Seddon and D&M’s model

24 Jan

Zonic90 and others have already mentioned here how DeLone and McLean’s highly influential model for measuring IS success came under scrutiny from other researchers in the years after its publication in 1992 [1]. These modifications aimed to refine and extend the original model. Seddon and Kew (1994), for example, emphasised the importance of including user involvement in a model of IS success while Seddon (1995) argued that one of the model’s variables, IS ‘use’, had been confused with success. [2].

In 1997, Seddon then examined the practical application of D&M’s model having worked with it for a number of years and argued that the original model was confusing. The confusion stemmed from the argument that D&M’s model was both a process model and a causal (or variance) model. For example, IS ‘use’ could be the beginning of a process that leads to ‘user satisfaction’, ‘individual impact’, and finally, ‘organisational impact.’ Or the model might be interpreted as causal, in that use of the system is fundamental to its success. This assumes that systems that are heavily used are because they are successes, while systems that are failures are because they are unsuccessful. Seddon then presented his respecified and extended model which eliminated the process part of the original model and causal part was divided into two models; a behavioral model and an IS success model, both of which are connected through ‘consequences of IS use.’ Seddon felt that this model would provide a clearer, theoretical foundation upon which to examine the interrelationships between the different IS success constructs [3].

Seddon (1997)

Seddon, 1997 [click for full size]

DeLone and McLean (2003), however, felt that one strength of their model was that process and variance together were richer than either one alone. Furthermore, Seddon’s extended and respecified model was too complicated and therefore reduced its impact [4].

1. Zonic90,
2. From Ballantine, J.; Bonner, M.; Levy, M.; Martin, A.; and Powell, P. (1996). The 3-D model of information systems success: the search for the dependent variable continues. Information Resources Management Journal, 9(4), 5–14.
3. Seddon, P.B. (1997). A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success. Information Systems Research, 8(3), 240-253.
4. Petter, S.; DeLone, W.; and McLean, E. (2008). Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 236-263.


2 Responses to “Seddon and D&M’s model”


  1. IS Success: Factors to Consider to avoid Failures « So Opinionated … - January 24, 2013

    […] [4] mcoconnell (2013) […]

  2. Integrated Success Model (ISM). « So Opinionated … - February 1, 2013

    […] on the 01/02/2013 [2] Source 2: mcoconnell (2013) [3] Source 3: lucid21 (2013) […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: