The Evaluation of Information Systems: Lessons Learned from Practice

Conference paper


IS Performance Management Systems seem to be the right solution for the CIO and IS department’s problems, but they are not so widespread in companies due to the difficulties that companies have in the design and implementation process. This paper attempts to address this issue by investigating what factors affect the design and implementation of IS Performance Management Systems and how these factors influence their shape in terms of IS performance dimensions and measures. The majority of previous studies dealing with this issue sought to develop an algorithm for selecting the appropriate dimensions and measures. This scope implied clarity and a willingness to pursue organizational goals and that only one appropriate set of dimensions and measures exists for a company. This paper points out how it is arduous to define such an algorithm because several “soft” factors, e.g. climate and private goals, affect the final shape of IS Performance Systems.


Power Balance Action Research Project Internal Customer Performance Management System User Department 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Neely A (1999) The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next? Int J Oper Prod Manage 19(2):205–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perego A (2006) I.S. performance management e misure dell’IT in azienda. In: Proceedings ItAIS, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gable G, Sedera D, Chan T (2008) Re-conceptualizing system success: the IS-impact measurement model. J Assoc Inf Syst 9(7):377–408Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weill P, Olson MH (1989) An assessment of the contingency theory of management information systems. J Manage Inf Syst 6(1):59–85Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saunders CS, Jones JW (1992) Measuring performance of the information systems function. J Manage Inf Syst 8(4):63–82Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeLone WH, McLean ER (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf Syst Res 3(1):60–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Myers BL, Kappelman LA, Prybuto VR (1997) Comprehensive model for assessing the quality and productivity of the information system function. Toward a theory for information systems assessment. In Garrity E, Sanders L (eds) Information systems success measurement. IDEA Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 94–121Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sugumaran V, Arogyaswamy B (2004) Measuring IT performance: “Contingency” variables and value modes. J Comput Inf Syst, Winter 44(2):79–86Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mahmood MA, Becker JD (1985) Effect of organizational maturity on end-users' satisfaction with information systems. J Manage Inf Syst 2(3):37–64Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis GB, Hamann JR (1988) In-context information systems assessment: a proposal and an evaluation. In Bjorn-Anderson N, Davis GB (eds) Information Systems Assessment: Issues and Challenges. Elsevier Science, North-Holland, pp 283–296Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harris SE, Katz JL (1991) Organizational performance and information technology investment intensity in the insurance industry. Organ Sci 2(3):263–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McKeen JD, Guimaraes T, Wetherbe JC (1994) The relationship between user participation and user satisfaction: an investigation of four contingency factors. MIS Q 18(4):427–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Premkumar G, King WR (1994) Organizational characteristics and information systems planning: an empirical study. Inf Syst Res 5(2):75–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scott WR (1977) Effectiveness of organizational effectiveness studies. In Goodman PS, Pennings JM (eds) New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 63–95Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zmud RW (1979) Individual differences and MIS success: A review of the empirical literature. Manage Sci 25(10):966–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Francalanci C, Galal H (1998) Information technology and worker composition: determinants of productivity in the life insurance industry. MIS Q 22 (2):227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tippins MJ, Sohi RS (2003) IT competency and firm performance: is organizational learning a missing link? Strateg Manage J 24(8):745–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Banker RD, Bardhan IR, Lin S, Chang H (2006) Plant information systems, manufacturing capabilities and plant performance. MIS Q 30(2):315–337Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tanriverdi H (2006) Performance effects of information technology synergies in multibusiness firms MIS Q 30(1):57–77Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bardhan IR, Whitaker J, Mithas S (2006) Information technology, production process outsourcing and manufacturing plant performance. J Manage Inf Syst 23 (2):13–40Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rai A, Patnayakuni R, Seth N (2006) Firm performance impacts of digitally-enabled supply chain integration capabilities. MIS Q 430(2):225–246Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weill P (1992) The relationship between investment in information technology and firm performance: a study of the value manufacturing sector. Inf Syst Res 3 (4):307–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perego A (2008) The role of IS performance management systems in today’s enterprise. In D’Atri A (ed) Interdisciplinary aspects of information systems studies. Springer, New York, pp 233–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schein EH (1987) Process consultation, 2. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baskerville R, Wood-Harper AT (1996) A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. J Inf Technol 11:235–246Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Susman G (1983) Action research: a sociotechnical systems perspective. In: Morgan G (ed) Beyond method: strategies for social research. Sage, zewbury Park, pp 95–113Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SDA Bocconi School of ManagementMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations