Continuous Evaluation of Information System Development
- 556 Downloads
Continuous evaluations are commonly practiced on complex, long-term Information Technology and Systems (IT/S) projects, but in an ad hoc and nonsystematic way. The root cause lies in the lack of a comprehensive understanding about the nature of continuous evaluation and the appropriate mechanism to guide the evaluation process. As a result, the previous practices tend to be costly and often with unsatisfactory quality.
To addresses the challenges, this research combines literature review with two case studies to develop a reference evaluation model. The model consists of three dimensions: organizational goals, system components, and development stages. Each dimension provides a comprehensive framework of elements with respect to other dimensions: together these dimensions constitute a mechanism for identifying benefits in all aspects. Through validation in two different contexts, the model is showing its soundness and merit in the higher education domain, especially the military higher education. Future research promises to generalize the model for broader applications in the field of IS development, evaluation, and project management beyond higher education.
Key wordsIS evaluation IS development project management reference model
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Keen, P.G.W., Computer-Based Decision Aids: The Evaluation Problem. Sloan Management Review, 1975(spring): p. 17–30.Google Scholar
- 2.Keim, R.T. and R. Janaro, Cost/Benefit Analysis for MIS. Journal of Systems Management, 1982(September): p. 20–25.Google Scholar
- 3.Gildersleeve, T.R., Successful Data Processing System Analysis. 1978, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- 4.Peters, G., Beyond Strategy-Benefits identification and Management of Specific IT Investment. Journal of Information Technology, 1990(5): p. 205–214.Google Scholar
- 6.Willcocks, L. and S. Lester, The Evaluation and Management of Information Systems Investments: from Feasibility to Routine Operations, in Investing in Information System: Evaluation and Management, L. Willcocks, Editor. 1996, Chapman & Hall: London, p. 15–36.Google Scholar
- 8.Roy, S., Interactive Learning and Mobile Computing at Rensselaer, in Ubiquitous Computing — The Universal use of Computers on College Campuses, D.G. Brown, Editor. 2003, Anker.Google Scholar
- 10.Parker, M.M., Strategic Transformation and Information Technology: Paradigms for Performing while Transforming. 1996, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- 11.Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton, The Balanced Scorecard-Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, 1992(January–February): p. 71–79.Google Scholar
- 12.Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton, Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work. Harvard Business Review, 1993(September–October): p. 134–47.Google Scholar
- 13.Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton, Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harvard Business Review, 1996(January–February): p. 75–86.Google Scholar
- 14.Porter, M., Competitive Advantage. 1984: Free Press.Google Scholar
- 15.Porter, M.E. and V.E. Millar, How Information Gives you Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business Review, 1985(July–August): p. 149–60.Google Scholar
- 16.Zachman, J.A., A Framework for Information Systems Architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 1987. 26(3): p. 276–292.Google Scholar
- 18.Zee, H.v.d., Measuring the Value of Information Technology. 2002, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. 213.Google Scholar
- 19.McFarlan, F.W., Portfolio Approach to Information Systems. Harvard Business Review, 1981. 59(5): p. 142–51.Google Scholar