Wixom 2001

An Empirical Investigation of the Factors Affecting Data Warehousing Success
Author(s): Barbara H. Wixom and Hugh J. Watson

Source: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 17-41
Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3250957 .
Accessed: 24/07/2013 20:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to MIS Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Wixomand Watson/DataWarehousingSuccess
OF THE FACTORS
AN EMPIRICALINVESTIGATION
AFFECTINGDATAWAREHOUSINGSUCCESS1
By: Barbara H. Wixom Squares analysis of the data identified significant

Mclntire School of Commerce relationships between the system qualityand data
University of Virginia quality factors and perceived net benefits. It was
Charlottesville, VA 22903 found that management support and resources
U.S.A. help to address organizational issues that arise
bwixom@mindspring.com during warehouse implementations; resources,
user participation, and highly-skilledproject team
Hugh J. Watson members increase the likelihoodthat warehousing
Department of MIS projects will finish on-time, on-budget, with the
Terry College of Business right functionality; and diverse, unstandardized
University of Georgia source systems andpoordevelopment technology
Athens, GA 30602 will increase the technical issues that project
U.S.A. teams must overcome. The implementation's
hwatson@terry.uga.edu success with organizational and project issues, in
turn, influence the system quality of the data
warehouse; however, data quality is best
Abstract explained by factors not included in the research
model.
The IT implementation literature suggests that
Keywords: Data warehousing, success, IS
various implementationfactors play criticalroles in
the success of an informationsystem; however, implementation, Partial Least Squares
there is little empirical research about the imple-
ISRL Categories: HA03, FD, A10610, EL03
mentation of data warehousing projects. Data
warehousing has unique characteristics that may
impact the importance of factors that apply to it. In
this study, a cross-sectional survey investigated a
model of data warehousing success. Data ware-
Introduction
housing managers and data suppliers from 111
During the mid- to late 1990s, data warehousing
organizations completed paired mail question-
became one of the most importantdevelopments
naires on implementation factors and the success
in the information systems field. It is estimated
of the warehouse. The results froma PartialLeast
that 95% of the Fortune 1000 companies either
have a data warehouse in place or are planning to
'Ron Weber was the acceptingsenior editorfor this develop one (METAGroup 1996). The Palo Alto
paper. Management Group predicts that the data ware-
MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1, pp. 17-41/March2001 17

housing market will grow to a $113.5 billion data warehousing efforts fail (Kelly 1997). The
market in 2002, including the sales of systems, most common reasons for failure include weak
software, services, and in-house expenditures sponsorship and management support, insuf-
(Eckerson 1998). This is not surprising consi- ficient funding, inadequate user involvement, and
dering that for the past few years, surveys of ClOs organizational politics (Watson et al. 1999).
have found data warehousing, Year 2000, and
electronic commerce to be at the top of their Practitioners and researchers need to better
strategic initiatives (Eckerson 1999). understand data warehousing to ensure the
success of these promising, yet risky and costly,
A data warehouse (or smaller-scale data mart) is IT undertakings. The IT literature contains many
a specially prepared repository of data created to studies that investigate the factors that affect the
support decision making. Data are extracted from implementation of decision-support applications
source systems, cleaned/scrubbed, transformed, (e.g., Guimares et al. 1992; Rainer and Watson
and placed in data stores (Gray and Watson 1995). While these studies are helpful, a data
1998). A data warehouse has data suppliers who warehouse is arguably different in that it is an IT
are responsible for delivering data to the ultimate infrastructureproject, which can be defined as a
end users of the warehouse, such as analysts, set of shared, tangible ITresources that provide a
operational personnel, and managers. The data foundation to enable present and future business
suppliers make data available to end users either applications (Duncan 1995). The capability of
through SQL queries or custom-built decision- such an infrastructure is thought to impact
support applications (e.g., DSS and EIS). business value by supporting (orfailingto support)
importantbusiness processes (Ross et al. 1996).
Data warehousing is a product of business need Few studies have examined the implementation
and technological advances. The business success of infrastructureprojects (Duncan 1995;
environment has become more global, compe- Parr et al. 1999); instead, infrastructureresearch
titive,complex, and volatile. Customer relationship focuses on the innovation and diffusion of such
management and e-commerce initiatives are phenomenon (for several examples, see Chau
creating requirements for large, integrated data and Tam 1997; Prescott and Conger 1995).
repositories and advanced analytical capabilities.
Moredata are captured by organizational systems There is considerable practitionerwisdom on the
(e.g., barcode scanning, clickstream) or can be keys to data warehousing success; however, it is
purchased from companies like Dun & Bradstreet based on anecdotal evidence from a limited
and Harte Hanks. Through hardware advances number of companies. There has been no aca-
such as symmetric multi-processing, massive demic research that systematically and rigorously
parallel processing, and parallel database tech- investigates the keys to data warehousing
nology, it is now possible to load, maintain, and success, using data collected from a large cross-
access databases of terabyte size. All of these section of firms. In this study, we investigate a
changes are affecting how organizations conduct research model of data warehousing imple-
business, especially in sales and marketing, mentation success using data gathered from mail
allowing companies to analyze the behavior of surveys from 111 organizations. The study inves-
individual customers rather than demographic tigates the implementation of data warehousing in
groups or product classes. particular, and extends our knowledge of IT
implementation in general.
Even though there are many success stories
(Beitler and Leary 1997; Grimand Thorton 1997), This article first presents a research model for
a data warehousing project is an expensive, risky data warehousing implementation success that
undertaking. The typical project costs over $1 was developed from a literature review, an
millionin the first year alone (Watson and Haley exploratory survey, and structured interviews.
1997). While hard figures are not available, it is Next, it describes the cross-sectional survey that
estimated that one-half to two-thirds of all initial was used to collect data and the results from a
18 MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001

Partial Least Squares analysis of the research affects the system success, defined as the quality
model. The findings are discussed in the con- of the data warehouse system and its data. This
cluding sections. impacts the perceived net benefits from the use of
the warehouse.
The Research Model Information

Systems Success
To develop the research model, the ITimplemen-
Researchers have investigated the success of
tation, infrastructure, data warehousing, and informationsystems in myriad ways (Garrityand
success literaturewere reviewed to identifyfactors
Sanders 1998), such as by measuring the satis-
that potentially affect data warehousing success.
faction of users (Melone 1990), service quality
After the literature review, survey data were
(Pitt et al. 1995), and the perceived usefulness of
collected from 126 attendees of a 1996 con-
specific applications (Davis 1989; Moore and
ference sponsored by The Data Warehousing
Benbasat 1991). Researchers should treat IS
Institute(TDWI).The survey contained two open-
success as a multi-faceted construct, choose
ended questions that asked for a list of critical
several appropriate success measures based on
success factors and obstacles to data ware-
the research objectives and the phenomena under
housing success.2 These findings, together with
investigation, and consider possible relationships
the literaturereview, were used to create an initial
among the success dimensions when constructing
research model and to structure hour-long
a research model (DeLone and McLean 1992).
interviews with 10 data warehousing experts (e.g.,
Drawing on the work of Seddon (1997), three
book authors, consultants, and seminar
dimensions of system success were selected as
speakers). The interviews confirmed that the
being the most appropriate for this study: data
research model contained appropriatefactors and
quality,system quality,and perceived net benefits.
relationships among the model's factors. Minor
Empirical studies (e.g., Fraser and Salter 1995;
changes were incorporated into the model based Seddon and Kiew 1994) have found that these
on the interviews.
three dimensions are related to one another:
higher levels of data and system quality are
Figure 1 presents the resulting research model. associated with higher levels of net benefits.
The rationale for the factors and the relationships
among the factors are described in the following Data quality refers to the quality of the data that
sections. Implementation factors, such as
are available from the data warehouse. This factor
management support and user participation,are has received considerable research attention
proposed to influence the success of the data
regarding its definition,component measures, and
warehouse implementation, which has been
broken down into three unique facets. These importance (e.g., Wand and Wang 1996; Wang
and Strong 1996). Data quality is frequently
include success with organizational, project, and
discussed in the data warehousing literature as
technical issues that arise during the lifetime of
well; providing high-quality data to decision
the warehouse project. Thus, implementation
makers is the fundamental reason for a building a
success means that the project team has
warehouse (Watson and Haley 1997). Morespeci-
persuaded the organization to accept data ware-
fically, data accuracy, completeness, and consis-
housing, completed the warehouse according to
tency are critical aspects of data quality in a
plan, and overcome technical obstacles that
warehouse (Lyon 1998; Shanks and Darke 1998).
arose. The success of the implementation in turn
With system quality, the focus is on the system

itself. Commonly used performance measures
2Theactualsurveyquestionswere: Whatarethe crtical include system flexibility, integration, response
success factorsfor a datawarehousingproject?What time, and reliability(DeLone and McLean 1992).
are the biggest obstacles to a successful data ware-
housingproject? Flexibilityand integrationare particularlyimportant
MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001 19

Implementation Factors Implementation Success System Success
Management
Support
Champion
Qualit
Resources
i Perceived
UserParticipation Project ,0 Net Benefits
Success
Implementation
TeamSkills
SourceSystems
Technical /
Development
Technology Success
Implementation
I _- 0 I. F - _0 -
for decision-supportapplications(Vandenbosch extractdata and runqueries for users as in the

and Huff1997). Systems thatintegratedatafrom past.Whensuppliedwithappropriate dataaccess
diversesources can improveorganizational deci- tools and applications, users can perform
sionmaking(Wetherbe1991;WyboandGoodhue decision-makingtasks faster and more compre-
1995), and flexibilityallows decision makers to hensively (Haley et al. 1999). In general, data
easily modify applicationsas their information warehousing can change the processes for
needs change (Vandenboschand Huff 1997). providingend users with access to data and
System quality(i.e., flexibilityand integration)is reducethe timeand effortrequiredto providethat
one of the most importantadvantages for data access (Graham1996).
warehousingbecause a warehouseprovidesthe
infrastructurethat integratesdata from multiple Additionalsuccess dimensionswere notincluded
sources and flexiblysupportscurrentand future because they were considered less appropriate
users and applications(Grayand Watson 1998; for this studythan the selected constructs.User
Sakaguchiand Frolick1997). satisfactionmeasures are most often associated
withan end-user'sperceptionof a singleapplica-
A system displayinghighdataqualityand system tion,buta datawarehousesupportsmultipleappli-
qualitycan lead to net benefitsforvariousstake- cations ratherthan being an applicationitself.
holders, includingindividuals,groups of indivi- Organization-level benefitsare difficultor impos-
duals, and organizations(Seddon 1997). It can sible to assess and to isolate fromotherfactors
give users a betterunderstanding of the decision (e.g., actionsof competitors)thataffecttheorgani-
context, increase decision-makingproductivity, zation(Lucas1981;Ragowskyet al. 1996).Extent
and change how people performtasks. A data of implementationhas been applied frequently
warehouse significantlyaffects how decision withlarge-scalesystems, such as electronicdata
makingfor end users is supportedin the organi- interchange(Massettiand Zmud1996);however,
zationbecause ITprofessionalsno longerhaveto these studiesinvestigatethe innovationanddiffu-

Wixom and Watson/Data Warehousing Success
sion of IT rather than ITimplementation success. tion and integrated into work processes. How-
Also, successful data warehouses may or may not ever, an informationsystem implementation can
necessarily be implemented widely across an cause considerable organizational change that
organization. For example, a warehouse may be people tend to resist (Markus 1983). The
used by only a few key analysts who are doing likelihood of this resistance increases with the
criticallyimportantworkfor the company, whereas scope and magnitude of the changes that the
other companies may find it useful to rollout data system creates (Tait and Vessey 1988). Data
warehousing to the entire organization. Use has warehousing, in particular, has profound effects
similar limitations because it is doubtful that on organizations because it can shift data
frequent or widespread use can accurately identify ownership, use, and access patterns; change how
a successful warehouse. jobs are performed; and modify business pro-
cesses. It moves data ownership from the
Data quality, system quality, and perceived net functional areas to a centralized group, shifts the
benefits were used in the research model as the responsibilities for data access from information
three dimensions of data warehousing success. systems personnel to end users, changes how
Based on past findings (Fraser and Salter 1995; users perform their jobs as a result of having
Seddon and Kiew 1994) and the theoretical access to warehouse data, and allows businesses
foundations developed by DeLone and McLean to operate differently. These changes potentially
(1992) and Seddon (1997), we hypothesized: lead to resistance from managers, data suppliers,
and end users.
H1a: A high level of data quality is asso-
ciated with a high level of perceived Much has been written about how to effectively
net benefits. address issues that result from change (Markus
and Robey 1988). For example, Lewin (1951)
H1b: A high level of system quality is introduced a popular three-stage model whereby
associated with a high level of people first are prepared for change (i.e.,
perceived net benefits. unfreezing), the change then takes place (i.e.,
moving), followed by a solidification of the
processes and ways of thinking caused by the
change (i.e., refreezing). Project teams can
ImplementationSuccess
encourage the organization to accept data
In the data warehousing literature,from the initial warehousing by arranging for support throughout
these three stages. They can put change
survey, and during interviews, three facets of
warehousing implementationsuccess were identi- management programs in place, deal with political
fied: success with organizational issues, success resistance effectively when it arises, and
with project issues, and success with technical encourage people throughout the organization to
issues. These factors were believed to affect the embrace data warehousing. Withoutthese efforts,
ultimate success of the data warehouse. Of data warehousing projects are unlikelyto result in
course, there likely are other facets of imple- high levels of data quality and system quality
mentation success; however, to keep the research because key stakeholders are unwillingto support
model to a manageable size, only three imple- the changes that are required. For example, the
mentation success factors that were best consequences can include that subject area
database specialists' time is not made available to
supported by the study's model development
the project, or changes to operational source
phase were included. These are described in the
following sections. systems (to improve data consistency) might be
resisted. Thus, we hypothesized:
Organizational Implementation Success H2a: A high level of organizational imple-

An implementation is not successful unless the mentation success is associated
system it produces is accepted into the organiza- with a high level of data quality.
MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 21

H2b: A high level of organizational imple- organization requires (Rist 1997). Therefore, we
mentation success is associated hypothesized:
with a high level of system quality.
H4a: A high level of technical implemen-
tation success is associated with a
Project Implementation Success high level of data quality.
IS projects often include a complex array of tasks
and roles that must be managed (Brooks 1975), H4b: A high level of technical implemen-
and data warehouse projects in particularrequire tation success is associated with a
highly skilled, well-managed teams who can over- high level of system quality.
come issues that arise during the project (Devlin
1997; Sakaguchi and Frolick1997). Project teams
must be able to focus on critical goals and Implementation Factors
pertinent issues, and avoid unforeseen circum- There is no generic model for IT implementation
stances that can put the project at risk. Success success and, on the whole, the implementation
with project issues can be measured by how well literature is filled with conflicting results (Markus
the team meets its critical time, budgetary, and and Robey 1988). One reason for equivocal
functional goals (Constantine 1993; Waldrop results is that different IT implementations
1984). In meeting these goals, by definition the possess unique qualities that alter the importance
team will deliver a data warehouse that provides or effect of implementationfactors. Vatanasombut
high-qualitydata and system features to the client. and Gray (1999) surveyed the data warehousing
Thus, we hypothesized: literatureand found nine success factors that are
unique to data warehousing, such as cleanse the
H3a: A high level of project implemen- data to meet the data warehouse qualitystandard
tation success is associated with a and choose loading intervals that keep data
high level of data quality. timely. Bischoff and Alexander (1997) indicate that
the amount of complexity involved is what makes
H3b: A high level of project implemen- a data warehousing project different from tradi-
tation success is associated with a tional software engineering or systems develop-
high level of system quality. ment initiatives. As was mentioned earlier, data
warehousing is not an application, which has been
the research focus of many implementation
Technical Implementation Success studies, but is ratheran enabler of many different
The technical complexity of data warehousing is current and future applications. It shares similar
high because of the large number of diverse and characteristics with other infrastructure projects
disparate systems that typicallyneed to be under- like enterprise networkingand enterprise resource
stood, reconciled, and coordinated; the large planning. Few studies have addressed the imple-
volume of data that must be extracted, trans- mentation success of these kinds of projects.
formed, loaded, and maintained; and the compli-
cated analytics that often are applied to the data On the other hand, there are aspects of a data
(e.g., financial profitabilitymodels, data mining warehousing projectthat are similarto application-
algorithms). Technical problems may emerge at level IT implementations that have been studied
various points duringa data warehousing project, thoroughly. For example, project teams must
such as when many, heterogeneous data sources learn new technologies, work with users to gather
must be combined and when new technology for requirements, select and use appropriatedevelop-
data warehousing must be fit into an existing ment methodologies, and anticipate and respond
technical infrastructure.These technical problems to politicalproblems. Therefore, it is reasonable to
may preclude the warehousing team from creating expect that implementation factors that have
a repository of high-qualitydata, and the system consistently been found to affect IT implemen-
may not be as flexible or integrated as the tation success are relevant to warehousing as

well. Seven implementationfactors were included Edelstein 1997; Watson et al. 1998), as well as to
in the research model because of their potential other IT projects (Beath 1991; Reich and Benba-
importance to data warehousing success: sat 1990). Champions exhibit transformational
management support, champion, resources, user leadership behavior when they strongly support a
participation, team skills, source systems, and project, and they possess the skills and clout
development technology. Each factor is theorized needed to overcome resistance that may arise
to affect one or more of the implementation withinthe organization (Howelland Higgins 1990).
success factors.3 Like management support, champions can help
data warehousing projects with organizational
issues; however, a champion is likely to have
Management Support even closer ties to the daily actions and goals of
Management support is widespread sponsorship the project team. It can be expected that
for a project across the management team and champions not only help data warehousing pro-
consistently is identified as one of the most jects achieve success at an organizational level,
importantfactors for data warehousing success. It but also that they help teams meet their project-
motivates people in the organization to support level goals. We hypothesized:
the data warehousing initiative and the organi-
zational changes that inevitably accompany it H6a: A strong champion presence is
(Curtis and Joshi 1998; Watson et al. 1998). associated with a high level of
Management support can overcome political organizational implementation suc-
resistance and encourage participationthroughout cess.
the organization (Markus 1983), and it has been
found to be important to the success of many H6b: A strong champion presence is
kinds of IT implementations, such as decision associated with a high level of pro-
support systems (Guimares et al. 1992; Igbariaet ject implementation success.
al. 1997). Users tend to conform to the expec-
tations of management, and they are more likely
to accept a system that they perceive to be Resources
backed by the management of their organization Resources include the money, people, and time
(Karahanna et al. 1999). Therefore, we hypo- that are required to successfully complete the
thesized: project (Ein-Dor and Segev 1978). Studies have
found that resource problems have a negative
H5: A high level of management support effect on successful system design and imple-
is associated with a high level of mentation (Taitand Vessey 1988). Resources are
likelyto be importantto data warehousing projects
organizational implementation suc-
because data warehouses are expensive, time-
cess.
consuming, resource-intensive initiatives. The
presence of resources can lead to a better chance
of overcoming organizational obstacles and com-
Champion
municating high levels of organizational commit-
A champion actively supports and promotes the ment (Beath 1991; Tait and Vessey 1988).
project and provides information, material Resources also can help projectteams meet their
resources, and political support. Champions are project milestones. Once tasks are identified, the
important to data warehousing (Barquin and project timeline is influenced by the amount of
time and the people assigned to do the work, so
better resources should affect the accom-
3TheITimplementation shows thatthe imple-
literature plishment of milestones during implementation
mentationfactors have impacts other than the ones (McConnell 1996). Thus, we hypothesized:
describedinthisstudy. Forexample,user participation
can help manage user expectationsand improveuser H7a: A high level of resources is asso-
acceptance of IT. However,for the purposes of this ciated with a high level of organi-
study,we have measuredthe impacts that were best
supportedby the study'smodeldevelopmentphase. zational implementation success.
MIS Quarterly Vol. 25 No. 1/March2001 23

H7b: A high level of resources is asso- traced to ITimplementation success (Ancona and
ciated with a high level of project Caldwell 1992); only a high quality, competent
implementation success. team can identify the requirements of complex
projects (Maish 1979). This mix of skills should
help warehouse projects more successfully meet
User Participation their objectives at a project level, and it should be
User participation occurs when users are of great value when technical obstacles need to
assigned project roles and tasks, which leads to a be overcome. A highly skilled projectteam should
better communication of their needs and helps be much better equipped to manage and solve
ensure that the system is implemented success- technical problems. We hypothesized:
fully (Hartwickand Barki 1994). It is particularly
importantwhen the requirements for a system are H9a: A high level of team skills is asso-
initiallyunclear, as is the case with many of the ciated with project implementation
decision-support applications that a data ware- success.
house is designed to support. The data ware-
housing literatureindicates that user participation H9b: A high level of team skills is asso-
increases the likelihood of managing users' ciated with technical implementa-
expectations and satisfying user requirements tion success.
(Barquinand Edelstein 1997; Watson and Haley
1997). When users participate on warehousing
projects, they have a better understanding of what Source Systems
the warehouse will provide, which makes them Past studies have found that the quality of an
more likely to accept the warehouse when it is organization's existing data can have a profound
delivered. Users also can help the project team effect on systems initiatives and that companies
stay focused on the requirements and needs of that improve data management realize significant
the user community if they participate on the benefits (Goodhue et al. 1992; Kraemer et al.
projectteam throughoutthe implementation.Thus, 1993). A primarypurpose of data warehousing is
we hypothesized: to integrate data throughout the organization;
however, data often resides in diverse, hetero-
H8a: A high level of user participation is
geneous sources. Each unique source requires
associated with organizational im-
specialized expertise and coordination to access
plementation success. the data. Further, the data that exist often are
defined differently across sources, making it
H8a: A high level of user participation is
challenging for the project team to reconcile and
associated with project implemen-
load the data into the warehouse properly.
tation success.
Goodhue et al. (1988) found that the lack of data
standards was a "majorunderlying problem with
data, often making it difficult or impossible to
Team Skills
share or interpretdata across applicationsystems
People are importantwhen implementing a sys-
boundaries" (p. 389). Standardized data can
tem and can directly affect its success or failure
result in easier data manipulation,fewer problems,
(Brooks 1975). In particular,the skills of the data
and, ultimately, a more successful system
warehousing development team have a major
influence on the outcomes of the warehouse (Bergeron and Raymond 1997). Thus, the quality
of data sources depends on the standardizationof
project (Barquinand Edelstein 1997). Team skills
include both technical and interpersonal abilities, their technology and data, and we hypothesized:
and a team withstrong technical and interpersonal
skills is able to perform tasks and interact with H10: High-quality source systems are
users well (Constantine 1993; Finlay and Mitchell associated with technical imple-
1994). The skills of development teams have been mentation success.
24 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001

Development Technology resulted in some restructuringand refinement of

Development technology is the hardware, soft- the survey and established its face and content
ware, methods, and programs used in completing validity (Nunnally 1978). The resulting surveys
a project. The development tools that a project were then pilot-tested by 10 organizations to
team uses can influence the effectiveness of the identify problems with the instruments' wording,
development effortas much as other factors, such content, format, and procedures. Pilot participants
as people. The tools can impact the efficiency and returned written comments about the survey
effectiveness of the development team, especially instruments, and each was telephoned for a more
if they are not well understood or easy to use detailed discussion.
(Banker and Kauffman 1991). The development
tools needed to build a data warehouse are Data were collected from two types of
differentfromthose used withoperational systems respondents at each participatingorganization to
because warehousing requires sophisticated measure perceptions of implementation factors
extraction, transformation, and loading software; and success factors separately. This approach
data cleansing programs; data base performance ensured that the appropriate person provided
tuning methods; and multidimensional modeling perceptions for the study (Hufnagel and Conca
and analysis tools. Ifthe development technology 1994); otherwise, "halo effects" or other biases
does not meet the needs of the project team or could result fromone person providinginformation
work well with the legacy systems, the data for both the independent and dependent con-
warehouse implementation will suffer (Rist 1997; structs. A total of 225 survey packets were mailed
Watson et al. 1998). Therefore, we hypothesized: to the data warehousing managers of operational
data warehouses4 listed in the researchers' data
H11: Better development technology is warehousing database.5 The survey that included
associated with technical imple- implementation factor questions was completed
mentation success. by the data warehousing manager or the person
most familiar with the data warehousing imple-
mentation. This contact was instructed to distri-
bute the success factor survey to one or two data
Research Method suppliers (two people were encouraged to further
reduce single-source response bias), who were
clearly defined as the managers of end-user
Data Collection computing or people responsible for an appli-
cation that uses data from the warehouse (e.g.,
Initialversions of two survey instruments were the executive informationsystem manager). Itwas
felt that data suppliers would be best qualified to
developed based on the data warehousing,
assess the success of the data warehouse, as
implementation, and success literature.The first
instrument was created to measure the imple- opposed to end users who only see the
mentationfactors and the second to measure data warehouse through the lens of the data access
tool (e.g., managed query environment) or
warehousing success. Whenever possible, pre-
viously tested questions were used, and generally application (e.g., DSS) that they are given.
accepted instrumentconstruction guidelines were
followed (Converse and Presser 1986; Dillman
1978; Fox et al. 1988). Both surveys were 4Anoperationaldata warehouseis the resultof a data
reviewed by the University of Georgia Center for warehouseimplementation. Itis a data warehousethat
Survey Research; by academics with specific has been rolledout to the organizationand put into
expertise in data warehousing, database, data operation.
integration, and survey construction; and by data 5Thisdatabase contains more than 350 warehousing
warehousing experts, such as the head of Arthur companies, consultants,and vendors that have been
Andersen & Co.'s data warehousing practice and compiledfromThe DataWarehousingInstitute'scon-
the president of The Data Warehousing Institute. ferences, past data warehousing studies, vendor
contacts,Webinterest,andpersonalcontacts. Ofthese
The multiple phases of instrument development organizations,225 have operationaldatawarehouses.

Several rounds of follow-up phone calls and e- (45%), IS managers (25%), IS staff members
mails were used to remind the participants to (24%), and other members of the organization
returnthe surveys, and 111 companies responded (6%). All of these people were responsible for
with usable pairs of surveys (an implementation providingwarehouse data to end users.
survey and at least one success survey) for an
overall response rate of 49%. A total of 55
organizations returnedtwo success surveys, and
we examined the level of participantagreement on Operationalizationof Constructs
the success items using a one-way ANOVAwith
All items were developed based on items from
team variation as the independent variable
existing instruments, the data warehousing
(Amason 1996). In each case, the between-team
literature, and input from data warehousing
variation was significantly larger than the within-
experts. Existing items were not used unless the
team variation, suggesting that the scores for
measures were well supported by the latter two
each organization could be combined into a single
sources. Items were measured based on a seven-
organizational response. Thus, the average of the
point Likert scale ranging from (1) "strongly
individual responses was used as the success
disagree" to (7) "stronglyagree." Table 2 defines
measures for each organization.
the constructs used in the study and lists their
respective survey items. Four items were reverse
The participating organizations represent the
scaled, and they are noted accordingly.
different regions of the United States: 24 from the
Northeast, 29 from the South, 34 from the Success factors. Data quality was operationa-
Midwest, and 12 from the West. Also, 12 lized as the accuracy, comprehensiveness,
organizations located in South Africa, Canada, or
consistency, and completeness of the data
Austria participated in the study. These organi-
provided by the warehouse. These dimensions are
zations ranged in size, with mean gross revenues
common measures of data qualityfor information
of $5.8 billion (minimum= $150,000; maximum =
systems in general (DeLone and McLean 1992),
$40 billion) and a mean number of employees of
and data warehousing in particular (Lyon 1998;
23,571 (minimum = 35; maximum = 300,000).
Shanks and Darke 1998). Flexibility and inte-
Table 1 shows the industries that are represented.
All of the companies had operational data ware- gration have been shown to be importantdimen-
sions of system quality;therefore, system quality
houses when answering the surveys, and nearly
was measured by four items that asked about the
all of them considered their initiativesuccessful6
level of flexibility and integration of the data
(26% = "a runaway success"; 72% = "an up and warehouse. Perceived net benefits was opera-
coming system"; 2% = "potentiallyin trouble"). tionalized using three items that measured the
Most respondents to the first questionnaire were change in the jobs of data suppliers and the
reduction of time and effort required to support
data warehousing managers (65%). Others were
decision making in the end-user community
people who had significant knowledge of the data
(Graham 1996; Seddon 1997).
warehousing implementation, such as data
warehousing staff members (11%) or employees
Organizational implementation success. This
holding some other position in the organization
construct was measured using three questions
(e.g., IS manager, CIO (24%)). Of the respon-
that captured the extent that politicalresistance in
dents, 91% were actively involved in the project.
The respondents to the second survey included the organization was dealt witheffectively, change
functional area managers and professionals was managed effectively, and support existed
from people throughout the organization (Markus
1983). Management support, champion,
6The data were analyzed both with and withoutthe resources, and user participationare believed to
observations that assessed the warehouse as help project teams overcome organizational
"potentiallyin trouble."There were no significant issues (Beath 1991; Reich and Benbasat 1990;
differencesinthe results;therefore,all 111observations
were includedin the finaldataset. Steinbart and Nath 1992; Tait and Vessey 1988).
26 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March2001

Number of
Industry Respondents Percent of Respondents
Manufacturing 16 14
Healthcare 15 13
Retail/ Wholesale 13 12
Telecommunications 13 12
Financial Services/ Banking 11 10
Insurance 9 8
Government 8 7
Utilities 6 5
Education/ Publishing 3 3
Petrochemical 2 2
Othera 15 14
MarketResearch, Reseller,Travel,Defense, Distribution,
aOtherindustriesincludedTransportation, and Consumer
Products
Project implementation success. This construct champion existed from a functional area and from
included questions that asked how well the project the IS area. User participation was measured
was completed on time, on budget, while using three items that assessed the IS-user
delivering the right requirements. A champion, relationship, the users' responsibilities on the
resources, user participation,and team skills have project, and hands-on activities performed by the
been associated with such outcomes (Finlay and users (Barki and Hartwick 1994). Based on the
Mitchell1994; Lawrence and Low 1993; Reich and work of Waldrop (1984), two items measured the
Benbasat 1990; Yoon et al. 1995). data warehousing team's interpersonal and
technical skills. The quality of the source systems
Technical implementation success. This con- was measured based on Wybo and Goodhue
struct was measured by asking about the techni- (1995) and suggestions from data warehousing
cal problems that arose and technical constraints experts. The items asked about the diversityof the
that occurred during the implementation of the data source platformsand the data standards that
warehouse. Poor team skills, source systems, they supported. Development technology items
and inadequate development tools have been were created to reflect the compatibilityof the data
found to affect the complexityof using technology, warehousing tools with existing technology
resulting in greater technical problems (Finlayand (Leonard-Bartonand Sinha 1993) and the team's
Mitchell 1994; Tait and Vessey 1988). Technical experience with the new tools (McFarlan 1981).
implementationsuccess was defined as the ability
to overcome these problems, and its questions
were worded with help from data warehousing Data Analysis
experts.
The research model was tested using Partial
Implementation factors. Management support Least Squares (PLS), a structuralmodeling tech-
was operationalized as the overall support nique that is well suited for highly complex
management showed for data warehousing and predictive models (Wold and Joreskog 1982).
their interest in user satisfaction (Yoon et al. PLS has several strengths that made it appro-
1995). Two items for assessing the project priate for this study, including its ability to handle
champion were developed to measure whether a formative constructs and its small sample size

requirements.7 The technique concurrently tests and/or having a high-level supporter from a
the psychometric properties of the scales used to functional area. The fact that an IS champion
measure the variables in the model (i.e., the exists does not necessarily ensure that a func-
measurement model) and analyzes the strengths tional area champion exists, and vice versa.
and directions of the relationships among the Although internalconsistency reliabilityis inappro-
variables (i.e., the structural model) (Lohmoller priate for formative measures, the item weights
1989). (For overviews of PLS, see Barclay et al. can be examined to identify the relevance of the
[1995] or Chin [1998]). items to the research model (see Table 2). The
formative constructs also were carefully reviewed
The test of the measurement model includes the to make sure that they performed as expected in
estimation of internal consistency and the the research model and that they were well
convergent and discriminant validity of the supported by past studies and data warehousing
instrument items; however, reflective and forma- resources.
tive measures should be treated differently.
Reflective items represent the effects of the Because this was a cross-sectional study that
construct under study (Bollen 1984) and, there- included data warehousing projects that had been
fore, "reflect" the construct of interest; eight operational for different periods of time, t-tests
constructs in this study are reflective. Table 2 lists were conducted to test for the potential influence
the reflective measures and their internal consis- of time on success. Means were compared for the
tency reliabilities, as defined by Fornell and perceived net benefits items for data warehouses
Larcker(1981). All reliabilitymeasures were well that had been operational for a year or less (N =
above the recommended level of .70, thus 44) versus data warehouses that had been
indicatingadequate internalconsistency (Nunnally operational for more than two years (N = 57). This
1978). These items also demonstrated satisfac- was done to confirm that data warehouses that
tory convergent and discriminantvalidity.Conver- were in place longer were not experiencing
gent validityis adequate when constructs have an different benefits from newly implemented ones.
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of at least .5 None of the null hypotheses (t-tests) could be
(Fornell and Larcker 1981). For satisfactory rejected at the .05 level, suggesting that time did
discriminant validity, the AVE from the construct not significantly influence the findings.
should be greater than the variance shared
between the construct and other constructs in the The test of the structural model includes esti-
model (Chin 1998). Table 3 lists the correlation mating the path coefficients, which indicate the
matrix,withcorrelations among constructs and the strengths of the relationships between the depen-
square root of AVE on the diagonal. Convergent dent and independent variables, and the R2value,
validity also is demonstrated when items load which represents the amount of variance ex-
highly (loading > .50) on their associated factors. plained by the independent variables. Together,
Table 2 shows that all of the reflective measures the R2 and the path coefficients (loadings and
have significant loadings that load much higher
significance) indicate how well the model is
than the suggested threshold.
performing. R2 indicates the predictive power of
the model, and the values should be interpretedin
Formative measures are items that cause the the same manner as R2 in a regression analysis.
construct under study (Bollen 1984). Thus, dif- The path coefficients should be significant and
ferent dimensions are not expected to correlate or
directionallyconsistent with expectations.
demonstrate interal consistency (Chin 1998). For
example, the presence of a champion is caused PLS Graph version 2.91 (Chin and Frye 1996)
by having a high-level supporter from the IS area was used for the analysis, and the bootstrap
resampling method (100 resamples) determined
the significance of the paths withinthe structural
7PLS requiresa minimumsample size that equals 10 model. The sample size of 111 exceeded the
times the greaterof (1) the numberof items comprising recommended minimum of 40, which was ade-
the most formativeconstructor (2) the numberof
quate for model testing. The results are presented
independentconstructsinfluencinga single dependent
construct. in Figure 2.

.0
Management Support: widespread sponsorship for a project across the management team.
REFLECTIVE
Fornell = .76 Mean Std. Dev. Loadingtt t,
Overall, management has encouraged the use of DW. 5.36 1.33 .91 2'
User satisfaction has been a major concern of 5.09 1.47 .59 4.
management.
Champion: a person withinthe organization who actively supports and promotes the project.
FORMATIVE
Fornell = .47 Mean Std. Dev. Weight t-
A high-level champion(s) for DW came from IS. 4.31 2.18 .94 5.
A high-level champion(s) for DW came from a functional 5.01 1.87 .87 5.
area(s).
Resources: the money, time, and people required to successfully implement a data warehouse.
FORMATIVE
Fornell = .87 Mean Std. Dev. Weight t-Stat
The DW project was adequately funded. 5.05 1.63 .14 0.50
The DW project had enough team members to get the work 4.54 1.80 .38 1.82*
done.
The DW project was given enough time for completion. 4.45 1.65 .60 3.77***
User Participation: when users are assigned project roles and tasks during implementation of the
data warehouse.
FORMATIVE
IS and users worked together as a team on the DW project. 5.66 1.60 .82 4.16***
Users were assigned full-timeto parts of the DW project. 4.35 2.20 .36 1.30
Users performed hands-on activities (e.g., data modeling) 4.34 2.00 .06 0.20
during the DW project.
Team Skills: the technical and interpersonal abilities of members of the data warehousing team.
FORMATIVE
Fornell = .90 Mean Std. Dev. Weight t-!
Members of the DW team (including consultants) had the 4.84 1.56 .62 3.8
righttechnical skills for DW.
Members of the DW team had good interpersonal skills. 5.19 1.39 .46 2.4

=I~~~~~~1ILI11~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~111
11111ISI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Source Systems: the quality (e.g., standardization, readiness, disparity)of the source systems that
provide data to the warehouse.
FORMATIVE
Common definitions for key data items were implemented 4.52 1.83 .63 2.82***
across the source systems
The data sources used for DW were diverse and disparate 2.38 1.71 .05 .21
applications/systems.R
A significant number of source systems had to be modified 4.56 1.93 .65 2.82***
to provide data for DW.R
Development Technology: effective hardware, software, methods, and programs to build the data
warehouse.
REFLECTIVE
Fornell = .83 Mean Std. Dev. Loading t-Stat
The DW technology that the project team used worked well 4.71 1.58 .79 7.04***
with technology already in place in the organization.
Appropriatetechnology was available to implement DW. 5.34 1.36 .89 17.8***
Organizational Implementation Success: implementation-level success in addressing organiza-
tional issues, such as change management, widespread support, and political resistance.
REFLECTIVE
Any political resistance to DW in the organization was dealt 4.61 1.44 .90 27.2***
with effectively.
Change in the organization created by DW was managed 4.20 1.5 .89 33.1***
effectively.
The DW had support from people throughout the 4.41 1.59 .86 27.4***
organization.
Project Implementation Success: implementation-level success in completing the project on time,
on budget, with the proper functionality.
REFLECTIVE
The DW project met its critical project deadlines (eg., rollout 4.60 1.85 .78 15.3***
deadline, initialdevelopment deadline).
The cost of the DW did not exceed its budgeted amount. 4.59 1.79 .79 17.7***
The DW project provided all of the DW functionalitythat it 4.83 1.51 .83 27.6***
was supposed to provide.

.I01 I=IRy ^Sina0"1;Iu
Technical Implementation Success: implementation-levelsuccess in overcomingtechnical problems.

REFLECTIVE
Many technical problems arose during the DW implemen- 4.51 1.71 .89 23.1***
tation.R
Numerous technical constraints were imposed on the DW 3.86 1.76 .94 53.1***
implementation.R
Data Quality: The quality of data that are provided by the data warehouse.
REFLECTIVE
Users (or applications) have more accurate data now from 4.96 1.43 .80 5.50***
DW than they had from source systems (e.g., transaction
systems).
DW provides more comprehensive data to users (or appli- 5.66 1.19 .67 4.84***
cations) than source systems provided.
DW provides more correct data to users (or applications) in 4.62 1.40 .70 4.23***
respect to source systems.
DW has improved the consistency of data to users (or 5.47 1.22 .82 8.80***
applications) over that of source systems.
System Quality: the flexibilityand integrationof the data warehouse.
REFLECTIVE
DW can flexibly adjust to new demands or conditions. 4.86 1.14 .77 19.1**
DW effectively integrates data from systems servicing 5.40 1.18 .73 12.0***
differentfunctional areas.
DW is versatile in addressing data needs as they arise. 4.97 1.07 .85 24.0***
DW effectively integrates data from a variety of data 5.47 1.08 .76 17.9***
sources withinthe organization.
Perceived Net Benefits: the benefits of the data warehouse as perceived by a data supplier.
REFLECTIVE
DW has changed my job significantly. 5.25 1.46 .75 11.2***
DW has reduced the time it takes to support decision 5.68 1.06 .91 60.1**
making to the end-user community.
DW has reduced the effort it takes to support decision 5.44 1.15 .86 29.0***
making to the end-user community.
tThevariableswere measuredusingseven-pointLikert-type scales rangingfromstronglydisagreeto stronglyagree.
ttLoadingshave been providedforreflectivemeasures. They representthe extentto whichthe variablesare related
to the underlyingconstruct.Weightshave been providedforformativemeasures. Theyrepresentthe extentto which
the variablesare relatedto the underlying
construct.
RThisitemwas reversecoded.
* Indicatesthatthe itemis significantat the p < .05 level.
** Indicatesthatthe itemis significantat the p < .01 level.
*** Indicatesthatthe itemis significantat the p < .001 level.

MANS CHSM RESO USER SKIL SOUR DEVT ORGS PRO
o MANS .79
CHAM 0.423 .55
?I ~RESO 0.411 0.285 .84
' ~USER 0.463 0.289 0.162 .76
SKIL 0.357 0.218 0.350 0.224 .90
. SOUR 0.096 0.042 0.136 0.011 0.236 .64
DEVT 0.293 0.235 0.385 0.122 0.525 0.323 .84
a ORGS 0.604 0.348 0.435 0.353 0.254 0.093 0.273 .88
0.322 0.304 0.465 0.336 0.555 0.222 0.419 0.311 .80
, ~ PROS
TECS 0.062 0.121 0.249 0.090 0.323 0.291 0.403 0.127 0.342
DATA 0.099 0.091 0.128 0.052 0.092 0.019 0.109 0.069 0.025
SYST 0.283 0.139 0.341 0.005 0.262 0.134 0.287 0.298 0.271
PNB 0.180 0.012 0.290 0.032 0.292 0.116 0.191 0.117 0.209
Diagonal elements are the square root of Average Variance Extracted. These values should exceed
discriminantvalidity.
Legend:
MANS = Management Support
CHAM = Champion
RESO = Resources
USER = User Participation
SKIL = Team Skills
SOUR = Source Systems
DEVT = Development Technology
ORGS = Organizational Implementation Success
PROS = Project Implementation Success
TECS = Technical Implementation Success
DATA = Data Quality
SYST = System Quality
PNB = Perceived Net Benefits

Implementation Factors Implementation Success System Success

Management Support
Champion
Resources
User Participation
Team Skills
Source Systems
Development
Technology
* Indicatesthatthe itemis significantat the p < .05 level.

** Indicates that the item is significant at the p < .01 level.
*** Indicatesthatthe itemis significantat the p < .001 level.
S - SO-erlm
li
As hypothesized, perceived net benefits was The constructs explained 13% of the variance
associated withsystem qualityand data quality, containedin system quality.
whichtogetherexplained37%of the dependent
construct's variance. Both paths had positive Managementsupportand resources contributed
effects, with path coefficientsof .549 and .142, to organizationalimplementationsuccess, sup-
respectively. Hypotheses 1a and lb were portinghypotheses 5 and 7a. These factors had
supported. pathcoefficientsof .440 and .219, and alongwith
championand user participation, they explained
Againstexpectations,organizational, project,and 42%of the variance.Consistentwithhypotheses
technicalimplementationsuccess had no effect and
7b, 8b, and 9b, resources,user participation,
on data quality, as shown by the three non- team skillscontributedto projectimplementation
significantpaths.Hypotheses2a, 3a, and4a were success, withpathcoefficientsof .271, .177, and
not supported.The R2value for data qualitywas .401, respectively. When combined with the
.016, suggesting thatfactorsnot includedin this championconstruct,they explained44% of the
model are more importantin explaining the varianceforthe dependentconstruct.As hypothe-
variancefordataquality.Implementation success sized in hypotheses 10 and 11, source systems
with organizationaland projectissues did have and developmenttechnologycontributedto tech-
significanteffects on system quality(paths= .235 nicalimplementation success, andtheyalongwith
and .177). Hypotheses2b and3b weresupported. teamskillsexplained21%of the factor'svariance.

Hla A high level of data quality will be associated with a high level of perceived net Supported
benefits.
Hlb A high level of system quality will be associated with a high level of perceived Supported
net benefits.
H2a A high level of organizational implementation success is associated with a high Not
level of data quality. Supported
H2b A high level of organizational implementation success is associated with a high Supported
level of system quality.
H3a A high level of project implementation success is associated with a high level of Not
data quality. Supported
H3b A high level of project implementation success is associated with a high level of Supported
system quality.
H4a A high level of technical implementation success is associated with a high level Not
of data quality. Supported
H4b A high level of technical implementation success is associated with a high level Not
of system quality. Supported
H5 A high level of management support is associated with a high level of Supported
organizational implementation success.
H6a A strong champion presence is associated with a high level of organizational Not
implementation success. Supported
H6b A strong champion presence is associated with a high level of project Not
implementation success. Supported
H7a A high level of resources is associated with a high level of organizational Supported
implementation success.
H7b A high level of resources is associated with a high level of project Supported
H8a A high level of user participationis associated with organizational Supported
H8b A high level of user participationis associated with project implementation Supported
success.
H9a A high level of team skills is associated with project implementation success. Supported
H9b A high level of team skills is associated with technical implementation success. Not
Supported
H10 High-qualitysource systems are associated with technical implementation Supported
success.
H11 Better development technology is associated with technical implementation Supported
success.

The development technology had the greatest This study furthers the knowledge of IT success
impact, with a path coefficient of .276, followed by by supporting the use of multiple success dimen-
the source systems with a path of .169. See sions and confirming other research findings that
Table 4 for a summary of the hypothesis test show the success dimensions (e.g., system
results.8 quality,data quality,and perceived net benefits) to
be interrelated. System qualityand data qualitydo
affect perceived net benefits in the context of data
warehousing. More work is needed, however, to
Discussion and Implications examine exactly how the dimensions of success
interrelate. Theoretically, we need to understand
This study examined the factors that affect data why relationships exist, and practically,we need to
warehousing success by using a research model explore how success measures can be applied
that was developed from the IT implementation most effectively. We also need to explore the role
and data warehousing literature, an exploratory of other success dimensions, such as extent of
survey, and structuredinterviews. Implementation implementation or use, in data warehousing.
success factors were used to help understand
why the implementation factors affected the
system success and ultimate success from the
use of the system. The following sections present Data Quality and System Quality in a
key observations regarding the major pieces of Data Warehouse Context
the model.
Factors not included in the research model affect
the data quality of the data warehouse. Further
Perceived Net Benefits research is needed to understand warehouse data
quality and the factors that affect it. For example,
Data quality and system quality had significant does poor data quality in source systems under-
relationships with perceived net benefits and mine the ability to provide high-quality data in a
explained a good portion of the construct's data warehouse? What role does the extraction,
variance. These results show that the quality of cleansing, and transformation process play in
the data warehouse and the data that it provides creating high-quality data? Do the data model
are associated with the net benefits as perceived and data storage format have any influence on the
by the organization's data suppliers. In other perception of the data's quality? Or, can a data
words, a warehouse with good data quality and warehouse even exist without data quality? The
system quality improves the way data is provided companies in this sample had at least somewhat
to decision-support applications and decision successful warehouse implementations, and it
makers. This supports the data warehousing may be possible that data quality is required
literaturethat emphasizes that data warehouses before a warehouse project can be completed.
must contain high-qualitydata, flexibly respond to Thus, does a relationshipbetween implementation
users' requests for data, and integrate data in the success and data quality not exist because
ways that are required by users, all in order to organizations have to achieve an acceptable level
create value for the organization. of qualityto roll out the warehouse to their users?
There are many questions regarding data quality
that remain unanswered.
8Because there is no generic modelfor IT implemen-
tation,two other alternativeresearch models for data
warehousingsuccess were considered:the original In data warehousing, system quality depends on
model withoutimplementationsuccess factors and a a number of factors, such as the selection of
modelwithdirectrelationships betweentheseven imple-
mentationfactors and perceived net benefits. The subject areas and data for the data store, the
primaryresearch model was found to provide the underlying data model that was created, and the
greatest predictivepowerbased on results fromcon- warehouse architecture that was selected. Not all
firmatoryfactoranalyses. Interestedreaderscan obtain
results for the alternativemodels by contactingthe organizations have the vision and knowledge to
authorsdirectly. properly include these considerations in the
MIS Quarterly Vol. 25 No. 1/March2001 35

design of their warehouses, which can lead to a organizational factors. A data warehouse is an
future lack of flexibilityand integrationof the data. expensive, enterprise-wide endeavor with signi-
The findings of this study show that system quality ficant organizational impacts. Data warehousing
was associated with implementation success with creates changes that resonate throughout the
organizational and project issues. The reasons for entire organization, and it demands broad-based
these relationships are clear when one takes into and lasting support. It requires the sponsorship
account how much easier it is for a team to create and support of senior management, managers in
a flexible and integrated data warehouse when the business units, and IT. There must be a
organizational barriers are removed and a well- substantial initial and ongoing commitment of
managed team is responsible for meeting the financial and human resources. This commitment
demands of the project. must be made while recognizing that the greatest
benefits fromdata warehousing usually occur later
Technical implementation success, however, was rather than immediately. Together, all three
not significantly related to system quality. This organizational factors were found to be significant
finding may be because successful, operational in the research model, and together they provide
data warehouses (as were the ones included in organizations with effective mechanisms for
the study) have overcome the technical problems increasing widespread support for warehousing,
that were encountered. If they had not overcome addressing politics, and ensuring that the
the most serious problems, their warehouses necessary resources are provided.
would not be operational. In order to understand
the relationship between system quality and Interestingly,a champion for warehousing did not
technical implementation success, failed ware- influence the project's ability to address organi-
housing projects need to be studied. zational issues. Unlike decision support applica-
tions that may benefit from having a single
It should be noted that the R squared value for proponent, the large scope and far-reaching
system quality (.128) suggests that like data impact of data warehousing appears to require
quality, other factors not included in the research broad-based support from multiple sources. A
model also affect the quality of the data ware- single warehouse champion may abandon the
house. Thus, the integration and flexibilityof the project at the first sign of trouble (Watson et al.
infrastructure that data warehousing creates is 1999) and has limited influence and under-
also influenced by factors other than those that standing outside his or her own area of the
were considered. For example, how important is organization. Likewise, grass-roots support may
the IT infrastructure already in place in the not be sufficient for implementation success.
organization? If an organization does not have Although studies have found that user parti-
internal data warehousing expertise, how impor- cipation can help manage user expectations, this
tant is it to bring in external consultants? How do may not be sufficient for the acceptance of a
data planning and management practices warehouse within the organization. All of these
influence the system quality for data ware- findings highlight some of the challenges that
housing? These questions still need to be managers should expect when working with a
addressed. warehouse initiative. An organization that has
successfully rolled out applications in the past
cannot assume that a data warehouse can be
introduced with the same levels of sponsorship
ImplementationFactors for
Data Warehousing and resources.
Management support, a champion, and resources According to the findings, having resources,
are key ingredients to supporting the change appropriate people on the project team, and user
management process in organizations. This participationhave positive effects on the project's
finding is consistent with other IT implementation outcome. Unfortunately, companies sometimes
studies that substantiate the value of these experience problems in these areas. Warehousing
36 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March2001

demands a large financial investment that can be implementation. Data warehousing requires
difficult to sell to management without having specialized software. The projectteam must learn
guaranteed up-front tangible benefits. Currently, how to use this software and how to fit it into the
the demand for experienced warehousing person- existing technical environment.
nel exceeds the supply. Many companies have
littlechoice but to staff from within,independent of Although the source systems and development
whether their staff have appropriate experience. tools are related to the technical problems that
As a result, the data warehousing staff may have occur duringthe development of a warehouse, the
little or no experience in how to plan for and technical problems do not have long-lasting
manage a project of this type. User participation effects that ultimately affect the benefits from
also can be challenging because the needs of operational warehouses. Likely,projectteams are
many, diverse internal groups (e.g., marketing, ultimately able to address technical problems
production) must be understood and communi- effectively, much more so than they are able to
cated to the projectteam. Muchdata warehousing overcome organizational and project issues. Also,
literature advocates an incremental approach as was mentioned earlier, this sample includes
when buildinga warehouse, which means building operational warehouses and does not contain
a warehouse in three- to six-month increments warehouses that failed. This study does not
that each deliver substantial value to the business. suggest that technical problems in data ware-
In this way, project teams can work toward goals housing are easy to overcome.
that are more manageable in size, users can
participate in only relevant parts of the project,
and management can be satisfied that the project
is delivering value. If management requires post- Conclusions
implementation assessments of its investments,
the value that is created during beginning incre- There are few academic empirical studies on data
ments can be used as a foundation for a rigorous warehousing. A valuable contributionof this study
future cost-benefit analysis. is the extension of the IS implementation literature
through the investigation of data warehousing
Technical factors also affect data warehousing implementation factors. Both the IS implemen-
implementations. The practitionerliterature con- tation and data warehousing areas will benefit
tains considerable debate over the merits of from the validation of current understandings and
beginning a decision-support infrastructurewithan the development of new ideas.
enterprise-wide data warehouse versus a smaller-
scale data mart. The data warehouse proponents The findings suggest that most of the traditional
argue that data marts can quickly grow into an factors from the implementation literature (e.g.,
unintegrated collection of information silos that management support, resources) also affect the
counter the underlying purpose of data ware- success of a data warehouse, thus providing
housing. Data mart supporters explain that data furtherevidence of the existence of a common set
warehouses are more expensive and difficultto of IT implementation factors. However, the study
construct in a reasonable amount of time. also shows that implementation success models
Moreover, a data mart provides a proof of cannot be used to investigate data warehousing
concept. This study indicates that more technical without some modification. For example, other
problems are related to warehouses that pullfrom factors were needed to explain the data quality
diverse, unstandardizedsources, undoubtablydue and system quality for the data warehouse.
to the increased technical complexity. Organi-
zations involved in building enterprise-wide data Another contribution of this study is the way in
warehouses should prepare for technical which implementation success factors can be
obstacles that must be overcome. The develop- grouped together into organizational, project, and
ment technology that is used also appears to technical success to more clearly communicate
affect the technical problems that may arise during the kinds of effects implementation factors can

have. This approach allowed us to tie implemen- References

tation factors to system success and the benefits
from the ultimate use of a system. The empirical Amason, A. C. "Distinguishing the Effects of
evidence supported the idea that these connec- Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Stra-
tions are importantto understand. tegic Decision Making:Resolving a Paradox for
Top Management Teams," Academy of
As noted previously, there has been littleresearch Management Journal(39:1), 1996, pp. 123-148.
on the success factors associated with infra- Ancona, D. G., and Caldwell, D. F. "Bridgingthe
structure projects. Parr et al. (1999) investigated Boundary," Administrative Science Quarterly
(37:4), 1992, pp. 634-666.
the success factors associated with ERP
Banker, R. D., and Kauffman, R. J. "Reuse and
implementations, which can be viewed as Productivityin Integrated Computer-AidedSoft-
infrastructure investments. Their list of success ware,"MIS Quarterly(15:3), 1991, pp. 375-402.
factors can be organized into three overarching Barclay, D., Higgins, C., and Thompson, R. "The
implementation factors-organizational, project, Partial Least Squares Approach to Causal
and technical success-which is the same Modeling, Personal Computing Adoption and
used in this study. While the specific Use as an Illustration," Technology Studies
grouping
factors in the groups varysomewhat between data (2:2), 1995, pp. 285-309.
Barki, H., and Hartwick,J. "MeasuringUser Par-
warehousing and ERP, it appears that there is a ticipation,User Involvement,and User Attitude,"
macro-level model for understanding the success MIS Quarterly(18:1), 1994, pp. 59-82.
factors associated withinfrastructureprojects that Barquin, R. C., and Edelstein, H. Planning and
can be used in future research. It is likely that the Designing the Data Warehouse, Prentice Hall,
organizational factors are the most generic (e.g., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
management support)to implementation success. Beath, C. M. "Supportingthe InformationTechno-
logy Champion,"MISQuarterly(15:3), 1991, pp.
Many of the project management success factors
355-371.
also are probably the same. The greatest dif-
Beitler, S. S., and Leary, R. "Sears' EPIC Trans-
ferences are most likelywiththe technical success formation: Converting from MainframeLegacy
factors, because the technical issues vary withthe Systems to On-Line Analytical Processing
nature of the infrastructureproject. (OLAP),"Journal of Data Warehousing (2:2),
1997, pp. 5-16.
More research is required to further develop our Bergeron, F., and Raymond, L. "ManagingEDI
for Competitive Advantage: A Longitudinal
understanding of infrastructureand determine the
differences between infrastructure and applica- Study," Information& Management (31), 1997,
pp. 319-333.
tion-level IT phenomenon. This study presents
Bischoff, J., and Alexander, T. Data Warehouse:
data warehousing as a viable way of investigating PracticalAdvice fromthe Experts, Prentice Hall,
such issues. This study also challenges the notion Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
of applying IT implementation knowledge to an Bollen, K.A. "MultipleIndicators:InternalConsis-
infrastructure context without giving careful tency or No Necessary Relationship?" Quality
thought to how changes should be made. and Quantity(18), 1984, pp. 377-385.
Brooks, F. P. The MythicalMan-month: Essays
on Software Engineering, Addison Wesley,
Reading, MA, 1975.
Acknowledgments Chau, P. Y., and Tam, K. Y. "Factors Affecting
the Adoption of Open Systems: An Exploratory
We would like to thank Dale Goodhue, Peter Study,"MIS Quarterly(21:1), 1997, pp. 1-24.
Todd, Wynne Chin, and Izak Benbasat for their Chin, W. W. "The Partial Least Squares Ap-
helpful comments on this paper. We also are proach to Structural Equation Modeling,"in G.
grateful to Ron Weber, Joe Valacich, and the A. Marcoulides (ed.), Modern Methods for
reviewers whose comments have improved the Business Research,), Lawrence Erlbaum
quality of the paper substantially. Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1998, pp. 295-336.

Chin, W. W., and Frye, T. A. PLS Graph, version Variables and Measurement Error,"Journal of
2.91.03.04, Department of Decision and MarketingResearch (18), 1981, pp. 39-50.
Information Systems, University of Houston, Fox, R. J., Crask, M. R., and Kim,J. "MailSurvey
1996. Response Rate: A Meta-Analysis of Selected
Constantine, L. L. "WorkOrganizations: Para- Techniques for Inducing Response," Public
digms for Project Management and Organi- Opinion Quarterly(52), 1988, pp. 467-491.
zation," Communications of the ACM (36:10), Fraser, S. G., and Salter, G. "AMotivationalView
1993, pp. 35-42. of InformationSystems Success: A Reinterpre-
Converse, J. M., and Presser, S. Survey Ques- tation of DeLone and McLean's Model,"working
tions: Handcrafting the Standardized Ques- paper, Department of Accounting and Finance,
tionnaire, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, The Universityof Melbourne, Australia, 1995.
CA, 1986. Garrity, E. J., and Sanders, G. L. Information
Curtis, M. B., and Joshi, K. "Lessons Learned Success Measurement, Idea Group Publishing,
fromthe Implementationof a Data Warehouse," Hershey, PA, 1998.
Journal of Data Warehousing (3:2), 1998, pp. Goodhue, D. L., Quillard,J. A., and Rockart, J. F.
12-18. "Managingthe Data Resource: A Contingency
Davis, F. "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease Perspective," MIS Quarterly (12:3), 1988, pp.
of Use, and User Acceptance of Information 373-392.
Technology," MIS Quarterly (13:3), 1989, pp. Goodhue, D. L., Wybo, M. D., and Kirsch, L. J.
319-339. "The Impact of Data Integration on the Costs
DeLone, W. H., and McLean, E. R. "Information and Benefits of Information Systems," MIS
Systems Success: The Quest for the Depen- Quarterly(16:3), 1992, pp. 293-311.
dent Variable,"InformationSystems Research Graham, S. The Foundations of Wisdom: A Study
(3:1), 1992, pp. 60-95. of the Financial Impact of Data Warehousing,
Devlin, B. Data Warehouse: FromArchitectureto InternationalData Corporation, Toronto, 1996.
Implementation, Addison Wesley Longman, Gray, P., and Watson, H. J. Decision Support in
Reading, MA, 1997. the Data Warehouse, Prentice Hall, Upper
Dillman, D. A. Mailand Telephone Surveys: The Saddle River, 1998.
Total Design Method, Wiley, New York, 1978. Grim, R., and Thorton, P. "A Customer for Life:
Duncan, N. B. "CapturingFlexibilityof Information The WarehouseMCIApproach,"Journal of Data
Technology Infrastructure:A Study of Resource Warehousing (2:1), 1997, pp. 73-79.
Characteristics and Their Measure," Journal of Guimares, T., Igbaria,M., and Lu, M. "The Deter-
Management InformationSystems (12:2), 1995, minants of DSS Success: An Integrated Model,"
pp. 37-57. Decision Sciences (23), 1992, pp. 409-430.
Eckerson, W. W. "Post-Chasm Warehousing," Haley, B. J., Watson, H. J., and Goodhue, D. L.
Journal of Data Warehousing (3:3), 1998, pp. "The Benefits of Data Warehousing at Whirl-
38-45. pool,"Annals of Cases on InformationTechno-
Eckerson, W. W. Evolutionof Data Warehousing: logy Applications and Management in Organi-
The Trend TowardAnalyticalApplications, The zations (1:1), 1999, pp. 14-25.
Patricia Seybold Group, April28, 1999, pp. 1-8. Hartwick,J., and Barki,H. "Explainingthe Role of
Ein-Dor, P., and Segev, E. "OrganizationalCon- User Participationin InformationSystem Use,"
text and the Success of Management Infor- Management Science (40:4), 1994, pp. 440-
mation Systems," Management Science (24:10), 465.
1978, pp. 1064-1077. Howell, J. M., and Higgins, C. A. "Champions of
Finlay, P. N., and Mitchell,A. C. "Perceptions of Technological Innovations," Administrative
the Benefits from the Introductionof CASE: An Science Quarterly(35:2), 1990, pp. 317-341.
Empirical Study," MIS Quarterly (18:4), 1994, Hufnagel, E. M., and Conca, C. "User Response
pp. 353-371. Data: The Potential for Errors and Biases,"
Fornell, C., and Larcker,D. F. "EvaluatingStruc- InformationSystems Research (5:1), 1994, pp.
tural Equation Models with Unobservable 48-73.

Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., and Cavaye, McFarlan, F. W. "Portfolio Approach to Infor-
A. L. "Personal ComputingAcceptance Factors mation Systems," Harvard Business Review
in Small Firms: A Structural Equation Model," (59:5), 1981, pp. 142-159.
MIS Quarterly(21:3), 1997, pp. 279-302. Melone, N. "A Theoretical Assessment of the
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., and Chervany, N. User-Satisfaction Construct in Information
L. "InformationTechnology Adoption Across Systems Research," Management Science
Time: Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre- (36:1), 1990, pp. 76-91.
Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs," MIS METAGroup. "IndustryOverview:New Insights in
Quarterly(23:2), 1999, pp. 183-213. Data Warehousing Solutions," Information
Kelly, S. Data Warehousing in Action, John Wiley Week, 1996, pp. 1-27HP.
& Sons, Chichester, 1997. Moore, G., and Benbasat, I. "Development of an
Kraemer, K. L., Danzinger, J. N., Dunkle, D. E., Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of
and King, J. L. The Usefulness of Computer-
Adopting and Information Technology Inno-
Based Information to Public Managers," MIS vation," Information Systems Research (2:3),
Quarterly(17:2), 1993, pp. 129-148. 1991, pp. 192-222.
Lawrence, M., and Low, G. "ExploringIndividual Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric Theory, McGraw-
User Satisfaction Within User-Led Develop-
Hill,New York, 1978.
ment,"MISQuarterly(17:2), 1993, pp. 195-208.
Parr,A., Shanks, G., and Darke, P. "Identification
Leonard-Barton,D., and Sinha, D. K. "Developer- of Necessary Factors for Successful Imple-
User Interactionand User Satisfaction in Inter-
mentation of ERP Systems," in New Information
nal Technology Transfer,"Academy of Manage-
Technologies in Organizational Process, O. L.
ment Journal (36:5), 1993, pp. 1125-1139.
Ngwenyama, L. D. Introna,M. D. Myers, and J.
Lewin, K. Field Theory in Social Science:
I. DeCross (eds.), KluwerAcademic Publishers,
Selected Theoretical Papers, Harper and
Boston, 1999, pp. 99-119.
Brothers, New York, 1951.
Pitt, L., Watson, R. T., and Kavan, C. B. "Service
Lohmoller, J.-B. "Predictive vs. Structural
Quality: A Measure of Information Systems
Modeling: PLS vs. ML,"in Latent VariablePath
Effectiveness," MIS Quarterly(19:2), 1995, pp.
Modeling with Partial Least Squares, Physica-
173-185.
Verlag, Heidelberg, 1989, pp. 212-55.
Lucas, H. C. Implementation: The Key to Suc- Prescott, M. B., and Conger, S. A. "Information
cessful InformationSystems, McGraw-Hill,New Technology Innovations: A Classification by IT
York, 1981. Locus of Impactand Research Approach,"Data
Base (26: 2, 3), 1995, pp. 20-40.
Lyon, J. "Customer Data Quality: Building the
Foundation for a One-to-One Customer Rela- Ragowsky, A., Ahituv, N., and Neumann, S.
tionship," Journal of Data Warehousing, (3:2), "Identifyingthe Value and Importance of an
1998, pp. 38-47. Information System Application," Information
Maish, A. M. "AUser's Behavior Toward His MIS," and Management (31), 1996, pp. 89-102.
MIS Quarterly(3:1), 1979, pp. 39-52. Rainer, R. K., and Watson, H. J. "The Keys to
Markus, M. L. "Power, Politics, and MIS Imple- Executive InformationSystems Success," Jour-
mentation,"Communicationsof the ACM(26:6), nal of Management InformationSystems (12:2),
1983, pp. 430-444. 1995, pp. 83-98.
Markus, M. L., and Robey, D. "InformationTech- Reich, B. H., and Benbasat, I. "AnEmpiricalIn-
nology and Organizational Change: Causal vestigation of Factors Influencing the Success
Structure in Theory and Research," Manage- of Customer-Oriented Strategic Systems," Infor-
ment Science (34:5), 1988, pp. 583-598. mation Systems Research (1:3), 1990, pp. 325-
Massetti, B., and Zmud, R. W. "Measuring the 347.
Extent of EDI Usage in Complex Organizations: Rist, R. "Challenges Faced by the Data Ware-
Strategies and Illustrative Examples," MIS housing Pioneers," Journal of Data Ware-
Quarterly,(20:3), 1996, pp. 331-345. housing (2:1), 1997, pp. 63-72.
McConnell, S. Rapid Development Microsoft Ross, J. W., C. M. Beath, and Goodhue, D. L.
Press, Redmond, WA, 1996. "Develop Long-TermCompetitiveness Through

ITAssets," Sloan Management Review (38:1), Watson, H. J., Haines, M., and Loiacono, E. T.
1996, pp. 31-42. "The Approval of Data Warehousing Projects:
Sakaguchi, T., and Frolick,M. N. "AReview of the Findings from Ten Case Studies," Journal of
Data Warehousing Literature,"Journal of Data Data Warehousing (3:3), 1998, pp. 29-37.
Warehousing (2:1), 1997, pp. 34-54. Watson, H. J., and Haley, B. J. "Data Ware-
Seddon, P. "ARespecification and Extension of housing: A Framework and Survey of Current
the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success," Practices," Journal of Data Warehousing (2:1),
InformationSystems Research (8:3), 1997, pp. 1997, pp. 10-17.
240-253. Wetherbe, J. C. "Executive InformationRequire-
Seddon, P. B., and Kiew, M-Y. "APartialTest and ments: Getting It Right," MIS Quarterly(15:1),
Development of the DeLong and McLeanModel 1991, pp. 51-66.
of IS Success," in Proceedings of the Inter- Wold, H., and Joreskog, K. Systems Under
national Conference on InformationSystems, J. IndirectObservation: Causality, Structure, Pre-
I. DeGross, S. L. Huff, and M. C. Munro diction, Volume 2, North-Holland,Amsterdam,
(eds.), Vancouver, Canada, 1994, pp.99-110. 1982.
Seddon, P., Staples, S., and Patnayakuni, R. Wybo, M. D., and Goodhue, D. L. "Using Interde-
"Dimensions of InformationSystems Success,"
pendence as a Predictor of Data Standards:
Communications of the AIS (2:20), 1999.
Theoretical and Measurement Issues," Informa-
Shanks, G., and Darke, P. "A Framework for
tion &Management (29:6), 1995, pp. 317-330.
Understanding Data Quality,"Journal of Data
Yoon, Y., Guimares, T., and O'Neal, Q. "Exploring
Warehousing, (3:3), 1998, pp. 46-51.
Steinbart, P. J., and Nath, R. "Problems and the Factors Associated with Expert Systems
Issues in the Management of InternationalData Success," MIS Quarterly (19:1), 1995, pp. 83-
CommunicationsNetworks: The Experiences of 106.
American Companies," MIS Quarterly (16:1),
1992, pp. 55-76.
Tait, P., and Vessey, I. "The Effect of User
Involvement on System Success: A Contin- About the Authors
gency Approach,"MIS Quarterly(12:1), 1988,
pp. 91-108. Barbara H. Wixom is an assistant professor of
Vandenbosch, B., and Huff,S. L. "Searching and Commerce at the University of Virginia'sMclntire
Scanning: How Executives Obtain Information School of Commerce. She received her Ph.D. in
from Executive Information Systems," MIS MIS from the University of Georgia. Dr. Wixom
Quarterly(21:1), 1997, pp. 81-107. was made a Fellow of The Data Warehousing
Vatanasombut, B., and Gray, P. "Factors for Institute for her research in data warehousing.
Success in Data Warehousing: What the
She has published in journals that include MIS
Literature Tells Us," Journal of Data Ware-
housing (4:3), 1999, pp. 25-33. Quarterly, InformationSystems Research, Com-
munications of the ACM, and Journal of Data
Waldrop, J. H. "ProjectManagement: Have We
Applied All That We Know?" Information & Warehousing. She has presented her work at
Management (7:1), 1984, pp. 13-20. national and international conferences.
Wand, Y., and Wang, R. Y. "AnchoringData Qua-
lity Dimensions in Ontological Foundations," Hugh J. Watson is professor of MIS and holds
Communications of the ACM (39:11), 1996, pp. the C. Herman and Mary VirginiaTerry Chair of
86-95. Business Administration in the Terry College of
Wang, R. Y., and Strong, D. M. "Beyond Business at the University of Georgia. He spe-
Accuracy: What Data Quality Means to Data cializes in the design of information systems to
Consumers," Journal of Management Infor- support decision making. Dr. Watson is the
mation Systems (12:4), 1996, pp. 5-34. author of over 100 articles and 22 books, including
Watson, H. J., Gerard, J. G., Gonzalez, L. E., Decision Support in the Data Warehouse (Pren-
Haywood, M. E., and Fenton, D. "Data Ware- tice-Hall, 1998). He is the Senior Editor of the
housing Failures: Case Studies and Findings," Journal of Data Warehousing and is a Fellow of
Journal of Data Warehousing (4:1), 1999, pp.
44-55. The Data Warehousing Institute.


Wixom 2001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wixom 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Empirical Investigation of the Factors Affecting Data Warehousing Success

Author(s): Barbara H. Wixom and Hugh J. Watson

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

By: Barbara H. Wixom Squares analysis of the data identified significant

MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1, pp. 17-41/March2001 17

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

18 MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

The Research Model Information

With system quality, the focus is on the system

MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001 19

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

Implementation Factors Implementation Success System Success

for decision-supportapplications(Vandenbosch extractdata and runqueries for users as in the

20 MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

Organizational Implementation Success H2a: A high level of organizational imple-

MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 21

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

22 MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

MIS Quarterly Vol. 25 No. 1/March2001 23

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

24 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

Development Technology resulted in some restructuringand refinement of

MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 25

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

26 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March2001

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 27

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

28 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001 29

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

30 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

.I01 I=IRy ^Sina0"1;Iu

Technical Implementation Success: implementation-levelsuccess in overcomingtechnical problems.

MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 31

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

Implementation Factors Implementation Success System Success

* Indicatesthatthe itemis significantat the p < .05 level.

MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001 33

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

34 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

MIS Quarterly Vol. 25 No. 1/March2001 35

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

36 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March2001

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001 37

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

have. This approach allowed us to tie implemen- References

38 MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001 39

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM

40 MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:50 PM