The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems
Success – Original and Updated Models
Satu-Maria Hellstén
satu.hellsten@tut.fi
ABSTRACT
In this paper we introduce the original as well as updated
DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems
Success. The original model has six interrelated dimensions
of success: System Quality, Information Quality, Use, User
Satisfaction, Individual Impact, and Organizational Impact.
The dimensions of Service Quality and Intention to Use
were added into the updated model and the original
dimensions of Individual and Organizational Impact were
combined into one new dimension, Net Benefits. We also
present five examples of applying or testing the model
together with concrete success measures of IS. We believe
that IS success model provides a good framework for
identifying and developing different measures. IS success
model might provide a practical way to evaluate, for
example, user satisfaction and impacts of that satisfaction
on the use of information systems.
Author Keywords
information systems success, evaluation of IS
ACM Classification Keywords
H1 Information Systems: Models and Principles: Human
factors, K4.3 Computers an Society: Organizational
Impacts
INTRODUCTION
Effective measurement of information system (IS) success
is an important issue for both practitioners and researchers.
The measurement of success is critical in order to
understand the value of IS management actions and IS
investments [1, 2]. However, IS success is a multi-
dimensional concept that can be assessed at various levels.
In addition, various stakeholders may have different
opinions of the success of the same information system, for
example, product developers may value technical success,
end-users easiness of use, and managers increased revenues
gained through the use of IS. In the literature, there are
nearly as many IS success measures as there are studies,
1
Maiju Markova
maiju.markova@tut.fi
and therefore, different studies and systems are not
comparable [1].
The aim of this paper is to introduce the first attempt to
capture all different aspects of IS success into a one
comprehensive model – IS success model – as well as its
updated version. Based on the literature, this study also
describes how this model has been used in several studies
and how it could help the development of human-centered
technology.
This paper is organized as follows. First, the original and
updated DeLone and McLean model of IS success are
introduced with their dimensions and examples of success
measures. After that the utilization of the model in different
studies is discussed and concrete ways to measure various
dimensions of success are presented. Finally conclusions
are drawn.
THE DELONE AND MCLEAN MODEL OF IS SUCCESS
In order to organize diverse research and to present more
integrated view of the concept of IS success, DeLone and
McLean introduced a comprehensive, multidimensional
model of IS success [1]. The purpose of this model is to be
a framework for measuring different dependent variables in
IS research. Based on the communications research of
Shannon and Weaver from 1949 and the information
“influence theory” of Mason from 1978, as well an
empirical management information systems (MIS) research
studies from 1981-1987, they categorized IS success into
six major dimensions:
1) System Quality,
2) Information Quality,
3) Use,
4) User Satisfaction,
5) Individual Impact, and
6) Organizational Impact.
In their study, they reviewed all those empirical studies that
have attempted to measure some aspects of MIS success in
seven publications (Management Science, MIS Quarterly,
Communications of the ACM, Decision Sciences,
Information & Management, Journal of MIS, and ICIS
Proceedings). Additionally, some other articles were
included to contribute to theoretical or conceptual issues.
Altogether 180 articles were referenced in the paper.
Figure 1 presents these six interrelated dimensions of
success: System Quality and Information Quality singularly
 System Use
Quality

Individual Organizational
Impact Impact

Information User
Quality Satisfaction

Figure 1 IS Success Model [1, p. 87].

and jointly affect both Use and User Satisfaction. In

Table 2 Examples of Success Measures – Use and User
addition, the amount of Use can have a positive or negative Satisfaction
effect on the degree of User Satisfaction and vice versa.
Use and User Satisfaction are direct antecedents of Information Use User Satisfaction
Individual Impact, and this impact should eventually have
Amount/duration of use Satisfaction with specifics
some Organizational Impact. [1]
Actual vs. reported use Overall satisfaction
In DeLone and McLean IS success model, these six
dimensions are examined at three different levels: technical Nature of use: use for Information satisfaction:
level, semantic level, and effectiveness or influence level. intended purpose, Difference between
appropriate use, type of information needed and
First dimension of the model, Systems Quality, studies the information used received
success at technical level. It focuses on the desired
characteristics of the information system itself which Motivation to use Enjoyment
produces the information. Second dimension, Information
Quality, focuses on the information product instead, and In addition, the influences which the information product
characteristics at the semantic level, i.e. “the success of the has on management decision (Individual Impact) and on
information in conveying the intended meaning”. Some organizational performance (Organizational Impact) are
examples of success measures of Systems and Information measured at the influence level. Some examples of success
Quality are listed in Table 1. measures are presented in Table 3.
Table 1 Examples of Success Measures – Systems Quality and Table 3 Examples of Success Measures – Individual Impact
Information Quality and Organizational Impact
System Quality Information Quality Individual Impact Organizational Impact
Ease of use Importance Learning Operating cost reductions
Ease of learning Relevance Decision effectiveness: Staff reductions
Convenience of access Usefulness Decision quality, Improved
decision analysis,
Realization of user Timeliness
Correctness, time to make
requirements
decision
Usefulness of system Readability
Improved individual Overall productivity gains
features and functions
productivity
Data and system accuracy Content
Task performance Increased revenues, sales,
market share, profits
At the influence level, Use and User Satisfaction are Problem identification Increased work volume
measured in order to analyze the interaction of the
information product with its recipients. Some examples of Willingness to pay for Service effectiveness
success measures of Use and User Satisfaction are listed in information
Table 2.
This model already helps IS researchers in understanding
different aspects of IS success, but as DeLone and McLean

2
argues “this success model clearly needs further
development and validation before it could serve as a basis
for the selection of appropriate IS measures” [1, p. 88].
Updated D&M IS Success Model
As the original IS success model needed further validation,
DeLone and McLean proposed an updated model in 2003,
again based on a literature review [2]. They added Service
Quality (e.g., IS support) as one important dimension. In
addition, they added Intention to Use as an alternative
measure because an attitude is worthwhile to measure in
some context. Finally, they combined Individual and
Organizational Impact to one dimension, named Net
Benefits; to broaden the impacts of IS also to groups,
industries and nations, depending on the context.
Information
Quality
Intention Use
to use
System Net
Quality Benefits
User Satisfaction
Service
Quality
Figure 2 Updated D&M IS Success Model [2]
In 2002 Rai et al. [4] tested empirically and theoretically
DeLone and McLean’s model and Seddon’s model. Both
models deal with IS success, but Seddon’s model treats IS
Use as a behavior, not as a process leading to individual or
organizational impact as in the original model of DeLone
and McLean. Seddon’s model focuses on the causal aspects
of the interrelationships among the taxonomic categories.
According to Rai et al, the principal difference between
these two models is in the definition and placement of IS
use. Seddon says that the use must precede impacts and
benefits, but it does not cause them. He considers IS use to
be a resulting behavior that reflects an expectations of net
benefits from using an information system. More
information about the empirical test conducted by Rai et al.
is discussed later.
Next, various studies where these previously presented
models have been used are presented.
UTILIZATION OF THE SUCCESS MODEL
DeLone and McLean [3] applied their updated model to
organize the e-commerce success metrics identified in the
literature and demonstrated how the model can be used
through two case examples. In both cases, usability was
seen as an important measure of System Quality leading to
increased number of visits in web sites (Use) and repeat
purchases (User Satisfaction). In addition, they suggested
3
that e-commerce studies should include net benefits
measures (e.g., incremental sales, market valuation) and not
be content to collect only surrogate measures, such as Web
site hits (Use). On the other hand, to understand these net
benefit results, they argue that the quality of the user’s
experience and the customer’s usage of, and satisfaction
with, the system should be measured. [3]
Rai et al. [4] did an empirical test in quasi-voluntary IS use
context regarding a Student Information System (SIS). The
SIS provides online access to a database of students’
personal and academic information. The use of SIS was not
mandatory. The findings support DeLone and McLean’s
observation that IS success models must be carefully
specified in a given context. They also suggest that future
research should examine how “IS success models perform
in different context, including settings that range from
strictly voluntary to strictly involuntary use, and
recommend refinements as appropriate”.
Iivari [5] tested the IS success model by using field study of
a mandatory information system. The test was conducted
with Oulu City Council. The council was working on the
adoption of a new information system and trying to
accomplish its organizational acceptance. Iivari collected
data with questionnaires which were given to new
information system’s primary users. The questionnaire was
based on standard measures. System Quality was measured
with six scales: flexibility of the system, integration of the
system, response/turnaround time, error recovery,
convenience of access, and language. Information Quality
was also measured with six scales: completeness, precision,
accuracy, reliability, currency, and format of output. The
results showed that perceived system quality and perceived
information quality were significant predictors of user
satisfaction with the system, but they did not matter to
system use. User satisfaction was a strong predictor of
individual impact.
Bryd et al. [6] contributed to IS success research through
the development and empirical testing of a process-oriented
model of IS success that was based on the model of DeLone
and McLean. They examined the influence of lower-level
intangible IS and information technology (IT) benefits on
higher-level financial measures. They also introduced IS
plan quality as an antecedent to the model’s input variables.
The results supported a process-oriented view of the
benefits from IS and showed how the effects of IS along a
path can lead to better organizational performance, in their
case, lower overall costs. Concrete measures are introduced
in the appendix of their study. In their study, they used 7-
point Likert scale anchored by “Strongly Disagree” to
“Strongly Agree” or scale from “Not Much” to
“Extensively”.
Wu and Wang [7] proposed and empirically assessed a
knowledge management systems (KMS) success model.
Based on an analysis of current practice of knowledge
management as well as the DeLone and McLean’s model,
they used five dependent variables (system quality,
knowledge or information quality, perceived KMS benefits,
user satisfaction, and system use) in evaluating KMS
success. The definitions and success measures are presented
in Table 4.
Table 4 Construct definition and success measures [7]
System quality: How good the KMS is in terms of its
operational characteristics
Q1. KMS is easy to use
Q2. KMS is user friendly
Q3. KMS is stable
Q4. The response time of KMS is acceptable
Knowledge or information quality: How good the KMS
is in terms of its output
1) Content quality
KQ1. KMS makes it easy for me to create knowledge
documents
KQ2. The words and phrases in contents provided by KMS
are consistent
KQ3. The content representation provided by KMS is
logical and fit
KQ4. The knowledge or information provided by KMS is
available at a time suitable for its use
KQ5. The knowledge or information provided by KMS is
important and helpful for my work
KQ6. The knowledge or information provided by KMS is
meaningful, understandable, and practicable
KQ7. The knowledge classification or index in KMS is
clear and unambiguous
2) Context and linkage quality
KQ8. KMS provide contextual knowledge or information
so that I can truly understand what is being accessed and
easily apply it to work
KQ9. KMS provide complete knowledge portal so that I
can link to knowledge or information sources for more
detail inquire
KQ10. KMS provide accurate expert directory (link,
yellow pages)
KQ11. KMS provide helpful expert directory (link, yellow
pages) for my work
User satisfaction: The sum of one’s feelings of pleasure or
displeasure regarding KMS
US1. I am satisfied that KMS meet my knowledge or
information processing needs
US2. I am satisfied with KMS efficiency
US3. I am satisfied with KMS effectiveness
US4. Overall, I am satisfied with KMS
Perceived KMS benefits: The valuation of the benefits of
the KMS by users
PKB1. KMS helps me acquire new knowledge and
innovative ideas
PKB2. KMS helps me effectively manage and store
4
knowledge that I need
PKB3. KMS enable me to accomplish tasks more
efficiently
PKB4. My performance on the job is enhanced by KMS
PKB5. KMS improves the quality of my work life
System use: The extent of the KMS being used
SU1. I use KMS to help me make decisions
SU2. I use KMS to help me record my knowledge
SU3. I use KMS to communicate knowledge and
information with colleagues
SU4. I use KMS to share my general knowledge
SU5. I use KMS to share my specific knowledge
Lai et al. [8] attempted to extend the DeLone-McLean
model by adding a new concept, dependability. To test their
new concept, they did a questionnaire survey in
internationalized companies in Taiwan. In their study, Lai
et al. had questions that were related to Information Quality
(IQ), System Quality (SQ), Dependability (DEP), Perceived
Usefulness (PU), User Satisfaction (US) and Intention to
Use (IU). They found out that SQ had the largest total effect
on DEP, PU and IU. Their finding imply that when dealing
with enterprise applications, System Quality can help to
build users’ beliefs regarding dependability, satisfaction,
and intention to use. Because 1) employees need to have the
right information from the right place at the right time, 2)
employees’ efforts must be maximized and 3) enterprise
applications must provide integrated service to help
employees to complete their daily tasks despite different
systems, dependability is a significant factor for the success
of enterprise applications. Lai et al. feel that researchers
need to understand the importance of dependability. System
Quality and Information Quality affect Intention to Use and
User Satisfaction through dependability.
Linking IS success model with TAM
An interesting link between IS success model and
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was also pointed
out in the literature. The TAM model is developed by Davis
[9] and it is an adaptation of the Theory of Reasoned
Action, and the Theory of Planned Behavior, which are two
of the most popular models used to explain IS behavior.
According to TAM, Perceived Usefulness and Perceived
Ease of Use affect users’ behavioral intentions. In addition,
this effect impacts on IS Use. [4]
CONCLUSION
DeLone and McLean’s IS success model seems to provide a
good framework to identify and develop different measures
for several important dimensions. Therefore, it could be
used also in the field of human-centered technology and
usability studies to understand different aspects of IS
success. For example, it could provide a practical way to
evaluate why user satisfaction is not good and what
problems does the usability of the system create to users
and organization.
Both the original and updated models are based on
literature reviews and other researchers have tried to
validate, use and develop these models further. Instead of
having ready-to-use measures, there is a lot of work to be
done when modifying the model for own purposes.
However, the model and empirical studies offer great
advices and concrete measures for future work for
evaluating information systems in different contexts.
REFERENCES
1. DeLone, W.H., and McLean, E.R. Information systems
success: The quest for the dependent variable.
Information Systems Research, 3, 1 (1992), 60-95.
2. DeLone, W.H., and McLean, E.R. The DeLone and
McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-
Year Update. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 19, 4, (2003), 9-30.
3. DeLone, W.H., and McLean, E.R. Measuring e-
Commerce Success: Applying the DeLone & McLean
Information Systems Success Model. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 9, 1, (2004), 31-47.
4. Rai, A., Lang, S. S., and Welker, R. B. Assessing the
Validity of IS Success Models: An Empirical Test and
Theoretical Analysis, Information Systems Research,
(2002), Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2002, 50-69
5. Iivari, J. An empirical Test of the DeLone-McLean
Model of Information System Success. Database for
Advances in Information Systems (1), April 2005, 8-27
6. Bryd, T.R., Thrasher, E.H., Lang, T., and Davidson,
N.W. A process-oriented perspective if IS success:
Examining the impact of IS on operational cost. Omega,
34, (2006), 448-460.
7. Wu, J-H., and Wang, Y-M. Measuring KMS success: A
respecification of the DeLone and McLean´s model.
Information & Management, 43 (2006), 728-739.
8. Lai, J-Y., Yang, C-C., and Tang, W-S. Exploring the
Effects of Dependability on Enterprise Applications
Success in e-Business. SIGMIS-CPR’06, April 13-15,
2006, Claremont, California, USA.
9. Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,
and user acceptance of information technology. MIS
Quarterly, September (1989), 318-340.