Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Information & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/im

Determinants and consequences of routine and advanced use of business

intelligence (BI) systems by management accountants
Thanyani Norman Mudau a, *, Jason Cohen b, Elmarie Papageorgiou a
a
Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, School of Accountancy, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
b
Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, School of Business Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: There is limited evidence on why decision makers extend beyond routine use toward more advanced use of
business intelligence Business Intelligence (BI) systems. This study developed an extended DeLone and McLean information system
management accounting success model hypothesizing the effects of system, data, information, and service quality, along with self-efficacy
system use
and task complexity, on routine and advanced use of BI. Task complexity was also considered as moderating the
IS success model
advanced use
effects of use on individual performance. Data was collected from a sample (N = 362) of management ac­
countants using BI systems. Results confirmed system, data, information, and service quality as important, and
indicated that routine use is less likely under conditions of task complexity and does not rely on user self-efficacy
to the same degree as advanced use. Using routine BI features was also not found to improve user performance to
the same extent as advanced use. The study has contributed new theoretical insights into BI use and offered new
conceptual and operational definitions of routine and advanced use of BI, with implications for practice in
contexts such as management accounting.

1. Introduction accountants often discontinue BI use after implementation and perform

their work outside of BI systems using stand-alone tools like Excel [36,
Business Intelligence (BI) systems are a class of information systems 47,122]. This practice is unlikely to change given limited evidence
combining tools and infrastructure (e.g., OLAP, data warehouses, linking BI use to performance and work outcomes [7,102,121–123].
dashboards, and query tools) for data management, analysis, and Some have argued that BI outputs are not easy to use and make the work
reporting [3,32,116]. BI portals provide decision makers an interactive of management accountants more complex [34]. Users can find it
interface to manipulate, analyze, and visualize historical and current challenging to migrate budgeting, forecasting, key performance in­
data and perform dynamic reporting, forecasting, prediction, and trend dicators, activity-based management, performance reporting, and
and drill-down analysis, among other uses [119]. According to Forrester product costing to BI systems [36,102]. Additionally, some managers
[38], the global market for BI software is estimated to grow to nearly may use only basic BI features, choosing not to opt for and experiment
$40 billion by 2027, driven by a deepening data culture, advances in with more advanced features [84]. These routine users tend to use BI
data visualization and big data analytics tools, and augmented intelli­ systems more like a database without developing dashboards or making
gence. Most major vendors offer BI software tools (e.g., Microsoft, SAP, use of advanced analytics tools [46,47]. Past studies indicate that basic
Oracle, and SAS), with specialist solutions emerging for sectors such as or routine use of pre-built BI reports is unlikely to bring sufficient ben­
finance, healthcare, manufacturing, retail, energy, transportation, and efits, and suggest that users support their work through more advanced
public administration, among others. In the management accounting features, such as self-service tools, interactive visualization, and pre­
context, BI can provide for the predictive and integrated management dictive analytics [49,74]. To the best of our knowledge, past studies
control and analytics needed to improve financial and non-financial have not confirmed the relative effects of routine and advanced user
decision making [10,12,36,47,84,101]. However, the realization of behaviors on individual performance in a BI context. The purpose of our
benefits from BI depends on the manner and extent to which these study is to address the questions regarding what motivates management
systems are used in practice [130]. Unfortunately, management accountants to make use of BI systems implemented in their

* Correspondence author.
E-mail address: Mudauno@yahoo.com (T.N. Mudau).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2023.103888
Received 9 September 2022; Received in revised form 18 October 2023; Accepted 10 November 2023
Available online 11 November 2023
0378-7206/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

organizations, what motivates them to move beyond routine use of basic from IS success studies [64] but can be more important than organiza­
features toward more advanced use, and what consequences arise as a tional influences on an individual’s decision to use complex IS systems
result of routine and advanced use for their job performance. and to the design of interventions such as training [14,77,104]. Fourth,
To address these questions, the study draws on the DeLone and the study compares the relative effects of routine versus advanced use on
McLean [29] information system success model, along with other performance outcomes. The way in which BI is used is likely to deter­
studies (e.g., [49,74]), to develop a BI success model for management mine the extent of benefits realized, and new advances in BI provide
accounting. The DeLone and McLean model is focused on the impetus to explore how advanced features provide added support for
multi-dimensional nature of IS success, incorporating both antecedents management accounting performance [34,84,121]. The empirical work
and consequences of user behavior, which is the purpose of our study. involved a large sample survey of management accountants in South
Despite the sophistication of information systems increasing, the model African public and private sector organizations who are users of BI
remains relevant by including a set of elements that consistently matter systems from SAP, Oracle, and SAS, among others. By examining both
for IS success, such as information and system quality, use, and out­ the determinants and consequences of BI use in the accounting context,
comes [64,81,91]. Moreover, the model is easily extended so that it can BI systems can be better designed and managed to meet the expectations
be contextualized to specific IS domains [41,71,89,110]. Through our of these users to facilitate their complex decision-making tasks and
extensions, we make a fourfold contribution. First, we contribute new improve their performance.
constructs to distinguish between routine and advanced use of BI. This is The remaining sections of this article present the literature review,
important because management accountants may benefit most from outline the theoretical background and develop the study’s research
advanced types of use as compared to routine use [4,7]. Second, we model and hypotheses, and describe the research methods before pre­
contextualize the IS success model by introducing data quality as an senting empirical findings and implications of results for research and
additional factor motivating use behavior and thus is among the most practice.
important prerequisites for BI benefits [118,129]. Third, we consider
individual management accountants’ self-efficacy for BI use and the 2. Background Literature
complexity of their decision tasks as additional determinants of use, and
the latter as a potential moderator of the relationship between use and Organizations expect to realize numerous benefits from BI system
performance. Individual factors such as these are too frequently omitted implementation [61]. However, 50 % to 80 % of these implementations

Table 1
Previous Studies on Individual BI Use and Success.
Study Study Focus Theory Key Findings

Hou [53] Study of end user computing satisfaction (EUCS), EUCS model EUCS leads to increased BI usage and improved individual
system usage, and individual performance of BI performance, and BI usage leads to higher levels of individual
users in Taiwan performance.
Huang et al. Behavioral intentions to use a data mining tool Extended TAM model Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use explain user intentions.
[57]
Tona et al. Study of BI users in a public organization IS success model Use and user satisfaction significantly influence individual impact, but
[115] satisfaction does not predict use and vice versa. System and information
quality are significant predictors of user satisfaction, but only system
quality influences use.
Li et al. [74] Post-acceptance BI usage behaviors of employees Motivation theory Extrinsic motivation (usefulness) had stronger impacts on routine use,
in Chinese telecom companies whereas intrinsic motivation had stronger effects on innovative use.
Personal innovativeness moderated relationships between motivation
and use.
Popovič et al. Study of how information sharing values affect IS success model Information-sharing values moderate the effects of information quality
[96] the IS success dimensions of systems and on BI information use intentions, but system quality does not influence
information quality BI information use.
Gaardboe et al. Study of BI success among end users in 12 public IS success model System and information quality were associated with user satisfaction,
[39] hospitals in Denmark which in turn related to individual impact. Use was not associated with
individual impact.
Mudzana and Study of top, middle, and operational IS success model User quality (skill) emerged as an important BI success factor
Maharaj [83] management BI users influencing satisfaction.
Visinescu et al. Exploratory study of relationships between BI use, Management support system Level of BI use, information quality, and problem space complexity all
[124] problem space complexity, information quality, framework influence perceived decision quality.
and decision quality
Hou [54] Study of end user computing satisfaction (EUCS) EUCS Higher levels of EUCS can lead to increased BI continuance intention.
and BI continuance intentions
Gonzales and Study of 104 BI users in quasi-voluntary contexts IS success model This study compares the original DeLone and McLean model to
Wareham from multiple firms Seddon’s respecified model. Satisfaction was highly significant for
[43] individual impact, but little support was found for a relationship
between individual impact and system dependence.
Montero [82] Study of how information quality and system IS success model Information and system quality relate to information use, with maturity
quality relate to BI use among 109 senior factors as moderators.
executives in the US
Kapo et al. [65] Partial IS success model investigating BI IS success model User satisfaction leads to increased frequency and duration of BI use
satisfaction and use and to individual user performance.
Jaradat et al. Study of factors influencing BI adoption Technology organization Information and system quality determine BI usage intentions, along
[62] intentions environmental theory and IS with perceptions of compatibility and relative advantage.
success model
Trieu et al. Importance of organizational resources to Theory of extended use System qualities allow for more transparent interaction with BI,
[118] extended use of BI whereas representational fidelity has indirect effects on decision-
making effectiveness through informed action.
Trieu [117] Study of complementary organizational resources Cybernetic theory Organizational data culture and data quality are important factors
important to BI use promoting individual dependence on and use of BI.

2
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

are estimated to fail worldwide [72,86,106]. Several studies have thus 3. Research model and hypotheses
explored organizational-level influences on BI outcomes [3]. These
works have drawn attention to the importance of management support Our BI system success model is depicted in Fig. 1. The model defines
and provision of resources [35,129], BI maturity [95], capabilities such system quality, information quality, and service quality as important
as system integration [60], and BI system and data quality [116]. attributes in an individual user’s evaluation of a system leading to actual
However, despite the importance of individual use to BI success and the use of the system and to user satisfaction [5,19,28,126,132]. System
realization of BI benefits, there are few studies on individual use of BI quality refers to the usability, availability, reliability, and response time
tools (see Table 1). of the system as experienced by its users, whereas information quality
The operationalization of individual user behaviors has also been reflects the content and format of the system’s outputs to ensure they are
limited mostly to user intentions [57] or broad measures of frequency useful, relevant, and understandable to users in their decision making
and duration of BI use [53]. Notwithstanding these limitations, there has [29,40]. Service quality reflects the support users receive when using the
been some effort to understand the determinants and consequences of IS, such as the ability for a support team to respond reliably and time­
user behavior by drawing on the IS success model [43], theories of ously to user queries [29]. Recent work has also drawn attention to the
end-user computing satisfaction [54], extended use [118], and TAM importance of data quality in IS success [23,43]. Data quality reflects the
[57]. Yet, extant research has not reached consensus on the role of completeness and integrity of the underlying data captured and stored in
various factors in promoting BI use. a system [80,116], and is specifically relevant in the BI context [60,
System-related factors such as system quality and ease of use are 117]. User satisfaction is the affective response of the user toward the
significant determinants of BI intentions and user satisfaction in some system, such as whether it is found enjoyable or frustrating to use [11,
studies [39,57,62]. Technical and design quality should allow for more 103]. Use and user satisfaction then have consequences for user per­
transparent interaction with BI to support decision-making efficiency formance [59,90,120], such as perceived contribution to individual
[118]. However, the importance of BI system quality has not always problem solving, decision making, and productivity [53,58,92,99,109].
been supported [96]. However, the measurement of use has been oversimplified in many IS
Mixed results have also been reported with respect to data and in­ success studies [90], and we therefore distinguish between routine and
formation qualities as determinants of BI use and outcomes. Some advanced system use. Fig. 1 also depicts our incorporation of user
conclude information quality is a generally important determinant of self-efficacy, along with the direct and moderating effects of task
organizational BI performance [116], but others could not confirm sig­ complexity on the links between BI use and performance.
nificant effects of information quality on individual BI use [43,115].
Data quality has been considered highly important to BI success at the 3.1. Routine and advanced BI use
organizational level of analysis [116,129] and only recently was found
important to individual BI use [117]. Poor data can constrain the value Researchers have too often adopted unidimensional conceptualiza­
individual users get from BI, and data and information quality are tions of system use, such as the frequency or duration of use [19,53,59].
considered especially important to BI benefits in a management ac­ These may be suitable where use is a proxy for implementation success
counting context [66,128]. Yet, their roles in motivating use of more but are less useful where use is considered a causal agent for explaining
advanced BI features have not been determined. Service quality is the diverse downstream impacts of an IT system [31]. Users are known
another important consideration for use of complex IS [56]. However, to engage in different use-related activities [8], and through their
few BI studies have considered the factor of service quality [43], and experience and learning some achieve a deeper embedding of a system
none outline its importance to adopting more advanced or extended into their work [25]. A richer multi-dimensional conceptualization of
levels of BI use. use is thus required, such as the extent to which an application is used in
Furthermore, job-related factors and decision tasks of users might different types of work tasks [31] or the extent to which different fea­
interact with IS success factors in the BI context but have been infre­ tures of an application are employed [63]. These measures better cap­
quently examined [3]. The job relevance of BI is important because users ture the content and scope of system use and recognize that users of the
want to improve their task efficiency and work goals through the tool same system can make use of different features to different degrees
[57], and usage intentions can thus depend on user perceptions about [111]. Past work has considered it useful to distinguish users in the
BI’s compatibility with their work [61]. Few studies consider post-acceptance stage by their use of a system’s basic routine features
user-related factors such as competencies and skills required for effec­ versus more advanced features and functional potential. Examples
tive utilization of BI systems [3], and particularly toward sophisticated include the distinctions between typical versus extended use [55],
uses such as running custom queries, predictive analytics, or visualiza­ exploitation versus exploration [13], routine versus innovative use [73],
tion tools. In addition, user satisfaction has been found to also influence and extended versus exploratory use [105]. These distinctions recognize
the duration and frequency of BI use [54,65]. However, the importance that not all users achieve comprehensive and sophisticated use of
of user satisfaction to more extended conceptualizations of BI use has complex systems [55]. In the BI context, the concepts of routine and
not been confirmed. advanced use were introduced by Li et al. [74] as two qualitatively
Some recent studies confirm that organizations can improve profit­ distinct BI usage behaviors with the former focused on standard, low risk
ability and reduce risks through BI implementation [134], but the link uses in routine activities, whereas the latter emphasized use of more
between BI use and outcomes at the individual level has not always been advanced and extended features in support of emergent tasks. These
confirmed. For example, although BI use was found highly significant for different uses can occur at an employee’s discretion, in parallel or at
individual user performance in some studies [53,118], others have not different times in support of work [74]. Thus, whereas some managers
confirmed the link between BI use and individual job performance [39, may use the BI system to access only basic queries and standard reports
43,44], or have found BI use associated with poor decision quality in on past performance, others may use the same system in more advanced
some instances [124]. Distinguishing the effects of routine versus ways, such as using programmable or customized features to identify the
advanced use behaviors on individual performance outcomes may be drivers of performance, make predictions, or create future forecasts [7,
important to explaining these inconsistent findings. Our research ad­ 98,103]. As illustrated in Table 2 (see also Gartner [42]), routine and
dresses these multiple gaps in the study of BI use through the develop­ advanced use are thus also distinguishable by the sophistication of the
ment of our research model and hypotheses presented next. analytic features employed [50]. Importantly, these two uses may have
different implications for user outcomes [49], with those using BI in
more advanced ways more likely to experience the system as improving
their performance [1,10,101,113]. Moreover, it is not sufficiently tested

3
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

Fig. 1. Research model.

which system attributes are more relevant to advanced use as compared

Table 2
to routine use. Thus, we incorporate both routine and advanced use
Summary of routine and advanced use (adapted from Gartner [42]).
behaviors in our research model.
Routine Use Advanced Use

3.2. System quality Executing existing BI standards reports Use of self-help service tools embedded on
(i.e., cost center reports) the BI to analyze information without the
assistance of the IT practitioner
System quality plays a significant role in influencing system use and
Executing existing BI built queries (i.e., Use of interactive visualization to
user satisfaction [28,95,130,39,90]. This is because it minimizes the sales volume) transform information to a visual form,
required effort to access functionality and enhances efficiency of the allowing the user to understand
system [15,24]. In the BI context, a more usable IS system assists users to information better
use more of the system’s functionality to search for information and Performing basic analysis (i.e., ratio Use of predictive analytics to leverage on
analysis) current and historic data to predict the
generate needed reports [130]. Past studies support that when a BI future (i.e., forecast)
system is easy to use and has better response times, the use of the system Extracting raw data from BI tools and Use of drill-down functionality that
improves [39,108]. Therefore, it is hypothesized that: preparing reports in Excel (i.e., allows the user to go deeper into the
general ledger) information to be analyzed
H1a. Perceptions of system quality will have a positive impact on both Running ad-hoc reports (i.e., monthly Use of dashboards that allows displaying
routine and advanced use of BI systems by management accountants. financial report measuring cash flow) key performance indicators in a visual
format
Users are likely to associate advanced use of system features with Cleansing data (i.e., eliminating Use of the BI query functionality to
higher effort expectancy, and a system’s ease of use has been found to be redundant profit centers) develop customized reports that meet the
the most important factor influencing more advanced uses of an enter­ need of the user
Use of trend analysis to understand
prise system [55]. Problems with system performance and usability are
current and future movement using time
more likely, on average, to influence engagement with a system’s more series data
complex features. Easier-to-use BI systems are likely to encourage users Use of scenario planning to perform
to explore advanced features to obtain more benefits [97], and stable BI ‘what-if’ scenarios and make better
decisions on the best possible future
systems are needed to encourage more innovative use of BI in decision
scenario
making [74]. System quality is thus considered especially important for
encouraging more advanced BI system use. Therefore, it is hypothesized
that: 3.3. Data quality
H1b. Perceptions of system quality will have a stronger impact on
BI systems integrate data from underlying transactional systems
advanced use than on routine use.
through various extract and load operations. To promote user trust in BI,
System quality also plays a significant role in influencing user it is important that these operations are viewed as successful, and that
satisfaction [28,29,90]. Poor-quality systems that are not stable or easy data being manipulated within the BI tool is complete, accurate, and
to use increase the cognitive effort and time required of users and thus consistent [26,116]. Data quality ensures that individual management
detract from overall user experience and satisfaction [90]. Management accountants can confidently rely on data records and use the BI system
accountants are thus more likely to enjoy using a system that is easier to in executing their tasks, such as scenario planning, analytics, costing,
use [82]. Past studies support the impact of system quality on user predictions, dashboard reports, and agile visualizations [82]. Thus:
satisfaction [100,104,132], including in a BI context [39]. Therefore, it
H3a. Perceptions of data quality will have a positive impact on both
is hypothesized that:
routine and advanced use of BI systems by management accountants.
H2. Management accountant perceptions of system quality have a
Management accountants are more likely to use BI innovatively if
positive impact on user satisfaction.
data stored is trusted to be of good standard [116]. In the absence of

4
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

quality data, users are likely to lose interest in the system and may satisfaction should thus be improved with better-quality information
default to using it only for the most basic uses as advanced reporting produced by BI [95]. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
cannot be relied on [23,60]. Users may be reluctant to expend extra
H6. Management accountant perceptions of information quality have
effort in generating visualizations, running predictions, and using other
a positive impact on user satisfaction.
complex analytical features if they are not convinced that underlying
data records are up-to-date, complete, and accurate. Users more confi­
3.5. Service quality
dent in data quality in source systems are more likely to report using BI
to its fullest potential [117]. Thus:
The availability of IS support services may assist users to gain con­
H3b. Perceptions of data quality will have a stronger impact on fidence and help reduce or eliminate potential usage problems [114].
advanced use than on routine use. Proper support given to users may even result in them using a system
more innovatively. Service quality can also be important in the BI
Users are also less likely to use or be satisfied with a system where
context where IS support teams assist users in operating advanced
underlying data is not considered suitable and of good standard [19].
functions such as interactive visualizations and predictive analytics [87,
Poor-quality data is likely to result in dissatisfaction and frustration with
96]. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
the system [116]. Users will also likely be more satisfied when they can
spend more time on core functions rather than preparing data or ques­ H7a. Perceptions of service quality will have a positive impact on both
tioning and fixing data-related errors [82]. Therefore, it is hypothesized routine and advanced use of BI systems by management accountants.
that:
Without service support, a user is less likely to move beyond the
H4. Management accountant perception of data quality has a positive more basic levels of use. Proper support allows users to explore addi­
impact on user satisfaction. tional features of the system, such as developing queries, enhancing
dashboards, and interactive visualizations. If BI users are not assisted in
using the complex functionality, they are less likely to make more
3.4. Information quality
extensive use of the system [80]. Service quality is thus considered
especially important for promoting advanced use. Hence:
Accurate and relevant information output depends on high levels of
underlying data quality [7,88]. Information outputs not underpinned by H7b. Perceptions of service quality will have a stronger impact on
reliable and complete data records have limited value for business advanced use than on routine use.
processes and decision making [26]. Data quality problems have been
Providing high-quality service and system support is recognized as
among the top problems impacting the confidence of users in BI reports
important for user satisfaction [29]. Employees are likely to be overall
(Gartner [42,116]). Users are thus unlikely to form positive perceptions
more satisfied with a system in their workplace if they feel supported by
of information quality if they have poor perceptions of data quality
a responsive, reliable, and capable team providing services to ensure
[117,127]. Therefore:
system availability [6]. However, poor service quality can frustrate user
H5a. Perceptions of data quality will have a positive impact on per­ trust and decrease satisfaction [112]. Service quality should also impact
ceptions of information quality. on user satisfaction in the BI context, with the relationship supported in
prior studies [44]. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
Accurate and relevant information output is likely to further influ­
ence BI use [87,98]. When better quality information is produced by the H8. Management accountant perceptions of service quality have a
BI system, a user may feel more empowered in their decision making and positive impact on user satisfaction.
be motivated to use the system to support their work [95]. Management
accountants are thus more likely to turn to BI solutions if it satisfies their 3.6. Use, user satisfaction, and individual performance
information needs. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
User satisfaction is a strong determinant of usage behaviors in the
H5b. Perceptions of information quality will have a positive impact on
post-adoption stage [9]. A decrease in usage is an early indication of
both routine and advanced use of BI systems by management
declining user satisfaction [29], but if a user enjoys a system and find it
accountants.
works the way they want, they are more likely to use it [31]. In the BI
The quality of outputs produced by the BI system can encourage the context, user satisfaction with system attributes has been found to in­
use of more advanced features of the BI system to obtain more benefits crease use [53]. Past studies also support that increased user satisfaction
[74]. Users may be especially encouraged to access features beyond can lead to greater use in contexts such as knowledge management
basic reporting when they believe they can more easily interpret and [132], employee portals [120], student information systems [100], and
make sense of the output [97]. However, users will likely be reluctant to mobile banking [114]. Hence, we hypothesize that:
explore advanced features such as predictive analytics if resultant out­
H9a. User satisfaction will have a positive impact on advanced and
puts are poorly formated and difficult to apply in decision making.
routine use of BI systems.
Limitations in routine reports are likely to be easier to overcome. Given
that interpretation of advanced outputs is more likely to be affected by Satisfaction is likely to be a particularly salient determinant of
problems with format and usability, we can hypothesize that: advanced use because users must be highly motivated to extend beyond
routine use toward more advanced use [73]. Satisfied users are more
H5c. Perceptions of information quality will have a stronger impact on
likely to commit to learning and applying advanced system functionality
advanced use than on routine use.
in their tasks [55]. Satisfaction is an important determinant of discre­
Accurate and relevant information output is likely to improve user tional use behaviors [59,64], which is often the case for use of a system’s
satisfaction [87,98]. However, poor-quality information outputs will advanced features. Routine use may reflect a normative compliance and
add to user frustration. If information is irrelevant, inaccurate, and be less influenced by the internal affective state of users [125]. Hence:
outdated, users may doubt the integrity and the ability of the BI system.
H9b. User satisfaction will have a stronger impact on advanced use
Poor information quality may frustrate the user experience as they
than on routine use.
struggle to interpret and work with the information outputs. Past studies
support information quality as a determinant of satisfaction in both BI Use has implications for the realization of benefits [29], with use
[39,43] and non-BI contexts [100,132]. Management accountants’ behaviors influencing downstream impacts in a system-to-value chain

5
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

[31]. Past studies support the logic of individual job performance ben­ among users with lower levels of task complexity [76]. If a user with
efits as outcomes of use [53,64,114,120]. We can then hypothesize that high task complexity is able, via the use of a BI system, to locate more
high levels of BI system usage should lead to improved job performance useful information to support them in decision making, then their in­
[53]. BI use can support management accountants to extract standard dividual performance is likely to increase [75]. Thus, individual per­
reports and track performance against target, including cost and profit formance is improved when system use facilitates the user to make more
center reports, variance, and ratio analysis [80]. It can also provide complex decisions [78]. However, a user facing low task and decision
functions to support them in forecasting, costing, scenario planning, key complexity may not necessarily require the same level of system use and
performance indicator monitoring, and trend analysis, among other uses information support to perform in their job. Advanced BI features pro­
[47]. BI use relieves management accountants from manipulating data vide the added analytical capability for users to make better decisions
on spreadsheets [85,112], allowing them to spend more time analyzing under conditions of greater uncertainty. It follows then that advanced
reports and making decisions [97]. Therefore: use will have more benefit for users facing more complex decision tasks.
The moderating effect of task characteristics on the relationship between
H10a. Advanced and routine use of BI systems will have a positive
use and performance has been supported in prior enterprise and decision
impact on the performance of management accountants.
support system studies [16,21]. Therefore, we can also hypothesize that:
Users are likely to accrue additional benefits in the post-adoptive
H13a. Management accountant task complexity will moderate the
stage by enriching their use of system features [63]. Moving from
relationship between BI system use and user performance.
typical or standard use to advanced use allows users to exploit and
extend more of a system’s features and functional potential to contribute
H13b. Management accountant task complexity will have a stronger
to their job performance [55,111]. Advanced use can facilitate a newly
moderating effect for advanced use than for routine use.
expanded scope of managerial accounting work [7], assisting manage­
ment accountants to answer more questions from available data to allow
3.8. Self-efficacy
for realization of more benefits from the tool. Thus:
H10b. Advanced use will have a stronger impact on the performance Self-efficacy is a user’s belief in their ability to execute behaviors,
of management accountants than will routine use. such as using a BI system to enhance their individual performance [51].
Users with low levels of self-efficacy will be less likely to use a system,
User satisfaction reflects a judgment about whether system capabil­
and especially less likely to extend their use to more advanced system
ities match work requirements, and if such estimate of the match is
features. Users with more confidence are likely to experiment with more
correct, then a positive association between user satisfaction and indi­
novel BI system features without requiring much additional support.
vidual impact is likely [59]. Prior studies have supported the positive
Training aims to develop skills and competence to help less experienced
impact of user satisfaction on individual performance [59,120], and a
users find ways to use a system in performing their work and introduce
recent meta-analysis supports user satisfaction as a strong and conclu­
them to more advanced features [5,132]. Self-efficacy is thus likely to
sive determinant of net benefits perceptions [81]. Users more satisfied
influence system usage behaviors. Therefore:
with their BI solution have also been found to report improved job ac­
curacy and performance [53]. Therefore, it is hypothesized that: H14a. Individual self-efficacy will have a positive impact on both
routine and advanced use of BI systems by management accountants.
H11. User satisfaction with BI has a positive impact on individual
performance of management accountants.
H14b. Individual self-efficacy will have a stronger impact on advanced
use than on routine use.
3.7. Task complexity
4. Methods
Task-technology fit theory highlights the additional importance of
work task characteristics in moving a user to rely more heavily on 4.1. Measures
certain features of an information system [30,45]. Task characteristics
may thus be important to understanding why IS success occurs [92]. The research instruments were adopted from the work of DeLone and
Complex tasks are more ambiguous and uncertain and involve a higher McLean [29], among others. Individual items are reflected in
cognitive load [70], with few established routines and knowledge Appendix A. System quality was measured as six items reflecting system
available for arriving at decision outcomes [45]. Through information availability, ease of use, response time, and stability [29,132]. Data
provision, information systems, such as BI systems, reduce the cognitive quality was measured using three items reflecting perceived complete­
load and uncertainty associated with decision tasks [135]. Task ness and correctness of records [23,53]. Information quality was
complexity can thus inspire the use of IS systems to improve perfor­ measured as seven items reflecting the accuracy, understandability,
mance [20,75,90]. Users with more complex tasks will have more relevance, and usefulness of outputs [28,29]. Service quality was
motivation to embrace more advanced system features than users facing measured as five items reflecting responsiveness, helpfulness, and user
fewer complex tasks [74]. Management accountants with re­ confidence in support services [92]. All items were measured on a
sponsibilities such as understanding causes of variances and quantifying 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).
effects of decisions on profitability are facing ambiguous decisions with Routine use was operationalized as the use of the BI system by
high cognitive load and would be more reliant on the analytical and management accountants to support normal or regular tasks through
information support of a BI tool. They are likely to have a greater extraction of pre-built standard reports and existing queries. Advanced
dependence on BI features as task complexity increases. Therefore: use was operationalized as the use of the BI system by management
accountants to support planning, budgeting, analytics, dynamic fore­
H12a. Management accountant task complexity will have a positive
casting, costing, and reporting tasks through use of more advanced BI
impact on advanced and routine BI system use.
system features such as self-service tools, interactive visualization,
predictive analytics, and drill-down functionality [74]. The final set of 8
H12b. Management accountant task complexity will have a stronger
items reflecting routine and 12 items reflecting advanced use (Table 4)
impact on advanced use than on routine use.
were developed from the literature (Table 2) and subsequently refined
We can also suggest that the link between use and performance will through an initial exploratory study with 10 experts and BI users. These
be stronger among individuals who have higher task complexity than interviews asked about user experiences with the main features of BI

6
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

systems and categorized these features between routine and advanced did respond on their BI system in use. A t-test showed no significant
features. Use of the routine and advanced features by the management differences on variables of interest between the small group who did not
accountant in support of their work was measured using a 6-point scale stipulate their BI experience and the other respondents, and therefore
(1 = never to 6 = very often). these responses were retained. The demographic profile of respondents
User satisfaction was measured through five items reflecting the is presented in Table 3.
extent to which the system meets expectations and is overall enjoyable Table 3 suggests an even number of male and female respondents,
and pleasant to use [53,131]. Individual performance was measured over half with more than 11 years of experience in management ac­
using seven items reflecting job performance, productivity, and effec­ counting and just over 40 % holding a senior management position.
tiveness in decision making and problem identification [53,58]. Most of the respondents have a professional affiliation with the Char­
Task complexity was measured using eight items reflecting the am­ tered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) or a CA (SA)
biguity, uncertainty, and knowledge requirements of tasks [45]. designation. Approximately half of the respondents have between 6 and
Self-efficacy was measured using three items reflecting confidence in 15 years of user experience with BI, but most have not attended formal
ability to use BI tools [14,51]. All measures were on a 7-point Likert training. Users were requested to select the BI tool currently used in their
scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), with task complexity work as a management accountant and refer to it when answering
items reverse scored. Experience was measured as number of years the questions. The most popular BI system appears to be SAP Busi­
users has been using the BI system. Training reflected whether or not the nessObjects, followed by Microsoft’s Power BI.
user received formal training before using the BI system [5]. A mean split on the advanced use scale (mean = 5.06) was used to
To improve content and face validity, a pre-test was first conducted identify high advanced users (above the mean) and low advanced users
using another 10 BI system practitioners and academic experts who (below the mean). Based on their mean scores, users in the high
reviewed the instrument. Thereafter, pilot testing was conducted using a advanced subgroup (n = 258) were, on average, using advanced features
convenience sample of 20 management accountants who were BI users. often or very often, whereas those in the low advanced subgroup (n ==
Recommendations were used to enhance the final instrument. These 104) used such features more rarely or not at all. Chi-square tests reveal
included extension of routine use instruments by adding data cleansing no significant differences at the p < 0.05 level between the two sub­
and executing existing queries, whereas on advance use instruments, the groups on age, gender, professional membership, industry sector, or
following were added: optimization, agile visualization, and interactive experience. It is noteworthy that nearly 50 % of the low advanced user
visualization. subgroup had over 11 years exposure to BI, suggesting that years of use
is not necessarily sufficient for advanced use. The two subgroups
4.2. Sample differed significantly on training attendance (χ2 = 7.612, p < 0.05), but
interestingly most advanced users (60.9 %) had no formal training. This
Data collection was restricted to individual management accountants suggests a potential paucity in formal training options on advanced
in South Africa using BI systems as part of their work. This required the features and a tendency for more advanced users to be self-taught. The
sampling of management accountants within South African organiza­ three most frequently used advanced features in the pooled sample were
tions that have already implemented a BI system for active use [33], predictive analytics (mean = 5.33, std dev = 1.05), drill-down func­
including both public and private sectors where BI and analytics systems tionality (mean = 5.22, std dev = 1.32), and creating dashboards (mean
have widely diffused [22]. Therefore, the non-probability sampling = 5.19, std dev = 1.18). However, the use of advanced features was
frame was constructed to include management accountants who are independent of BI software with similar proportions of users in each
users of BI systems across both public and private organizations. To subgroup making use of the various packages. The routine use scale
sample the private sector, the Financial Mail [37] ranking of the 200 (mean = 4.13, std dev = 1.30) comprised items representing use of basic
largest leading companies in South Africa was consulted. This list in­ features such as standard pre-built reports and queries. High advanced
cludes organizations in sectors such as finance, manufacturing, and users scored significantly higher (t = 4.77, p < 0.001) on their use of
telecommunications, among others, and ranks them based on their total these basic routine features (mean = 4.33, std dev = 1.24) compared to
asset value. In addition, 196 public entities listed by National Treasury low advanced users (mean = 3.62, std dev = 1.30), suggesting that
in South Africa were included [93]. Management accountants from a advanced users tend to make more use of all BI features.
total of 396 organizations were sampled. For each organization, the
chief financial officer (CFO) or an equivalent manager was first con­ 5. Results
tacted. In most cases, they provided information on the head of man­
agement accounting unit who was then contacted to request specific 5.1. Measurement model testing
details of individual management accountants who could be approached
to participate in the study. These individual management accountants The dimensionality of the constructs was confirmed through an
were then invited directly as potential respondents or were forwarded initial exploratory principal components analysis with varimax rotation.
the questionnaire by the organizational contact, depending on the or­ The results (Table 4) did not suggest that any items needed to be
ganization’s preference. The survey ran for 12 weeks, with an estimated dropped as all factor loadings were above 0.60 and average variance
1000 individual management accounts invited directly or indirectly to extracted values were all above 0.50 (Table 4). Moreover, as per Har­
participate. Using this snowball sampling approach, responses were man’s one factor test, the first factor did not account for a majority of
received from 365 individual management accountants using BI systems variance, only 14.5 %, suggesting no concerns over common method
in the targeted organizations. Respondents were not offered an incentive bias [67,94]. In addition, we considered the marker variable approach to
to participate, but they could request a copy of the final report. test for common method bias [79]. We selected self-reported experience
Given the high number of responses, there was no need to send re­ in management accounting as a marker because it is likely to be subject
minders. The high response also reduced threats to validity of conclu­ to a similar disproportionate response or acquiescence bias as other
sions arising from non-response bias. Moreover, early (within the first 5 variables, such as levels of BI use and performance. However, it is not
days) and late respondents (in the last 5 days) were compared using t- expected to be theoretically or statistically related to other model vari­
tests, and no differences in responses were observed, further reducing ables. When the marker variable was included as an additional deter­
concern over non-response bias. Three responses were eliminated as minant of the dependent variables, the significance of path coefficients
they were missing data items, resulting in a useable sample of 362 ob­ did not change, providing further assurance that common method bias
servations with sufficient data for meaningful statistical analysis. In was not substantial [79]. Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure internal
addition, 17 respondents preferred not to state their BI experience yet consistency of the multi-item scales and found to be greater than 0.70 for

7
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

Table 3 Table 3 (continued )

Demographics and descriptive statistics of respondents. Descriptive Category Pooled Low High
Descriptive Category Pooled Low High statistics sample advanced advanced
statistics sample advanced advanced user user
user user subgroup subgroup
subgroup subgroup
Telecoms 32 (8.8 4 (3.8 %) 28 (10.9 %)
Sample size 362 104 (100 %) 258 (100 %) %)
(100 %) Pharmaceutical 30 (8.3 12 (11.5 %) 18 (7.0 %)
Median age range 36–40 36–40 years 36–40 years %)
years Retail 28 (7.7 6 (5.8 %) 22 (8.5 %)
Gender Male 139 35 (33.7 %) 104 (40.3 %)
(38.4 %) Accounting 27 (7.5 9 (8.7 %) 18 (7.0 %)
%) %)
Female 159 53 (51.0 %) 106 (41.1 Public sector 25 (6.9 9 (8.7 %) 16 (6.2 %)
(43.9 %) %)
%) Manufacturing 24 (6.6 10 (9.6 %) 14 (5.4 %)
Prefer not to say 64 16 (15.4 %) 48 (18.6 %) %)
(17.7 Logistics 22 (6.1 8 (36.4 %) 14 (5.4 %)
%) %)
Median 11–15 11–15 years 11–15 years Airline 22 (6.1 5 (4.8 %) 17 (6.6 %)
experience in years %)
management Mining 20 (5.5 6 (5.8 %) 14 (5.4 %)
accounting %)
Years of <2 years 43 10 (9.6 %) 33 (12.8 %) Current Junior and entry 53 18 (17.3 %) 36 (13.9 %)
experience (11.9 management management (14.7
using BI systems %) level %)
2–5 years 60 10 (9.6 %) 50 (19.4 %) Middle 83 27 (26.0 %) 56 (21.7 %)
(16.6 management (22.9
%) %)
6–10 years 93 26 (25.0 %) 67 (26.0 %) Senior 151 41 (39.4 %) 109 (42.2
(25.7 management (41.7 %)
%) %)
11–15 years 91 36 (34.6 %) 55 (21.3 %) Specialist 60 16 (15.4 %) 44 (17.1 %)
(25.1 (16.6
%) %)
>16 years 58 15 (14.4 %) 43 (16.7 %) Executive 15 (4.1 2 (1.9 %) 13 (5.0 %)
(16.0 management %)
%) Professional CIMA 199 54 (51.9 %) 145 (56.2
Prefer not to say 17 (4.7 7 (6.7 %) 10 (3.9 %) qualification (55.0 %)
%) %)
Current BI system SAP 127 34 (32.7 %) 93 (36.0 %) SAICA, CA (SA) 135 46 (44.2 %) 89 (34.5 %)
being used by BusinessObjects (35.1 (37.3
your %) %)
organization Microsoft Suite, 56 18 (17.3 %) 39 (15.1 %) Other 27 (7.5 4 (3.8 %) 24 (9.3 %)
Power BI (15.5 %)
%) Routine use Mean (std dev) 4.13 3.62 (1.30) 4.33 (1.24)
Clear Analytics 39 9 (8.7 %) 30 (11.6 %) (1.30)
(Excel based) (10.8 Advanced use Mean (std dev) 5.06 3.84 (1.14) 5.55 (0.29)
%) (1.02)
Oracle 37 11 (10.6 %) 26 (10.1 %)
* Other BI systems in use included QlikView, IBM Cognos, and MicroStrategy,
(10.2
%) among others.
SAGE 35 (9.7 11 (10.6 %) 23 (8.9 %)
%) all constructs. This provides support for convergent validity and reli­
SAS 32 (8.8 13 (12.5 %) 19 (7.4 %)
ability of our scales. To confirm discriminant validity, we compared
%)
Other* 36 8 (7.7 %) 28 (10.9 %) inter-construct correlations with the square root of AVE of each
(10.0 construct. The square roots of AVE of each construct are presented along
%) the diagonal of Table 5. These are shown as larger than the
Attended training Yes 112 43 (41.3 %) 69 (26.7 %) inter-construct correlations (i.e., constructs share more variance with
for this BI (30.9
system %)
their own items than with other constructs in the model). In addition,
No 206 49 (47.1 %) 157 (60.9 the HTMT ratios were calculated, and results indicate that the ratios are
(56.9 %) less than 0.85 [52]. Therefore, discriminant validity was confirmed.
%) A further confirmatory factor analysis test of the measurement model
Prefer not to say 44 12 (11.5 %) 32 (12.4 %)
was undertaken using AMOS. The maximum-likelihood method was
(12.2
%) adopted. Although the ratio of X2 / DF = 12 is slightly higher than the
Sector of current Finance 51 13 (12.5 %) 38 (14.7 %) recommended level, other fit indices were reasonable [GFI = 0.790; NFI
employment as (14.1 = 0.854; CFI = 0.924; IFI = 0.925; RMSEA = 0.050; DF = 1297; TLI =
a management %) 0.919; and RFI = 0.844] with the factor loadings between 0.633 and
accountant Utilities and 44 15 (14.4 %) 29 (11.2 %)
Energy (12.2
0.931. Taken together, results confirm the reliability, convergent, and
%) discriminant validity of the measured constructs.
Service 37 7 (6.7 %) 30 (11.6 %) A Mann-Whitney comparison of users in the high advanced use
(10.2 subgroup with those in the low advanced use subgroup reveals signifi­
%)
cant differences across all model variables, except self-efficacy (Table 6).
The mean rank for users classified as high advanced users was higher on

8
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

Table 4
PCA Results and item reliability.
Variable Items Factor loadings AVE Cronbach’s Alpha

System Quality The BI system is always up and running. 0.751 0.643 0.915
The BI system is easy to navigate. 0.830
The response time of the BI system is acceptable. 0.821
The BI system is easy to use. 0.813
The BI system is user friendly. 0.863
The BI system is stable. 0.782
Data Quality Data input records in the system are always complete. 0.837 0.620 0.830
Data records in the system are never missing. 0.845
Data records in the system are always correct. 0.847
Information Quality Information output by the BI system is presented in a useful format. 0.878 0.720 0.947
Information output by the BI system is accurate. 0.844
Information output provided by the BI system is easy to understand. 0.850
Information output provided by the BI system meets my needs. 0.847
Information output provided by the BI system is relevant. 0.891
Information output produced by the BI system is complete with no need to rely on other systems. 0.850
Information output provided by BI systems is important and helpful for my work. 0.839
Service Quality My organization’s BI system support team is always helpful to me. 0.838 0.659 0.906
My organization’s BI system support team is responsive within reasonable time. 0.856
My organization’s BI system support team is committed to resolving my system challenges. 0.869
My organization’s BI system support team responds to my request promptly. 0.798
With the support that I have received, I believe I can now use the BI system with confidence. 0.848
User Satisfaction I enjoy using the BI system. 0.872 0.754 0.939
I would recommend the BI system to other management accountants. 0.898
The BI system works the way I want it to work. 0.888
It is pleasant to use the BI system. 0.900
Overall, I am satisfied with the BI system. 0.863
Individual Performance Using the BI system improves my job performance. 0.809 0.566 0.901
Using the BI system increases my work productivity. 0.781
Using the BI system enhances my effectiveness in my job. 0.727
Using the BI system improves my decision-making quality. 0.761
Using the BI system helps me identify potential problems faster. 0.711
Using the BI system assists me in making decisions quicker. 0.783
Using the BI system assists me in spending less time in meetings. 0.789
Self-Efficacy I could use more advanced features of a BI tool with only the built-in help functions for assistance. 0.833 0.763 0.906
I am confident in my ability to use the more advanced features of a BI tool. 0.831
I am confident in my ability to use a BI system to predict the future performance of the organization. 0.810
Task Complexity The work that I perform is routine. 0.904 0.685 0.945
My co-workers perform the same job in the same way most of the time. 0.919
The duties that I perform are repetitious. 0.907
My co-workers perform repetitive activities in doing their jobs. 0.904
There is a clearly known way to do the major types of work I normally encountered. 0.909
There is a clearly defined body of knowledge of subject matter that can guide me in doing my work. 0.931
There is an understandable sequence of steps that can be followed in doing my work. 0.905
I can actually rely on established procedures and practices in doing my work. 0.906
Routine Use Running existing reports 0.823 0.687 0.946
Executing existing queries 0.810
Performing basic analysis 0.846
Extracting data from BI tools and preparing reports in Excel 0.860
Accessing standard reports 0.820
Running ad-hoc reporting 0.812
Abstraction of raw data 0.824
Cleansing data 0.800
Advanced Use Self-service tools 0.786 0.674 0.961
Interactive visualization 0.804
Predictive analytics reports 0.888
Drill-down functions 0.883
Creating dashboards 0.832
Constructing my own queries 0.875
Setting performance management targets 0.855
Trend analysis 0.842
Scenario planning 0.633
Predictive modeling 0.768
Agile visualizations 0.730
Optimization 0.855

all four system attributes, and in BI contribution to performance. These System quality (p < 0.001), data quality (p < 0.01), information
users also ranked significantly higher in task complexity. quality (p < 0.001), and service quality (p < 0.05) were all found to
have positive significance effects on routine use. Furthermore, system
quality (p < 0.001), data quality (p < 0.05), information quality (p <
5.2. Structural model and hypothesis testing
0.001), and service quality (p < 0.01) were all found to have positive
significance influence on advanced use, with effect sizes larger for
The structural model was tested using AMOS with results reported in
advanced use than routine use, thus supporting H1a, H1b, H3a, H3b,
Table 7 indicating 17 out of 22 hypothesized paths were directly sup­
H5b, H5c, H7a, and H7b. To further confirm the effects, we ran
ported by the model being tested.

9
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

Table 5
Discriminant validity.
Mean SQ DQ IQ SQa US IP SE TC RU AU
(S.D.)

SQ 5.32 0.800
(1.14)
DQ 5.40 0.147** 0.787
(1.13)
IQ 5.08 0.132* 0.111* 0.848
(1.36)
SQa 5.29 0.150** -0.022 0.044 0.811
(1.13)
US 3.24 0.122** 0.138** 0.065 -0.085 0.872
(1.42)
IP 5.65 0.277** 0.081 0.160** 0.084 0.155** 0.750
(0.98)
SE 5.53 -0.016 -0.028 -0.095 0.034 -0.082 -0.003 0.874
(1.26)
TC 5.09 0.165** 0.141** -0.038 -0.001 0.119** 0.015 -0.017 0.827
(1.64)
RU 4.13 0.197** 0.147** 0.177** 0.137** 0.068 0.271** 0.045 0.047 0.829
(1.30)
AU 5.06 0.234** 0.163** 0.255** 0.139** 0.130** 0.279** 0.115* 0.138** 0.309**
(0.98) 0.816

** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), * significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 6 is partially supported but H9b is fully supported as advanced use was
High advanced use versus low advanced use. hypothesized as more relevant to user satisfaction. The advanced use of
Variable High Advanced Use Low Advanced Use Significance of BI has a direct positive influence on the performance of management
Subgroup (n == Subgroup (n == Mann-Whitney accountants. The routine use of the BI system similarly has a direct
258) 104) U positive influence on performance. Thus, H10a is supported, as both
mean mean mean mean
types of use have independent direct effects on the performance of
(std dev) rank (std dev) rank
management accountants, but advanced use has a larger effect, which
System 5.626 209.10 4.561 113.02 *** supports H10b. To further confirm 10b, we similarly ran a multiple
Quality (0.825) (1.427)
Data Quality 5.656 199.92 4.769 135.80 ***
regression with bootstrap resampling to determine any overlap in con­
(0.817) (1.479) fidence intervals. Results showed that the 95 % confidence intervals
Information 5.192 195.97 4.775 145.60 *** associated with the regression coefficient for routine use (0.118–0.256)
Quality (1.342) (1.381) did not overlap those of advanced use (0.567–0.668). User satisfaction
Service 5.714 215.44 4.260 97.31 ***
also has a significant effect on individual performance of management
Quality (0.563) (1.460)
User 3.519 194.91 2.496 148.22 *** accountants, hence H11 is supported. Users who are satisfied with their
Satisfaction (1.513) (0.100) BI system are also more likely to believe it contributes to their work
Individual 5.766 195.78 5.356 146.07 *** performance.
Performance (0.886) (1.125) Task complexity was modeled as a direct determinant of routine and
Self-Efficacy 4.818 186.82 4.522 168.31 n/s
(1.569) (1.628)
advanced use. It was found to exert positive significant effects on
Task 5.741 216.40 4.334 94.92 *** advanced use but not on routine use, thus providing partial support for
Complexity (0.976) (1.292) H12a and support for H12b. Self-efficacy has a positive significant in­
*** p < 0.001; n/s = not significant.
fluence on advanced use of the BI system. However, there is no signifi­
cant influence on routine use of the BI system, thus supporting H14b.
Experience and training were omitted from the final model as they
additional multiple regressions with bootstrap resampling to determine
exhibited no significant relationship with use, confirming self-efficacy as
the overlap, if any, among confidence intervals. As shown in Table 8, we
a more relevant individual factor.
confirm no overlapping confidence intervals for effects of DQ and IQ
Overall, the model explained 27.4 % of the variance in user satis­
providing added support to H3b and H5c. Although there is some
faction (R2 = 0.274), 40.7 % of the variance in advanced use (R2 =
overlap in confidence intervals for the effects of SQ and SQa, the overlap
0.407), 19.9 % of the variance in routine use (R2 = 0.199), and 52.2 % of
is not more than 50 % of the confidence interval range, thus giving us
the variance in individual performance (R2 = 0.522). The final model fit
confidence to support H1b and H7b that their effects are greater on
indicates a significant X2 (p = 0.001) and X2/DF = 11 is slightly higher
advanced use than on routine use. We also considered data quality to
than the recommended range with good fit indices [GFI = 0.768; NFI =
have additional indirect effects on BI use through effects on information
0.882; CFI = 0.930; IFI = 0.914; RMSEA = 0.052; TLI = 0.925; RFI =
quality. The effect of data quality on information quality is significant,
0.839].1
supporting H5a.
H2 and H4 were supported, as system and data quality are significant
for satisfaction (Table 7). Information quality did not have a significant
1
effect on user satisfaction. Therefore, H6 is rejected. This is surprising For completeness, we tested an alternate specification of the IS success
given the purpose of BI systems and is discussed further in the following. model as proposed by Seddon [107] and considered in studies such as those of
Sabherwal et al. [104] and Wu and Wang [132]. This model included paths
Service quality was found to have a negative influence on user satis­
from system attributes to individual performance perceptions and reversed the
faction, and therefore H8 was also rejected. We discuss possible reasons
causality between individual performance and satisfaction and individual per­
for this unexpected finding in the next section.
formance and use. This respecification of the DeLone and McLean model was
User satisfaction had a direct positive influence on advanced use of not a better fit to our data [GFI=0.963; NFI=0.711; CFI=0.759; IFI=0.782;
the BI system but no direct positive influence on routine use, hence H9a RMSEA=0.101; DF=10; TLI=0.528; RFI=0.782].

10
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

Table 7 Table 9
Results of the hypothesized model (direct effects). Results of the moderating effects model.
Hypothesis Path Estimate S.E. C.R. p- Supported Hypothesis Estimate S.E. C.R. p- Supported
value value

H1a, H1b SQ —> RU 0.210 0.057 3.692 *** Yes H13a, IN_RU —> 0.103 0.050 2.032 0.042 Yes
SQ —>AU 0.287 0.072 3.996 *** H13b IP
H2 SQ —> US 0.202 0.087 2.316 0.02 Yes IN_AU —> 0.200 0.047 4.255 *** Yes
H3a, H3b DQ —> 0.129 0.046 2.794 0.004 Yes IP
RU TC —> IP 0.219 0.056 3.921 *** Yes
DQ —>AU 0.352 0.168 2.101 0.034 RU —> IP 0.154 0.043 3.538 *** Yes
H4 DQ —> US 0.268 0.113 2.381 0.013 Yes AU —> IP 0.229 0.056 4.069 *** Yes
H5a DQ —> IQ 0.135 0.063 2.129 0.033 Yes
H5b, H5c IQ —> RU 0.199 0.046 4.320 *** Yes *** (p < 0.001). IP = individual performance; TC = task complexity; RU =
IQ —>AU 0.593 0.132 4.494 *** routine use; AU = advanced use; IN_RU = interaction effect (routine use x task
H6 IQ —>US 0.141 0.180 0.780 0.433 No complexity); IN_AU = interaction effect (advanced use x task complexity).
H7a, H7b SQa —> 0.157 0.078 2.027 0.035 Yes
RU
to improve performance under conditions of greater task complexity.
SQa —> 0.228 0.088 2.599 0.008
AU
H8 SQa —> -0.128 0.064 -2.005 0.045 No 6. Discussion
US
H9a, H9b US —> RU 0.165 0.368 0.448 0.720 No
The purpose of this study was to address the questions as to what
US —> AU 0.651 0.289 2.253 0.026 Yes
H10a, RU —> IP 0.255 0.071 3.590 *** Yes
motivates management accountants to make use of BI systems imple­
H10b AU —> IP 0.679 0.158 4.304 *** mented in their organizations, what motivates them to move beyond
H11 US —> IP 0.653 0.208 3.137 *** Yes routine use and toward more advanced use, and identification of the
H12a, TC —> AU 0.059 0.031 1.934 0.050 Yes consequences of routine and advanced use for their job performance. To
H12b TC —> RU 0.007 0.038 0.181 0.876 No
answer the questions, we extended the DeLone and McLean IS success
H14a, SE —> RU 0.083 0.168 0.496 0.591 No
H14b SE —> AU 0.381 0.161 2.372 0.014 Yes model and tested our hypotheses with data collected from 362
respondents.
*** (p < 0.001). SQ = system quality; DQ = data quality; IQ = information
Empirical testing found that both routine use and advanced use are
quality; SQa = service quality; US = user satisfaction; RU = routine use; AU =
important to performance, but advanced use has a stronger path coef­
advanced use; IP = individual performance; SE = self-efficacy; TC = task
complexity. ficient. Routine use relies only on basic features such as drawing mostly
on pre-specified reports and queries [49,69], which contributes less to
individual performance outcomes and quality of decision making.
Table 8 However, advanced use was found to be crucial to supporting man­
Results of regression analysis. agement accountants in their job performance, confirming some ex­
95 % Confidence Interval (lower 95 % Confidence Interval (upper
pectations from prior literature [18,49,74,112]. Advanced use requires
bound) bound) management accountants to use advanced features such as predictive
analytics, interactive visualizations, drill-down functions, dashboard
IQ —> RU 0.105 0.210
IQ —>AU 0.240 0.491 reporting, optimization, query construction tools, and predictive
DQ —> 0.084 0. 123 modeling [50,85,112]. Management accountants who do not use these
RU BI system features are less likely to experience improved productivity
DQ —>AU 0.155 0.326
and quality of decision making. Individual investments of time and in­
SQ —> RU 0.113 0.208
SQ —>AU 0.199 0.272 tellectual effort to learn to use more advanced features does appear to
SQa —> 0.108 0.157 produce extended benefit. These individual effects could in turn lead to
RU improved organizational outcomes, but empirical examination of such
SQa 0.149 0.225 organizational level effects must be confirmed by future research.
On the question as to what motivates management accountants to
—>AU

make use of BI systems, our results indicate that BI use depends on

To test the moderating effect of task complexity (H13a–H13b), we several system attributes along with individual user attributes and task
calculated interaction terms between task complexity and the two use characteristics. It appears that users with higher levels of self-efficacy
constructs. As per recommendation [2], the variables were centered were associated with more advanced use but not with routine use.
prior to analysis. Performance was then modeled as a function of Improving user self-efficacy for use of advanced BI features is thus
advanced and routine use; task complexity; and the interactions be­ essential to improving realization of benefits from BI. We also found the
tween advanced use and task complexity as well as routine use and task paths from task complexity to advanced use and routine use were both
complexity. significant, but the effect size for routine use was lower. Users facing less
We considered the model’s goodness of fit, the significance of the complex tasks may only need standard features and functions, whereas
path coefficients, and the sign of the path to reach conclusions about users facing more complex tasks will rely on more advanced features and
moderation [48]. The results (Table 9) indicate that the complexity of be more creative in their BI usage to find solutions to their more complex
the management accountant’s tasks increases their opportunity to use decision problems. In addition, we hypothesized that the relationship
the BI system innovatively to support their management accounting between BI use and individual user performance may be stronger among
function (p < 0.001). Task complexity also has a moderating effect on individuals who have higher task complexity than among those with
routine use and performance (p < 0.05). The relationship between use lower levels of task complexity [27,74,75]. In the moderator tests, task
and performance is moderated by task complexity, but the moderating complexity was found to have a positive significant moderating effect on
effect is weaker for routine use, supporting both H13a and H13b. This both routine use and advanced use and performance. However, the
confirms that the more complex the tasks of management accountants, moderating effect of task complexity was stronger for advanced use,
the stronger will be the effect of advanced use on performance. This suggesting that users who face more complex tasks are more likely to
supports the importance of using the advanced features of the BI system benefit from advanced use. In a complex task environment, the volume

11
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

of information being processed overwhelms the capacity of users [45], of potential moderators has been too frequently ignored in prior
requiring more advanced use of BI systems to achieve higher perfor­ research on IS success [64], and we were able to address this through our
mance outcomes. Users who face complex tasks but rely only on routine consideration of task complexity as a moderator. Future work must
use features are unlikely to improve their performance. continue to include job factors such as task complexity in the IS success
For system attributes, we show that management accountants expect model.
BI systems to be available, easy to navigate, easy to use, user friendly,
and stable, which motivates their use and user satisfaction with these 6.2. Implications for practice
systems. The quality of data is also an essential system success factor in
the BI context [116]. Accurate and complete records help users trust BI From a practical perspective, users facing more complex tasks report
tools for executing not just routine tasks but also experimenting with using more advanced BI features. BI support programs must then be
more novel and advanced features. Efforts to improve data quality designed around the task complexity of users. By differentiating be­
should thus continue to be encouraged [68]. Results also confirmed that tween the types of use, we were able to show advanced use as a critical
greater BI usage can be promoted through the design and format of in­ success factor in the BI context for supporting management accountants
formation outputs, ensuring they are easy to understand and consistent in their job performance. Specifically, management accountants are
for users. Service quality also influenced both routine and advanced use more likely to perform if they are able to use the advanced features of a
of BI. Good-quality support services help users gain confidence in using BI system, and performance further increases when task complexity is
BI and result in more advanced use. supported by advanced use. If users are unable to use the advanced
We found user satisfaction to contribute positively to improvements features of the BI system, they would normally be using only standard
in individual performance. When a system supports the complex de­ features in routine support of their work that contributes less to their
mands of users, then benefit perceptions are shaped by user satisfaction individual performance outcomes. This is likely to undermine the
[81]. User satisfaction can be sustained by maintaining the system’s ease overall return on organizational investments into BI solutions. Sup­
of use and continuing to ensure that data is of a high quality. Surpris­ porting management accountants to use systems in more creative and
ingly, the hypothesis linking information quality to user satisfaction was advanced ways in their work is thus a necessary and important inter­
not supported. Information quality appears to be essential to motivate vention for practice and the profession. Training programs and other
system usage but is not necessarily important to user satisfaction. It interventions that enhance user self-efficacy can be effective in pro­
might be that information quality is a hygiene factor in BI systems [17]. moting more advanced use. In addition, BI developers must pay atten­
For instance, it might be observable that poor-quality information out­ tion to system quality issues, such as ease of use and access, along with
puts lead to dissatisfaction but good-quality information outputs do not information output quality to promote more advanced use. If informa­
necessarily lead to satisfaction. Users expect high-quality outputs that tion outputs are poorly formated and difficult to interpret, then users are
meet their information needs [133], but poor information quality would less likely to rely on more complex features, and this has implications for
lead to dissatisfaction given the threat posed to management accounting their performance. Data quality is distinct from output quality. Users
functions [102]. Future work may wish to consider dissatisfaction as must be convinced that data extraction and loading operations result in
conceptually distinct from satisfaction within the IS success framework. complete and reliable BI datasets for analysis. User satisfaction is an
Moreover, service quality appeared to reduce user satisfaction signifi­ important measure of IS success. Anything that detracts from user
cantly. This was not expected, but the finding could mean that users who satisfaction can have implications for system use and outcomes. Service
often tend to rely on the BI support services are generally less satisfied. quality is not sufficient to overcome limitations in system design, and
Complex systems, even if well supported by a responsive team, may not users may resent the need to access support teams to make use of
necessarily be found enjoyable to use and may not work the way users complex IS solutions.
want, and users may resent needing to access support. Thus, greater
provision of support services may be a response to difficulties with a 6.3. Limitations and future research direction
system and low user satisfaction, a phenomenon also deserving
consideration in future work. Some limitations are noted in the study. First, data was collected
from management accountants sampled from South African organiza­
6.1. Theoretical contribution and implications tions, and results may therefore not be generalizable to all management
accountants or to users in other BI system contexts. Future studies
Our work contributes to existing research on how IS systems are used should extend empirical testing of our model to users in other contexts.
to attain performance outcomes (e.g., [118]). We confirm that benefits Second, the data collected was cross-sectional, and therefore we rely on
for managerial decision making from complex IS systems, such as BI, are theoretical arguments in making causal inferences between the con­
less likely to arise when use is restricted to only basic features (see also structs. Longitudinal research designs would need to be employed in
[81]). Advanced use behavior is shown as a more relevant IS success future studies to provide better evidence of causality, such as between
measure with implications for individual performance outcomes, as advanced use and performance. Third, self-administered surveys are
argued by DeLone and McLean [29] and suggested elsewhere [31]. Our subject to methods bias. For example, a selection bias may exist where
concepts of routine versus advanced use should be applicable to studies the decision of management accountants to participate in the study was
in other utilitarian IS contexts, such as ERP, CRM, and groupwork sys­ not independent of their perceptions of the system, and this may
tems, along with studies of individual productivity tools and mobile compromise the external validity of the findings. However, we were able
apps, such as for self-service banking. to collect data from a large number of individuals from multiple private
Following suggestions of Petter et al. [92] and Jeyaraj [64], we also and public sector organizations, all of whom use BI to greater or lesser
considered additional IS success factors, namely self-efficacy and task extents in the performance of their work. Fourth, we asked participants
complexity. We have determined that routine use is less likely under to select and reflect in their responses on the BI tool they use in their
conditions of task complexity and does not rely on self-efficacy to the work as management accountants. However, we did not distinguish
same extent as advanced use. We also show that IS success depends not between the mandatory or voluntary nature of use [131], and it is not
only on system attributes but also on the nature and complexity of the impossible that users could have access to multiple systems and be
job for which that system is used. Task complexity motivates use and advanced users of one tool but more limited users of another. This may
influences the consequences of use for job performance. Factors such as have influenced how users responded to questions. Future work may
individual self-efficacy and task complexity have not been considered in wish to conduct case analysis of users within specific organizational
other recent studies of BI use [118]. It has been argued that the inclusion settings where multiple systems are in operation. Fifth, in modeling the

12
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

link between task complexity and use, we have drawn on theories such their performance. The study specifically distinguished routine from
as task-technology fit, which consider use a function of task character­ advanced use of BI system features and examined these within a DeLone
istics. However, we cannot rule out alternate causal explanations, such and McLean IS success model. We extended IS success factors to include
as where users with more experience in advanced BI use are assigned data quality, finding that system, data, information, and service quality
more complex tasks. Sixth, routine and advanced users may differ in influence both routine and advanced use behaviors. However, man­
ability to make informed judgments about the overall qualities of the BI agement accountants using only routine BI features were not found to
system. If routine users are underestimating system qualities and benefit with improved performance to the same degree as those using
avoiding advanced use, then different interventions may be warranted. more advanced system features of BI. User satisfaction is important to
Finally, we distinguished between high and low advanced users based use and is influenced most by system and data quality. Results showed
on their use of features such as self-service tools, interactive visualiza­ that advanced use is more likely under conditions of task complexity and
tion, predictive analytics, and drill-down functionality. Future research requires greater user self-efficacy than routine use. Future IS success
can make further efforts to assess the division between advanced versus studies must include richer conceptualizations of system use, along with
routine users. Distinguishing routine from advanced users can assist consideration for how task and individual factors influence IS success.
organizations in optimizing their use of complex information systems,
such as BI. CRediT authorship contribution statement

7. Conclusions Thanyani Norman Mudau: Conceptualization, Formal analysis,

Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft.
This study addressed questions regarding what motivates manage­ Jason Cohen: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualiza­
ment accountants to make use of BI systems implemented in their or­ tion, Visualization. Elmarie Papageorgiou: Writing – review & editing,
ganizations and the consequent effects of routine and advanced use for Supervision, Conceptualization, Visualization.

Appendix A. – Copy of research instrument (excluding demographic questions)

1 Please indicate the extent in which you agree with each of the following statements related to the BI system that you currently use in your work as a
management accountant. Please indicate whether you Strongly disagree, Mostly disagree, Disagree, are Neutral, Agree, Mostly agree, or Strongly
agree with each statement.

No. Statements Strongly Mostly Disagree Neutral Agree Mostly Strongly

disagree disagree agree agree

SQ1 The BI system is always up and running. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SQ2 The BI system is easy to navigate. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SQ3 The response time of the BI system is acceptable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SQ4 The BI system is easy to use. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SQ5 The BI system is user friendly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SQ6 The BI system is stable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DQ1 Data input records in the system are always complete. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DQ2 Data records in the system are never missing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DQ3 Data records in the system are always correct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IQ1 Information output by the BI system is presented in a useful format. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IQ2 Information output by the BI system is accurate. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IQ3 Information output provided by the BI system is easy to understand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IQ4 Information output provided by the BI system meets my needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IQ5 Information output provided by the BI system is relevant. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IQ6 Information output produced by the BI system is complete with no need 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
to rely on other systems.
IQ7 Information output provided by BI systems is important and helpful for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
my work.
SQa1 My organization’s BI system support team is always helpful to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SQa2 My organization’s BI system support team is responsive within 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
reasonable time.
SQa3 My organization’s BI system support team is committed to resolving my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
system challenges.
SQa4 My organization’s BI system support team responds to my request 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
promptly.
SQa5 With the support that I have received, I believe I can now use the BI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
system with confidence.
US1 I enjoy using the BI system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
US2 I would recommend the BI system to other management accountants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
US3 The BI system works the way I want it to work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
US4 It is pleasant to use the BI system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
US5 Overall, I am satisfied with the BI system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IP 1 Using the BI system improves my job performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IP 2 Using the BI system increases my work productivity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IP 3 Using the BI system enhances my effectiveness in my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IP 4 Using the BI system improves my decision-making quality. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IP 5 Using the BI system helps me identify potential problems faster. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IP 6 Using the BI system assists me in making decisions quicker. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IP 7 Using the BI system assists me in spending less time in meetings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(continued on next page)

13
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

(continued )
No. Statements Strongly Mostly Disagree Neutral Agree Mostly Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree

SE1 I could use more advanced features of a BI tool with only the built-in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
help functions for assistance.
SE2 I am confident in my ability to use the more advanced features of a BI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
tool.
SE3 I am confident in my ability to use a BI system to predict the future 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
performance of the organization.

2 Please indicate the extent in which you agree with each of the following statements related to the complexity of your work as a management
accountant.

No. Statements Strongly Mostly Disagree Neutral Agree Mostly Strongly

disagree disagree agree agree

TC1 The work that I perform is routine. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

TC2 My co-workers perform the same job in the same way most of the time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
TC3 The duties that I perform are repetitious. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
TC4 My co-workers perform repetitive activities in doing their jobs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
TC5 There is a clearly known way to do the major types of work I normally 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
encountered.
TC6 There is a clearly defined body of knowledge of subject matter that can 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
guide me in doing my work.
TC7 There is an understandable sequence of steps that can be followed in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
doing my work.
TC8 I can actually rely on established procedures and practices in doing my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
work.

3 Below are the basic functions of BI tools. Please indicate how often you have been using these basic functions. I use more basic features of the BI tool
such as:

No. Statements Never Very rarely Rarely Occasionally/Sometimes Often Very often

RU1 Running existing reports 1 2 3 4 5 6

RU2 Executing existing queries 1 2 3 4 5 6
RU3 Performing basic analysis 1 2 3 4 5 6
RU4 Extracting data from BI tools and preparing reports in Excel 1 2 3 4 5 6
RU5 Accessing standard reports 1 2 3 4 5 6
RU6 Running ad-hoc reporting 1 2 3 4 5 6
RU7 Abstraction of raw data 1 2 3 4 5 6
RU8 Cleansing data 1 2 3 4 5 6

4 Below are the advanced features of BI tools. Please indicate how often you regularly use more advanced features of your BI tool. I use advanced
features of the BI tool such as:

No. Statements Never Very rarely Rarely Occasionally/Sometimes Often Very often

IU1 Self-service tools 1 2 3 4 5 6

IU2 Interactive visualization 1 2 3 4 5 6
IU3 Predictive analytics reports 1 2 3 4 5 6
IU4 Drill-down functions 1 2 3 4 5 6
IU5 Creating dashboards 1 2 3 4 5 6
IU6 Constructing my own queries 1 2 3 4 5 6
IU7 Setting performance management targets 1 2 3 4 5 6
IU8 Trend analysis 1 2 3 4 5 6
IU9 Scenario planning 1 2 3 4 5 6
IU10 Predictive modeling 1 2 3 4 5 6
IU11 Agile visualizations 1 2 3 4 5 6
IU12 Optimization 1 2 3 4 5 6

14
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

References [33] M.Z. Elbashir, P.A. Collier, S.G. Sutton, M.J. Davern, S.A. Leech, Enhancing the
business value of business intelligence: the role of shared knowledge and
assimilation, Int. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. Sci., Eng. 27 (2) (2013) 87–105.
[1] N.B. Abdusalomova, Principles of ties of internal control and management
[34] M.Z. Elbashir, A. Philip, P.A. Collier, S.G. Sutton, The role of organisational
accounting systems at the enterprises of black metallurgy, ISJ Theor. Appl. Sci. 3
absorptive capacity in strategic use of business intelligence to support integrated
(71) (2019) 385–391.
management control systems, Account. Rev. 86 (1) (2011) 155–184.
[2] D. Afshartous, R.A. Preston, Key results of interaction models with centering,
[35] M.Z. Elbashir, S.G. Sutton, V. Arnold, P.A. Collier, Leveraging business
J. Stat. Educ. 19 (3) (2011).
intelligence systems to enhance management control and business process
[3] N. Ain, G. Vaia, W.H. DeLone, M. Waheed, Two decades of research on business
performance in the public sector, Meditari Accountancy Res. (2021), https://doi.
intelligence system adoption, utilization and success: a systematic literature
org/10.1108/MEDAR-04-2021-1287 ahead-of-print.
review, Decis. Support Syst. 125 (2019) 1–13.
[36] M.Z. Elbashir, S.G. Sutton, H. Mahama, V. Arnold, Unravelling the integrated
[4] Z. Al-Zubi, O.S. Shaban, N. Alnaser, The effect of business intelligence tools on
information systems and management control paradox: enhancing dynamic
raising the efficiency of modern management accounting, Int. Rev. Manag. Bus.
capability through business intelligence, Account. Finance 61 (2021) 1775–1814.
Res. 3 (1) (2014) 174–183.
[37] Financial Mail, Top Companies, 2016. Annual report[Online]Available at, htt
[5] A. Aldholay, O. Isaac, Z. Abdullah, R. Abdulsalam, A.H Al-Shibami, An extension
p://www.financialmail.co.za/.
of DeLone and McLean IS success model with self-efficacy: online learning usage
[38] Forrester, Essential business intelligence statistics: 2020/2021 analysis of trends,
in Yemen, Int. J. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-11-2017-0116/ [online]
data and market share, Forrest. Res. (2021). https://www.forrester.com/blogs/ca
Available.
tegory/business-intelligence/.
[6] A. Ameen, D. Al-Ali, O. Isaac, F. Mohammed, Examining relationship between
[39] R. Gaardboe, T. Nyvang, N. Sandalgaard, Business intelligence success applied to
service quality, user satisfaction and performance impact in the context of smart
healthcare information systems, Procedia Comput. Sci. 121 (2017) 483–490.
government in UAE, Int. J. Electric. Comput. Eng. 10 (6) (2020) 6026–6033.
[40] G.G. Gable, D. Sedera, T. Chan, Reconceptualizing information system success:
[7] D. Appelbaum, A. Kogan, M. Vasarhelyi, Z. Yan, Impact of business analytics and
the IS impact measurement model, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 9 (7) (2008) 1–32.
enterprise systems on managerial accounting, Int. J. 25 (2017) 29–44.
[41] R.K. Gharib, E. Philpott, Y. Duan, Factors affecting active participation in B2B
[8] H. Barki, R. Titah, C. Boffo, Information system use-related activity: an expanded
online communities: an empirical investigation, Inf. Manag. 54 (4) (2017)
behavioral conceptualization of individual-level information system use, Inf. Syst.
516–530.
Res. 18 (2) (2007) 173–192.
[42] GartnerResearch, Gartner says worldwide business intelligence, analytics and
[9] A. Bhattacherjee, Understanding information systems continuance: an
performance management software market surpassed the $12 Billion Mark in
expectation-confirmation model, MIS Quarterly 25 (3) (2001) 351–370.
2011, Gart. Res. (2012). http://www.gartner.com/.
[10] A. Bhimani, C. Horngren, S. Datar, G. Foster, Management and Cost Accounting,
[43] R. Gonzales, J. Wareham, Analysing the impact of a business intelligence system
Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead, 2008.
and new conceptualizations of system use, J. Econ. Finance Administ. Sci. 24 (48)
[11] R.H. Bokhari, The relationship between system usage and user satisfaction: a
(2019) 345–368.
meta-analysis, J. Enterprise Inf. Manag. 18 (2) (2005) 211–234.
[44] R. Gonzales, J. Wareham, J. Serida, Measuring the impact of data warehouse and
[12] S. Bringnall, J. Ballantine, Strategic enterprise management systems: new
business intelligence on enterprise performance in Peru: a developing country,
directions for research, Manag. Account. Res. 15 (1) (2004) 225–240.
Journal of Global Information Technology Management 18 (3) (2015) 162–187.
[13] A. Burton-Jones, D.W. Straub Jr, Reconceptualizing system usage: an approach
[45] D.L. Goodhue, R.L. Thompson, Task-technology fit and individual performance,
and empirical test, Inf. Syst. Res. 17 (3) (2006) 228–246.
MIS Quarterly 19 (2) (1995) 213–236.
[14] D.R. Compeau, C.A. Higgins, Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure
[46] S.V. Grabski, S.A. Leech, P.J. Schmidt, A future agenda for accounting
and initial test, MIS Quarterly 19 (2) (1995) 189–211.
information systems, Int. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. Sci., Eng. 25 (1) (2011) 37–78.
[15] F.K.Y. Chan, J.Y.L. Thing, V. Venkatesh, S.A. Brown, P.J.-H. Hi, K.Y. Tam,
[47] W. Hadid, M Al-Sayed, Management accountants and strategic management
Modeling citizen satisfaction with mandatory adoption of an e-government
accounting: the role of organizational culture and information systems, Manag.
technology, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 11 (1) (2010) 519–549.
Account. Res. 50 (2021) 1–17.
[16] S.H. Chan, Q. Song, L.J. Yao, The moderating roles of subjective (perceived) and
[48] J.F. Hair, W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, R.E. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis: A
objective task complexity in system use and performance, Comput. Hum. 51
Global Perspective, Seventh Edition, Pearson, New York, 2010.
(2015) 393–402.
[49] Z.A. Hajri, W. Xu, S.M. Nuwangi, D. Sedera, Individual innovative use of ERP
[17] C.C. Chen, M.C. Chuang, Integrating the Kano model into a robust design
systems, in: Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv,
approach to enhance customer satisfaction with product design, Int. J. Prod Econ
Israel, June 9-11, 2014. ISBN 978-0-9915567-0-0, http://aisel.aisnet.org/eci
114 (2) (2008) 667–681.
s2014/proceedings/track05/2.
[18] C.W.D. Chen, C.Y.J. Cheng, Understanding consumer intention in online
[50] D.R. Hardoon, G. Shmueli, Getting Started with Business Analytics, CRC Press,
shopping: a respecification and validation of the DeLone and McLean model,
Boca Raton, 2013.
Behav. Inf. Technol. 28 (4) (2009) 335–345.
[51] B. Hasan, Delineating the effects of general and system-specific computer self-
[19] H.J. Chen, Linking employees’ e-learning system use to their overall job
efficacy beliefs on IS acceptance, Inf. Manag. 43 (5) (2006) 565–571.
outcomes: an empirical study based on the IS success model, Comput. Educ. 55
[52] J. Henseler, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, A new criterion for assessing discriminant
(2010) 1628–1639.
validity in variance-based Structural Equation Modelling, J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43
[20] Y. Chen, Z. Lin, Business intelligence capabilities and firm performance: a study in
(2015) 115–135.
China, Int. J. Inf Manage 57 (2021) 1–15.
[53] C.H. Hou, Examining the effects of user satisfaction on system usage and
[21] S. Chung, K.Y. Lee, K. Kim, Job performance through mobile enterprise systems:
individual performance with business intelligence systems: an empirical study of
the role of organizational agility, location independence, and task characteristics,
Taiwan’s electronics industry, Int. J. Inf Manage 32 (2012) 560–573.
Inf. Manag. 51 (6) (2014) 605–617.
[54] C.K. Hou, Examining users’ intention to continue using business intelligence
[22] CIMA, Peter Simons on Management Accountants and Business Intelligence [Online],
systems from the perspectives of end-user computing satisfaction and individual
2010. Available : http://www.cimaglobal.com/Thought-leadership/Newsletters
performance, Int. J. Bus. Continuity Risk Manag. 8 (1) (2018) 49–70.
/Insight-e-magazine/Insight2010/Insight-May-010/Transform-yourself-with-
[55] J.J.P.A Hsieh, W. Wang, Explaining employees’ extended use of complex
business-intelligence.
information systems, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 16 (3) (2007) 216–227.
[23] J.F. Cohen, E. Coleman, M.J. Kangethe, An importance-performance analysis of
[56] P.F. Hsu, H.R. Yen, J.C. Chung, Assessing ERP post-implementation success at the
hospital information system attributes: a nurses’ perspective, Int. J. Med.
individual level: revisiting the role of service quality, Inf. Manag. 52 (8) (2015)
Informatics 86 (2016) 82–90.
925–942.
[24] J.F. Cohen, M.J. Kangethe, The relationship between user satisfaction, system
[57] T.C.K. Huang, C.C. Liu, D.C. Chang, An empirical investigation of factors
attributes and the motivating potential of System Use, J. Organ. End User
influencing the adoption of data mining tools, Int. J. Inf Manage 32 (3) (2012)
Comput. 27 (13) (2015) 55–79.
257–270.
[25] R.B. Cooper, R.W. Zmud, Information technology implementation research: a
[58] M. Igbaria, M. Tan, The consequences of information technology acceptance on
technological diffusion approach, Manag. Sci. 36 (2) (1990) 123–139.
subsequent Individual Performance, Inf. Manag. 32 (3) (1997) 113–121.
[26] N. Côrte-Real, P. Ruivo, T. Oliveira, Leveraging internet of things and big data
[59] J. Iivari, An empirical test of the DeLone-McLean model of information system
analytics initiatives in European and American firms: is data quality a way to
success, DATABASE Adv. Inf. Syst. 36 (2) (2005) 8–27.
extract business value? Inf. Manag. 57 (2020) 1–16.
[60] Ö. Işik, M.C. Jones, A. Sidorova, Business intelligence success: the roles of BI
[27] L. Dawson, J. Van Belle, Critical success factors for business intelligence in the
capabilities and decision environments, Inf. Manag. 50 (1) (2013) 13–23.
South African financial services sector, SA J. Inf. Manag. 5 (1) (2013) 1–12.
[61] J. Jaklič, T. Grublješič, A. Popovič, The role of compatibility in predicting
[28] W.H. DeLone, E.R. McLean, Information Systems success: the quest for the
business intelligence and analytics use intentions, Int. J. Inf Manage 43 (2018),
dependent variable, Inf. Syst. Res. 3 (1) (1992) 60–95.
305318.
[29] W.H. DeLone, E.R. McLean, The DeLone and McLean model of information
[62] Z. Jaradat, A. Al-Dmour, H. Alshurafat, H. Al-Hazaima, M.O. Al Shbail, Factors
systems success: a ten-year update, J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 19 (4) (2003) 9–30.
influencing business intelligence adoption: evidence from Jordan, J. Decis. Syst.
[30] M.T. Dishaw, D.M. Strong, Extending the technology acceptance model with
(2022), https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2022.2094531.
task–technology fit constructs, Inf. Manag. 36 (1) (1999) 9–21.
[63] J. Jasperson, P.E. Carter, R.W. Zmud, A comprehensive conceptualization of post-
[31] W.J. Doll, G. Torkzadeh, Developing a multidimensional measure of system-use in
adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work
an organizational context, Inf. Manag. 33 (4) (1998) 171–185.
systems, MIS Quarterly 29 (3) (2005) 525–557.
[32] M.Z. Elbashir, P.A. Collier, M.J. Davern, Measuring the effects of business
[64] A. Jeyaraj, DeLone & McLean models of information system success: critical
intelligence systems: the relationship between business process and
meta-review and research directions, Int. J. Inf Manage 54 (2020), 102139.
organisational performance, Int. J. 9 (2008) 135–153.

15
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

[65] A. Kapo, L. Turulja, T. Zaimović, S. Mehić, Examining the effect of user [96] A. Popovič, R. Hackney, P.S. Coelho, J. Jaklič, How information-sharing values
satisfaction and business intelligence system usage on individual job influence the use of information systems: an investigation in the business
performance, J. Contemp. Manag. Issues 26 (2) (2021) 43–62. intelligence systems context, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 23 (4) (2014) 270–283.
[66] T. Knauer, N. Nikiforow, S. Wagener, Determinants of information system quality [97] A. Popovič, B. Puklavec, T. Oliveira, Justifying business intelligence systems
and data quality in management accounting, J. Manag. Control 31 (1) (2020) adoption in SMEs: impact of systems use on firm performance, Ind. Manag. Data
97–121. Syst. 119 (1) (2019) 210–228.
[67] N. Kock, Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment [98] A. Popovič, T. Tomaž, J. Jaklič, Conceptual model of business value of business
approach, Int. J. E-Collab. 11 (4) (2015) 1–10. intelligence systems, Management 15 (1) (2010) 5–30.
[68] P. Lautenbach, K. Johnston, T. Adeniran-Ogundipe, Factors influencing business [99] S. Rahi, M.A. Ghani, Integration of DeLone and McLean and self-determination
intelligence and analytics usage extent in South African organisations, South Afr. theory in internet banking continuance intention context, Int. J. Account. Inf.
J. Bus. Manag. 48 (3) (2017) 23–33. Manag. 27 (3) (2019) 512–528.
[69] S. Laumer, M. Christian, T. Waitzel, Information quality, user satisfaction, and the [100] A. Rai, S.S. Lang, R.B. Welker, Assessing the validity of IS success models: an
manifestation of workarounds: a qualitative and quantitative study of enterprise empirical test and theoretical analysis, Inf. Syst. Res. 13 (1) (2002) 50–69.
content management system users, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 26 (4) (2017) 333–360. [101] P. Rikhardsson, O. Yigitbasioglu, Business intelligence & analytics in management
[70] J. Lee, H.R. Rao, Task complexity and different decision criteria for online service accounting research: status and future focus, Int. J. 29 (2018) 37–58.
acceptance: a comparison of two e-government compliance service domains, [102] A. Rom, C. Rohde, Enterprise resource planning systems, strategic enterprise
Decis. Support Syst. 47 (4) (2009) 424–435. management systems and management accounting: a Danish study, J. Enterprise
[71] S.M. Lee, S.H. Lee, Success factors of open-source enterprise information systems Inf. Manag. 19 (1) (2006) 50–66.
development, Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 112 (7) (2012) 1065–1084. [103] M.S.M. Saavedra, C. Bach, Factors to determine business intelligence
[72] I. Legodi, M. Barry, The current challenges and status of risk management in implementation in organizations, Eur. J. Eng. Res. Sci. 2 (12) (2017) 1–7.
enterprise datawarehouse projects in South Africa. Technology Management for [104] R. Sabherwal, A. Jeyaraj, C. Chowa, Information system success: individual and
Global Economic Growth, 2010, pp. 1–5. organizational determinants, Manag. Sci. 52 (12) (2006) 1849–1864.
[73] X. Li, J.P.A. Hsieh, A. Rai, A motivational account for post-acceptance routine and [105] K.A. Saeed, S. Abdinnour-Helm, Examining the effects of information system
innovative use: introducing the concept of tri-dimensional intrinsic motivation, characteristics and perceived usefulness on post adoption usage of information
in: ICIS 2009 Proceedings, 2009, p. 177. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2009/177. systems, Inf. Manag. 45 (6) (2008) 376–386.
[74] X. Li, J.J.P. Hsieh, A. Rai, Motivational differences across post-acceptance [106] C. Saran, Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence Projects fail to meet
information system usage behaviors: an investigation in the business intelligence Companies’ requirements, 2011. https://www.computerweekly.com/news
systems context, Inf. Syst. Res. 24 (2013) 659–682. /1280095964/Data-warehouse-and-business-intelligence-projects-fail-to-meet
[75] Y. Li, C. Liu, Information resource, interface, and tasks as user interaction -companies-requirements.
components for digital library evaluation, Inf. Process. Manag. 56 (2019) [107] P.B. Seddon, A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of
704–720. IS success, Inf. Syst. Res. 8 (3) (1997) 240–253.
[76] Y. Li, X. Yuan, R. Che, An investigation of task characteristics and users’ [108] P.A.E. Serumaga-Zake, The role of user satisfaction in implementing a business
evaluation of interaction design in different online health information systems, intelligence system, South Afr. J. Inf. Manag. 19 (1) (2017) 1–8.
Inf Process Manag 58 (2021) 1–20. [109] S.K. Sharma, M. Sharma, Examining the role of trust and quality dimensions in
[77] H. Liang, Z. Peng, Y. Xue, X. Guo, N. Wang, Employees’ exploration of complex the actual usage of mobile banking services: an empirical investigation, Int. J. Inf
systems: an integrative view, J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 32 (1) (2015) 322–357. Manage 44 (2019) 65–75.
[78] Y.H. Lin, K.M. Tsai, W.J. Shiang, T.C. Kuo, C.H. Tsai, Research on using ANP to [110] D. Stefanovic, U. Marjanovic, M. Delić, D. Culibrk, B. Lalic, Assessing the success
establish a performance assessment model for business intelligence systems, of e-government systems: an employee perspective, Inf. Manag. 53 (6) (2016)
Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (2) (2009) 4135–4146. 717–726.
[79] M.K. Lindell, D.J. Whitney, Accounting for common method variance in [111] H. Sun, Understanding user revisions when using information system features:
cross–sectional research designs, J. Appl. Psychol 86 (1) (2001) 114–121. adaptive system use and triggers, MIS Quarterly 36 (2) (2012) 453–478.
[80] Y. Luo, H. Ling, C. Zhang, Y. Xu, Individual and collective innovative use of [112] J. Sun, J.T.C. Teng, The construct of information systems use benefits: theoretical
enterprise system-mediating role of collective learning, in: Pacific Asia Conference explication of its underlying dimensions and the development of a measurement
on Information Systems (PACIS 2012) 20, 2012. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pac scale, Int. J. Inf Manage 37 (5) (2017) 400–416.
is2012/20. [113] S.G. Sutton, Enterprise systems and the re-shaping of accounting systems: a call
[81] N. Mehta, S. Chauhan, I. Kaur, Extending the story of IS success: a meta-analytic for research, Int. J. 7 (1) (2006) 1–6.
investigation of contingency factors at individual and organisational levels, Eur. [114] C. Tam, T. Oliveira, Understanding the impact of m-banking on individual
J. Inf. Syst. (2021) 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1907233. performance: DeLone & McLean and TTF perspective, Comput. Hum. 61 (2016)
[82] J.N. Montero, Determining Business Intelligence System Usage Success using the 233–244.
DeLone and McLean Information System Success Model, Capella University, [115] O. Tona, S. Carlsson, S Eom, An empirical test of DeLone and McLean’s
2019. information system success model in a public organization, in: AMCIS 2012
[83] T. Mudzana, M. Maharaj, Toward an understanding of business intelligence Proceedings, 2012, in: https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/Strategi
systems success: a South African study, Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval. 20 (1) (2017) cUseIT/10.
24–38. [116] R. Torres, A. Sidorova, Reconceptualizing information quality as effective use in
[84] A. Nespeca, M.S. Chiucchi, The impact of business intelligence systems on the context of business intelligence and analytics, Int. J. Inf Manage 49 (2019)
management accounting systems: the consultant’s perspective. Lecture Notes in 316–329.
Information Systems and Organisation, Springer, 2018, pp. 283–297, https://doi. [117] V.H. Trieu, Towards an understanding of actual business intelligence technology
org/10.1007/978-3-319-62636-9_19. use: an individual user perspective, Inf. Technol. People 36 (1) (2023) 409–432.
[85] S. Nielsen, Reflections on the applicability of business analytics for management [118] V.H. Trieu, A. Burton-Jones, P. Green, S. Cockcroft, Applying and extending the
accounting and future perspectives for the accountant, J. Account. Organ. Change theory of effective use in a business intelligence context, MIS Quarterly 46 (1)
14 (2) (2018) 167–187. (2022) 645–678.
[86] M.I. Nofal, Z.M. Yusof, Integration of business intelligence and enterprise [119] E. Turban, R. Sharda, D. Delen, Decision Support and Business Intelligence
resource planning within organizations, Procedia Technol. 11 (2013) 658–665. Systems, 9th ed., Pearson, 2010.
[87] A.I. Ojo, Validation of the DeLone and McLean information systems success [120] N. Urbach, S. Smolnik, G. Riempp, An empirical investigation of employee portal
model, Healthc. Inform. Res. 23 (1) (2017) 60–66. success, J. Strategic Inf. Syst. 19 (3) (2010) 184–206.
[88] E. Papageorgiou, H.D. De Bruyn, Challenges of executive information systems in [121] W. Uppatumwichian, An empirical investigation on business intelligence use in
listed Johannesburg stock exchange companies, South Afr. J. Inf. Manag. 13 (1) budgeting, in: ECIS 2013 Completed Research, 2013, p. 106. https://aisel.aisnet.
(2011) 448–458. org/ecis2013_cr/106.
[89] S. Petter, E.R. McLean, A meta-analytic assessment of the DeLone and McLean IS [122] N. Vakalfotis, J. Ballantine, A. Wall, A literature review on the impact of
success model: an examination of IS success at the individual level, Inf. Manag. 46 enterprise systems on management accounting, in: International Conference on
(3) (2009) 159–166. Enterprise Systems Accounting and Logistics, July 11-12, Thassos Island, Greece,
[90] S. Petter, W. DeLone, E.R. McLean, Measuring information systems success: 2011.
models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17 (2008) [123] P. Venter, D. Tustin, The availability and use of competitive and business
236–263. intelligence in South African business organisations, Southern Afr. Bus. Rev. 13
[91] S. Petter, W. DeLone, E.R. McLean, The past, present, and future of “IS success, (2) (2009) 88–117.
J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13 (5) (2012) 2. [124] L.L. Visinescu, M.C. Jones, A. Sidorova, Improving decision quality: the role of
[92] S. Petter, W. DeLone, E.R. McLean, Information systems success: the quest for the business intelligence, Int. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. Sci., Eng. 57 (1) (2017) 58–66.
independent variables, J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 29 (4) (2013) 7–62. [125] W. Wang, C.X. Ou, Explaining the role of user commitment in extended use of
[93] PFMA, Public Finance Management Act NO. 1 of 1999, 1999. Available at, htt information systems: an empirical investigation, in: PACIS 2013 Proceedings 177,
p://www.treasury.gov.za/legislation/PFMA/act.pdf. 2013. http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2013/177.
[94] P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie, J-Y. Lee, N.P. Podsakoff, Common method biases [126] Y.S. Wang, H.Y. Wang, D.Y. Shee, Measuring e-learning systems success in an
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended organizational context: scale development and validation, Comput. Hum. 23 (4)
remedies, J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5) (2003) 879–903. (2007) 1792–1808.
[95] A. Popovič, R. Hackney, P.S. Coelho, J. Jaklič, Towards business intelligence [127] B. Wieder, M. Ossimitz, The impact of business intelligence on the quality of
systems success: effects of maturity and culture on analytical decision making, decision making – a mediation model, Procedia Comput. Sci. 64 (2015)
Decis. Support Syst. 54 (2012) 729–739. 1163–1171.

16
T.N. Mudau et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103888

[128] B. Wieder, M.L. Ossimitz, Management accounting information quality and firm PhD in Information Systems in 2004 with a focus on IS strategy and planning. His research
performance the enabling role of business intelligence and analytics systems, in: work is focused on information systems in organisations, e-commerce and health infor­
10th EIASM Conference on Performance Measurement and Management Control, mation systems. His work has been published in leading international journals, including
2019. http://hdl.handle.net/10453/132901. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst., Information & Management, International Journal of Information
[129] B.H. Wixom, H.J. Watson, An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data Management, Expert Systems with Applications, International Journal of Hospitality
warehousing success, MIS Quarterly 25 (1) (2001) 17–41. Management, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Electronic Commerce
[130] B. Wixom, H.J. Watson, The BI-based organisation, Int. J. Bus. Intell. Res. 1 Research, and Internet Research, among others. His research work also appears in the
(2010) 13–28. proceedings of numerous local and international conferences, including ICIS, ECIS,
[131] J. Wu, A. Lederer, A meta-analysis of the role of environment-based voluntariness AMCIS, ACIS, PACIS and GITMA. Dr Cohen is an NRF rated researcher.
in information technology acceptance, MIS Quarterly 33 (2) (2009) 419–432. In 2011, Dr Cohen was Visiting Faculty at the International Center for Health Inno­
[132] J.H. Wu, Y.M. Wang, Measuring KMS success: a respecification of the DeLone and vation at the Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario.
McLean’s model, Inf. Manag. 43 (6) (2006) 728–739.
[133] M.N. Yakubu, S.I. Dasuki, Assessing e-learning systems success in Nigeria: an
Elmarie Papageorgiou is an Associate Professor in the School of Accountancy at Uni­
application of the DeLone and McLean information systems success model, J. Inf.
versity of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. She obtained her PhD in
Technol. Educ. 17 (2018) 182–202.
Business Management in 2009 focussing on Business Information Systems and Accounting
[134] L.D. Yiu, A.C. Yeung, T.E. Cheng, The impact of business intelligence systems on
Information Systems. She was the Southern African Accounting Association’s (SAAA)
profitability and risks of firms, Int. J. Prod. Res. 59 (13) (2021) 3951–3974.
President for six years until her term expired and currently an active member. She is a
[135] I. Zigurs, B.K. Buckland, A theory of task/technology fit and group support
member of the Governing Board of the South African Journal of Accounting Research
systems effectiveness, MIS Quarterly 22 (3) (1998) 313–334.
(SAJAR). She attended and presented numerous papers at National and International
conferences, published in National and International journals. She serves as an external
Thanyani Norman Mudau completed his PHD in accounting science with the University examiner of various South Africa universities and reviewed papers for national and in­
of Witwatersrand. His PHD focused on accounting and information systems. He is ternational journals. Prof Papageorgiou was awarded the ‘Most outstanding PhD Post
currently a chief financial officer of one of the public entities, where he is focused on Graduate Award’ from the Hellenic Association of South Africa in 2009. She is a qualified
strategic financial management and information systems management. His research work Life Coach and coached mainly PhD students assisting them in producing their PhD pro­
is focused on accounting and information systems in organisations. posals. Professional coaching is an ongoing process that enables her to assist people in
obtaining their goals to deepen their learning, improve their performance and enhance
their quality of life. She facilitated many Writing Retreats, Research Workshops and PhD
Jason Cohen is Professor of Information Systems in the School of Business Sciences. He
Colloquiums in the Faculty, University, the SAAA and Center of African Philanthropy and
currently serves as Dean in the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management. He served as
Social Investment (CAPSI).
Deputy Dean in the Faculty and prior to that as Assistant Dean Research. He received his

17