Sources used in this document:

The data collected and presented by the authors, although extremely interesting, is based on secondary sources rather than primary, or at least not a blend of primary and secondary sources. In fact on page 196 and 197 the authors ignore the cardinal rule of best fit research practice by discussing a particular situation wherein the authors paraphrased certain statements made by the co-CEO of Charles Schwab without any cited reference whatsoever. Further, they even quoted the co-CEO without proper citation.

Particular attention must be given at this time to the authors' use of reference material. When one reviews the reference page it is interesting, and surprising, to note that not one citation mentions the words Charles Schwab or Merrill Lynch. One must ask, therefore, how valid is the material being presented by the authors with respect to their discussion of each brokerage house? Additionally, even the secondary sources upon which the authors base their research study are extremely outdated and possibly irrelevant due to mega technological changes in the it industry in the last five years. As a result, analysis of the Charles Schwab vs. Merrill Lynch it brokerage data scenario is extremely suspect as to reliability and validity. In other words, the overwhelming unanswered question is one of how authentic and accurate is the authors' data with respect to both brokerage houses when no part of the presentation was supported with primary research?

In conclusion, and for others reading the Mahnke, Zcan, and Overby (2006) research report, extreme caution must be exercised in terms of accepting the conclusions drawn and inferences made as there are serious limitations of the study. The most significant limitation, and as stated earlier, is in terms of the absence of any primary research data with respect to the early vs. late use of it systems at each respective brokerage house. Another limitation is the lack of information as to how the dot.com collapse affected each brokerage house and their use of improved it systems. Still another limitation is in the area of outsourcing of it services and the relationship this has to both Schwab and Lynch. A great deal of time was spent on discussing the impact of it outsourcing but little of the information was applied to Schwab and Merrill. Finally, Mahnke, Zcan, and Overby might well have reinforced their qualitative research through a more rigorous content analysis and historiography which is gained through fieldwork activities, namely reviewing text material direct from Charles Schwab and Merrill Lynch and from gathering historical evidence applicable to both brokerage houses.