Construct · 4 names · 5 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · the dependent variable, six names Nearest construct by meaningsatisfactioncompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to IS success is satisfaction.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The degree to which an information system delivers value, modelled by DeLone and McLean in 1992 as six interrelated dimensions rather than a single quantity. Reviewing more than a hundred and eighty studies, they found success had been measured in scores of incompatible ways, and they organized those measures into system quality, information quality, use, user satisfaction, individual impact, and organizational impact, arranged so that the two quality dimensions feed use and satisfaction, which feed individual impact, which feeds organizational impact. Their paper named the problem it set out to solve: information systems success is the dependent variable of the field, and until it was pinned down, results could not be compared. This is the referent model, and every other name on the map is a version of it or a slice through it.[1]
The same construct ten years on, revised by DeLone and McLean in 2003 after the original model had been cited and tested by hundreds of studies. They added service quality as a third quality dimension, in response to arguments that the IS function is a service and not only a product; they collapsed individual impact and organizational impact into one dimension, net benefits, so that benefits could be reported at any level the researcher chose; and they reworded use as intention to use and use, to separate an attitude from a behaviour. The six boxes became six again, with feedback loops drawn from net benefits back to use and satisfaction. What changed is not the claim that success is multidimensional, but which dimensions are named and where the outcome sits.[2]
IS success measured as how satisfied the end user is with the system, the strand that treats one of the six dimensions as the whole. Doll and Torkzadeh's 1988 end-user computing satisfaction instrument fixed a twelve-item scale with five components, content, accuracy, format, ease of use, and timeliness, and it became one of the most used success measures because a satisfied user is easy to ask about when objective performance is not. In the DeLone and McLean model user satisfaction is a single box, fed by quality and feeding impact; in a great deal of applied work it stands in for success outright, so that a system with satisfied users is called successful. The dimension is real, but treating it as the criterion quietly drops the other five.[3]
Success read as the realized benefits of the system, the balance of its positive and negative effects on users, groups, and organizations. Petter, DeLone, and McLean's 2008 review took net benefits as the outcome dimension of the updated model and left both the level of analysis and the stakeholder for the researcher to specify, so the same box can hold a productivity gain for one worker or a return on investment for a firm. Framed at the organizational level, the dimension is the bridge to the information-technology business value literature, where Melville, Kraemer, and Gurbaxani in 2004 modelled how IT resources combine with complementary organizational resources to produce firm performance. What differs from user satisfaction is the referent, an accounting of consequences rather than a state of mind, and what differs across studies is which level the benefits are booked at.[4][5]
Next
Combine items across the IS success scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct