IllIll IIIIllIIllllllll Illllllllll il1lllll 1402732737 SWP 5195 ;- FACTORS AFFECTING SYSTEMS SUCCESS INFORMATION GRAFTON WHYTE and ANDY BYTHEWAY Information Systems Cranfield School of Management Cranfield University Cranfield Bedford MK43 OAL United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1234 751122 Fax: +44 (0)1234 751806 The Cranfield School of ManagementWorkingPapersSerieshas beenrunning since 1987, with approximately 380 papers so far from the nine academic groups of the School: Economics; Enterprise; Finance and Accounting; Human Resources;Information Systems; Logistics and Transportation; Marketing; OperationsManagement; and Strategic Management.Since 1992, papers have been reviewed by senior membersoffaculty before acceptanceinto the Series.A list since 1992 is included at the back of this paper. For copies of papers (up to threefree, then f2 per copy, chequesto be made payable to the Cranjield School of Management),please contact Mrs. Val Singh, ResearchAdministrator, at the on the hnck of this hooklet. Copyright: Whyte & Bytheway ISBN 1 85905 062 X 1995 1 ‘. ., I .*!i i-1 ‘_ 8.: ):?I., &. . , I’ .. - t ,. Cran field ‘, ‘I\ “>.- UNIVERSITY School of Management Draft Working Paper - 18 Jm~u;~~~ FACTORS AFFECTING INFORMATION SUCCESS This working paper has beenprepared by Grafton Whyteand Andy Bytheway and is based upon work undertaken by Grafton Whytein the early stages of his PhD research. It describesthe theoretical foundations for a new project in the Cranfield Information SystemsResearch Centre, which is dealing with the assessmentand managementof success in the delivery of information systems. (A shorter version o/this paper is under consideration forpublication in the International Journal of Service Industry Management.) Key words: Information systemssuccess,service management,user perceptions of success,repertory grid. _- ISRL CATEGORIES DB05,EF02,EI02,EL03, GB07 0 1995 Cranfield School of Management .>I4 ;,3’ SYSTEMS ABSTRACT There is continuing difficulty in achieving successwith information systems, particularly in the sense of meeting users’ needs and expectations. This suggeststhat a fresh examination of the issues is needed in order that we understandbetter the causesof successand failure. Much previous research in this area has adopted one of two perspectives: improving the processesof systemsdevelopment, or the structure and content of systemsproducts. This approach has had only limited successin dealing with the problem. A wider review of existing researchliterature suggeststhat, in addition to the processand product viewpoint, an important factor in achieving success in the general caseis the service managementviewpoint. The question therefore arises: is service important in the provision of information s.vstems,and is it a factor in achieving successin the eyes of the users? It is possible that service components exist which are unrecognised by those managing the development and use of information systems. If these components can be identified and understood, then they can be used to improve the overall level of successachieved. By applying repertory grid techniques a total of 43 constructs have been found which relate to user’s perceptions of success with information systemsin business. Further analysis reducesthese to 2 1 attributes which provide the basis of a new assessment and measurementframework. The use of these attributes in practice is illustrated using two cases: an information service provider and a hospital equipment supplier. Early experience suggeststhat software houses, commercial organisations and information systems departments can use these attributes as a management tool, and thereby improve the level of service and business benefit that they deliver to their customers. Factors rfkctlog InformatIon systems success INTRODUCTION Objectivesof the paper The objectives of this paper are to: 8 discuss briefly the concept of successand failure in the provision of information systems,and different views of the critical issuestherein; n review previous work that has addressedthese issuesand to introduce a project which set about dealing with them in a new way; n explain in summary how the repertory grid technique was used to develop a new framework for understandingsystemssuccess,and to introduce that framework; n draw conclusions and to explain the opportunity for further work. Successandfailure with information systems In the history of information systems in businessit is probably true that there has been more failure and disappointment than success. Work by Galloway and Whyte (1989), Butler Cox (1986) and Lyytinen (1988) suggeststhat one in two information systems development projects will not lead to successful systems. Recent well-publicised examples of the information system industry’s failure to deliver successful systems in the UK include the London Stock Exchange settlement system (the Taurus project), the Performing Rights Society system and the new London Ambulance Service call logging system. In France there have been major problems with systems for the national railways. Other examples can be found all over the world. If end users are asked what they think about systems that have been delivered to them they are - at best - likely to display a degreeof indifference. Experts working with information technology often perceive successful systems to be concernedwith the successful use of the latest technology, and not at all with whether that technology was relevant to the user’sneeds. Project managerssee successas a project which has been completed in the face of enormous difficulties (probably self-inflicted). These are signs of an immature discipline which is not yet understoodand which therefore can not be managedproperly. Rationale for the researchproject The needfor a framework IT managementand systems project leadersneed to understandtheir users’ view of successand what factors affect its achievement. Attempts to improve successwith information systems have tendedto be inward looking and have given inadequateconsideration to the users’ perceptions and needs. For example, much attention has been paid to the systems development lifecycle and the accompanying disciplines of project managementand quality management.-!Although some attention has been given latterly to the interface between the information system project and the host business(for example in user requirements analysis, and later in testing and post implementation reviews) a framework is still neededwith which to establish what the users’ real longer term perceptions of successare, and the implication of these perceptions for systems development and delivery processes. Crrnfleld School of Management DraR Working Paper - 18 January 1995 Factors alfectlng InformatIon systems success Product, process and service concepts It can be argued that there are different aspects or perspectives to the provision of information systems, leading to quite different views as to its improvement. Three which may be important (see Figure 1) are: n the product which is delivered to the users(for examplethe software and hardware systems, user documentationand training courses); n the process that createsthe system(traditionally including systemsanalysis, technical design, program coding, testing and final handover); the service packagewhich deals with the softer issues(answering questions, dealing with problems. or whatever else is needed). n -- Figure 1: Perspectiveson information systems Most IS managerswould. if asked, consider themselves to be delivering a service. However, the evidence is that these managersspend most of their time monitoring aspectsof their operation which have little to do with service. Moreover, the overwhelming weight of research has focused on the product and processaspectsof information systems,to the exclusion of almost everything else. The notion of service in information systems provision is still something of an illusion and our understandingof it is weak. It is easy to understand the information technology industry’s preoccupation with products, because the delivery of completed systemsis predominantly what the industry is about. And then there is the information systems industry, which puts systemstogether and integratesthe different technologies: their preoccupation is with the processas well as the product that it produces. Business itself might fall into the sametrap. If a businesscommissions a new invoicing systemthen all the systems development processes in the world - using all the latest software engineering Cranlleld School of Management Draft Worldng Paper - 18 January 1995 Factors rffectlng informatton systems success methods, tools and techniques - are not of themselves going to assurethe successful provision of a billing system. The users’ primary concernsare not directly with the product or process,but what the product will do for them and whether they are comfortable with the process. Purpose of the paper This researchproject has been addressingthese questions. The purpose of this paper is to report the early results of that work, and to present a framework within which a greater degreeof understanding can be achieved. The work draws on models from the world of service operationsand from the world of information systems evaluation. The approach to the work is rigorous; where much previous work has been speculative, this project has derived a new framework for the assessmentof successby a careful processof research,interviewing and analysis. PREVIOUS WORK Approaches adoptedin previous general research Much researchin the information systems community has chosento deal with the product viewpoint. Studies into the determinants of successand failure have focused upon the more observable,tangible attributes and characteristics of systemsproducts, such as responsetimes, data volumes and the extent of systems usage. This is particularly true for the earlier research. Increasedsystems complexity, the increasing number of unsuccessfulsystems and a growing systems development backlog led to a shift in attention from the product to the process viewpoint. Here we are concerned with the sequenceof systems development and its relationship with supporting tools, development methods, project managementtechniquesand the level of user involvement._Again, it is -typical to concentrate on the more tangible attributes, such as the volume of documentation, the number of lines of clean program code completed and the milestones at which user approval is given. ) Miller (1989) casts some doubt on the ability of product and process approaches to measure i information system success, suggesting that process outcomes may not be able to be successfully measured. On the product side he, along with a number of other authors (Melone 1990, Srinivasan 19851,suggestthat systems usageis besetby a number of complicating issuessuch as: n n n n whether use of the system is mandatory or discretionary, the influence of viable information alternatives, the effect that user experiencehas on usage,and the extent to which obtained information is actually used. Measurement of tangible characteristics of information system projects is undoubtedly important but this should not be to the exclusion of the intangible characteristicswhich are more difftcult to observe -._ .,.,e* and measure ___ .__..--- such as “service quality” and the managementof “user expectations”. Service Operations Management is an area of researchwhich deals with some of the intangibles and therefore holds out the prospect of useful insights into the information systems problems facing technical and business managers. The idea that there might be lessons to be learnt by exploring existing ideas in the service management discipline was one of the primary motivating factors in setting about this researchproject. Crrnfield School of Management Draft Working Paper - 18 January 1995 Factors affectlag laformrtlon systems success Approaches adoptedin previous specific research .I In the specific area of information systems success, much research has been concerned with the project development process,no doubt in the belief that a successfuldevelopment processwill lead to successfulsystems. - A review of the literature suggeststhe following as being the main causes: - n over optimistic estimatesthat subsequentlylead to the system being delivered late (Keen 1987; Galloway and Whyte 1989; Brooks 1975); n projects running over budget again in most instancesbecauseof underestimation of the work involved (Keen 1987; Rademacher1989); n ill-defined project objectives, mostly arising from uncertainty regarding the businessneedsto be satisfied (Keen 1987; Lyytinen 1988, Rademacher1989); 8 lack of user commitment to the project and system (Keen 1987; Tait and Vessy, 1988) and poor communications (Whyte 1987; Illes 1990) typically betweenusers and the development Staff. n the technical limitations of a system (Lyytinen 1988, Galloway and Whyte 1989), including systemswhich are unfriendly and inflexible and the use of inexperiencedstaff to develop systems (Illes 1990; Keen 1987; Rademacher1989). Work by Jones and Kydd (1988) and Galloway and Whyte (1989) suggeststhat these causesmay themselves be symptoms of some other underlying problems or are instancesof certain information processing problems. These underlying problems have been identified as uncertainty (the lack of information), equivocal@ (the absenceof clarity, or excessiveambiguity in the project) and internal inconsistency (between the key elements of an information system project - for example the users, developers,tools and technology used in it), An IS developmentand implementation researchframework To complement the product, process and service viewpoints, it is also possible to classify research according to the analytical approach taken. For example, it can be argued that there are four broad but significantly overlapping categoriesof analysis (Kydd, 1989). n n 8 n Technical approaches Behavioural approaches Organisational approaches Interactive approaches The technical perspective Commentators from the technical perspective suggest that information system projects fail predominantly becauseof poor project management(Brooks, 1975; Hughes, 1986; Kuzrnan 1989; Morreale, 1985). This manifests itself in poor planning, poor estimating, and the choice of inappropriate technology or tools for the task. Also included is the recruitment of inadequately skilled personnel into the project. Typically the sorts of responsesadvocated are ones that tend to be most used within the industry: structured methodologies, more rigorous project managementmethodologies and rapid development techniques and tools (Kaniper, 1986; Chandler and Holzer 1986; Simon and Davenport, 1987; Hughes 1986; Kuzman, 1989; Viskovich, 1988; Casher, 1984; Huling, 1987; Yaffe, 1988). Crrntleld School of Meargement Draft Working Paper - 18 Jemurry 1995 Factors effectlag InformatIon systems success The behavioural perspective Work done taking a behavioural approach suggeststhat for successful project development more attention needs to be paid to the social and human issues that arise before, during and after implementation of a new system. For example, the lack of an adequateor sufficiently influential businessmanagersponsor (Doll 1985; Necco 1989). Projects often fail for lack of a systems champion on the business side to assist the organisation in implementing a new system by managing the changeprocess(Pinto and Slevin, 1987; Carroll 1982). Studies have also shown that, for certain types of project, a lack of user involvement throughout the process will lead to a greater likelihood of project failure (Tait and Vessey, 1988; Jones and Kydd 1988). The organisational perspective Closely associated with much of the behavioural work are the studies taking an organisational perspective of the development and use of information systems and their complexity (Ginzberg, 1980; Rademacher, 1989). The suggestion is that a lack of attention to the organisational “tit” of a new information system and a failure to identify organisational “winners” and “losers” (when there is a shift in power due to the new information system) can seriously undermine the progress of a systems project. Interactive approaches Studies taking the interactive perspective stress the problems that can arise due to the interaction of the technological, behavioural and organisational aspects of a new information system. The fit betweentechnological featuresand the organisation are found to be relevant (Kydd, 1989). One approachto overcoming these interactive problem has beenthe reliance on a key changeagent or “hybrid manager” (Skyrme and Earl 1990) who because of their technical, political and administration expertise will be able to facilitate the integration of information systems and technology into the organisation. Ideasfor remedial actions In general the remedial action that most writers seem to agree upon is the need for is greater communication between all the interested parties in an information system project, both in terms of the quality and quantity of communications (Jones and Kydd 1988; Kydd 1989; Bostrom 1989; Kuzman, 1989). _* Research which suggests information processing, internal inconsistency and communications problems as the main causes of information system failure illustrates the difficulty that arises from looking at product and process issuesalone. What these findings suggest is that there is another area that needs to be investigated. This paper proposes that this is the area of service, or customer interaction. Morris and Johnston (1987) discuss this and argue that it is the feature which distinguishes a service operation from a manufacturing operation: a manufacturing operation will comprise “Materials Process Operations”, whereas a service operation will comprise “Customer ProcessOperations”. Morris goes on to identify a third area: “Information ProcessOperations”. It is the pervasivenessand intangible nature of this operation that makes the service elements of information systems operations difficult to identify. They are potentially unique and almost certainly difficult to manage. Crrntleld School of Management Draft WorkJag Paper - 18 Jmmrry 1995 Factors rfkctlng ; InformN.lon systems success ,.;c ,- ’ .‘, II / ;’ / The emergenceof the serviceperspective In the information systems industry the recognition dawned that improvements in the systems development processand systems products will, of themselves, not ensuresuccess. Attention turned to user satisfaction as a measureof system success. Some examples This area emerged into prominence with the work of Bailey and Pearson (1983) and shortly afterwards Ives et al (1983). Bailey and Pearsondeveloped a 39-item questionnaire instrument for measuring perceived user satisfaction with information systems. Ives et al built on this work: they improved the reliability of the instrument and reduced it down to 33 items. They also produced a short-form of the instrument with only 13 items, and a 4-item general scale for measuring user information satisfaction. Both instruments collected user responsesusing a semantic differential 7-point scale and calculated scoresusing the Wanous and Lawler satisfaction model. The instrument elicited user perceptions of the relationship with systems staff, their confidence in the systemand the relevanceof systems output to users’ work Factor analysis identified three factors as being closely related to successful information systems: I 1 n the quality of the information product being supplied; LY t n the quality of systemspersonnel and services; ” <I\ n the knowledge and involvement of systemspersonnel in the business. * A number of other studies into user information satisfaction followed, developing on the work of Bailey and Pearson, and Ives et al. Doll and Torkzadeh (1988 & 1991) produced a 12 twelve item instrument for measuring end-user computing satisfaction.- The instrument identifies and measures five components of end-usersatisfaction which are: a- m n n n n the content of systems; accuracy of systems; format of reports; easeof use of systems; the timeliness of systems. /’ j i User satisfaction with information centres was the focus of researchfor Rivard and Huff (1988) they found that the following dimensions to be good predictors of information centre success: : n degreeof user independencefrom the systems department; I n satisfaction with the set-up of the information centre; , 8 user friendliness; n user attitude; \ /_ n satisfaction with the degreeof support received from the information centre. \ ‘1Magal (199 1) in a similar study identified three dimensions of satisfaction: n n quality if the information centre service; quality of user-developedapplications; degreeof user self-sufficiency. 8 ‘*.” Clearly the focus of these studies is more upon service than systems products or processes. Melone (1990) suggests that a significant problem with research into user satisfaction is the questionable assumption that user satisfaction is a good surrogate for system success,as satisfied users alone are Cr8ntleM School of Matmgemeat Draft Worklag Paper - 18 January 1995 I F8ctors rffectlng InfomrUon systems success not indicative of a successful system. It is possible to have systems which users perceive as successfulbut with which they are not totally satisfied. Another key problem with results from user information satisfactionresearchis the range and variety of attributes and dimensions suggestedto be closely linked to user satisfaction. This lack of commonality makesit difftcult for a generalmodel to developedand applied with any confidence. Service Operations Management research More recently researchinto characteristicsof information systemsuccesshave sought to borrow from the serviceoperationsfield and have stressedthe similarity betweeninformation systemsdepartments and other internal services(Whyte 1987, Galloway and Wbyte 1989, Kyu Kim 1990, Russell and Muskett 1993and Watson et al 1993). It is argued that services have the following unique features (Sasseret al 1978, Notmann 1984, Gronroos 1983 & 1988, Voss et al 1985): n n n 8 n serviceproduction and consumptionis simultaneous,thereforecannot be inventoried; serviceis an activity or seriesof activities; serviceis intangible; the customerparticipatesin the production process; the serviceis different for every customer. Applicability to information systems Information system services have all of the above features. A user extracting information from a screenis producing and consuming the service simultaneously. It is an activity involving the user and the service of providing information is intangible. Due to the involvement of users in the delivery process,the serviceis always different. Service is not only about ‘substance’(that is, what the user gets from the service), it is also about how the service is delivered and the style of the businessin question, especially at the customer-facing side of the business.In this context Gronroos (1983) refers to “technical” and “functional” quality dimensions; any interaction with customers (the functional dimension) might influence their perception of the products on offer (the technical dimension). This leads the idea which lies at the heart of this project: it is essentialto look beyondthe caseof information systemsto find examples which illustrate the important principles of customerinteractions. Customer interactions and expectations Retailing provides some well known and useful examples. In the 1980’s the two retailing chains Tesco and Marks & Spencer were perceived by many of their customers to be different. They supplied a similar range of products (although one had its origins in food retailing and the other in apparel) and the processesfor delivering these products are also similar. However, the style of the two businesseswas different (specifically: location of premises, ambience, quality of goods and ethos) and the result is that Marks & Spencercharged a premium price for their products, usually above that chargedby Tesco’. In some sense,the customer perceiveda different level of serviceto justify the higher price, and we see a clear example of customer choice based in service concepts. Success(in the eyesof the customer) derives from receiving the expectedlevel of serviceand this is why they will return to their favourite store, whichever of the two it is. If the service is not I Today, of course, Tescos is a very different kind of businessand would no doubt claim to have changed its market positioning significantly. Craafleld &bOOi Of ~f8ti8geltletlt Drrft Working Pqter - 18 J8nurry 1995 Flctors lffecthg llfO”DltlOn systems success understoodthen there is a very high chanceof disappointmentand a consequentperception of failure. -- ’ Information systemsuccessmight therefore have somethingto do with the way in which information system departmentsprovide and then maintain systemsfor their users, and how they manage the i,, expectationsof users. If we can understandthose expectationsand how to measureand managethem better, the chancesof successwill be improved. Using service level measureswe can determine ) ; whether or not we have succeededin any particular instance,but we always have to remember that ! / the key to providing successfulinformation systemis understandinguser perceptionsand the factors , - _.__-_-. - .__.-. --i \ that influence them. I-------- A servicequality instrument Parasuramanet al (1988), Zeithaml et al (1988, 1990) identified some key serviceattributes, suchas: w Empathy: caring, individualised attention the companyprovides its customers n Responsiveness:willingness to help customersand provide prompt service w Reliabilily: ability to perform the promised servicedependablyand accurately Assurance: knowledge and courtesyof employeesand their ability to convey trust and confidence Tangibles: appearanceof physical facilities , equipment, personneland communication materials and competence. n n They argue that the effective managementof these serviceattributes will lead customersto perceive the service operation as being of superior quality. The minimum goal for any service manageris to achieve a balance between customer expectationsand perceptions of a service. As in the case of Tesco and Marks & Spencer,if customersunderstandwhat to expect and that level of service is what they want then they will not be disappointed. Zeithaml et al developedan instrument for measuringservicequality. The instrument consistsof two setsof questions,one gauging customerexpectationsand the other gauging customerperception. A service gap occurs when perceptionsdiffer from expectations.Figure 2 illustrates aspectsof the servicemodel, and showsthis servicegap as “Gap 5”. They arguethat this gap betweenexpectedand perceivedserviceis causedby four other gaps in the servicethesegapsare as follows (seeFigure 2): n Gap 1: a mismatch betweenthe customer’sexpectationand the management’sperception of the customer’sexpectation. n Gap 2: a mismatch betweenthe management’sperceptionof customer expectationsand the servicequality specification. n Gap 3: a mismatch betweenthe servicequality specificationsand the servicedelivery. n Gap 4: a mismatch betweenthe servicedelivery and external communicationsto customers. They propose a number of strategies for closing these gaps when they occur. The method for ascertaining which of these gaps is causing problems is by administering a series of further questionnairesprobing particular themes for eachgap. The work by Zeithaml et al has been widely recognised as a significant step forward in our understanding of service and the factors that influence service quality. The model is now increasingly being adopted by information systemsresearchersas an alternative theoretical approach to the user information satisfaction approach (Kyu Kim 1990, Watson et al 1993, Remenyi and Crrnfleld School of Mln8gemeat Draft Worklug Paper - 18 J1murry 1995 Flctors rffectlng loformrtlon systems success Money 1994). They argue that if these service attributes were well managed then customerswill perceivethe service operation itself as being of superior quality. The minimum goal for any service manageris to achieving a balancebetweencustomerexpectationsand perceptionsof a service. As in the caseof Tesco versusMarks & Spencer,if we understandwhat to expect then we ought not to be disappointed,even if in the event we can not acceptwhat is on offer - for whatever reason. . Past experience Personal needs Word of mouth communications . , service < Gap5” w Perceived service Customer e ...._............................................. ..-.- Provider ’ Service delivery Gap 7 Gap 4 l External communications to customers Gap3$ w Service quality specifications (Based on work byZeithamlet a/) if, Figure 2: A conceptual model of Service Quality There are however some shortcomingsin the research. Haywood-Farmerand Stuart (1988) arguethat the model addressesa host of peripheral aspectsof a servicebut ignores core aspects. They suggest that service quality dimensions should be extended to include these core aspects. Zeithaml et al (1990) argue that the service quality model is a generic one which does have to be extended when looking at particular industries. In the service quality model customersare asked to state their expectationsof serviceswhich they may or may not have experienced,but this may not be reliable’. The service quality questionnaireis 2 To illustrate this point, user requirementsanalysis in information systems(asking users what they want from a new system) tends to produce a ‘wish-list’ where a significant proportion of what is “requested” is not “expected”, and may not actually be wanted at all. There seemsto be a tendency to exaggeratethe requirement or importance of a facility; there is a danger that the approach used to elicit customersexpectations may be Cr8nfleld School of kf8IIlgeIDeIIt Drrft Worldng P8per - 18January1995 FacIors rffecthg laformrtton systems success reduced to the minimum number of dimensions and items. Customers are asked to complete the whole questionnaire irrespective of whether the items are relevant or not. If customers stated an opinion on items which normally they might consider to be irrelevant then this might affect the overall results of the survey. -- The use of multiple questionnairesto probe Gaps 1 to 4 raises the possibility that these subsequent questionnairescould have been measuringsomething different to the results of the first questionnaire which measuredGap 5. There is an assumptionin the service quality model that Gap 5 is a function of Gaps 1 to 4, however the link has not beenestablishedas either equivalent or complete. A new approach The work of Zeithaml et al in this area of defining user perceptionsis clearly important, but the work reported here has made no assumptionsthat could later invalidate the results: it has been taken from first principles and has redefined the attributes of successfulinformation systemswithout recourseto existing definitions. The work of Zeithaml et al is principally in consumer-basedservices, which tend to be more transaction oriented and do not mirror the long term relationship found between information systemsand their users. In this respect researchinto user perceptionsof systemssuccessneedsto take account of relationship marketing, where there is a focus on longer term relationships. In a relationship marketing approach. it is argued that successful ongoing relationships with external customers depends upon the successfulmanagementof its internal markets (Christopher et al 1991, Clark et al 1993, Collins and Payne 1991) One of the most important is the internal market for information systems, becauseof the pervasive nature of the information systemsproduct. All of these observations and factors led to the initiation of this project, which set itself the task of developing a new service oriented framework for understandinginformation systemssuccess. RESEARCH METHOD The objective of this research was to identify attributes of success!U information systems, as perceived by the information systems’users. It was necessaryto find a method which would enable the extraction of these perceptions without researcherinterferenceor bias. A number of approaches were consideredfrom simple semi-structuredinterviews (semanticdifferential) to the use of bodies of experts (the Delphic approach). Repertory grid technique The approach which was chosen was the repertory grid technique developed by Kelly (1955) within general personal construct theory. Kelly suggests that people make sense of their world by continually interpreting the events around them through a set of constructs. This processof continual interpretation he called “construing”. Through this process of construing, an individual builds up a repertoire of constructs by which he orders his view of the world and tries to anticipates events. The basic assumption underlying personal construct theory is: if we can understand someone’sattitude ( their “constructs”) towards some specific thing (“element” or “elements”) we will be better able to predict that person’sbehaviour towards that something (Vyakamam, 1989). prone to the samekind of exaggeration. Crmtleld School or Management Draft Working Paper - 18 January 1995 Factors l tkctlng Informatton systems success This method supports the intended application of the research: if we can understandhow through their attitude usersperceive(through “constructs”) information systems(the “elements” in our case), we will be better able to predict those systemsthat they will perceiveto be successful. Elicitation procedure Using as a basis the Repertory Grid technique an elicitation procedure was set up for extracting elementsand constructs. The following were the main stepsin this procedure: The respondentwas introducedto the researchand the nature of the interview was explained. 1. 2. The respondentwas askedto: “list 8 information systemproducts with which you have been personally involved either as a user, manager or developer. It doesnot matter at what stage the systemproduct is at now”. They were also askedto identify thoseproductsthey would considerthe best or worst, and to this list was addeda ninth, the “ideal system”. 3. Theseelements(the information systemsproducts) were presentedback to the respondents three at a time in a set numerical sequence(Kelly’s triadic method). At eachstep the interviewee was requestedto: “pleasespeciJLin someimportant way, how two of the products are alike and therebydifferent from the third’. In this way the respondent’s constructswere elicited. To the resulting list was addedthe successful/ unsuccessfulbipolar construct (Fransellaand Banister, 1977). 4. The final step in the processwas to ask the respondentto assigna scorebetween 1 and 7 for eachelement against eachbipolar construct,the scoreindicating the proximity (in terms of the person’sperception) to either extremeof the construct. The result of a typical 90 minute interview was a matrix of about nine elementsand nine constructs, yielding 8 1 individual scores. Ten respondents(from all organisational levels except director level) were interviewed from two companies,a global financial information service provider and a major public utility, both with headquartersin London. A total of 30 different information systemswere analysed,the criteria being that they should be: n supporting at least one departmentwithin the business; n supplied by the information systemsgroup within the business. This fairly open approachwas deliberatein order to a wider rather than a narrow set of samplesat this stage3.The constructedelicited from theseinterviews are tabulated in Table 1 below. The repertory grid technique worked well. Its main strength was its ability to elicit relevant attitudinal data very easily, without the need for long exploitative discussions. Also, it was easyto avoid imposing the researcher’sviews on the interviewee. Results of repertory grid analysis The data gatheredfrom these interviews allow the relationship betweenthe constructsand successto be analysed. The results from theseanalyses(using the INGRID program) have been summarisedin Table 1. The analysis identified those constructs (first and second columns) that correlated closely with success(third column), and those constructsthat emerged as significant in a principal component analysis (fourth column). It also showed the frequency of occurrence(fifth column). The first 3 There are comments about the constraining of the samplesin different ways in later sectionsof this paper. The researchdesign was such as to addressedthe question of tighter constraintsin later stagesof the project. Crrntleld School of Management Draft Working Paper - 18 Jam~ery 1995 Factors rffectlng tnformrlion systems success nineteenconstruct items appearedto have significant correlation to perceptionsof information system success,with coefficients of greaterthan 0.9 (positive or negative - the negative results indicate close correlation to information systemfailure). All resultswere significant to 95% degreesof confidence. In this way the interviews identified 43 different constructswhich all appear as significant at least once in the principal component analysisand 19 of which are significant in the correlation analysis. Not all constructssurvived the significance tests: constructssuch as timeliness and implementation quality were among those mentioned by interviewees that failed to emerge as significant in the analysis. For eachrespondentthe two most significant componentswere reviewed and were found to account for at least 63% of the variation in eachcase. - rable 1: Constructs from repertory grid interviews un/sucoeaa PCA 3lStruCtS correlation ‘- - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 29 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 49 41 42 43 - - Crrnfleld User friendliness Responsiveness of personnel/developers Reliability of systems and piWSOnnal System design or specification Data accuracy Project management Requirements driven by systems or business Developers understanding of the business Marketing of system Management reporting Integration of systems Operational reporting Maintenance of system Documentation System essential for running the business Auditability Controls (data input and removal) System supports the business (meets objectives) Training on using the system Screen design Level of paperwork system causes System response times System accuracy (functional) System regularly enhanced User involvement Speed of turn-round of changes Post implementation support System intelligence Package or tailored system Dataduplication/Data integrated System complexity Expert support personnel Flexibility of the system Local data manipulation Cost collection system Automatic data capture Data quantity Level of functionality System evolving Provides adequate information Encourages efficiency Common user interfaces Provides customer with information School of Management X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Draft Working Frequency (n=lO) 10 1 1 4 3 2 2 1 1 2 8 1 3 2 4 2 3 6 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 5 I 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Paper - 18 January 1995 Factors afhcttag laformattoa systems success The surviving 43 constructs were reviewed and then reduced to 21 attributes, by a process of inspection, semanticanalysis, expert review and (ultimately) validation by the original interviewees. Theseattributes and how they map back to the original 43 constructsis shown in Table 2. The first column indicates the constructsfrom which the attributes were derived, and the secondthe chosen name of the attribute. A new frequency indicating the number of respondentsreferring (indirectly through constructs)is also shown in the third column of the table. Table 2: Attributes emerging from constructs Construct Number Attribute New Frequency 5, 23 18 32 31 7.29 14 41,28,34,36,40,38.33,37,22.21 1 43 ll,30.42 9 15,35 6.16,17 3A, 30 10,12 2 4,20 19 6 13, 24, 39, 26, 27 25 ACCUC3Cy 5 6 1 5 2 2 7 10 1 8 1 4 4 1 2 1 4 2 1 4 3 Business Alignment Competence Complexity Direction Documentation Effectiveness Friendliness Front Oftice Integration Marketing Necessity Control (Process 8 Operational) Reliability Reporting Responsiveness Specification Training Understanding Upk=p User lholvement ANALYSIS The results of this researchsuggestthat there is a set of core attributes, presentedin Table 2, eachof which is likely to influence a user’sperception of information system success. It follows that the overall recognition, understandingand managementof theseattributes is very likely to be important in achieving successwith information systemsin business. The analysis demonstratesone strength of the repertory grid, which is the high volume of usabledata that becomes available from a relatively low number of respondents. From this volume data the derived attributes have a high level of significance. Nature of the attributes Attributes fall into different categories. Attributes suchas: accuracy businessalignment effectiveness (user)fviendliness are perhapsobvious and so that one would expectthem to appear. Attributes such as Craalleld School of Management .. Draft Working Paper - 18 January 1995 Factors affecttug lnformrtton systems success competence complexity controls (of systemspersonnel) (of the system) (over the systemslife and within the system) are not so obvious and provide additional insight into the users’perceptionsof success. Relationship with organisational characteristics Analysis of the attributes can show how attributes work in different ways for particular organisations. A profile of the organisation’s information system department strengths and weaknessesbegins to emerge,viewed through the actual achievedsuccessin the terms perceivedby the users. Here lies the basis for remedial action which will allow the organisationto improve its overall successrate. For example: n n n a low scorein direction indicatesa needfor clearerstrategiesfor IS and business management; a low scoreinfriendliness suggeststhat easeof use needsto be a greater feature of the design stage; a low scorein necessig suggeststhat the IT departmentis spendingthe company’smoney pursuing their own pet projects. Possibleproblems and precautions taken Definitions An area of concern that was identified prior to the study is-the extensiveuse of jargon within the information system industry. Differences in the interpretation of a single word can occur between organisations,and even between departmentswithin a single organisation. In order to eliminate the potential for error that might arise from these semantic problems, a selection of the interviewees (seven of the original ten) were askedto verify attribute names, definitions of terms, and the source statementsfrom which they were derived. Table 3: Illustration of Attributes, definitions and source statements AtfMMs Definition i4 The system or personnel have - The system experienced few periods of the ability to perform the downtime ReliabiMy Source statements promised sawice dependaW _System dabreliable and accurately. 15 CradleId Reporting School of Menagemeat The degree to which reports produced by the system (if any) are obtainable, accurate and useful. - System developers are reliable - Operational reporting provided - Management reporting provided Draft Worklag Paper - 18 Jawrry 1995 Factors affecting iaformrttoa systems success The way in which attributes were defined, and the sort of source statement from which they were derived, is illustrated in Table 3. All were dealt with at about this level; at this stagethere were 21 attributes and 64 sourcestatements4. Dzflerences in respondents and systems During the study it was noted that there are a number of other factors that might have an impact on the type of attributes influencing a user, for example the level of seniority of the interviewee within the organisation,the maturity of the system,and the strategicsignificance of the system5. n Unlike the senior representatives,those lower down the organisationseemedto be less influenced by global factors suchas businessakgnment and integration (of systems). n Equally, the maturity (age) of the information systemhasan impact on the perceptionof the system; upkeepas an attribute becomesmore important the older a systemgets. n Finally, it would appearthat intervieweeshave similar perceptionsabout systemsthat share certain businesssignificance, scopeand characteristics,as defined by McFarlan’s (1984) Strategic Grid. For instanceone might anticipatethat the attributes affecting usersof “strategic” information systemswould differ from those of usersof “key operational” information system(Edwards, Ward and Bytheway, 1991). An illustration To understandthe implications of thesefindings on current systemspractice, surveyswere conducted in two large companieswhich were both undertakingmajor systemdevelopments. Company A is a large provider of electronic information to the financial servicesindustry. Millions of pounds in many currenciesare traded weekly acrossthe world, basedon the information supplied. Competition in the market to sell these services is fierce and consequentlya lot of emphasisand expenditure is focused on sales and marketing. Company A survives by being a good all-round operator rather than specialisation, and their systemsare noted for being reliable. Customers are provided with on-site support within the hour, twenty-four hours a day. Company A was about to replacetheir order processing,product ordering, billing and financial systemswith a single integrated system. The survey in Company A revealed the following service attributes as key to user perceptions of success: Marketing Effectiveness Reliability Reporting Friendliness BusinessAlignment Company B is a large supplier of hospital equipment. Although the company is not state-ownedit has for many years enjoyed a monopolistic relationship with the health service in the regions where it operates. Such was its close relationship with the national health service that many of its customers * These numbers changed slightly in later stagesof the work, as attributes were rejected and augmentedby the controls built into the design of the later work. 5 Cnntleld Data was collected to deal with these variations and the precise influence of these additional factors will be reported in subsequentpapers. School of Management Draft Worktag Paper - 18 J8auwy 1995 Factors 8ffecttag lofomuttoa systems success (doctors, nursesand administrators)believed it was part of the NHS. Hospitals orderedequipment by accessingCompany B’s systemdirectly, from their own workstations. Company B was also about to replaceit ordering, stock control, billing and financial systemswith an integratedsystem. The survey in Company B revealedthe following service attributes as those most important to user perceptionsof success: Responsiveness Flexibility Reliability Eflectiveness Competence BusinessAlignment Traditional approaches to information system development would almost certainly provide technically excellent solutions. However, unless certain key service attributes are addressed,being particular to each company and its situation, there is a high probability that each of the information systemofferings would be perceivedby the usersas being a failure. n In CompanyA the new s,vstemwhich was introduced wasperceived to be a successeven though in technical terms it delivered well below what was expected. The reasonfor its perceived successcan be seenin a review of heyservicesattributesfor CompanyA. The new systemwas very well marketed,all information circulated through the organisation on the systemwas tightly controlled. The efictiveness of the systemwas only just acceptable: in other words, it offered very few additional technical featuresover its predecessor.The systemwas, unlike its predecessor,very reliable. The new systems reporting was perceivedto be good, its level offriendliness acceptable.(it was replacing a systemwhich was v&y unfriendly) and its ahgnment with the businesswas also perceivedas good. n In CompanyB usersperceived the new systemto be somethingof a disaster. Technically the systemappeared inadequatelyspecifiedand was consequent&delivered late and over budget. Again a review of CompanyB’s keyserviceattributes suggeststhere are deeper serviceproblems which the companymay not reasonablybe able to addressgiven the technical constraints of the system. Users in Company B regardthe needfor responsivenessandjlcxibility to be of paramount importancebecausethis is what their customersrequire from them. Specialist equipment is often required by hospitals at short notice. The previous systemsallowed theserushedorders to be turned around in a matter of hours and the paperwork sortedout subsequently. The new systemproved un-responsiveto thesetypes of requestsand proved inflexible in allowing its proceduresto be circumvented. Their questionsregardingthe competenceof systemsstaff given that the hardwareplatform had to be upgradedtwice in the first twelve months of operation due to undersizing. Usersand customersfelt that the systemwere not aligned to the objectives of the businessand was consequentlyputting the businessand patients lives at risk Cr8Efleld oboe of hfanrgemeat Drrrt Working P8per - 18 J8nu8ty 1995 Flctors 8tkcttng loform8uon systems success CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER WORK We see from this researchthat one can not afford to make simple assumptions about the nature of successin the use of information systems. It is a multi-dimensional problem and incorporates a wide range of concepts and ideas. It follows that a methodical approach is neededto the elicitation and formulation of our understanding of what successis in different situations. The work reported here provides just this. Summary of results This study set out to identify those attributes that most influence users’ perceptions of the successof information systems. The results have identified a set of twenty-one factors, describedhere as service attributes, which have been shown to be closely correlated with perceptions of information system success. This list of twenty-one attributes can be compared with the attributes identified in previous research. Zeithaml et al (1990): competence, reliability, responsiveness and empathy (understanding). Baroudi et al (1986): user involvement. Rivard and Huff (1988): friendliness of software, satisfaction with the support from the information system department, and the standard of maintenance. At least 19 of the 36 scales (attributes) for measuring user information satisfaction proposed by Ives et al, (1983) are representedby attributes from this study. Table 4 presents an overview of this comparison with the results of previous work from Zeithaml, Ives and others. (Zeithaml et al (1990), Barley & Pearson(1983), Miller & Doyle (1987), Ives et al, (1983)). Table 4: Attributes compared to results of some other work Attributes from this study Accuracy Business Alignment Competence Complexity Direction Documentation Effectiveness Friendliness Front Office Integration Marketing Necessity Control Reliability Reporting Responsiveness Specification Training Understanding W-p User Involvement PrrrnnlA c,.Lnnl nl M.“rnn-“* Zeithaml et a/ ww d d c/ Attributes from other studies Barley 8 Miller 8 Doyle Pearson (1983) (1987) (/ d v Ives et al, (1983) (/ c/ d d d I/ (/ d d ti v d J d d r/ (/ d d tl t/ d d d d */ r/ d d (/ d d J ti d nrdI Worktm Pl”&T - 18 Janu8rv 1995 Factors aflecttng 1nformrUon systems success A basisfor action As indicated at the start of this paper, there are different viewpoints which are likely to be adoptedby different players in the overall information systemsbusiness. This work will be of interest to all of them and it is helpful, becauseit gives a clear indication of what must be understood in order to improve things. By providing a quantitative foundation for assessingthe state of things, the new framework provides a sound and more completebasisfor benchmarkinginformation systemssuccess, and it can be used whether work is being done in-houseor by the use of contractors. 8 Software and systemshouseswho work for different client companiescan, if they understand what successmeansto thosecompanies,adapt their approachand support rather than impose upon the client business. It is not necessaryto make assumptionsabout what is expected, becauseit can now be analysedleading to a more completeunderstandingof what factors might be important. n Within a large commercial organisation,the central information systemsdepartment(if there is one) can more easily recognisethe differencesin needand expectationaround the organisation,and reactaccordingly. If it is negotiating outsourcingarrangementsthen there is the prospectof building measuresinto the contract which will set servicelevels relevant to users,and provide a meansof monitoring them. n In the more typical caseof a medium sizedorganisationwishing to initiate a programmeof quality improvement, sucha programmecan be put into place, targetscan be set, and the resultsachievedcan be measuredand communicatedwith users. The information systemst%mctionhas a reputation for consistent failure in many organisations. By paying some attention to service issues,such as making sure that usersare not merely involved but that they understand what is being done for them, information systems departments could avoid major systemsdisastersat little real cost, and with potentially enormousbenefits. Using the assessmentframework presentedhere, a business can be drawn into a discussion of information systemsservice delivery performanceand how to measureit. The whole organisation can set about turning around the profiles of its systems,from perceivedfailure to perceived success. This will of coursechangethe perceptionof the information systemdepartmentby those who depend upon it. An information systemdepartmentthat can deliver systemsthat meet the expectationsof the users will not only be seen as successful,but will be seento be making a real contribution to the business. Further work The next stage in this research is to apply the list of service attributes across a wider range of organisationsto identify whether the serviceattributes can be applied to any organisationand whether the list is subject to variance. The influence of factors suchas organisationaltype, the user’sseniority within the organisation and the scopeand maturity of information systemsalso have to be assessed. An instrument hasbeen developedto conduct this researchand interviews with target companieshave commenced6. This work has addressedproblems with information systems in business by taking advantage of thinking in a different discipline: ServiceOperationsManagement. There is the possibility to extend this idea by appealing to other disciplines, suchas operationsmanagement,strategic managementand human resourcemanagement. 6 Since the preparation of this paper, this work has progressedwell and is largely complete. Crrntleld School of Management Draft Working Paper - 18 Jaaurry 1995 \ Factors rflecttag laforamtlon systems success REFERENCES Bailey J E & PearsonS A (1983); “Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction” Management Science,~0129, no. 5. Baroudi et al (1986); “An Empirical Study of the Impact of User Involvement on SystemUsage and Information Satisfaction” Communications of the ACM, ~0129, no 3. Bostrom R P (1989); “Successful Application of Communication Techniquesto Improve the SystemsDevelopment Process”North-Holland Information and Management, 16, pp279-295. Brooks Jnr F P (1975); “The Mythical Man-Month” Datamation December. Butler Cox Foundation (1986); “Information Technology: Value for Money”. Carroll A B (1982); “Behavioral Aspects of Developing Computer BasedInformation Systems” BusinessHorizons Jan-Feb. CasherJ D (1984); “How to Control Project Risk and Effectively Reducethe chanceof Failure”, ManagementReview, June. Chandler J S & Holzer H P (1986); “A Contingency Approach to Planning and Control of the MIS Function”. Christopher M, PayneA & Ballantyne D (1991); “Relationship Marketing” Butterworth Heinenmann Clark M. Peck H. PayneA & Christopher M (1993); “Relationship Marketing: Towards a New Paradigm” Crantield University, Centre for Relationship Marketing, Working Papers. Collins B & PayneA (1991); “Internal ServicesMarketing” Crantield University, Centre for Relationship Marketing, Working Papers Doll W J (1985); “Avenues for Top ManagementInvolvement in SuccessfulMIS Development” MIS Quarterly, March. Doll W J & Torkzadeh G (1988); “The Measurementof End-User Computing Satisfaction” MIS Quarterly (12:2), June. Doll & Torkzadeh (1991); “The Measurementof End-User Computing Satisfaction: Theoretical and Methodological Issues”, MIS Quarterly, March. Edwards C, Ward J & Bytheway A J (1991); “The Essenceof Information Systems”, Prentice Hall. Fransella F & Bannister D (1977); “A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique” Academic Press. Galloway R L & Whyte G A (1989); “The Information SystemsFunction as a Service Operation”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,~019. no 4. Ginzberg M J (1980); “An Organisational ContingenciesView of Accounting and Information SystemsImplementation” Accounting, Organisations and Society, ~015, no 4. Gronroos C (1983); “Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector”, Chartwell-Bratt Ltd. Gronroos C (1988); “Service Quality: The Six Criteria of Good PerceivedService Quality”, Review of Business,~019, no 3. Haywood-Farmer & Stuart ( 1988); “The Managementof Service Operations”. Proceedingsof the 3rd Annual International Conferenceof the UK, Edited by R Johnston, OperationsManagementAssociation. Hughes M W (1986); “Why Projects Fail: The Effects of Ignoring the Obvious”, IE April. Huling J (1987); “Tools of the Trade: Is CASE Really a Cure-All” Computerworld, April 20th. Illes M (1990); “Methods vs People” Software ManagementMagazine, June. Ives et al B, Olson M H & Baroudi J J (1983); “The Measurementof User Information Satisfaction”, Communications of ACM, ~0126, no 10. JonesL H & Kydd C T (1988); “An Information ProcessingFramework for Understanding Successand Failure of MIS Development Methodologies” North-Holland Information and Management, 15. - - ..-. . -I- n--n .W^“U..^ D-u- ,P *--..a-, ,twm -. Factors afkcttag laformrtlo~ systema success KaniperC A (1986); “Prototypmg-NewTools for CuttingThroughThe ApplicationsBacklog”ComputerWorld Focus. KeenJ (1987); “ManagingSystemsDevelopment”,2ndedition,JohnWiley andSonsLtd. Kelly GA (1955); “The Psychologyof PersonalConstructs”,Vols 1 & 2. Norton, New York. January. KuzmanR J (1989); “ManagingVery LargeSystemsDevelopmentEfforts” Journalof SystemsManagement, Kydd C T (1989); “Understanding the InformationContentin MIS Management Tools” MIS Quarterly,September. .- .- of the 1lth International Kyu Kim K (1990); “UserInformationSatisfaction:TowardConceptualClarity”, Proceedings Conferenceon InformationSystems,December. Lyytinen K (1988); “ExpectationFailureConceptandSystemsAnalysts’View of InformationSystemFailures:Results of an ExploratoryStudy”North-HollandInformationandManagement, 14,pp45-56. InformationSystems, Magal S R (1991); “A Model for EvaluatingInformationCentreSuccess”,J. Management Summer,vol 8, no. 1. McFarlanF W (1984); “InformationTechnologyChangesthe Way you Compete”,HarvardBusinessReview, May-June. MeloneN ( 1990); “A TheoreticalAssessmentof the User-Satisfaction Constructin InformationSystemsResearch”, Management Science,vol 36, Iss 1. Miller J & Doyle B A (1987);“Measuringthe effectivenessof computer-based informationsystemsin the financial servicessector”,MIS Quarterly,Vol 11 no 1, ~~107-124,March Miller J (1989); “InformationSystemsEffectivenessof Computer-Based InformationSystemsin the FinancialSector”, MIS Quarterly,March. MorrealeR (1985); “ProjectPlanningandControl” DataProcessing,Vo127no 3, April. Morris B & JohnstonP (1987); “Dealingwith InherentVariability: The DifferenceBetweenManufacturingand Service?”IJOPM, 7,4. 1- NeccoC R (1989); “EvaluatingMethodsof SystemsDevelopment:A Management Survey”Journalof Information SystemsManagement, Winter. NotmannR (1984); “ServiceManagement: StrategyandLeadershipin ServiceBusiness”,JohnWiley & Sons. Parasuraman A, Berry L L & ZeithamlV A (1988); “SERVQUAL:A Multiple-ItemScaleMeasuringConsumer Perceptionsof Quality” Journalof Retailing,vol 64, no 1, Spring. Pinto J K & SlevinD P (1987); “Critical Factorsin SuccessfulProjectImplementation”,IEEE,Vol EM-34, no 1, February. Rademacher R A (1989); “Critical Factorsfor SystemsSuccess”,Journalof SystemsManagement, June. RemenyiD S J & Money A H (1994); “ServiceQuality andCorrespondence Analysisin DeterminingProblemswith the Effective Use of ComputerServices”EuropeanJournalof InformationSystems,vol 3, no. 1. Rivard & Huff (1988); “Factorsof Successfor End-UserComputing”,Communications of the ACM, ~0131, no 5 May. RussellN & Muskett (1993); “Reapingthe Benefitsof a ResponsiveIT Department”.Journalof Information Technology,8, ~~50-57. Sasser W E, OlsenR P & Wyckoff D D (1978); “Management of ServiceOperations”,Allyn and Bacon. SimonJ & DavenportT (1987); “ManagingInformationTechnology:SystemDevelopment”,HBS CaseServicesN9, 189-132. Skytme D J & Earl M J (1990); “Hybrid Managers:what shouldyou do”, The ComputerBulletin, seriesiv, ~012,part 4, May. SrinivasanA ( 1985); “AlternativeMeasuresof Effectiveness:AssociationsandImplications”,MIS Quarterly, September. Tait P & VesseyI (1988); “The Effect of User Involvementon SystemSuccess:A ContingencyApproach”MIS Quarterly,March. Crrnllold School of Management Draft Worklag Paper - 18 J8nurr-y 1995 Factors affectlag hformrtton systems success Viskovich F (1988); “From Anarchy to Architecture” Computer World April. Viskovich F (1988); “From Anarchy to Architecture” Computer World April. Voss C, Armistead C, JohnstonB & Morris B (1985); “OperationsManagementin Service Industries and the Public Sector”, John Wiley and Sons. Vyakarnam S (1989); “Introduction to PersonalConstructTheory for Application in Management”, Graduate ManagementResearch,Summer. Watson R , Pitt L, CunninghamC & Nel D (1993); “User Satisfaction and Service Quality of the IS Department: Closing the Gaps”, Journal of Information Technology, 8, ~~257-265. Whyte G A (1987); “Service Operationsand Internal Information SystemsGroups” MBA ResearchProject, Universaity of Westminister. Yaffe J (1988); “External - Internal SystemsDesign” Journal of SystemsManagement,July. Zeithaml V A, ParasuramanA & Berry L L (1990); “Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer Perceptionsand Expectations”, Free Press. Zeithaml V A, Berry L L & ParasuramanA ( 1988); “Communication and Control Processesin the Delivery of Service Quality”, Journal of Marketing, vol 52, April. Craafkld School of Management Draft Worktag Paper - 18 January 1995 CRANFIELD SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT WORKING PAPER SERIES List No 6, 1992 SWP l/92 Mike Sweeney “How to Perform SimultaneousProcess Engineering” SWP 15/92Mark Jenkinsand Gerry Johnson “RepresentingManagerial Cognition: The Case for an IntegratedApproach” SWP 2192 Paul Burns “The Managementof GeneralPractice” SWP 16/92Paul Burns “Training acrossEurope: A Surveyof Small and Medium-SizedCompaniesin Five EuropeanCountries” SWP 3/92 Paul Burns “Managementin GeneralPractice:A Selection of Articles” SWP 4192 Simon Knox & David Walker “ConsumerInvolvementwith GroceryBrands” SWP 5192 DeborahHelman and Adrian Payne “Internal Marketing: Myth versusReality?” SWP 6192 Leslie de Chematonyand Simon Knox “Brand Price Recall and the Implications for Pricing Research” - SWP 14/92RobertBrown and Philip Poh “Aniko JewellersPrivate Limited - CaseStudy and TeachingNotes” SWP 7/92 Shai Vyakamam “Social Responsibilityin the UK Top 100 Companies” SWP 8/92 SusanBaker, Dr Simon Knox and Dr Leslie de Chernatony “Product Attributes and PersonalValues: A Review of Means-EndTheory and Consumer Behaviour” SWP 9192Mark Jenkins “Making Senseof Markets: A Proposed ResearchAgenda” SWP 10192Michael T Sweeneyand Ian Oram “Information Technologyfor Management Education: The Benefits and Barriers” SWP 1l/92 Keith E Thompson(SilsoeCollege) “International Competitivenessand British Industry post-1992.With SpecialReferenceto the Food Industry” SWP 12192Keith Thompson(SilsoeCollege) “The Responseof British Supermarket Companiesto the Internationalisationof the Retail GroceryIndustry” SWP 13192Richard Kay “The Metaphorsof the Voluntary/Non-Profit SectorOrganising” SWP 17/92Chris Brewster and Henrik Holt Larsen “Human ResourceManagementin EuropeEvidencefrom Ten Countries” SWP 18/92LawrenceCummings “CustomerDemandfor ‘Total Logistics Management’- Myth or Reality?” SWP 19192Ariane Hegewischand Irene Bruegel “Flexibilisation and Part-time Work in Europe” SWP 20/92 Kevin Daniels and Andrew Guppy “Control, Information SeekingPreference, OccupationalStressorsand Psychological Well-being” SWP 2l/92 Kevin Daniels and Andrew Guppy “Stressand Well-Being in British University St&T SWP 22192Colin Armistead and GrahamClark “The Value Chain in ServiceOperations Strategy” SWP 23192David Parker “Nationalisation, Privatisation, and Agency Statuswithin Government:Testing for the Importanceof Ownership” SWP 24192John Ward “Assessingand Managing the Risks of IS/IT Investments” SWP 25192Robert Brown “StaplefordPark: CaseStudy and Teaching Notes” SWP 26192Paul Burns & JeanHarrison “Managementin GeneralPractice- 2” SWP 27/92 Paul Burns & JeanHarrison “Managementin GeneralPractice - 3” SWP 28/92 Kevin Daniels, Leslie de Chernatony & Gerry Johnson “Theoretical and Methodological Issues concerning Managers’Mental Models of Competitive Industry Structures” SWP 29/92 Malcolm Harper and Alison Rieple “Ex-Offenders and Enterprise” SWP 30/92 Colin Armistead and Graham Clark “Service Quality: The Role of Capacity Management” SWP 3l/92 Kevin Daniels and Andrew Guppy “Stress, Social Support and Psychological Well-Being in British CharteredAccountants” SWP 32/92 Kevin Daniels and Andrew Guppy “The Dimensional@ and Well-Being Correlatesof Work Locus of Control” SWP 33/92 David Ballantyne, Martin Christopher, Adrian Payneand Moira Clark “The Changing Faceof ServiceQuality Management” SWP 34/92 Chris Brewster “Choosing to Adjust: UK and Swedish Expatriates in Swedenand the UK” SWP 35/92 Robert Brown, with Peter Cook et al “Goldsmiths Fine Foods - CaseStudy and Teaching Notes” SWP 36192Mike Sweeney “Strategic Manufacturing Management: Restructuring Wasteful Production to World Class” SWP 37/92 Andy Bailey & Gerry Johnson “An Integrated Exploration of Strategic Decision-Making” SWP 38/92 Chris Brewster “European Human ResourceManagement: Reflection of, or Challenge to, the American Concept” SWP 39/92 Ute Hanel, Kurt Volker, Ariane Hegewisch & Chris Brewster “Personnel Management in East Germany” SWP 40/92 Lawrence Cummings “Logistics goes Global - The Role of Providers and Users” SWP 4 l/9 1 Roger Seaton& Martin Cordey-Hayes “Interactive Models of Industrial Technology Transfer: A ProcessApproach” SWP 42192SusanSegal-Horn “The Logic of International Growth for Service Firms” SWP 43192Mike Sweeney “Benchmarking for Strategic Manufacturing Management” SWP 44192Paul Bums “Financing SMEs in Europe: A Five Country Study” SWP 45192Robert Brown “The Graduate Enterprise Programme - Has it been Worthwhile?” CRANFIELD WORKING PAPERS List No 7, 1993 SWP l/93 John Mapes “The Effect of Limited Production Capacity on Safety Stock Requirementsfor Periodic Review Inventory Systems” SWP 2/93 Shai Vyakamam & Alison Rieple “Corporate Entrepreneurship: A Review” SWP 3/93 Cliff Bowman & David Faulkner “Pushing on a String: Uncertain Outcomes from Intended Competitive Strategies” SWP 4193SusanBaker & Mark Jenkins “The Role of Values in the Design and Conduct of Management Research: Perspectiveson Managerial and Consumer Cognition” SWP 5/93 Kevin Daniels, Leslie de Chematony & Gerry Johnson “Validating a Method for Mapping Managers’ Mental Models of Competitive Industry Structures” SWP 6193Kevin Daniels & Andrew Guppy “Occupational Stress,Social Support, Job Control and Psychological Well-Being” SWP 7/93 Colin Fletcher, Ruth Higginbotham and Peter Norris “The Inter-Relationships of Managers’ Work Time and PersonalTime” SWP 8193Mike Sweeney “A Framework for the Strategic Management of both Serviceand Manufacturing Operations” SWP 9/93 Colin Armistead and Graham Clark “The ‘Coping’ Capacity Management Strategy in Servicesand the Influence on Quality Performance” SWP lo/93 Ariane Hegewisch “Equal Opportunities Policies and Developmentsin Human Resource Management: A ComparativeEuropean Analysis” SWP 1l/93 Paula Stanley “Service to the Courts: The Offender’s Perspective” SWP 12/93 Mark Jenkins “Thinking about Growth: A Cognitive Mapping Approach to Understanding Small BusinessDevelopment” SWP 13/93 Mike Clarke “Metro-Freight: The Automation of Freight Transportation” SWP 14/93 John Hailey “Growing Competitivenessof Corporations from the Developing World: Evidencefrom the South” SWP 15/93 NoeleenDoherty, ShaunTyson and Claire Viney “A Positive Policy? CorporatePerspectiveson Redundancyand Outplacement” SWP 16/93 Shailendra Vyakamam “BusinessPlans or Plans for Business” SWP 17/93 Mark Jenkins, Eric le Cerf & Thomas Cole “Defining the Market: An Exploration of Marketing Managers’ Cognitive Frameworks” SWP 18/93 John Hailey “Localisation and Expatriation: The Continuing Role of Expatriates in Developing Countries” SWP 19/93 Kevin Daniels & Andrew Guppy “Reversing the Occupational StressProcess: SomeConsequencesof Employee Psychological Well-Being” SWP 20/93 Paul Bums, Andrew Myers and Andy Bailey “CulturaI Stereotypesand Barriers to the Single Market” SWP 2 l/93 Terry Lockhart and Andrew Myers “The Social Charter: Implications for Personnel Managers” SWP 22/93 Kevin Daniels, Gerry Johnson& Leslie de Chematony “Differences in Cognitive Models of Buyers and Sellers” SWP 23193Peter Boey & Richard Saw “Evaluation of Automated Warehousing Policies: Total SystemsApproach” SWP 24/93 John Hailey “Training for Entrepreneurs: International Perspectiveson the Design of Enterprise DevelopmentProgrammes” SWP 25/93 Tim Denison & Simon Knox “Pocketing the Changefrom Loyal Shoppers: The Double Indemnity Effect” SWP 26193Simon Knox “Consumersand Grocery Brands: Searching for Attitudes - Behaviour Correspondenceat the CategoryLevel” SWP 27193Simon Knox “ProcessingIdeasfor Innovation: The Benefits of a Market-Facing Approach” SWP 28/93 JoeNellis “The Changing Structure and Role of Building Societiesin the UK Financial ServicesSector” SWP 29/93 Kevin Daniels, Gerry Johnson& Leslie de Chematony “Similarity or Understanding: Differences in the Cognitive Models of Buyers and Sellers. A Paper outlining Issuesin Mapping and Homogeneity” SWP 30/93 Habte Selassie& Roy Hill “The Joint Venture Formation Environment in a Sub-SaharanAfrican Country: A CaseStudy of Government Policy and Host Partner Capability” SWP 3l/93 Colin Armistead, Graham Clark and Paula Stanley “Managing ServiceRecovery” SWP 32193Mike Sweeney “The Strategic Management of International Manufacturing and Sourcing” SWP 33193Julia Newton “An Integrated Perspectiveon Strategic Change” SWP 34193Robert Brown “The GraduateEnterprise Programme: Attempting to Measure the Effectivenessof Small R~~~inew Trgininu” CRANFIELD WORKING PAPERS List No 8, 1994 SWP l/94 Keith Goffin “RepertoryGrids in Market Research:An Example SWP 2194 Mark Jenkins “A Methodologyfor Creatingand Comparing StrategicCausalMaps” SWP 3194Simon Knox “Reengineering the Brand” SWP 4194Robert Brown EncouragingRural Enterprisein GreatBritain - Britain’s “Venturecash”Competition SWP 5194Andy Bytheway,BernardDyer & Ashley Braganza “Beyondthe Value Chain: A New Framework for BusinessModelling” SWP 6194JosephNellis “Challengesand Prospectsfor the European Financial ServicesIndustry” SWP 7194Keith Thompson,PanagiotisAlekos & Nikolaos Haziris “ReasonedAction Theory applied to the Prediction of Olive Oil Usage” SWP 15194Chris Edwards& JoePeppard “Forging a Link betweenBusinessStrategyand BusinessRe-engineering” SWP 16194Andrew Myers, Andrew Kakabadse,Colin Gordon& SiobhanAlderson “Effectivenessof FrenchManagement: Analysis of the Behaviour, Attitudes and BusinessImpact of Top Managers” SWP 17194Malcolm Harper Micro-Credit - The Benign Paradox CRANFIELD WORKING PAPERS List No 9, 1995 SWP l/95 Andy Bytheway “Information in the Supply Chain: Measuring Supply Chain Performance” SWP 2195John Ward & JoePeppard “Reconciling the IT/BusinessRelationship:A TroubledMarriage in Needof Guidance” SWP 3195Kevin Daniels, Gerry Johnson,& Leslie de Chematony “Collective Framesof Reference,Recognition, and Managers’Mental Models of Competition: A Test of Two Industries” SWP 4195 Alison Rieple SWP 8194SanjoyMukhejee & Ashley Braganza “Core ProcessRedesignin the Public Sector” “StafIIng as a Lever of StrategicChange- The Infhtenceof Managerial Experience,Behaviour and Values” SWP 9194 Mike Sweeney “A Methodologyfor the StrategicManagement of International Manufacturing and Sourcing” SWP 5/95 Grafton Whyte & Andy Bytheway “Factors AfFectingInformation Systems Success” SWP 10194Ariane Hegewisch& Hemik Holt Larsen “EuropeanDevelopmentsin Public Sector Human ResourceManagement” SWP 1l/94 Valerie Bence “Telepoint: Lessonsin High Technology Product Marketing” SWP 12194Andy Bytheway “Seeking BusinessImprovement:A Systematic Approach” SWP 13194Chris Edwards & Ashley Braganza “Classifying and Planning BPR Initiatives: The BPR Web” SWP 14194Mark Jenkins& Malcolm McDonald “Defining and SegmentingMarkets: Archetypesand ResearchAgendas”