Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable William H. DeLone Department of Management The American University Washington, D.C. 20016 Ephraim R. McLean Computer Information Systems Georgia State University Aulanta, Georgia 30302-4015 A large number of studies have been conducted during the last decade and a half attempting to identify those factors that contribute to information sys- tems success. However, the dependent variable in these studies—I/S success —has been an elusive one to define. Different researchers have addressed different aspects of success, making comparisons difficult and the prospect of building a cumulative tradition for I/S research similarly elusive. To organize this diverse research, as well as to present a more integrated view of the concept of I/S success, a comprehensive taxonomy is introduced. This taxon- omy posits six major dimensions or categories of I/S success—SYSTEM QUALITY, INFORMATION QUALITY. USE, USER SATISFACTION, INDIVIDUAL IMPACT, and ORGANIZATIONAL IMPACT. Using these dimensions, both conceptual and empirical studies are then reviewed (a total of 180 articles are cited) and organized according to the dimensions of the taxonomy. Finally, the many aspects of I/S success are drawn together into a descriptive model and its implications for future I/S research are discussed. ‘nfrmation systems success —Infrmationspstemns aesewment Measurement Introduction A the first meeting of the International Conference on Information System (ICIS) in 1980, Peter Keen identified five issues which he felt needed to be resolved in order for the field of management information systems to establish itself'asa coherent research area. These issues were (1) What are the reference disciplines for MIS? (2) What is the dependent variable? (3) How does MIS establish a cumulative tradition? (4) What is the relationship of MIS research to computer technology and to MIS practice? (5) Where should MIS researchers publish their findings? 7.7047 /92/0301 064/501 25 ‘The Intute of Managsrten Sciences Copynett 60 Information Systems Research 3: I Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reservedion Systems Success Of the five, the second item. the dependent variable in MIS research, is a particu- larly important issue. If information systems research is to make a contribution to the world of practice, a well-defined outcome measure (or measures) is essential. It does little good to measure various independent or input variables, such as the extent of user participation or the level of 1/S investment, if the dependent or output variable —I/S success or MIS effectiveness—cannot be measured with a similar degree of accuracy The importance of defining the I/S dependent variable cannot be overemphasized, The evaluation of I/S practice. policies, and procedures requires an I/S success mea- sure against which various strategies can be tested. Without a well-defined dependent variable. much of 1/S research is purely speculative. In recognition of this importance. this paper explores the research that has been done involving MIS success since Keen first issued his challenge to the field and attempts to synthesize this research into a more coherent body of knowledge. It covers the formative period 1981-87 and reviews all those empirical studies that have attempted to measure some aspects of “MIS success” and which have appeared in one of the seven leading publications in the I/S field. In addition, a number of other articles are included, some dating back to 1949, that make a theoretical or conceptual contribution even though they may not contain any empirical data. Taken together, these 180 references provide a representative review of the work that has been done and provide the basis for formulating a more compreheasive model of I/S success than has been attempted in the past. A Taxonomy of Information Systems Success Unfortunately, in searching for an 1/S success measure, rather than finding none, there are nearly as many measures as there are studies. The reason for this is under- standable when one considers that “information,” as the output of an information system or the message in a communication system, can be measured at different levels, including the technical level, the semantic level, and the effectiveness level. In their pioneering work on communications, Shannon and Weaver (1944) defined the technical level as the accuracy and efficiency of the system which produces the infor- mation. the semantic level as the success of the information in conveying the in- tended meaning, and the effectiveness level as the eflect of the information on the receiver, Building on this, Mason (1978) relabeled “effectiveness” as “influence” and de- fined the influence level of information to be a “hierarchy of events which take place at the receiving end of an information system which may be used to identify the various approaches that might be used to measure output at the influence level (Mason 1978, p. 227). This series of influence events includes the receipt of the information, an evaluation of the mformation, and the application of the informa- tion, leading to a change in recipient behavior and a change in system performanc The concept of levels of output trom communication theory demonstrates the serial nature of information (i.c.,.a form of communication). The information system creates information which is communicated to the recipient who is then influenced (or not!) by the information, In this sense. information flows through a series of stages, from its production through its use or consumption to ts influence on individual and/or organizational performance. Mason's adaptation of communtation theory March 1992 Copyright © 2001 All Rights ReservedDeLone + McLean ‘Shannon and Weaver (1949) Influence Influence Mason Production Product Receipt on on (1978) Recipent System Categories System Information Use User Individual Organizational soYS Quality Quality Satisfaction Impact Impact uecess FIGURE 1. Categones of YS Success. to the measurement of information systems suggests therefore that there may need to be separate success measures for each of the levels of information In Figure 1, the three levels of information of Shannon and Weaver are shown, together with Mason’s expansion of the effectiveness or influence level, to yield si distinct categories or aspects of information systems. They are SYSTEM QUALITY. INFORMATION QUALITY, USE, USER SATISFACTION, INDIVIDUAL IM- PACT, and ORGANIZATIONAL IMPACT Looking at the first of these categories, some I/S researchers have chosen to focus on the desired characteristics of the information system itself which produces the information (SYSTEM QUALITY). Others have chosen to study the information product for desired characteristics such as accuracy, meaningfulness, and timeliness (INFORMATION QUALITY). In the influence level. some researchers have ana- lyzed the interaction of the information product with its recipients, the users and/or decision makers, by measuring USE or USER SATISFACTION. Still other re- searchers have been interested in the influence which the information product has on management decisions (INDIVIDUAL IMPACT). Finally, some I/S researchers, and to a larger extent 1/S practitioners, have been concerned with the effect of the information product on organizational performance (ORGANIZATIONAL, IMPACT). Once this expanded view of I/S success is recognized, it is not surprising to find that there are so many different measures of this success in the literature. depending upon which aspect of I/S the researcher has focused his or her attention. Some of these measures have been merely identified, but never used empirically. Others have been used, but have employed different measurement instruments. making comparisons among studies difficult Two previous articles have made extensive reviews of the research literature and have reported on the measurement of MIS success that had been used in empirical studies up until that time. In a review of studies of user involvement, Ives and Olson (1984) adopted two classes of MIS outcome variables: system quality and system acceptance. The system acceptance category was defined to include system usage, system impact on user behavior, and information satisfaction, Half a decade earlier, in a review of studies of individual differences, Zmud (1979) considered three catego- ries of MIS success: user performance. MIS usage, and user satisfaction. Both of these literature reviews made a valuable contribution to an understanding of MIS success, but both were more concerned with investigating independent 2 Information Systems Research 3: 1 Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved