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”