organizations analyzed their economics carefully and spent on only those IS/IT applications that would deliver productivity gains, sequencing their investments carefully through a disciplined approach with innovative management practices (Farrell, 2003).

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia

In summary, problems associated with IS/IT investment evaluation (Ballantine et al, 1999; Counihan et al, 2002; Cronk and Fitzgerald, 1999) include:

?Organizations often fail to identify relevant risks, costs, and benefits;

?Traditional financially oriented evaluation methods (e.g. ROI, NPV) can be problematic in measuring IS/IT investments and quantifying relevant benefits and costs;

?Working with new technology introduces higher levels of risk, which affects timing, costs and delivery deadlines;

?Organizations have failed to devote appropriate evaluation time and effort to IS/IT as well as to deal with the extended investment time frame; and

?It is very difficult to evaluate intangibles and make relationships between IS/IT and profitability explicit.

1.2. IS/IT Benefits Realization

IS/IT is just one enabler of process change (Grover et al, 1998) and it only enables or creates a capability to derive benefits. The essence of benefits realization is “not to make good forecasts but to make them come true ... and IS/IT on its own does not deliver benefits.” (Ward, Taylor, and Bond, 1996). Benefits realization and identification are also seen as a function of strategic information systems planning (Changchit, Joshi and Lederer, 1998). Benefits may be considered the effect of the changes or the difference between the current and proposed way that work is done (Ward and Griffiths, 1996). Things only get better when people start doing things differently.

While IS/IT investment evaluation is important, it is insufficient in terms of ensuring that the benefits identified and expected by organizations are realized and delivered (Ward and Griffiths, 1996). Assessing the effective delivery of benefits from these services is very difficult (Ward et al, 1996). Irani (2002) argue that IT cost identification, measurement and control remains a significant challenge for businesses. To overcome this problem, IT projects should be evaluated in the context of accumulated costs and benefits from related initiatives, not solely judged on single initiatives (Galliers, Swan, Newell and Robertson, 1996). To determine if the desired IT benefits have been achieved in practice, it is necessary to undertake an ex-post evaluation of benefits (Ward et al, 1996). Moreover, if no measurable effects can be identified other than the implementation of the technology itself, then it can be assumed that no benefits have been realized (Ward et al, 1996).

A survey by Seddon, Graeser and Willcocks (2002) indicates identifying and measuring benefits as the most difficult issue in evaluating IS/IT. In addition, a survey by CIE (Norris, 1996) found that vague statement of benefits, leading to an uncertain allocation of responsibility for managing their delivery, as the number one cause for IS/IT project failure.

While the search for benefit identification can contribute to the perceived success of an IS/IT investment, organizations have often found it difficult to evaluate them and as a result tend to use arbitrary values for assessing benefits. Few organizations have a benefits realization approach and, while much attention is paid to justifying investments, little effort is extended to ensuring that the benefits are realized (Ward et al, 1996). Some of the reasons for failure to monitor whether the projected benefits of IS/IT were being realized by organizations include:

?It is difficult to assess benefits after a project has been implemented as benefits are often experienced later (Murphy and Simon, 2002);

?Many organizations have poor IS/IT adoption practices (Fink, 1998);

?It is not necessary as the project was implemented according to plan (Norris, 1996);

?Many organizations tend to give very little attention to the intangible benefits when investment

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia decisions are made (Irani, 2002); and

?It is too costly to undertake the proper post-implementation reviews on benefits (Norris, 1996).

Some of the methodologies for realizing IS/IT investment benefits published in the literature are:?Cranfield Process Model of Benefits Management (Ward et al, 1996);

?Active Benefit Realization (ABR) (Remenyi, Sherwood-Smith and White, 1997);

?DMR’s Benefit Realization Model (Truax, 1997);

?Model of Benefits Identification (Changchit et al, 1998); and

?The IT Benefits Measurement Process (Andresen et al, 2000).

2. THE STUDY

This study investigated the process of IS/IT investment evaluation and benefits realization in large Australian organizations. The key objective of this study was to establish current Australian industry and government practices and norms in managing IS/IT benefits and evaluation.

This research adopts a pluralist approach (Figure 1). According to Mingers (2001), the results will be richer and more reliable if different research methods are combined together. According to Gable (1994), the use of multiple methods (triangulation) such as survey and case study increases the reliability of the data and the process of gathering it as well as serving to corroborate the data gathered from other sources. Exclusive reliance on one method may bias or distort the researcher’s picture of the particular slice of reality the researcher is investigating (Burns, 1994). Although bias cannot be totally eradicated, it may be minimised by the use of such techniques as triangulation (Remenyi and Williams, 1996).

2.1. Survey

Firstly, a survey was conducted to establish current Australian industry and government practices and norms in managing IS/IT benefits and evaluation. This quantitative approach had the advantage of being able to focus on problem solving and pursue a step-by-step logical, organized, and rigorous method to identify problems, gather data, analyze the data, and draw valid conclusions (Sekaran, 1984).

The aim of this survey was to investigate IS/IT investment evaluation and benefits management processes and practices in large Australian organizations. Specifically, the survey sought to:

1.determine how benefits from IS/IT investments are identified, evaluated, structured, delivered

and realized by organizations;

2.determine what criteria and methodologies are used to evaluate as well as to realize appropriate

and adequate benefits by organizations from their IS/IT investments; and

3.determine how organizations in Australia attempt to review and improve their current evaluation

and benefits realization processes and practices from their IS/IT investments.

Figure 1: The research process

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia

Questionnaires were sent to the chief information officers (CIOs) of the largest 500 Australian organizations by gross revenue. The structure of the questionnaire addressed many aspects of IS/IT benefits management and included Likert scale, nominal scale and open-ended questions. It was derived from earlier studies (mainly Ward et al, 1996) and its validity and reliability derived from their acceptance in the literature. The survey elicited a total of 69 responses and a response rate of 13.8%. This response rate is comparable to other similar studies conducted in the last few years (e.g. 13% by Seddon et al(2002) in their study of IS/IT investment evaluation of medium to large European and US firms, 14% by Sriram, Stump, and Banerjee (1997) in their study of IT investments in purchasing by US companies, 15.61% by Sohal and Ng (1998) in their study of the role of impact of IT in Australian business, and 10.8% by Laitinen (2002) in his study of performance measures in small Finnish technology companies).

Chi-squared G oodness of Fit tests, on industry sector, net revenue, and total number of employees, showed that the sample respondents were statistically similar (at the 1% significance level) to the target population. Moreover, late returns were compared with other responses received earlier in order to check for non-response bias. No significant differences were detected between the two samples. Therefore, the respondents can be considered representative of the population as a whole.

2.2. Case Study

Following analysis of the survey, in-depth case studies were carried out to evaluate and compare results from the survey, clarify doubts, ensure that the responses were properly understood by repeating or rephrasing the questions, and generally gain in-depth understanding of the issues arising from the survey. In other words, the aim was to further investigate the practice of IS/IT investment evaluation by large Australian organizations. Semi-structured interviews, observation, and document review were used to gain a deeper understanding of issues surrounding the current government practices and norms in managing IS/IT benefits and investments evaluation.

The two cases were chosen in order to focus efforts on theoretically useful cases (following the theoretical, non-random sampling strategy by Eisenhardt (1989)). Case studies were carried out in two large organizations involved in major IS/IT projects in the public sector. The first case was an immature organization in terms of IT while the second case was a more mature organization. In total, 18 interviews were conducted with 11 key participants from two Western Australian state government departments and seven key participant from the four major external IS/IT project contractors. The questions asked during the interview were related to the two departments’five major IS/IT project contracts, the contractual relationship between the two organizations and the contractors, IS/IT investment evaluation methodology deployed, benefits realization process used, and the management of the contract transition period. All interviews were taped and the transcripts were sent to the interviewees for validation. In cases where there were differences in opinion between participants, either follow-up interviews were conducted or emails were sent to clarify their positions. In many instances, interesting differences of opinion persisted.

Other data collected included some of the actual contract documents, planning documents and minutes of relevant meetings. More than 250 pages of transcripts were coded and analyzed. Qualitative content analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994) was used to analyze the data from the case study. The analysis of the case study results was conducted in a cyclical manner and the results were checked by other experts in the field. Finally, the guidelines set out by Klein and Myers (1999) for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems were also followed in an attempt to improve the quality of this research.

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia 3. STUDY FINDINGS

Organizations in the manufacturing, public sector, financial services and mining sectors were the most heavily represented in the survey sample, though there was a reasonable coverage of all major industries. They were all large organizations in terms of net revenue and number of employees with about a half over A$500m and 2000 employees. Their structure was mostly hierarchical (78%), centralized (60%) and divisional/functional (81%). An overwhelming majority of the responding CIOs came from an IS/IT background originally (78.3%) and have an average of 0.9 reporting levels between the CIO and the CEO.

The background information for the survey respondents is shown in Table 1 below.

Range Percent Standard

(%)Deviation

(a)Industry sectors N/A

Manufacturing23.2

Public Sector13.0

Financial Services11.6

Mining11.6

Construction 5.8

Insurance 5.8

Retailing or Distribution 5.8

Other23.2

Total 100

(b)Net revenue (A$m) 1.03

<500 (=1)55.6

501–1000 (=2)19.0

1001–2000 (=3)15.9

2001 and above(=4)9.5

Total 100

(c)Total number of employees 1.02

<500(=1)24.6

501–2000(=2)34.8

2001–4000(=3)24.7

4001 and above(=4)15.9

Total 100

Table 1: Background information of the responding organizations

The 18 participants involved in the case study were from two West Australian state departments. The case 1 organization was the central contact point for the West Australian Government agencies and suppliers on contracting matters. Its headquarters were located just next to the central business district (CBD), with 14 regional offices throughout Western Australia. The case 2 organization was responsible for providing an important public service within Western Australia. It had more than 6200 employees, with a structure comprising 4 regions, 15 districts and 160 offices. The mission of the case 2 organization was to create a more secure Western Australia by providing quality services.

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia

Particularly in the case 1 organization, there was heavy involvement with outsourcing of projects on a contractual basis and so comments are made by participants often used the vocabulary of that environment (e.g. SLAs (service level agreements), RFTs (request for tenders) etc.). That said, in the case 2 organization external consultants had been employed to oversee the implementation of a benefits management approach and there was also some degree of outsourcing.

3.1 Perceptions of ‘benefits and value’

Several survey respondents mentioned explicitly that an IS/IT project was considered to be of benefits and value if either the proposed benefits were delivered or objectives were met. Many respondents indicated that they would make the conclusion through post-implementation reviews, meetings, or user feedback. In many cases the replies were the traditional project management value/benefits criteria of “working, on time, to budget.” However, neither reviews and user feed-back nor delivered functionality was any guarantee of benefits delivery. This is consistent with the findings from Ward et al(1996).

Benefits and value were perceived and interpreted differently by participants in the case study organizations. For the case 1 organization, two out of the three IS/IT projects were generally seen by the participants as having benefits and value although the degree of benefits and value seems to be measured in the context of benchmarks set for it. However, none of the three major IS/IT projects’documentation contained detailed descriptions about the benchmarks. Thus it was possible that the measurements that were utilized to evaluate performance and the benchmarks that were used to determine the benefits and value of the contracts could somehow be interpreted differently by various stakeholders since there was no pre-determined set of benchmarks. Other criteria often used by the participants to determine the benefits and value of a particular project were cost savings, fulfillment of contract conditions, and service delivery.

For the case 2 organization, several criteria for determining the benefits and value were put forward by participants. Customer satisfaction, achieving the external consultant’s projected revenue, bringing value/benefits to the organization, and meeting SLAs provisions were mentioned. Other criteria mentioned include technical competence to deliver what is required, risk factors, external consultants’experience in a relevant area, and business continuity of the external consultants. Interestingly, both representatives from an external consultant stated achieving the projected revenue for themselves and satisfying customers as their only criteria for determining the benefits and value of their contracts with case 2 organization. This may indicate that the external consultant’s aim was to maximize the profit while maintaining a certain level of customer satisfaction. However, partici-pants from the case 2 organization (as opposed to the external consultants) used different criteria for determining the benefits and value of the outsourcing contracts. Meeting the SLAs provisions, and pricing/cost were mentioned by three out of four participants from the case 2 organization.

3.2 Reasons for investing in IT

The most popular reason for justifying IT investment focused on the issue of cost reduction (Hinton and Kaye, 1996) as opposed to obtaining benefits or obtaining benefits that justified the costs. According to the survey respondents the top three reasons for IS/IT investments were cost/budgets, competitive advantage and process efficiency. Service quality and revenue and margin were also important benefits to consider. This indicates that these organizations were still under a lot of pressure to reduce IS/IT costs while attempting to address the problems of benefits realization.

Case 1 organization’s participants ranked cost saving, increased service level, and access to technical expertise as their top three motivations while case 2 organization’s participants had access

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia to technical expertise, cost saving, and government policy/concentrating on core functions as their top two reasons for outsourcing. The focus on cost saving could also partly explain why there was a contract mentality within the organizations undertaking IS/IT projects. Since there were almost no qualitative measures being used by the organizations, a focus on the SLAs by the respondents was inevitable. Although the participants from the survey and two case studies had not been able to agree on the reasons for undertaking major IS/IT projects, cost saving was the most commonly mentioned reason. This is consistent with prior surveys (eg. Willcocks, 1992; Ward et al, 1996) where cost saving is usually the first reason quoted for undertaking IS/IT projects.

Several reasons were also put forward by the case 2 organization’s participants as the main motivation or objectives for IS/IT projects. Half of the participants cited cost saving as one of the main motivations for outsourcing. Government policy and concentrating on core functions were quoted by three participants each. Half of the external consultants interviewed cited access to the required technical expertise as one of case 2’s reasons to outsource. Interestingly, two other external consultants did not know the main reason for the case 2 organization’s IS/IT projects. On the other hand, all of case 2 organization’s internal participants mentioned access to the required technical expertise as one of the main reasons for the organization to undertake its IS/IT functions.

3.3 Existence of measures

A benefits management approach implies that specific measures of success should be developed pre-project, so that these measures can be used for post-project review. It must also be conducted to ensure that the whole process is still appropriate to meet the business needs and that benefits have been obtained (Sriram et al, 1997). However, only 45% of survey respondents indicated that measures of success were often or always defined before project approval, and some 44.5% stated that measures of success were often or always defined after implementation or not at all.

3.4 Mismatch between actual and espoused use of formal IS/IT investment evaluation

methodology

Most of the case study participants (14/18) and survey respondents (66%) claimed that a methodology or process was in place for investment evaluation. However, closer examination of the participants’responses reveals that there was a lack of formal IS/IT investment evaluation methodology or process used.

For the survey respondents, when asked about the specific methods/technique used to decide upon IS/IT investments, the traditional financially oriented evaluation techniques such as net present value (NPV) and cost/benefit analysis (CBA) were the most commonly mentioned techniques. Likewise, most of the participants from the case study organizations claimed formal IS/IT investment evaluation methodologies or processes were used for evaluating the IS/IT contracts. However, closer examination of the participants’responses and contract documents revealed otherwise (i.e. SLAs within the contracts). Measurements or evaluation instruments such as SLAs, monthly reports, standard contract management, standard project management methodology, and guidelines provided by state government were stated by some participants as the IS/IT investment evaluation methodology or process used for the IS/IT contracts. Other items mentioned by the participants included RFTs, requests for quotes (RFQs), requests for proposals (RFPs), and evaluation of RFTs. Most of these measurements were related to the contract terms or conditions specified in the SLAs within each contract and no formal IS/IT investment evaluation methodology, process, or technique (e.g. Information Economics) was mentioned. In reality only informal IS/IT investment evaluation processes were used.

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia

For case studies, none of the participants mentioned any formal IS/IT investment evaluation process or methodology (e.g. Return on Management (Strassmann, 1990)). This may be partly due to the fact that none of the contract managers and coordinators interviewed had prior experience in managing the contracts. Instead, several participants mistakenly thought contract control and evaluation mechanisms specified within the SLAs (such as scorecards process, annual reviews, formal meetings, or benchmarking) constituted their IS/IT investment evaluation methodology or technique. Again, other items such as RFTs, RFQs, RFPs, SLAs, monthly reports, standard contract management, and state government guidelines were often cited by the participants as the formal IS/IT investment evaluation methodology or process. This may well be due to the fact that both case study organizations were unable to introduce a formal IS/IT investment evaluation methodology because they were required to follow the state government’s outsourcing guidelines (MOPC, 2000).

This result is consistent with findings of others. For example, Ward et al(1996) found that 60% of survey respondents indicated that they had used a formal IS/IT investment evaluation methodology but only methods such as CBA and ROI were actually stated. Ballantine, Galliers, and Stray (1996) suggest that there is a lack of formal evaluation procedure within organizations. Taylor and Norris (1989), (in Norris, 1996) indicated in their UK survey that almost half of the responding organizations could not point to any kind of process for evaluating contribution or following up promises of benefits.

3.5 Appropriateness of measures used

Nevertheless, these traditional accounting-based measures (eg. ROI) as well as contract control and evaluation mechanisms or measurements (eg. SLAs) constituted an informal IS/IT investment evaluation process. Both the survey respondents and case study participants appeared to know that they required some sort of informal IS/IT investment evaluation process or technique to monitor the performance and progress of the contracts. Although these informal mechanisms or measurements cannot be used to totally replace a real and robust formal IS/IT investment evaluation methodology (such as Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1992)), they were, however, able to help both case study organizations, for example, to evaluate and measure, to certain extent, the performance of their IS/IT contracts. These contract control and evaluation mechanisms or measurements are largely based on the guidelines set out by the standard state government contract process and purchasing guidelines (SSC, 1999). Both survey respondents and case study participants however, did not exhibit a good understanding of the IS/IT systems development process (in particular, investment evaluation process) and the importance of using a formal IS/IT investment evaluation methodology.

More significantly, traditional accounting-based measures do not assist in measuring how IS/IT adds net value to an organization (Willcocks, 1992). According to Shaw and Fairburst (1997), exclusive use of hard and quantitative approaches could miss important subtleties of performance or measurements. However, across the two case studies, all but one of the measures specified in the SLAs within all four IS/IT contracts were quantitative accounting based measures. This is probably because the quantitative measures were easier to use and define than the qualitative measures. However, without employing more qualitative measures (e.g., relationship, culture and leadership) and a formal IS/IT investment evaluation methodology or process, the use of quantitative or accounting based measures alone would not assist in full evaluation and monitoring of the performance and status of these contracts. This is because IS/IT evaluation is “a process, or group of parallel processes, which take place at different points in time or continuously, for searching and for making explicit, quantitatively or qualitatively, all the impacts of an IT project and the program

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia and strategy of which it is a part” (Farbey et al, 1999). Moreover, all participants seemed to have a SLAs mentality and the main objective for measuring or evaluating performance was just to fulfill the requirements under the SLAs within each contract. These measures specified within the SLAs appeared to be traditional accounting-based measures. Similarly, the methods mentioned by survey respondents were also largely traditional accounting-based techniques such as NPV, CBA and ROI.

The result here in a state government agency seems to echo the reports about inappropriate measurements and other problems with the Australian Federal Government’s IS/IT projects which had led to constant budget blowouts, dubious savings, and user dissatisfaction (Mitchell, 2000). Studies conducted by Willcocks, Lacity and Fitzgerald (1995) also suggest that inadequate measurement systems to monitor the contractor’s performance is one of the major areas of weakness in IS/IT projects.

3.6 Use of IS/IT benefits realization methodology

In the survey, most respondents adopted both IS/IT investment appraisal and benefits realization processes (81.8%). Yet, half of the respondents believed that their current project justification process failed to identify all available benefits for a project. Furthermore, in 26.2% of cases, the respondents openly admitted that their current process actually overstated the benefits in order to get approval. This seems to imply that the process itself placed more emphasis on getting project approval than on delivering proposed benefits. This could explain why formal IS/IT benefits realization methodologies are not used by organizations. However, whatever the reasons for overstating benefits, from a business user perspective the practice is likely to lead ultimately to a lack of confidence in the ability of IT to deliver what is promised. In addition, only 43% of the respondents claimed that their organization prepared a benefits delivery plan. Without such a plan, it is difficult to envisage how an organization might effectively realize business benefits.

Most participants in the case 1 organization readily admitted that there was no formal benefits realization methodology or process and had some problems with some of the major contractors. Those who indicated some process existed were actually referring to the contract control and evaluation mechanisms specified in the SLAs. However, no formal IS/IT benefits realization methodology, technique, or process was mentioned or specified by any of the participants or were they contained in any contract documents. Overall, the result from case 1 is consistent with the survey respondents and in UK (Ward et al, 1996). The adoption rates of a benefits realization methodology by large Australian and UK organizations were only 33% and 23%, respectively. The fact that few organizations have a benefits management methodology or process is not really surprising as more attention is usually paid to ways of justifying investments, with little effort being extended to ensuring that the benefits expected are realized (Ward and Griffiths, 1996).

On the other hand, every participant in the case 2 organization was aware that a formal IS/IT benefits realization methodology was being used for its IS/IT contracts and projects. One of the external consultant’s Benefits Realization Approach was used as an end-to-end process to assist case 2 in:

1.providing a rigorous process to select the right projects to implement;

2.placing responsibility and accountability at the appropriate level within the organization;

3.driving process re-engineering through changes in the organization;

4.ensuring benefits are realized; and

5.ensuring agreed re-investment of time savings applied as expected.

So clearly there is a range of practice with respect to using benefits realization methodologies.

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia

3.7 The degree of understanding of benefits realization

There is a widespread concern among many researchers and academics that IS/IT investment does not deliver value (Jones and Hughes, 1999) and that senior business executives simply do not understand the concept of benefits realization (Remenyi, 2000). This is exactly what happened inside the case 1 organization. While half of participants admitted that there was no benefits realization methodology or process being used, the other half of the participants disagreed and stated that benchmarking, value added activities, budgetary process, or annual reviews were used for managing benefits for these outsourcing contracts. Almost all of these contract control and evaluation mechanisms were focused on costs, not benefits. Furthermore, none of the participants mentioned any formal IS/IT benefits realization process or methodology (such as Active Benefits Realization (Remenyi et al, 1997)). These contract control and evaluation mechanisms had nothing to do with “the process of organizing and managing such that potential benefits arising from the use of IS/IT are actually realized” (Ward and Griffiths, 1996). Therefore, it appears that many case 1 participants had a problem of understanding the exact meaning and purpose of an IS/IT benefits realization methodology or process. A possible reason could be that all contract managers and coordinators had no experience in contract management before and so had probably not possessed the required knowledge or skill in implementing formal IS/IT investment evaluation and benefits realization methodologies or techniques.

On the other hand, an external consultant’s benefits realization methodology, Benefits Realization Approach, was introduced into the case 2 organization because there was a concern within the organization that IS/IT investments did not deliver value. Such a failure could have jeopardized the state government’s future funding for case 2 organization. In order to ensure that the IS/IT investments deliver the promised value and benefits as well as bring the focus back to case 2 organization’s main business, a large internal change program was initiated by the organization. Unlike its understanding of the IS/IT investment evaluation process, the case 2 organization had determined in the very beginning that a formal benefits realization methodology was needed. Since the case 2 organization had no technical expertise to undertake a large scale internal change program, it was important for the organization to search for a formal benefits realization method-ology. As a result, the Benefits Realization Approach was chosen to assist case 2 organization to manage the change program as well as to realize the benefits from the IS/IT projects undertaken by the organization.

However, the success of such a methodology depends largely on the acceptance of the change program and understanding of the principles of the benefits realization by the users within the organization as a whole. Many within the organization had found the methodology to be very useful. The case 2 organization has tried to sell and educate the principle of the methodology to everyone within the organization. It was expected that almost all of its staff members would understand the benefits realization process in the not too distant future. At the same time, the case 2 organization was trying to minimize the user resistance while maintaining the pressure for them to comply with the change program. The Value Management Office (VMO) was set up not only to educate the users about the benefits realization methodology but also to minimize user resistance to the methodology. This clearly demonstrates the resolve by the organization to implement the methodology as well as to force, if necessary, users to accept the methodology.

In summary, the case 1 organization did not adopt a formal benefits realization methodology and therefore, did not understand the concept of benefits realization. In contrast, the case 2 organization had discovered, in the very beginning, the need for adopting a formal benefits realization methodology within the organization. This was followed by selection and implementation of a

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia

Benefits Realization Approach. Furthermore, the case 2 organization had spent a lot of resources and effort to make sure that the organization, as a whole, understood and accepted the methodology. As mentioned previously, the case 2 organization is clearly in the minority on this issue.

3.8 Organizational maturity

Table 2 compares some characteristics of organizations with and without a BRM collected from the survey and case studies.

Issues Survey Case 1Case 2

No BRM BRM No BRM BRM ?believed that the methodology (BRM) was

effective in ensuring successful information

systems 2.2%38.1%n/a√?had prepared a benefits delivery plan 34.1%60.0%x√?believed that their current process adequately

quantified the relevant benefits 54.5%90.9%x√?had a formal process to identify any further

benefits after implementation 9.3%36.4%x√?took action after implementation to realize

the benefits identified after implementation 4.8%68.2%x√?overstated the benefits in order to get approval 30.9%18.2%n/a x ?felt that there was scope for significant

improvement in their current approach

to managing IS/IT benefits 69.0%50.0%√√Table 2: Comparisons between organizations with a BRM and without a BRM As can be seen, those organizations which had benefits realization methodology (BRM) were more likely:

1.to have more confidence in the benefits realization practices and activities as well as in their

effects to their organizations;

2.not to overstate the benefits in order to get approval for their IS/IT projects;

3.to have better understanding of the benefits realization concepts and undertake benefits

realization activities within their organizations;

4.to have adopted formal or informal IS/IT investment evaluation methodology; and

5.not to have complicated contract management issues.

One interesting result from Table 2 is that 30.9% of the organizations without a benefits realization methodology (BRM) and only 18.2% of the organizations with a BRM overstated the benefits in order to get the projects approved. This seemed to imply that the organizations without a BRM placed more emphasis on getting project approval than those organizations which had a

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia

BRM. Perhaps, organizations without a formal BRM were more desperate in justifying and getting project approval since they did not have a formal process (i.e. BRM) to back them up. It also may be that the processes within a benefits realization methodology had made it more difficult for organizations to overstate the benefits in order to get projects approval. Potentially, this is one of the major benefits for adopting a formal BRM.

From the above it can be concluded that organizations employing a benefits realization methodology (BRM) were more likely to:

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/ae6363365.html,e formal processes for their investment evaluation;

2.be more confident about what they do in their IS/IT activities;

3.have better integration of their IS/IT functions; and

4.manage their projects or contracts to achieve better results and with less problems.

These outcomes are often associated with higher levels of IS/IT maturity (G alliers and Sutherlands, 1991; Nolan, 1979) so it could be argued that use of a BRM is associated with more IT-mature organizations.

4. SUMMARY

IS/IT investment evaluation practice remains one of the most controversial and debated topics in the IS literature to date. However, most of the studies that have been undertaken to date in this area have been carried out in UK or the USA. Very little published work has been conducted in Australia and there is still a lot to be learned in the area about the processes and practices of IS/IT investment evaluation and benefits management in Australian organizations.

Some key findings from the survey and case studies were highlighted and discussed. The results show that many survey respondents and case study participants knew very little about the IS/IT investment evaluation and benefits realization concepts and practices. In most cases, both formal IS/IT investment evaluation and benefits realization methodologies were not adopted by organizations. The evaluation tended to be informal and quantitative in nature. The results also show that most organizations were not yet mature and even despite the adoption of a formal benefits realization methodology (BRM) some problems still remained. However, the results show that the use of a formal methodology in investment evaluation or in benefits realization, would lead to a better IS/IT outsourcing experience for organizations as well as better control over decisions and better attainment of benefits and more broadly can lead to a higher level of organizational maturity. The results are consistent with findings of other studies carried out in the US and Europe (eg. Ballantine et al, 1999; Ward et al, 1996; Willcocks, 1992). It is the hope of the authors that more studies in the practice of IS/IT investment evaluation will benefit other researchers in this field as well as the business community as a whole.

REFERENCES

ALIA(2003): Federal Budget 2002, ALIA Publishing, https://www.wendangku.net/doc/ae6363365.html,.au/publishing/budget.analysis/2002.html.

Accessed 20-January-2004.

ANDRESEN, J., BALDWIN, A., BETTS, M., CARTER, C., HAMILTON, A., STOKES, E. and THORPE, T. (2000): A framework for measuring IT innovation benefits, Electronic Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 5: 57–72.

A.T. KEARNEY(1990): Breaking the barriers: IT effectiveness in Great Britain and Ireland – a Management Perspective,

A.T. Kearney Ltd, London.

BAKER, R. and BERENBLUM, E. (1996): Aligning the IT audit strategy with the business strategy – strategies for survival in uncharted waters, Australasian Regional Conference “State of Play”EDPAC, Perth,163–176. BALLANTINE, J.A., GALLIERS, R.D. and STRAY, S.J. (1996): Information systems/technology evaluation practices: Evidence from UK organizations, Journal of Information Technology, 11:129–141.

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia BALLANTINE, J.A., GALLIERS, R.D. and STRAY, S.J. (1999): Information systems/technology evaluation practices: Evidence from UK organizations, In Beyond the IT Productivity Paradox. WILLCOCKS, L.P. and LESTER, S. (eds.) Chichester, UK: Wiley, 123–150.

BROADBENT, M., MCGEE, K. and MCDONALD, M. (2003): IT Success Requires Discipline and Innovation, Gartner FirstTake, Gartner, 12 May, FT-20-0693.

BRYNJOLFSSON, E. (2003): The IT productivity gap, Optimize, (July): 26–43.

BRYNJOLFSSON, E. and HITT, L. M. (2003): Computing productivity: Firm-level evidence, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4): 793–808.

BURNS, R.B. (1994):Introduction to Research Methods, Longman Cheshire Pty Ltd, 2nd Ed. London.

CARR, N. G. (2003): IT doesn’t matter, Harvard Business Review, 8(1): 4–50.

CHANGCHIT, C., JOSHI, K.D. and LEDERER, A.L. (1998): Process and reality in information systems benefit analysis.

Information Systems Journal, 8:145–162.

COUNIHAN, A., FINNEGAN, P. and SAMMON, D. (2002): Towards a framework for evaluating investments in data warehousing, Information Systems Journal, 12: 321–338.

CRONK, M. C. and FITZGERALD, E. P. (1999): Understanding “IS business value”: derivation of dimensions, Logistics Information Management, 12(1/2): 40–49.

CRONK, M. C. and FITZG ERALD, E. P. (2002): Constructing a theory of ‘IS business value’from the literature, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 1(1): 11–17.

DE SOUZA, R., NARISAWA, R., GOODWIN, R. and HAZRA, K. (2003): IT Business Spending to Recover in Late 2003, Gartner, 22 January.

DHILLON, G. and BACKHOUSE, J. (1996): Risks in the use of information technology within organizations, International Journal of Information Management,16(1): 65–74.

DOS SANTOS, B.L. (1994): Assessing the value of strategic information technology investments, In Information Management: The Evaluation of Information Systems Investments, WILLCOCKS, L. (ed.), Chapman & Hall, London. EISENHARDT, K.M. (1989): Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management R eview, 14(4): 532–550.

ENZWEILER, A. J. (1996): Justifying the cost of client/server systems, Management Accounting, 78(3), September. FARBEY, B., LAND, F. and TARGETT, D. (1992): Evaluating investments in IT, Journal of Information Technology, 7: 109–122.

FARBEY, B., LAND, F, and TARGETT, D. (1999): The moving staircase: Problems of appraisal and evaluation in a turbulent environment. Information Technology and People, 12(3): 238–252.

FARRELL, D. (2003): The real new economy, Harvard Business Review, 81(10): 104

FINK, D. (1998): G uidelines for successful adoption of information technology in small and medium enterprises, International Journal of Information Management, 18(4): 243–253.

GABLE, G. G. (1994): Integrating case study and survey research methods, an example in information systems, European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2): 112–126.

GALLIERS, R. D. and SUTHERLAND, A. R. (1991): Information systems management and strategy formulation: The ‘Stages of Growth’model revisited, Journal of Information Systems, 1: 89–114.

GALLIERS, B., SWAN, J., NEWELL, S. and ROBERTSON, M. (1996): The information challenge – Making your IT investment pay off, Hot Topics, 1(2), March. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/ae6363365.html,/HotTopics. Accessed 14-October-2000. GORMOLSKI, B., GRIGG T. and POTTER, K. (2001): 2001 IT Staffing and Survey Results, Report R-14-4158, Gartner 2001, 19th September, 2001.

GROVER, V., TENG, J., SEGAR, A. H. and FIEDLER, K. (1998): The influence of information technology diffusion and business process change on perceived productivity: The IS executive’s perspective. Information and Management, 34: 141–159.

HINTON, M. and KAYE, R. (1996): Investing in information technology: A lottery?, Management Accounting, November, 52–54.

HITT, L.M. and BRYNJOLFSSON, E. (1996): Productivity, business profitability, and consumer surplus: Three different measures of information technology value, MIS Quarterly, 20(2): 121–142.

HOCHSTRASSER, B. (1994): Justifying IT investments. In Information Management: The Evaluation of Information Systems Investments. WILLCOCKS, L. (ed.), Chapman & Hall, London.

IRANI, Z. (2002): Information systems evaluation: Navigating through the problem domain, Information and Management, 40: 11–24.

JONES, S. and HUGHES, J. (1999): IS value and investment appraisal: A case study of a local authority, Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 2(1).

KAPLAN, R. S. and NORTON, D. P. (1992): The balanced scorecard – Measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review, Jan.–Feb., 71–79.

KLEIN, H. K. and MYERS, M. D. (1999): A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems, MIS Quarterly, 23(1): 67–94.

LAITINEN, E. K. (2002): A dynamic performance measurement system: Evidence from small Finnish technology companies, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18: 65–99.

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia

MCFARLAN, F. W. and NOLAN, R. L. (2003): Does IT matter? An HBR debate: Web Exclusive, Harvard Business Review, (June): 5–6.

MCGUNAGLE, G. P. (1995): Corporate banking: Making technology more effective, Bank Management, 71(6): 22–25. MILES, M.B. and HUBERMAN, A.M. (1994): Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage Publications, California.

MINGERS, J. (2001): Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology, Information Systems Research, 12(3): 240–258.

MIRTIDIS, D. and SERAFEIMIDIS, V. (1994): Evaluating information technology investments in Greece, Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on IT Investment Evaluation, Henley, September, 167–177.

MITCHELL, S. (2000): Audit report slams federal outsourcing, The Australian Newspaper, Tuesday, 12 September, 19–20. MOPC (2000): Competitive Tendering and Contracting: Process Guidelines for Use by Agencies, Ministry of Premier and Cabinet, Government of Western Australia, 3rd Ed., July.

MURPHY, K. E. and SIMON, S. J. (2002): Intangible benefits valuation in ERP projects, Information Systems Journal, 12: 301–320.

NOLAN, R. L. (1979): Managing the crises in data processing, Harvard Business Review, March–April, 115–126. NORRIS, G. D. (1996): Post-investment appraisal, In Investing in Information Systems: Evaluation and Management, WILLCOCKS, L. (ed.), Chapman & Hall, UK.

PARKER, M.M., BENSON, R.J. and TRAINOR, H.E. (1988): Information Economics. Prentice Hall: London.

PERV AN, G. (1997): Information systems management: An Australasian view of the key issues – 1996, Australian Journal of Information Systems, 5(1): 55–68.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS (2003): Benefits realization online survey results survey, PricewaterhouseCoopers, https://www.wendangku.net/doc/ae6363365.html,. Accessed 20-February-2004.

RAI, A., PATNAYAKUNI, R. and PATNAYAKUNI, N. (1997): Technology investment and business performance, Communications of the ACM, July, 40(7): 89–97.

RENKEMA, T.J.W. (1998): The four P’s revisited: Business value assessment of the infrastructure impact of IT Investment, Journal of Information Technology, 13: 181–190.

REMENYI, D. (2000): The elusive nature of delivering benefits from IT investment, Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 3(1).

REMENYI, D., SHERWOOD-SMITH, M. and WHITE, T. (1997): Achieving Maximum Value from Information Systems: A Process Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England.

REMENYI, D. and WILLIAMS, B. (1996) The nature of research: Qualitative or quantitative, narrative or paradigmatic?, Information Systems Journal, 6: 131–146.

SECHREST, L. (2003): CIO Update: Use Creative Cost Containment, Gartner, 1 October.

SEDDON, P., GRAESER, V. and WILLCOCKS, L. (2002): Measuring organizational IS effectiveness: An overview and update of senior management perspectives, The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 33(2): 11–28. SEKARAN, U. (1984): Research Methods for Managers: A Skill-building Approach, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA. SERAFEIMIDIS, V. and SMITHSON, S. (2003): Information systems evaluation as an organisational institution –Experience from a case study, Information Systems Journal, 13(2): 251–274.

SHAW, S. and FAIRBURST, D. (1997): Outsourcing the HR function – Personal threat or valuable opportunity? Strategic Change, 6: 459–468.

SIRCAR, S., TURNBOW, J. L. and BORDOLOI, B. (2000): A framework for assessing the relationship between information technology investments and firm performance, Journal Management Information Systems, 16(4): 69–89. SOHAL, A.S. and NG L. (1998): The role and impact of information technology in Australian business, Journal of Information Technology, 13: 201–217.

SRIRAM, V., STUMP, R. L., and BANERJEE, S. (1997): Information technology investments in purchasing: An empirical study of dimensions and antecedents, information and management, 33: 59–72.

SSC (1999): Managing Purchasing Conducted by Private Sector Providers, State Supply Commission, Perth, Western Australia. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/ae6363365.html,.au/pol_guide/policies/manage_purchase.html. Accessed17-November-1999. STRASSMAN, P.A. (1990): The Business Value of Computers. The Information Economics Press: New Canaan. STRASSMANN, P. A. (1997): Will big spending on computers guarantee profitability? Datamation, 43(2), February. STRASSMANN, P. A. (2003): Does IT matter? An HBR debate: Web Exclusive, Harvard Business Review, (June):7-9. TALLON, P. P., KRAEMER, K. L. and G URBAXANI, V. (2000): Executives’perceptions of the business value of information technology: A process-oriented approach, Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(4): 145–173. TRUAX, J. (1997):Investing With Benefits In Mind: Curing Investment Myopia, The DMR White Paper, 1–6.

V AN GREMBERGEN, W. and V AN BRUGGEN, R. (1998): Measuring and improving corporate information technology through the balanced scorecard, Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 1(1).

V ANDENBOSCH, B. and LYYTINEN, K. (2004): Much ado about IT: A response to “the corrosion of IT advantage” by Nicholas G. Carr, Journal of Business Strategy, 25(6): 10–12.

W ARD, J. and GRIFFITHS, P. (1996): Strategic Planning For Information Systems, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK. WARD, J., TAYLOR, P. and BOND, P. (1996): Evaluation and realization of IS/IT benefits: An empirical study of current practice, European Journal of Information Systems, 4: 214–225.

IS/IT Investment Evaluation and Benefits Realization Issues in Australia

WILLCOCKS, L. (1992): Evaluating information technology investments: Research findings and reappraisal, Journal of

Information Systems , 2: 243–268.

WILLCOCKS, L., LACITY, M. and FITZGERALD, G. (1995): Information technology outsourcing in Europe and the

USA: Assessment issues,International Journal of Information Management , 15(5) 333–351.

WILLCOCKS, L. and LESTER, S. (1997): Assessing IT productivity: Any way out of the labyrinth?, In Managing IT as a

Strategic R esource . WILLCOCKS L., FEENY, D.F. and ISLEI, G. (eds.).The McG raw-Hill Company, London.BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Dr Chad Lin is a Post Doctoral Research Fellow in We-B Centre, School of

Management Information Systems at Edith Cowan University in Perth,

Western Australia. He has published more than 30 internationally refereed

articles focused on IT outsourcing, e-commerce, IS/IT adoption, and on

evaluating the effectiveness and managing the benefits from IS/IT. He has

written and published several refereed journal papers (e.g. Information and

Management), book chapters, and conference papers (e.g. ECIS, ACIS,

ECITE, IRMA). He serves as a reviewer for several journals, edited books

and conferences.

Professor Graham Pervan has over 25 years experience in education,

research, and practice in Information Systems and Information Technology

(IS/IT). He has published over a hundred articles on various problems and

issues relating to the management of IS/IT with his more recent research

focused on IS/IT adoption and appropriation, particularly in the health

sector, and on measuring the effectiveness and managing the benefits from

IS/IT. He is the Asia-Pacific Regional Editor for the Journal of Information

Technology, the IT Management Editor for the Australian Journal of

Management, and is President of the Australian Council of Professors and

Heads of Information Systems.

Associate Professor Donald C McDermid, BSc(hons) Comp Sc, Dip Adult

Ed, MBA, PhD has published over 30 academic papers in journals and at

conferences and one book entitled “Software Engineering for Information

Systems” by McGraw-Hill which sold over 5000 copies worldwide. His

research interests are in the area of how IT can support the changing needs of

business in the areas of project management, business rules, information

systems strategy and planning, change management and facilitation and IT

Governance. He currently works in the School of Computer and Information

Science, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia.

Chad Lin

Donald McDermid

普通员工辞职申请书范文【三篇】

普通员工辞职申请书范文【三篇】 尊敬的xx人力资源部: 您好! 因为个人职业规划和一些现实因素,经过慎重考虑之后,特此提出离职申请,敬请批准。 在xx工作一年多的时间里,我有幸得到了各位领导及同事们的倾心指导及热情协助,在本职工作和音乐专业技能上,我得到了很大水准的提升,在此感谢xx提供给我这个良好的平台,这个年多的工作经验将是我今后职业生涯中的一笔宝贵财富。 在这里,特别感谢各位领导在过去的工作、生活中给予的大力支持与协助;尤其感谢xx,xx等,一年来对我的信任和关照,感谢所有给予过我协助的同事们。 望批准我的申请,并请协助办理相关离职手续,在正式离开之前我将认真继续做好当前的每一项工作。 祝公司事业蓬勃发展,前景灿烂。 申请人:### 20xx年xx月xx日 【篇二】 尊敬的韩总: 作为一名在酒店工作了大半年的员工,我对酒店有着一种格外亲切的感觉。每一个人在他年轻的时候,都有很多第一次,我当然也不例外。

我的第一份工作是在酒店,我最青春的三年也是在酒店度过的。 在这里,我学会了很多东西,能够跟同事们在一起工作,我觉得很开心,这里的每一位都是我的大哥大姐,我的叔叔阿姨,是他们教给了 我在学校里面学不到的知识,如何为人、如何处事、如何工作……在 酒店里,领导们也对我十分的关心,从刚进入酒店开始,我就感受到 从上至下的温暖。因为我是酒店里年龄还一般,还不算小,也从来没 有在这么大的集体里生活过,自不过然的,心里面就会产生一种被呵 护的感觉。这是一种以前在集体里未曾有过的感觉,很温馨,很自豪,而且它一直陪伴着我,直到我离开…… 但这种感觉不会随着我的离开而走远,我想我永远也不会忘记, 毕竟我以前生活在一个温暖而又温馨的集体里。韩总,还记得第一次 跟您近距离接触和理解是在20xx.3.16号。随着时间的流逝,斗转星移,您多年积累的工作经验与个人才华也得到充分的施展。您是我们 酒店的经理。在我上班之前,制定了一系列的政策与方针,重新定位 了酒店的经营策略,持续地尝试新的机制与奖励、分配办法,力争让 酒店的经济效益持续迈上新高,也让酒店员工的福利待遇如芝麻开花 一般节节高樊。,这才是为员工谋利益的举动,这才是一位被员工在 心里面所认可的经理。 而我,作为这个集体的一份子,更加感觉到您对员工的关心与培养。您肯定想到,酒店要想在竞争激烈的社会中立于不败之地,人才 的培养与发展是不可忽视的环节之一。因为我自身水平的不足,近期 的工作让我觉得力不从心,所以想公司提出了辞呈,忘领导批准。 申请人:### 20xx年xx月xx日 【篇三】 尊敬的公司领导:

辞职报告文本辞职报告范文大全

辞职报告文本辞职报告范文大全 辞职报告 (篇一) 尊敬的领导: 我很遗憾自己在这个时候向公司正式提出辞职申请。 来到公司也已经快两年了,在这近两年里,得到了公司各位同事的多方帮助,我非常感谢公司各位同事。正是在这里我有过欢笑,也有过泪水,更有过收获。公司平等的人际关系和开明的工作作风,一度让我有着找到了依靠的感觉,在这里我能开心的工作,开心的学习。或许这真是对的,由此我开始了思索,认真的思考。 但是最近我感觉到自己不适合做这份工作,同时也想换一下环境。我也很清楚这时候向公司辞职于公司于自己都是一个考验,公司正值用人之际,公司新的项目的启动,所有的后续工作在公司上下极力重视下一步步推进。也正是考虑到公司今后在这个项目安排的合理性,本着对公司负责的态度,为了不让公司因我而造成的决策失误,我郑重向公司提出辞职。 我考虑在此辞呈递交之后的2—4周内离开公司,这样您将有时间去寻找适合人选,来填补因我离职而造成的空缺,同时我也能够协助您对新人进行入职培训,使他尽快熟悉工作。 能为公司效力的日子不多了,我一定会把好自己最后一班岗,做好工作的交接工作,尽力让项目做到平衡过渡。离开这个公司,离开

这些曾经同甘共苦的同事,很舍不得,舍不得领导们的尊尊教诲,舍不得同事之间的那片真诚和友善。 在短短的两年时间我们公司已经发生了巨大可喜的变化,我很遗 憾不能为公司辉煌的明天贡献自己的力量。我只有衷心祝愿公司的业绩一路飙升!公司领导及各位同事工作顺利! (篇二) 尊敬的办公室人力资源管理领导: 我向公司正式提出辞职。 我自**日进入公司,到现在已经一年有余了,正是在这里我开始 踏上了社会,完成了自己从一个学生到社会人的转变。在过去的一 年多里,公司给予了我许多学习和锻炼的机会,开阔眼界、增长见识。我对公司给予的照顾表示忠心的感谢!但是,经过近段时间的思考, 我越来越迷惘!我越来越觉得现在的工作、生活离自己想要的越来越远。所以,我必须离开,去过我思想深处另一种有别于目前的生活。我想,生活应该是在选择到适合自己的道路以后,再持之以恒地坚持! 公司目前已经过了一年最忙的时间,是充电、整顿、储备人才的 时刻。相信,我的离开会很快有新生力量补充。因为这不是我想要的工作、生活状态,所以,我现在对工作没有激情、对生活也极其懒散。本着对公司负责的态度,为了不让公司其他同事受到我消极情绪 * ,也为了不让公司因为我出现业务上的纰漏等,我郑重向公司提出辞职,望公司给予批准! 祝公司稳步发展,祝公司的领导和同事们前程似锦、鹏程万里!

辞职申请书范文大全500字

辞职申请书范文大全500字 辞职申请书500字 辞职一般是提前30天向上级或公司递交辞职,无需公司批准,30天之后您就能顺利辞职了,以下是为大家搜集的范文,欢迎阅读! 尊敬的公司领导: 由于工作调动,现正式向公司提出调离原工作岗位。 舍不得,舍不得这里的人,舍不得自己曾经的付出。每一次出差、每一次报价、每一次谈判、每一次争吵,在飞机上、在吉普车上、在会议室里、在工地上,所有这一切,都充斥着我的记忆,那么清晰,就像是在昨天。但时间的指针总是忠诚地一步一步往前走,昨天终究会结束。 在公司四年半的时间里,我收获了很多,除了朋友和知识,更 重要的是,我到了成长的快乐。感谢命运,让我在最青春的年华里遇到了装备公司;感谢公司领导,你们的关注和欣赏让我一直充满自信,你们的指点和教诲让我在成长的路上少走了很多弯路;感谢公司的同事,和你们的沟通,轻松愉悦;感谢我自己,能够一直保持着一份纯净,真诚地付出,真诚地享受每一次收获。

鉴于目前的身体及生活状态,自认为不能够为公司创造更大的价值,现向公司提出辞职。 虽然我不能在这里继续“战斗”下去,但真心的希望,xx公司能够梦想成真,在世界的舞台上舞出属于自己的精彩。 此致 敬礼! 辞职人: 20xx年xx月xx日 尊敬的x总: 您好! 转眼间,我到公司已有X年了,这X年的工作时间里,虽然我的工作并不是尽善尽美,但在公司同事们的帮助,尤其是您的信任与教导下,我也努力的去完成每一项您布置给我的工作,都用了自己的

热情努力去对待。凭心而论,我开始对基础工程毫无了解,但在您这里我基本了解了基础工程,使我学到了很多东西,特别是一些做人的道理和对生活的理解。在这里,我真诚的对袁总说一声:谢谢您了! 但犹豫再三,经过了长时间的考虑,我还是写了这封辞职申请书。 加入公司以来,您对我的信任、教导与严格要求,令我非常感动,也成为激励我努力工作的动力。在您及同事们的热心指导与悉心帮助下,我在工程技术和管理能力方面都有了一定的提高。我常想,自己应该用一颗感恩的心,去回报您及公司对我的栽培,真的想用自己的努力去做好您交给的每一份工作任务,但自己的能力真的很有限,有很多地方没有做得能让您满意,所以对过去工作中失误与不足的地方,我真诚的对您说声抱歉,请您原谅! 经过这段时间的思考,我觉得我可能技术能力方面有所不足, 也缺少工作的积极性和脚踏实地的工作精神,没能很好的适应这个工作,所以一直没有把工作做到令您满意的程度。这是我在以后的人生中需要注意的地方,也是袁总经常教导我的地方,我一定会铭记于心! 再一次真诚地感谢您及公司全体同事对我的关爱与帮助!

简短辞职申请书范文大全

简短辞职申请书范文大全 想必每一位在职场混迹多年的职场人士都应曾经写过辞职信之类的。在现在这个发展速度如此之快的社会,跳槽也就成了常见现象。而离职前的辞职信是必写的。下面就是小编给大家带来的简短辞职申请书范文大全,希望大家喜欢! 尊敬的xx: 我自xx年来到公司,工作中得到公司和您的培养,个人得到了很大的成长,公司的文化和环境也令我工作得非常开心。 现由于个人原因,我不得不提出辞职,希望能于x年x月x日正式离职,请公司批准我的这份辞职书。并请公司在x月x日前安排好人员接替我的工作,我将尽心交接。 再次对您x年来的培养和指导表示衷心的感谢。 最后祝您及公司的所有同事一切顺利! 此致 敬礼 辞职人:xxx 20xx年x月x日 尊敬的X经理: 您好! 感谢公司在我入职以来的培养关心和照顾,从X年X月份来到[公司]至今,我学到了很多东西,今后无论走向哪里,从事什么,这段经历都是一笔宝贵的财富,我为在彩卡的这段工作经历而自豪。 而今,由于个人原因提出辞职,望领导批准。 辞职人: 20xx年x月x日

公司人事部: 我因为要去美国留学,故需辞去现在的工作,请上级领导批准。 公司的企业文化感化了我,我对公司是深有感情的。我留学归来之后,仍愿意回公司就职。 感谢公司领导和同事在工作中对我的关心和支持,并祝公司兴隆。 辞职人:xxx 20xx年x月x日 尊敬的公司领导: 在递交这份辞呈时,我的心情十分沉重。现在由于我的一些个人原因的影响,无法为公司做出相应的贡献。因此请求允许离开。 当前公司正处于快速发展的阶段,同事都是斗志昂扬,壮志满怀,而我在这时候却因个人原因无法为公司分忧,实在是深感歉意。 我希望公司领导在百忙之中抽出时间受理我的离职事项。 感谢诸位在我在公司期间给予我的信任和支持,并祝所有同事和朋友们在工作和活动中取得更大的成绩。 辞职人: 20xx年x月x日 尊敬的xx: 自xx年入职以来,我一直很喜欢这份工作,但因某些个人原因,我要重新确定自己未来的方向,最终选择了开始新的工作。 希望公司能早日找到合适人手开接替我的工作并希望能于今年5月底前正式辞职。如能给予我支配更多的时间来找工作我将感激不尽,希望公司理解!在我提交这份辞呈时,在未离开岗位之前,我一定会尽自己的职责,做好应该做的事。 最后,衷心的说:“对不起”与“谢谢”! 祝愿公司开创更美好的未来!

离职申请书怎么写范文5篇

离职申请书怎么写范文5篇 工作当中几乎每个人都会有经历辞职,那么大家知道离职申请书怎么写吗?下面就是给大家带来的离职申请书怎么写范文5篇,希望大家喜欢! 辞职报告怎么写模板 辞职理由 辞职之前必须想好理由,不管是世界那么大,我想去看看。还是老子就是不想干了。 书面格式 标题:标题一般有辞职报告、辞职书、辞职函、辞职申请等不同的写法,书面一般多用辞职书 称谓:在工作中称呼一般都是“尊敬的XXX”格式,你想谁递交辞职书就写TA的尊称。 正文: ①空格2字符,问好。如:您好。

②辞职理由,短到几个字,长到几百字,个人自由发挥。例如:世界那么大,我想去看看。 ③尾段可以写写对公司的祝福等等。如:祝公司业绩蒸蒸日上。 结语:结尾要求写上表示敬意的话。如“此致——敬礼”等。 署名:写上自己的名字,辞职人:XXX 。署名的格式,为*末尾换行后起,然后署名下面加上日期. 日期:辞职报告写的当天日期,当然公司的规定不同,可以灵活的变动。 注意事项 不要说上司坏话。如果你认为有必要向管理层反映一下上司的问题,要尽量以委婉的言辞口头提出。 不要满纸抱怨,抨击公司制度。 不要指责同事,尤其忌讳把同事的“罪行”白纸黑字写在辞职书上。 离职申请书范文【一】 尊敬的罗总: 您好!

首先感谢您在我工作期间对我照顾与支持,感谢公司给我这个平台,让我锻炼让我成长。 很遗憾在这个时候向xx正式写出辞职报告,或许我还不是正式职工,不需要写这封辞职信。当您看到这封信时我大概也不在这里上班了。 来到这里也快两个月了,开始感觉这里的气氛就和一个大家庭一样,大家相处得融洽和睦。在这里有过欢笑,有过收获,当然也有过痛苦。虽然多少有些不快,不过在这里至少还是学了一些东西。在这一个多月的工作中,我确实学习到了不少东西。然而工作上的毫无成就感总让自己彷徨。我开始了思索,认真地思考。思考的结果连自己都感到惊讶——或许自己并不适合xx 这项工作。而且到这里来工作的目的也只是让自己这一段时间有些事可以做,可以赚一些钱,也没有想过要在这里发展。因为当初连应聘我都不知道,还是一个朋友给我投的资料,也就稀里糊涂地来到了这里。一些日子下来,我发现现在处境和自己的目的并不相同。而且我一直以为没有价值的事情还不如不做,现在看来,这份工作可以归为这一类了。n多的时间白白浪费掉了。我想,应该换一份工作去尝试了。 离开这里,离开这些曾经同甘共苦的同事,确实很舍不得,舍不得同事之间的那片真诚和友善。但是我还是要决定离开了,我恳请xx和领导们原谅我的离开。

申请离职书范文6篇

申请离职书范文6篇 Sample application for resignation 编订:JinTai College

申请离职书范文6篇 小泰温馨提示:辞职报告是个人离开原来的工作岗位时向单位领导或上级组织提请批准的一种申请书,是解除劳动合同关系的实用文体。本文档根据辞职报告内容要求展开说明,具有实践指导意义,便于学习和使用,本文下载后内容可随意修改调整及打印。 本文简要目录如下:【下载该文档后使用Word打开,按住键盘Ctrl键且鼠标单击目录内容即可跳转到对应篇章】 1、篇章1:申请离职书范文 2、篇章2:申请离职书范文 3、篇章3:申请离职书范文 4、篇章4:酒店离职申请范文 5、篇章5:酒店离职申请范文 6、篇章6:酒店离职申请范文 为离职写一份离职申请书,本文是小泰为大家整理的申请离职书范文,仅供参考。 篇章1:申请离职书范文

您好!首先感谢您在百忙之中抽出时间阅读我的离职信。 我是怀着十分复杂的心情写这封离职信的。自我进入公司之后,由于您对我的关心、指导和信任,使我获得了很多机遇和挑战。经过这段时间在公司的工作,我在酒店领域学到了很多知识,尤其是办公室合规的相关方面,积累了一定的经验,对此我深表感激。 由于自身存在很多尚不完善的地方,想通过继续学习来 进一步加强自己的能力。为了不因为我个人原因而影响公司的工作,决定辞去目前的工作。我知道这个过程会给公司带来一定程度上的不便,对此我深表歉意。 我会尽快完成工作交接,以减少因我的离职而给公司带 来的不便。为了尽量减少对现有工作造成的影响,我请求在公司的员工通讯录上保留我的手机号码一段时间,在此期间,如果有同事对我以前的工作有任何疑问,我将及时做出答复。 非常感谢您在这段时间里对我的教导和照顾。在平安的 这段经历于我而言非常珍贵。将来无论什么时候,我都会为自己曾经是平安公司的一员感到荣幸。我确信这段工作经历将是我整个职业生涯发展中相当重要的一部分。

岗位辞职申请书(精选6篇)

岗位辞职申请书(精选6篇) 岗位辞职申请书 在当今不断发展的世界,我们都会用到申请书,我们在写申请书的时候要注意语言简洁、准确。写起申请书来就毫无头绪?下面是帮大家整理的岗位辞职申请书,供大家参考借鉴,希望可以帮助到有需要的朋友。 岗位辞职申请书1尊敬的企业领导: 您好! 鉴于我个人能力及不能胜任工作岗位要求等多方面原因的考虑,很遗憾自己在这个时候向企业提出辞职。 我也很清楚这时候向企业辞职于企业于自己都是一个考验,企业正值用人之际,企业业务的开展,所有的前续工作在企业上下极力重视下一步步推进。也正是考虑到企业今后推进的合理性,本着对企业负责的态度,为了不让企业因我而造成的决策失误,我郑重向企业提出辞职,望企业领导给予批准。 希望领导能早日找到合适的人手接替我的工作,我会尽力配合做好交接工作,保证企业的正常运作,对企业,对领导尽好最后的责任。要离开企业的这一刻,我衷心向您说声谢谢!也感谢全体同事对我无微不至的关怀,对此我表示诚挚的谢意,也同时对我的离去给企业带来的不便表示深深地歉意。希望领导能早日找到合适的人手接替我的工作,我会尽力配合做好交接工作,保证企业的正常运作,对企业,

对领导尽好最后的责任。要离开企业的这一刻,我衷心向您说声谢谢!也感谢全体同事对我无微不至的关怀,对此我表示诚挚的谢意,也同时对我的离去给企业带来的不便表示深深地歉意。在离开之前我仍将按往常一样尽力将自己的工作做好。 祝企业领导及同事们前程似锦,鹏程万里! 此致 敬礼! 申请人: 申请日期: 岗位辞职申请书2尊敬的领导: 您好! 怀着复杂的心情,我提出辞职的请求。屈指算来,我到公司已有两年多时间了。在这段时间里,虽然我的工作并不能尽善尽美,但在公司同事们的指导下,我尽量严格要求自己尽心尽职.按时按量完成了公司分配的销售任务。 鉴于两年多来我在公司的发展与期望有些距离,加之近来的工作中我常常觉得力不从心,故遗憾的提出辞职。 非常感谢在这段时间里公司对我的培育和关怀,在公司的这段经历对我而言弥足珍贵。将来无论什么时候,我都会为自己曾经是公司的一员而感到荣幸,在公司的这段工作经历也将是我整个职业生涯中相当重要的一部分。 祝公司领导和所有同事身体健康、工作顺利!

辞职申请书理由 精选十篇

辞职申请书理由精选十篇 想换份工作,每个人辞职总有一个理由,一个员工要辞职,领导 总会要求提交一个离职的原因。以下是为大家的辞职申请书理由范文,欢迎大家阅读参考。 辞职申请书理由范文一 尊敬的各位领导: 你们好! 首先无可非议的要郑重感谢贵公司给予我近两年的工作机会。 由于个人职业规划和一些现实因素,经过慎重考虑之后,特此 提出离职申请,敬请批准。 来到本公司也快两年了,正是这里我开始踏上了社会,完成了 自己从一个学生到社会人的转变,有过欢笑收获,也有过辛酸和痛苦,公司平等的人际关系和开明的工作作风,让我感觉找到了一种依靠的感觉,工作了一年多,给我自己的感觉就是没有什么起色,由此我对于我最近在工作上的一些态度心理进行回想,最后我连自己想干什么,爱好做什么也不是很清楚,一连串的问号让我沮丧,也让我萌发了辞职的念头,并且让我确实了这个念头,或许有从新再跑到社会遭遇挫折,在不断打拼中去找属于自己职业定位才是我人生的下一步选择。 在这一年多的时间里,我有幸得到了各位领导及同事们的倾心 指导及热情的帮助,尤其感谢工段长对我的信任,支持和帮助,感谢所有给予帮助过我的同事们,忠心的祝愿贵公司蒸蒸日上,各位领导同事,工作愉快,身体健康。

此致 敬礼 申请人: XXXX年XX月XX日 辞职申请书理由范文二 尊敬的领导您好: 我进xx已经有几个月了,由于我个人的原因。经过深思熟虑地考虑,我决定辞去我目前在公司所担任的职位。 我非常重视在xx公司内这段经历,也很荣幸成为xx的一员,特别是xx的处事风范及素质使我倍感钦佩。在xx这几个月所学到的知识也是我一生宝贵的财富。也祝所有xx成员在工作和活动中取得更大的成绩及收益! 望领导批准我的辞职申请,并请协助办理相关离职手续(本人在2xx年x月x日离职)。在正式离开之前我将认真继续做好目前的每一项工作。 愿祝xx生意兴隆! 敬请领导同意并批复! 此致 敬礼 申请人: XXXX年XX月XX日 辞职申请书理由范文三

简短离职申请书范文4篇(最新篇)

简短离职申请书范文4篇 简短离职申请书范文4篇 简短离职申请书范文篇一: 尊敬的公司各位领导: 您好。 经过深刻冷静的思考后,我郑重的向公司提出离职申请。来到公司这段时间,我学到了很多知识、积累了宝贵的经验,对此我深怀感激。由于诸多原因,不得不向公司提出离职申请,由此给公司带来的不便我深表歉意。虽有很多不舍,但还是做出以上决定,希望公司领导能对我的申请予以考虑并批准。 感谢领导一直以来对我的照顾和栽培,以及各位同事的支持与帮助,我在这半年多的时间中工作很充实、愉快。在此对部门领导和同事表示感谢。 我希望可以在此辞呈递交一周后离开公司。望领导批准。祝愿公司在今后的发展中蒸蒸日上,并祝愿各位领导及同事工作愉快! 此致 敬礼! 离职人: 201X年X月X日 简短离职申请书范文 篇二: 尊敬的领导们:

天要下雨,娘要嫁人,生亦何苦,死亦何欢,生死由命,富贵由天。本来我想在~~~~~公司工作终老,但是现实是残酷的,世界是疯狂的!巨大的生活压力迫使我抬不起头来。遥望那碧蓝的天空!这时,我多么羡慕那自由飞翔的小鸟,还有那些坐得起飞机的人啊!!!每个月的中旬,我会满怀欢喜的拿着微薄的工资去还上个月的欠债! 今辞去一职,只因生活所迫,正所谓人往高处走,水往低处流;人生短短几十年光阴眨眼就过,何不出去外面世界一闯呢!望各领导们成全。 此致 敬礼! 离职人: 201X年X月X日 简短离职申请书范文 篇三: 尊敬的公司领导: 首先感谢公司近段时间来对我的信任和关照,给予了我一个发展的平台,使我有了长足的进步。如今由于个人原因,无法继续为公司服务,现我正式向公司提出离职申请,将于xx年XX月XX日离职,请公司做好相应安排,在此期间我一定站好最后一班岗,做好交接工作。对此为公司带来的不便,我深感歉意。 望公司批准!谢谢! 祝公司业绩蒸蒸日上,大展宏图! 此致 敬礼!

领导辞职申请书范文大全

领导辞职申请书范文大全 领导辞职申请书范文一 尊敬的学校领导: 你们好! 首先感谢领导对我在二小8年来的工作肯定和信任,以及对我那份切切栽培的厚爱!自从事我校的教科室副主任工作以来,我勤勤恳恳,认真工作。 回顾这一年来的教科室工作,尽管我倾尽努力,但深感力不从心,这无形中使我倍感压力。经过深思熟虑,在此,我郑重向领导提出书面申请书——辞去教科室副主任职务。 一、个人业务能力不足 我理解领导恨铁不成钢的心情,也肯请领导理解我此刻内疚的心情。这一年来,我深感自己业务水平不足,没有使我校的教科室的工作,在原有的基础上进步,甚至比之前有

所停滞。不是我言不由衷,乱找借口。例如,在工作安排方面,我没有足够的协调能力,给许多教师带来不便。在上级下达的任务中,由于没有足够的业务能力,应对深感吃力,致使在日常工作中偶尔出错。教科室工作做不好,致使原来自己得心应手,引以为傲的班级管理工作、教学工作也跟不上,辜负了信任我的家长和学生。世上没有两全其美的方法,如果一定要在两者中选择一个做好,我只能选择做一名勤勤恳恳班主任和语文教师,继续前行。 二、本人身体差,没有足够的精力应付 自从我接手该工作以来,虽然一直很努力,但往往事与愿违。教科室工作、班主任工作、教学工作,家庭中年迈多病的父母需要照顾等等,致使我身心疲惫、有心无力、常常失眠,这不仅对工作无益,而且对我的健康存有潜在威胁。由于身体上的不适,每天总担心教科室工作失误,对整个学校造成不良影响。同时,对以往感兴趣的教学工作也提不起精神来。面对这样的精神状况,我不得已而作出辞去教科室工作的决定。 三、本人在人际处理及工作安排上,处理方式欠佳 由于我是那种大大咧咧的性格,做事不成熟,经常缺乏全面考虑,在上级与下级工作安排中缺乏成熟的协调能力,

辞职申请书范文大全4篇

辞职申请书范文大全4篇Complete sample of resignation application 编订:JinTai College

辞职申请书范文大全4篇 前言:申请书是个人或集体向组织、机关、企事业单位或社会团体表述愿望、提出请求时使用的一种文书。申请书的使用范围广泛,也是一种专用书信,表情达意的工具。本文档根据申请书容要求和特点展开说明,具有实践指导意义,便于学习和使用,本文下载后内容可随意调整修改及打印。 本文简要目录如下:【下载该文档后使用Word打开,按住键盘Ctrl键且鼠标单击目录内容即可跳转到对应篇章】 1、篇章1:辞职申请书范文 2、篇章2:辞职申请书范文 3、篇章3:辞职申请书范文 4、篇章4:辞职申请书范文 辞职申请书格式 辞职申请通常有五部分构成。 (一)标题

在申请书第一行正中写上申请书的名称。一般辞职申请书由事由和文种名共同构成,即以“辞职申请书”为标题。标题要醒目,字体稍大。 (二)称呼 要求在标题下一行顶格处写出接受辞职申请的单位组织或领导人的名称或姓名称呼,并在称呼后加冒号。 (三)正文 正文是申请书的主要部分,正文内容一般包括三部分。 首先要提出申请辞职的内容,开门见山让人一看便知。 其次申述提出申请的具体理由。该项内容要求将自己有关辞职的详细情况一一列举出来,但要注意内容的单一性和完整性,条分缕析使人一看便知。 最后要提出自己提出辞职申请的决心和个人的具体要求,希望领导解决的问题等。 (四)结尾 结尾要求写上表示敬意的话。如“此致——敬礼”等。 (五)落款

辞职申请的落款要求写上辞职人的姓名及提出辞职申请的具体日期。 篇章1:辞职申请书范文 尊敬的公司领导: 首先,致以我深深地歉意,很遗憾在这个时候向公司提出辞职,离职的原因纯粹是出于个人未来的工作发展而考虑,无法继续在公司发展!离开前我也会认真做好工作地交接,把未完成的工作做一下整理,以保证公司工作的顺利延续。也很荣幸曾身为XX公司的一员,能有机会在这里工作学习,不胜感激!衷心祝愿所有在XX公司辛勤工作的同事工作顺利,事业有成! 此致 敬礼! 申请人: 申请日期: .辞职申请书范文2 尊敬的公司领导:

教师辞职申请书范文大全

教师辞职申请书范文大全 篇一:教师辞职申请书范文 尊敬的县教育局和校领导: 您们好! 首先我只能说声对不起,我辜负了您们对我的期望,今天写信是向您们提出辞职的。自 xx 年 8 月分配到四中以来,我一直受到了教育局和学校的各方面的帮助,尤其是学校领导,李校长,对我工作和生活都很关心,对此我是感恩不尽的。刚大学毕业时,我由一名学生成了一位光荣的人民教师,对教师这职业我是既熟悉又陌生。记得在我来校的当天,就受到了学校领导和同事们的欢迎,心里感到非常的温暖 ;教学工作也是无私的将许多教学经验传授给我。从备课到讲解,从和学生相处到批改作业,从教态到板书设计,从语言运用到为人处世等等,让我学了不少东西。学校是很器重我的,近三年连续让我教高三。应该说我是很认真很努力地在工作,我敢发誓的说,我没有哪一天,哪一节课是在混日子,在敷衍学生,我都尽我最大的力做好我的本职工作。但今天我决定选择离开四中,有这么几个原因:第一:虽然我很尽力的从事教学工作,但教学还是不如人意,取得的成绩微乎其微,辜负了学校领导对我的期望,我也是很无奈,有时真怀疑自己的能力了。想来,可能验证了一句话:本科大学毕业的不如一般大学毕业的,一般大学毕业的不如师专毕业的,师专毕

业的不如高中毕业的。因此,我觉得我不适合在四中工作,再这样下去的话,肯定会影响学校的升学率。在现在如此看中升学率的环境下,请考虑批准我的辞职报告。第二:就是学校的管理。开始的时候觉得还能跟上学校改革的步伐,但越到后面,越觉得难以适应。比如学校规定没有课也要坐班,我也赞同的,也坐班的。但我的课经常是早上 4、5 节,而学校只能 10:00 到 10:30 去吃早点,那样只能来不及,但不吃的话我身体又吃不消,更怕影响教学质量。因此经常 9:30 去吃,从而违反了学校的规定,要算我脱岗。我想,我是不适应学校的管理了,因此选择离开。第三:就是工资,每个月打到卡上的 1024 元,让我很难想象什么时候能在弥勒买得起按揭的住房,倍感压力重大。四中是强调不为薪水而工作的,而我,还做不到这点。因为我家里还有父母,以后还会成家,会有孩子,都需要薪水。第四:也许是能力有限,我认为我在四中已经没有更大的发展机会了,已经工作了 5 年多,基本上定型了。因此,我决定选择一个新的工作环境,希望领导批准,敬请早些安排。当然,无论我在哪里,我都会为四中做力所能及的事情,因为我为我曾经是四中人而感到骄傲。最后,诚恳地说声:对不起!也衷 心地祝愿四中力挫群芳,永往直前!学校越办越好,升学率一年比一年高!四中所有的学生都考上重点大学!

离职申请书范文大全必胜客离职申请书范文

离职申请书范文大全必胜客离职申请书范文离职申请书是必胜客员工在离职申请过程中的拍门砖。下面是为大家带来的必胜客离职申请书范文,相信对你会有帮助的。 尊敬的领导: 我是在必胜客兼职的一个大学生,今天我怀着歉意在此向您提出辞职。 在我不多的上班生活中,我工作的很开心,感觉餐厅的气氛就和一个大家庭一样,大家相处的融洽和睦。同时我在餐厅也学会了如何与同时相处,如何向同事们请教询问。 我真心的感谢大家对我的照顾,由于我自己的能力和时间等方面的原因,没有能很好地位餐厅的运作做出什么贡献,我深深地觉得愧对餐厅对我的培养。由于一些个人的因素,我在过去一段时间的表现不能让我自己和大家感觉满意,给大家添了不少的麻烦,所以为了不给餐厅增加更多的麻烦,我做了决定,而且经过自己慎重的考虑,我怀着莫大的歉意,向您提出辞职,请您给予批准。以后,有合适的机会我还是会选择回到这个美好的地方快乐的工作。渴盼得到您的谅解和批准。

此致 敬礼! XXX XXXX年XX月XX日 尊敬的XX经理: 您好!首先感激您在百忙之中抽出时刻开阅读我的辞职信。 我是怀着非常复杂的心境写这封的。自从我进到了餐厅之后,由于你对我的指点和信任,使我取得了许多机遇和应战。经历这段时刻在餐厅的任务,我从中学到了许多知识,积聚了一定的经历,对此我深表感谢。由于我本身任务才能不够,近期的任务让我觉得力所能及,为此我作了很长时刻的思考,我确定递上辞呈。 为了不由于我本人才能不够的缘由影响了餐厅的正常运作,更迫切的缘由是我必需在xx年1月后参与计算机等级证的培训,较长时刻内都不能下班,因此经历沉思熟虑之后,我确定在xx年1月前

2019-离职申请书-范文word版 (4页)

本文部分内容来自网络整理,本司不为其真实性负责,如有异议或侵权请及时联系,本司将立即删除! == 本文为word格式,下载后可方便编辑和修改! == 离职申请书 精选范文:离职申请书(共2篇) 尊敬的公司领导: 您好! 我很遗憾自己在这个时候向公司正式提出辞职。 我因经济危机的影响以及家庭原因,无法在继续工作下去,只能提前回国,希望公司能谅解我们的处境。经过慎重考虑之后,特此提出申请:我自愿申请辞去在公司的一切职务,敬请批准。 来到公司大约二年了,公司里的每个人对我都很好。我衷心感谢各位领导以及各位同事对我的照顾与错爱,在这近二年里,我学到了很多以前从未接触过的知识,开阔了视野,锻炼了能力。工作上,我学到了许多宝贵实践技能。生活上,得到各级领导与同事们的关照与帮助;思想上,得到领导与同事们的指导与帮助,有了更成熟与深刻的人生观。这近二年多的工作经验将是我今后学习工作中一笔宝贵的财富。感谢所有给予过我帮助的同事们。 望领导批准我的申请,并请协助办理相关离职手续,在正式离开之前我将认真继续做好目前的每一项工作。 离开这个公司,我满含着愧疚、遗憾。我愧对公司上下对我的期望,愧对各位对我的关心和爱护。遗憾我不能经历公司的发展与以后的辉煌,不能分享你们的甘苦,不能聆听各位的教诲,也遗憾我什么都没能留下来。结束我来新加坡的第一份工作。 最后,衷心祝愿公司健康成长,事业蒸蒸日上!祝愿各位领导与同事:健康快乐,平安幸福! 辞职人: 201X年04月10日 [ 离职申请书(共2篇) ] 篇一:离职申请书范文

范文一 离职申请书 尊敬的公司领导: [ 离职申请书(共2篇) ] 您好!首先感谢您在百忙之中抽出时间阅读我的辞职信。 我是怀着十分复杂的心情写这封辞职信的。自我进入公司之后,由于您对我的 关心、指导和信任,使我获得了很多机遇和挑战。经过这段时间在公司的工作,我在保险领域学到了很多知识,尤其是办公室合规的相关方面,积累了一定的 经验,对此我深表感激。 由于自身存在很多尚不完善的地方,想通过继续学习来进一步加强自己的能力。为了不因为我个人原因而影响公司的工作,决定辞去目前的工作。我知道这个 过程会给公司带来一定程度上的不便,对此我深表歉意。 我会尽快完成工作交接,以减少因我的离职而给公司带来的不便。为了尽量减 少对现有工作造成的影响,我请求在公司的员工通讯录上保留我的手机号码一 段时间,在此期间,如果有同事对我以前的工作有任何疑问,我将及时做出答复。 非常感谢您在这段时间里对我的教导和照顾。在平安的这段经历于我而言非常 珍贵。将来无论什么时候,我都会为自己曾经是平安公司的一员感到荣幸。我 确信这段工作经历将是我整个职业生涯发展中相当重要的一部分。 祝公司领导和所有同事身体健康、工作顺利!再次对我的离 职给公司带来的不便表示歉意,同时我也希望公司能够理解我的实际情况,对 我的申请予以考虑并批准。 此致 敬礼 申请人:XXX X年X月X日 范文二 离职申请 尊敬的领导:

离职申请书范文模板大全

离职申请书范文模板大全 有些人在写离职申请的时候往往不知道该怎么下笔,明明自己心里有想法,但却就是写不出来,而且还不知道离职申请的格式。“公司员工离职申请怎么写”呢?下面小编整理离职申请书范文模板,欢迎阅读。 离职申请书范文模板1 尊敬的公司领导: 您好!首先感谢您在百忙之中抽出时间阅读我的离职申请书。 我是怀着十分复杂的心情写这封辞职信的。自我进入公司之后,由于您对我的关心、指导和信任,使我获得了很多机遇和挑战。经过这段时间在公司的工作,我在原料采购领域学到了很多知识,积累了一定的经验,对此我深表感激。 由于我自身经验的不足,近期的工作让我觉得力不从心。为此,我进行了长时间的思考,觉得公司目前的工作安排和我自己之前做的职业规划并不完全一致。 为了不因为我个人的原因而影响公司的生产销售进度,经过深思熟虑之后我决定辞去这份工作。我知道这个过程会给您带来一定程度上的不便,对此我深表抱歉。 我会在这段时间里完成工作交接,以减少因我的离职而给公司带来的不便。 为了尽量减少对现有工作造成的影响,我请求在公司的员工通讯录上保留我的手机号码1个月,在此期间,如果有同事对我以前的工作有任何疑问,我将及时做出答复。 非常感谢您在这段时间里对我的教导和照顾。在公司的这段经历于我而言非常珍贵。将来无论什么时候,我都会为自己曾经是公司的一员而感到荣幸。我确信在公司的这段工作经历将是我整个职业生涯发展中相当重要的一部分。 祝公司领导和所有同事身体健康、工作顺利! 此致 敬礼! 申请人:xxx 20xx年xx月xx日 离职申请书范文模板2 敬爱的xx公司领导: 您好。

由于身体的原因,不适应扫描这份工作。在这个月底交完班后,我打算回家休养。对此,我向信任我给予我期望的公司领导和同事们表示深深的歉意。 作为大姐与领导,我想把我这三个月来在xx公司学习成长的收获与您分享。 首先,向您表示感谢。感谢您给予了我进入xx公司学习锻炼的机会,让我在此不 仅学习到证券知识还认识了许多可亲可爱的同事们。xx公司就像是一个和谐的大家庭,在这里工作不仅感受到温暖而且充实快乐。在公司最忙碌的日子里,我亲眼目睹了同 事们紧张、有条不紊的工作。虽然很累但没有人叫苦。让我看到了一个团结战斗的群体,一个年轻活泼的群体。每当我工作疲惫烦躁厌倦时,看到他们,心中不自觉地就 有一股力量。心中的暖流来自于同事们乐观敬业的精神,来自于大家的相互关照和鼓励。是这个战斗的群体不断的激励着我,给予我力量,让我看到了自己的许多不足。 我为有这麽一群同事而骄傲。 在弟弟妹妹身上,我看到了朝气,看到了这个公司的未来。在大哥大姐身上,我 看到了亲切与平和,看到了这个公司的历史和积淀。感谢公司领导为我们创造了这麽 一个和谐快乐的工作氛围。 其次,我要感谢这个公司里所有的同事们。是大家给了我温暖和帮助。让我在这 里工作快乐而温馨。感谢xx姐、xxx姐、xxx哥、xx哥等同事对我工作的鼓励和支持。感谢前台活泼可爱的同事们。 祝愿xx公司的事业蒸蒸日上。道路越走越广! 此致 敬礼! 申请人:xxx 20xx年xx月xx日 离职申请书范文模板3 尊敬的领导: 由于我的一些个人原因,经过一段时间的慎重考虑后,我决定向公司提出辞职。 在短短一年的时间里,公司给予了我多次机会,使我在这个工作岗位上积累了一 定的技术技能和工程经验。我在公司里工作的很开心,感觉公司的气氛就和一个大家 庭一样,大家相处的融洽和睦,同时在公司里也学会了许多工作以外的处世为人等做 人的道理。所有的这些我很珍惜也很感谢公司,因为这些都为我在将来的工作和生活 中带来帮助和方便。另外,在和各位同事的朝夕相处的时间里,也使我对过去的、现

精选辞职申请书范文10篇

精选辞职申请书范文10篇 精选辞职申请书范文10篇 在现在社会,申请书起到的作用越来越大,写申请书的时候要注意内容的完整。为了让您不再为写申请书头疼,以下是为大家的辞职申请书10篇,仅供参考,大家一起来看看吧。 尊敬的经理: 您好!我是项目的系统集成工程师,负责项目第三阶段的集成工作,我知道在这个时候向您提出辞职申请是不对的,会给公司带来不少麻烦,然而一些突发事件,使得我不得不辞职,对此还请您谅解。人家说系统集成工程师是个好工作,我也确信是个好工作,公司也是个好公司,现在让我辞职我也很不舍,可是某此不可抗拒的因素让我没得选择。 我自也了一些项目三阶段的工作内容: 1、硬件集成,主要任务包括服务器、存储设备安装调试、分区、微码升级等工作,并编写安装报告;

2、系统初始化,主要任务包括安装虚拟化软件、操作系统和相应补丁升级工作,并编写安装报告; 3、系统配置,主要任务包括网络、磁盘存储、文件系统、用户、交换分区、系统日志以及管理逻辑和物理设备等工作,并编写安装报告; 4、ha软件安装,主要任务包括规划配置ha环境,安装ha软件等工作,并编写安装报告; 5、应用软件安装,主要任务包括安装数据库软件、备份、监控和应用软件等,并编写安装报告。 6、与产品规划人员沟通,掌握产品需求及变更,具有项目进度规划和管理,技术难点公关,各项性能优化能力),希望对交接人员有所帮助。 最后,祝愿公司发展越来越来,同事们事事顺心。 尊敬的xx经理: 您好!

工作近*年来,发现自己在工作、生活中,所学知识还有很多欠缺,已经不能适应社会发展的需要,因此渴望回到校园,继续深造。经过慎重考虑之后,特此提出辞职:我自愿申请辞去在xxxx机修公司的一切职务。 在XXX近*年的时间里,我有幸得到了单位历届领导及同事们的倾心指导及热情帮助。工作上,我学到了许多宝贵的经验和实践技能,对科研工作有了大致的了解。生活上,得到各级领导与同事们的关照与帮助;思想上,得到领导与同事们的指导与帮助,有了更成熟与深刻的人生观。这近四年多的工作经验将是我今后学习工作中的第一笔宝贵的财富。 在这里,特别感谢YYY(XXX的上级单位) A主任、B主任、C主任在过去的工作、生活中给予的大力扶持与帮助。尤其感谢XXX Z主任在XXX近二年来的关照、指导以及对我的信任和在人生道路上对我的指引。感谢所有给予过我帮助的同事们。 祝您身体健康,事业顺心。并祝YYY、XXX事业蓬勃发展。 此致

简单的离职申请书模板5篇

简单的离职申请书模板5篇 员工辞职报告模板应该怎么写呢?在我们辞职时一定要先学会怎么书写辞职信哦!下面就是给大家带来的简单的离职申请书模板5篇,希望大家喜欢! 简单的离职申请书模板【一】 尊敬和亲爱的温总: 首先致以我深深地歉意,怀着及其复杂而愧疚的心情我艰难写下这份辞职信,很遗憾自己在这个时候突然向公司提出辞职,纯粹是出于个人的原因,不能再和公司的一起发展! 其实我已经很幸福,很幸运能在广缆工作了近二十年多的时间,在这近二十年中我们一起工作,一起成长,一起为广缆的发展添砖加瓦。 特别在这六年中,领导给予了我人生中最重要的机会--做部长,并在过往我工作过程中给予的帮助和支持深表感谢。能够得到大家的帮助和认同深感幸福。 在这年六年中,一起进步,一起成长,一起把我们的工作做好,汗水终得到回报,我们的广缆越来越壮大,和市场客户的

实际越来越紧密的结合,我很高兴六年来时间的付出和努力得到了历史印证。 在这年六年中虽然有这样问题、那样的困难,但和谐愉快的工作是这一生一段很难忘的幸福的经历,我为曾经有过这样的open的思想和心态的工作环境和人际环境感到无比的荣兴和骄傲,我想这一定是我人生历程中的一段很美好很美好的经历和回忆。 感谢领导在这六年中对我的培养和宠爱,感谢大家在这段时间对我工作中的支持和帮助,无言以表,再次感谢! 因个人的原因和身体健康原因,向公司提出辞职,请批复! 离开这个曾经是我这一生最爱的工作岗位,离开这些曾经同甘共苦的同事,确实很舍不得,舍不得同事之间的那片真诚和友善。但是出于个人的原因我还是要作出这个最痛苦的决定,我恳请领导原谅我,批准我的辞职。 大恩不言谢谢(鞠躬)! 辞职人:xx 日期:20xx年xx月x日 简单的离职申请书模板【二】 尊敬的公司领导:

简单辞职申请书范文5篇

简单辞职申请书范文5篇 篇一:简单辞职申请书 尊敬的公司领导: 首先感谢公司近段时间对我的信任和关照,给予了我一个发展的平台,使我有了长足的进步。如今由于个人原因,无法为公司继续服务,现在我正式向公司提出辞职申请,将于2011年12月31日离职,请公司做好相应的安排,在此期间我一定站好最后一班岗,做好交接工作。对此为公司带来的不便,我深感歉意。 望公司批准,谢谢! 祝公司业绩蒸蒸日上。 此致 敬礼 申请人:xxx 20xx年x月x日 篇二:简单辞职申请书 尊敬的领导 我叫xxx,现任外xxx,20xx年11月入职。考虑再三我向公司提出离职申请,不得不说我在公司一年多的时间里学到了很多东西,深刻感受到了xxx大家庭的温暖,每个人都是那么的积极向上,我认为是xxx的价值观指引了我们,他不仅是xxx的价值观,也是我们每个人的价值观,对于我来说他将影响我的一生,在这里工作我感到很荣幸,非常感谢公司对我的培养和帮助。但是由于我

个人心态的变化,不能再胜任此工作,特向公司提出离职申请,希望领导给予批准,由此给公司带来不便表示歉意! 申请人:xxx 20xx年x月x日 篇三:简单辞职申请书 尊敬的领导: 您好! 在此向公司提出辞呈。 在公司工作近三年中,得到了领导和同事们的许多关心、体贴和帮助。对公司有了家的感觉,也学到了很多知识。非常感激公司给予了我这样的机会,能在这么良好的环境下工作和学习。 因为某些个人的理由,我选择离职。望领导批准我的申请。在未离开岗位之前,我一定会尽职做好应该做的事。是我的工作请尽管分配。也会尽快做好交接工作。 离开公司,离开这些曾经同甘共苦的同事,很舍不得,舍不得领导们的谆谆教诲,舍不得同事之间的那片真诚和友善。 最后,希望公司的业绩一如既往一路飙升!各位同仁工作顺利! 此致 敬礼 申请人:xxx

简单的离职申请书范文大全

简单的离职申请书范文大全 尊敬的领导: 你好! 非常感谢领导给予在××工作的机会以及在这两年里对我的关心 和关怀!因为某些原因,今天我在这里提出辞职申请。 在××两年的时间里,公司给予我多次参加大小项目的实施机会,使我在这个工作岗位上积累了一定的技术技能和工程经验,同时也学 到了许多工作以外的处世为人等做人的道理。所有的这些我很珍惜也 很感谢公司,因为这些都为我在将来的工作和生活中带来关心和方便。另外,在和××部各位同事的朝夕相处的两年时间里,也使我对这个 部门,对过去的、现在的同事建立了由浅到深的友谊,我从内心希望 这份友谊,这份感情能继续并永久保持下去。 ××的发展和建设在进一步的规范和完善中,真心祝福××在今 后的发展旅途中步步为赢、蒸蒸日上! 再次感谢 此致 敬礼 申请人:### 20xx年xx月xx日 【篇二】 尊敬的领导: 您好,今天我怀着十分复杂的心情向您提出我的辞职请求,我会 在三月份的某个你觉得方便的时候离开,我打算追求其他方面的爱好,

假如这给您增添了任何的麻烦,请接受我深深的歉意。在公司的2年 多的时间里,也许我的能力有限,也许我的潜力并没有得到充分发挥,我没有为公司做出更多的贡献,对此我深感愧疚。 在此我非常感谢公司给予本人学习的机会,并取得宝贵的工作经验。希望本人的离职不会为您带来很大的不便。离职申请书范文。本 人希望在离职之前,能够取得离职通知书。 回想在以往的岁月里,在工作、生活各方面,我都得到了您周到 的关心和关心,说心里话您是一位难得的好主管,我很幸运一毕业就 遇上了您。当我做错事的时候您总是能够原谅我,并能一次又一次的 给我机会改正。对此,我将一辈子感激不尽。以后您有什么用得着我 的地方,尽管开口,只要条件允许,有可能做得到的,我一定乐意尽力。我也希望我们能再有共事的机会。 在未离开岗位之前,是我的工作请您尽管分配,我一定会尽自己 的职责,做好应该做的事。离职申请书范文。最后我再一次感谢给予 我关心和关心的公司所有同事,我衷心感谢您们。祝您和公司好运相伴,将来更加兴旺发达. 此致 敬礼 申请人:### 20xx年xx月xx日

相关文档