Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Information Systems Success Models - An Annotated Bibliography

DeLone,W.H. & McLean, E.R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1).

IS success is multidimensional and interdependent, so interactions between success dimensions need to be isolated. Success dimensions should be based on goals of the research as well as proven measures where available. The number of factors should be minimized. The key factors included in the model include system quality, information quality, system use, user satisfaction, individual impacts, and organizational impact.

Rai, A., Lang, S.S., & Welker, R.B. (2002). Assessing the validity of IS success models: An empirical test and theoretical analysis. Information Systems Research, 13(1).

IS success models are compared. One major factor that differs among models is the category of IS Use. Some models include Use as a process since it is a prerequisite to other factors, others an indicator of success since people won’t use a system if they haven’t determined it will be useful to them, and of course perceived usefulness vs. measured use. The Technology Acceptance Model suggests that perceived usefulness and ease of use directly impact user behavior and system use.

Seddon, P.B. (1997). A respecification and extension of DeLone and McLean’s model of IS success. Information Systems Research, 8(September).

Standard variance models assert that variance in independent variables predicts variance in dependent variables. Process models, on the other hand, posit that not only are the occurrence of events necessary but that it is a particular sequence of events that leads to a change in the dependent variable. The presented IS success model removes the process component of the DeLone and McLean’s model. The problematic model contained three meanings of information system use. One meaning is that use provides some benefit to the user. A second, invalid, meaning presented use as a dependent variable of future use (i.e., if the user believes the system will be useful in the future, they will use it now). The third, also invalid, is that use is an event in the process that leads to individual or organizational impact. The proposed model links measures of system and information quality to perceived usefulness and user satisfaction, which in turn leads to expectations of future system usefulness and then use. Observing benefits to other individuals, organizations, and society also impact perceived usefulness and user satisfaction regardless of system or information quality.

Velasquez, N.F., Sabherwal, R., & Durcikova, A. (2011). Adoption of an electronic knowledge repository: A feature-based approach. Presented at 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 4-7 January 2011, Kauai, HI.

This article discusses the types of use for knowledge base users. It utilized a cluster analysis to come up with three types of users. This included Enthusiastic Knowledge Seekers, Thoughtful Knowledge Providers, and Reluctant Non-adopters. Enthusiastic Knowledge Seekers made up the largest group at 70%. They had less knowledge and experience and shared little if anything of their own but considered the knowledgebase articles to be of high quality and very useful. The thoughtful knowledge providers, 19% of the users, submitted quality articles to the knowledgebase, enjoy sharing their knowledge with others, had moderate experience, and were intrinsically motivated. The smallest group, Reluctant Non-adopters at 11%, were experts who were highly experienced and adept at knowledge sharing but lacked the time or intrinsic motivation to do contribute meaningfully. They considered the knowledgebase to be low quality and did not consider it worth their time to work on improving it.

No comments: