Alternative frameworks for measuring IS success.

4 Feb

As my fellow blogger lucid21[1] has already mentioned, since the creation of the DeLone and McLean (D&M) model of IS success there has been a great amount of extensions and tests of their model. [2] Throughout this blog I will discuss some of the researchers alternative frameworks for measuring IS success.

Within the article “The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update,” by DeLone,W & McLean,E.(2003), it discusses other frameworks that were used for IS success. Grover et al.(1996) used a different, theoretically based perspective to develop a theoretically-based construct for IS Success model. This framework was based on unit of analysis and evaluation form context dimensions. This model is divided into six IS effectiveness groupings. The six different effectiveness categories are:
1. Infusion measures
2. Market measures
3. Economic measures
4. Usage measures
5. Perceptual measures
6. Productivity measures[3]

This framework regards “information quality” and “system quality” to be antecedent success paradigms. However, the D&M IS Success Model believes that they are significant elements of success. This model achieves to validate the D&M framework of IS Success from a theoretical outlook. It also proposes that the model should consider extending the model by adding market impacts. [3]

Another framework that was used for IS success was Smithson and Hirschheim’s (1998) model. They demonstrated the frameworks value by applying it to the evaluation of an outsourcing situation. This framework is organised into three different zones of evaluation. These different zones are:
1. Efficiency
2. Effectiveness
3. Understanding[3]

It is believed that this framework’s evaluation areas overlap the D&M success components which are hardware and software metrics, user satisfaction, system usage, cost benefit analysis and many more. However, this framework proposes many other theoretical sources of IS evaluation methods. This framework is a basis for discovering and developing IS evaluation measures instead of a single framework of success elements and their interrelationships. The disadvantage with this framework is that it can be difficult to apply in practice as it does not state actual success constructs and associated measures. The advantage with this framework is that it provides the researcher with an alternative theoretical framework for developing IS evaluation method.[3]

It is important to study different types of IS success frameworks. This will help the group with creating an overall framework for IS success. As these two different models of IS success are interesting I believe that they are definitely not as effective and powerful as the D&M Model for IS Success.


[1] Source [1]: Lucid21 (2013)
[2] Source 2: Petter,S., DeLone,W. & McLean,E. (2008) “Measuring information systems success: models dimensions, measures, and interrelationships.” Accessed from on 04/02/2013
[3] Source 3: DeLone,W.,McLean,E.(2003) “The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update,” Journal of Management Information Systems/Spring 2003, Vol.19.No.4, pp.9-30. Accessed from on the 04/02/2013


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: