Relationships in the D&M model

8 Feb

If the D&M model (2003) is used as the basis for our model of IS success, the features within it needs to be addressed. The main components are the dimensions and the relationships between them. It seems that all of the dimensions in the updated model should be included though the context within which these dimensions operate should be considered; IT leadership for example [1]. External factors also need to be addressed [2]. The relationships that exist between dimensions have been addressed by Sabherwal et al. (2006) and Petter et al. (2008) and this appears to be the most complex feature of the model. Furthermore, the strength of each relationship in the model is not fully understood.

From my interpretation of the model, the relationships between the dimensions of the model provide us with an understanding of IS success determinants, either as a process or causal model. What it does not show is if success has been achieved, which ultimately a practitioner will be interested in. At an organisational level insufficient data exists for supporting the relationship between net benefits and other dimensions with the exception of system quality (see diagram) [3].

Petter et al. (2008)

Petter et al. (2008)

So, maybe the relationships could be removed from the model and then success in each dimension could be focused on rather than the determinants of success. A model which identifies in which dimensions an IS system is successful or not might be useful to practitioners. Petter et al. (2008) have already advised practitioners ‘to deploy success measurement programs that incorporate all six dimensions of IS success’, attach relative weights to each dimension, and also consider an IS balanced scorecard to measure net benefits [4].

1. Sabherwal, R.; Jeyaraj, A; and Chowa, C (2006), Information System Success: Individual and Organizational Determinants, Management Science, 52 (12), 1849-1864; ronnoc90,; cmcoughlan,
2. mcoconnell,
3. 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; Sabherwal et al. (2006).
4. Petter et al. (2008).

One Response to “Relationships in the D&M model”

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: