TELKOM
NIKA
, Vol.13, No
.2, June 20
15
, pp. 686 ~ 6
9
3
ISSN: 1693-6
930,
accredited
A
by DIKTI, De
cree No: 58/DIK
T
I/Kep/2013
DOI
:
10.12928/TELKOMNIKA.v13i2.1323
686
Re
cei
v
ed
De
cem
ber 1
2
, 2014; Re
vi
sed
March 20, 20
15; Accepted
April 13, 201
5
Influences of the Input Factors towards the Success of
an Information System Project
A’ang Subiy
akto*
1
, Ab
d. Rahm
an
Ahl
a
n
2
, Mira Karti
w
i
3
, Husni Teja Sukmana
4
1,4
Sy
ar
if Hida
y
atull
ah State Islamic Un
iversit
y
Jak
a
rta
Jl. Ir. H, Juand
a No. 95, 15
41
2,
T
angera
ng, I
ndo
nesi
a
Ph./F
ax: +
6
2
21 7
4
0
192
5/+
622
1 74
933
15
2,3
Internatio
nal
Islamic Univ
ersit
y
Mal
a
ysi
a
Jl. Gombak, 50
728, Kua
l
a L
u
m
pur, Mala
ys
ia
. Ph./F
ax: +
60 361
96
400
0 /+
60 361
96
405
3
*Corres
p
o
ndi
n
g
author, e-ma
i
l
: aang
_su
b
i
y
a
k
to@ui
n
jkt.ac.i
d
1
, arahman
@i
ium.ed
u.m
y
2
,
mira@iium.edu.m
y
3
, husnite
ja
@uin
jkt.ac.id
4
A
b
st
r
a
ct
This study trie
d
out three
in
put
factors w
h
ich theor
etical
ly affect the succes
s
of infor
m
ati
o
n syste
m
(IS) project. T
hese factors w
e
re a
dopte
d
from th
e
McL
e
o
d
an
d MacD
on
ell
’
s (M&M
’
s) proj
ect framew
ork
and t
hen
exa
m
i
n
e
d
usi
n
g
s
u
rvey tow
a
rd
the int
e
rna
l
pr
oject stak
eho
l
der i
n
a
sa
mple
d i
n
stitution
.
A
stratified sa
mp
l
i
ng w
a
s carrie
d
out bas
ed o
n
the proj
ect e
x
peri
ence ow
n
e
rshi
p and th
e
n
sent both o
n
l
i
ne
and
p
aper-
bas
ed
qu
estion
na
i
r
es to
13
0 s
e
le
cted res
p
o
nde
nts. A n
u
m
ber
of 62
(4
8%)
val
i
d r
e
spo
n
ses
w
e
r
e
ana
lysed
usi
n
g a
parti
al
l
east sq
uares-
s
tructural
equ
ation
mod
e
ll
in
g (PL
S
-SE
M) softw
are. T
h
e
signific
anc
es o
f
path coeffici
ents,
the acce
ptances
of hypothes
es, t
he pred
ictors rele
vances, a
nd t
h
e
mo
der
ate coef
ficient det
ermi
natio
n
of the
IS project
’
s s
u
ccess vari
abl
e prese
n
t the
propos
ed
mo
del
appr
oval for th
e subse
q
u
ent studies.
Ke
y
w
ords
: IS Project, M&M
’
s
Project F
r
ame
w
ork, Input
F
a
ctors, Project Stakeho
ld
ers, PLS-SEM
1. Introduc
tion
Sys
t
ematic
ally, IS projec
t is
a mic
r
o env
ironm
ent of t
he bus
i
nes
s
s
y
s
t
em [1],[2]. Similar
to this
syste
m
atic-enviro
n
m
ental d
e
scription, [3
] al
so el
uci
date
d
their
co
ncept within
fo
ur
environ
menta
l
levels of a
proj
ect,
e.g., pro
c
e
s
s, d
e
liverabl
e, b
u
sin
e
ss, a
n
d
co
ntext levels.
Acco
rdi
ngly, [4] propo
se
d
their p
r
oje
c
t
frame
w
ork,
based o
n
th
eir meta
-an
a
l
y
sis
study a
bout
influen
cing fa
ctors of the software
syste
m
proj
e
c
t outcome
s du
ring
1996-200
6. Furthe
rmo
r
e, [5]
adopte
d
and
combi
ned tha
t
framewo
r
k
with the DeL
one and &M
cLean’
s su
cce
ss mo
del [6] to
rep
r
e
s
ent the
processio
nal
and cau
s
al
model of an
IS project in term of its inp
u
t-proses-out
put
(IPO) logic
[7],[8].
Thes
e literatu
res
desc
ribed that several res
e
arc
h
es
[9]-[10] foc
u
s
ed on t
he
influen
ce
s of the environ
ment co
ntexts toward
s th
e IS proje
c
t perfo
rman
ce.
Like the
ab
ove
schola
r
s, [1
1
],[12] indicat
ed that the
most
com
p
licated IS proj
ect p
r
obl
ems are
rel
a
ted
to
manag
eri
a
l, orga
nizationa
l, and cultura
l
issu
es.
Tho
s
e facto
r
s a
r
e inherite
d
from the parti
cular
context wh
ere the proj
ect
s
are carried o
u
t [13].
This mean
s that the probl
em
s are not only ab
out
the techni
cal
ones, e.g., the triangle
asp
e
ct
s [
14]. Despite the
fact that an IS project wa
s
perfo
rmed
we
ll and it may tech
nically co
nsid
er “su
c
ce
ssful,
”
the pro
j
ect might al
so rep
u
ted to be
“futile”
due to
co
ntextual in
differen
c
e
s
[8
]. It wa
s
rea
s
onabl
e if [15]
who
cite
d [1
0] emph
asi
z
e
d
that the proje
c
t su
ccess
fa
ctors are not
universal for all proje
c
ts.
Therefore, it is esse
ntial for
studying fa
ctors of e
a
ch I
S
proje
c
t in regar
d to its specifi
c
-e
nviro
n
mental cont
exts.
In terms of th
e IPO logic of
a proje
c
t, this
study
wa
s p
e
rform
ed to e
l
ucid
ate the succe
s
s
level of a
n
I
S
proj
ect
an
d to eval
uat
e its input
ef
fects
whi
c
h
affect the
pe
rforma
nce in
the
sampl
ed in
stitution. The e
m
piri
cal data
were colle
ct
e
d
by
surv
ey
i
n
v
o
lv
i
ng the sele
cted inte
rnal
proje
c
t sta
k
e
holde
rs. PLS
-
SEM with SmartPLS
2.0
then wa
s used to examin
e the data. The
result of thi
s
study rep
r
e
s
ented th
at th
e thre
e
in
put
factors
expl
ain mo
derate
l
y the IS project
s
u
c
c
ess
variable. In this
s
t
udy, the term of IS,
inform
ation te
chn
o
l
ogy (IT
)
, an
d
informatio
n a
nd
comm
uni
cati
on techn
o
lo
gy (ICT) project
s
we
re
interch
ang
e
ably used i
n
respe
c
t of the
deployme
nt of the busine
s
s pro
c
e
s
se
s and its se
rvices [16]. Furth
e
rmo
r
e, the followin
g
se
cti
ons
seq
uentially displ
a
y
the rese
arch mod
e
l
an
d
its
hy
pothe
se
s, the
re
se
arch
me
thod,
its anal
ysis
results, an
d
the discu
s
sio
n
s. The fin
a
l
se
ction i
s
the con
c
lu
sio
n
of the arti
cle
whi
c
h it
also
explain
s
the limitations of the study
an
d sug
g
e
s
tion
s for the future
studie
s
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
TELKOM
NIKA
ISSN:
1693-6
930
Influences of
The Input Fa
ctors To
wa
rd
s The Su
cc
ess of An Inform
ation .... (A'
ang Subi
ya
kto)
687
2. Rese
arch
Model and Hy
potheses
In this study, three facto
r
s of the M&M’s pr
oje
c
t framework [4], i.e., project conte
n
ts
(PCT
), peo
pl
e and
actio
n
s (PAC),
and i
n
stitutional
contexts (I
CT)
were a
dopted
in the p
r
op
o
s
e
d
model
(Figu
r
e 1) to
me
asu
r
e
an IS proj
ect
su
cce
ss
(PCS
). The a
dopti
on was
appl
ied
con
s
id
erin
g the focus
of the stu
d
y, i.e., the i
nput in
fluences i
n
the IPO logi
c of an IS pro
j
ect
model [5],[7],[8]. The simi
lar rationale was
also
used in
respect of
the exclusi
on of the
developm
ent
pro
c
e
s
s facto
r
(4). T
h
is fa
ctor wa
s
excl
u
ded becau
se the
re
se
arche
r
s assu
med a
s
the processional factors of
the IPO model [5],[7
],[8]
.
The rationale of this modelling was based
on the B
e
lou
t
and G
auvre
au’s [1
7] de
scriptio
n t
hat most
of re
se
arch
mo
del
s were
mo
delle
d
based on the
previou
s
mo
d
e
ls or the
o
ri
e
s
.
Figure 1. The
propo
se
d re
search mo
del
R
e
tr
os
pe
c
t
ively, s
o
me
r
e
se
a
r
che
r
s [18]-[20] de
scrib
ed that
the succe
ss d
e
fini
tion of a
proje
c
t
wa
s e
x
tended from
the techni
cal
persp
ective
s to the st
rate
gic o
n
e
s
[19]
con
s
id
erin
g t
h
e
stakehol
der perceptio
ns. Therefor
e, th
e research
ers formulat
e
d
reso
urce
s savings (PS
C
1),
manag
eri
a
l effectivene
ss
(PCS2
)
, produ
ctivity improvem
ent (PSC
3), cu
stomer sati
sfa
c
tion
(PCS4), and
competitive adv
antage
(PSC5)
as the P
C
S indi
cators
[5],[11],[18]-[22]. Meanwhi
l
e,
many
s
c
holars
[4],[5],[8],[9
],[11],[18],[19]
indic
a
ted th
at PCT is one of the
input fac
t
ors of t
he
PCS. This v
a
riabl
e is rel
a
ted to the
ch
ara
c
teri
st
ics
of the technol
ogy, inte
rrelat
ionship, process,
and
stru
cture
use
d
in the
project
whi
c
h m
a
terially
affe
cts the p
r
oje
c
t
outcom
e
. [23]
indicated tha
t
the ma
nage
rial capa
bility of the
vari
able
ha
s
co
nse
que
nces
toward th
e
proje
c
t
su
ccess.
Acco
rdi
ngly, we u
s
e
d
pro
j
ect si
ze
(P
CT1
)
, proj
ect
compl
e
xity (PCT2
)
, re
so
urce availa
bil
i
ty
(PCT3), tec
h
nology development (P
CT4), data qu
ality (PCT5) [4],[5]
,[11],[
19] as
the PCT
indicators an
d hypothe
size that PCT affe
ct signifi
can
t
ly PAC (H2)
and PCS (H4
)
.
In addition,
PCS wa
s affected by PA
C in re
gar
d to the ch
ara
c
t
e
risti
cs
of the proj
ect
agent
s and their actions i
n
both i
ndivi
dual and organizational leve
ls [4],[11],[24],[
25]. Thus, it
wa
s rea
s
o
n
a
b
le to use profession
alism
(PAC1),
inte
grity (PAC2),
norm
s
(PAC3), cla
r
ity of the
proje
c
t
st
ru
cture (PAC4
)
, confli
ct
mana
gement (
PAC5) [4],[11],[24],[25] as the
PAC indi
cato
rs
and
hypothesize that PAC
affect
si
gnificantly PCS (H5). Lastly,
a number
of schol
ars [12],[26]-
[28] describ
e
d
that PCS was al
so influe
nce
d
by
the contextual fa
ctors of the p
r
oje
c
t. Similar to
[12] who
cite
d [10], they mentione
d th
at the pr
oject
su
ccess fa
ctors are not u
n
iversal for
a
ll
proje
c
ts
and
very context-depe
ndent [1
8]. Despit
e th
e proj
ect ma
nagem
ent wa
s pe
rform
ed
well
and the
proje
c
t co
uld b
e
consi
dered ‘‘
succe
ssful,” it
wa
s al
so p
r
o
bable to
be t
he futile p
r
oje
c
t. It
is be
ca
use of
the ne
gle
c
t of it
s contextual facto
r
s [9
]. The alig
n
m
ent between
a proje
c
t and
its
busi
n
e
ss o
b
j
ectives influ
ences th
e perceive
su
ccess [4],[15],[29],[30].
Therefore, t
h
e
resea
r
chers use
d
organi
zational
cultures (ICT1
)
,
organi
zational
polici
e
s (ICT
2),
organi
zati
ona
l
experie
nces
(ICT3
)
, lega
cy system an
d infrast
r
u
c
tu
re (ICT
4), a
nd external
context (ICT
5)
[4],[5],
[15],[19],[26]-[30] as the
ICT indic
a
tors
. The
res
e
arc
h
ers
hypothes
iz
ed that ICT
affec
t
signifi
cantly PCT (H1), PA
C (H3), an
d PSC (H6).
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
ISSN: 16
93-6
930
TELKOM
NIKA
Vol. 13, No. 2, June 20
15 : 686 – 69
3
688
3. Rese
arch
Metho
d
This em
piri
ca
l study was
methodol
ogi
cally perfo
rm
e
d
in eight sta
ges du
rin
g
ten months
in 2014 (Figu
r
e 2).
Figure 2. The
rese
arch p
r
o
c
ed
ure
s
The Inst
rum
ent wa
s a
que
stionn
aire
, includi
ng t
he invitation
letter, its rese
arch
introdu
ction,
and th
e qu
estion pa
ge
s
(i
.e., three
p
a
rticipant
profil
e, six p
r
oje
c
t
profile,
and
20
main que
stio
ns). Spe
c
ifica
lly, the measurem
ent
o
f
th
e
ma
in
qu
es
tio
n
wa
s
des
ig
ne
d
us
in
g th
e
five-point Li
kert scale
ran
g
i
ng from
“st
r
o
ngly disa
gr
ee
” (1
) to “stro
n
g
ly agre
e
”
(5) [31]. In order to
ensure vali
dity and relia
bili
ty of the instrumen
t, the re
sea
r
che
r
s a
d
opted the
sel
e
cted item
s
of
the previou
s
studie
s
[4]-[6]
,[19], condu
ct
ed a
pre
-
te
st examination
to re
ceive
em
pirical fee
dba
ck
from five IS academici
an [
32],[33], and
conduct
ed the unidim
e
nsi
onality procedure [34],[35] with
five deletions (PCT1, P
C
T2, PCT4, ICT1, an
d ICT5). Mea
n
wh
ile, the data
colle
ction
was
involved the i
n
ternal
IS project
stakeho
lders, i.e., top
us
er
s,
bu
si
nes
s
key
u
s
e
r
s,
I
T
key
u
s
ers
,
proje
c
t mana
gers, and pro
j
ect team me
mbers in the
sampl
ed in
stitution. The
justification of this
involvement wa
s ba
sed
on the signif
i
can
c
e of
the k
e
y informant roles
[32],[33],[36].
The
schola
r
s obt
ained
the
d
a
ta from
the
IT unit i
n
t
he
sam
p
led
institution, in
cludi
ng
nam
es,
positio
ns, tel
epho
ne
s, and
emails
(N=2
57). A pu
rpo
s
e sam
p
ling th
en was
appli
ed ba
se
d on
the
proje
c
t exp
e
ri
ence o
w
n
e
rship. The
qu
estionnaire di
stribution wa
s condu
cted
via email
a
nd direct
visitations to
wards 13
0
(4
9%)
re
spon
d
ents
wh
o exp
e
rien
ce
d in
th
e IS p
r
oje
c
ts.
The
result
of
this
dat
a colle
ct
io
n
w
a
s,
t
h
e r
e
se
ar
che
r
s c
o
llect
e
d
6
2
(48%) vali
d resp
on
se
s, in
cludi
ng
40
(3
1%)
online
an
d 2
3
(1
7%)
pap
er-ba
s
ed
an
swers.
The
ma
j
o
rities
of
th
e partici
pant
s (91.9%) we
re
the
bachelo
r
gra
duate
s
and
above with t
he high
est
p
e
rcentag
e of the educatio
n levels was the
maste
r
g
r
ad
u
a
tes
(56.5%
). Most
pa
rtici
pants
(9
1.9%
) expe
rie
n
ce
d du
ring
un
d
e
r 1
0
yea
r
s
and
most of them
(40.3%) exp
e
rien
ce
d du
ri
ng 5-10 years in the IS
project works. Mean
while, the
highe
st perce
ntage of the p
a
rticip
ants
(5
8.1%) is the p
r
oje
c
t team m
e
mbe
r
s.
In addition, the data an
al
ysis was
statisti
cally carri
ed out usi
n
g
MS. Excel
2007 to
repres
ent the demographic
data and SPSS vers
ion 20 to
prepare PLS
-
SEM analysis
.
Afterwa
r
ds,
SmartPLS 2.0 wa
s u
s
ed i
n
the in
fere
n
t
ial data anal
ysis. Thi
s
PL
S-SEM software
wa
s ap
plied
regarding it
s vast pote
n
tial i
n
SEM me
tho
d
[37]-[41]. It wa
s rel
a
ted t
o
the obj
ectiv
e
s
of the explo
r
ation an
d p
r
e
d
iction
with t
he relative
-small sample
size (n=62)
. I
n
this
inferential
analysi
s
,
the
resea
r
chers p
e
rform
ed
th
e measurem
ent
model
a
s
sessment
s to
ev
aluate
relia
bili
ty
and validity of the outer model an
d the stru
ctural mo
del asse
ssm
ents to rep
r
e
s
ent the path
and
explanato
r
y p
o
we
r of th
e in
ner
mod
e
l [3
7]-[41].
The
measurement
model
a
s
sessment
s in
clu
ded
the indicator reliability, internal
consi
s
tency re
li
abili
ty, convergent validity, a
nd discriminant
validity assessment
s. Me
a
n
whil
e, the
structu
r
al
mod
e
l a
s
sessme
nts
were a
ppl
ied throug
h p
a
th
coeffici
ent (
β
), coefficie
n
t of determinatio
n (
R
2
),
t
-tes
t, effec
t
s
i
z
e
(
f
2
), predi
ctive relevan
c
e
(
Q
2
)
and relative i
m
pact (
q
2
) a
s
se
ssm
ent
s [
3
7]
-[
41]
.
4. Analy
s
is
Resul
t
s
4.1. The De
mographical
Information
of the IS Pro
j
ect
Table 1 illustrates that most
of the participants
(41.9%) indicated t
hat the development
goal
s of the I
S
proje
c
t were to fulfil operational r
equi
rements. T
he i
n
stituti
on h
a
d
the IS strate
gic
plan a
s
it wa
s stated
by majority pa
rticipa
n
ts
(71%
). Most of the
parti
ci
pant
s (43.5%) i
ndi
cated
that the IS project
s
we
re p
e
rform
ed by i
n
ternal
party. In the proje
c
t funding poi
nts, the high
est
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
TELKOM
NIKA
ISSN:
1693-6
930
Influences of
The Input Fa
ctors To
wa
rd
s The Su
cc
ess of An Inform
ation .... (A'
ang Subi
ya
kto)
689
percenta
ge
o
f
the pa
rticip
ants
(
38.7%
) an
swere
d
t
hat the
proj
e
c
ts we
re
fu
n
ded by
internal
funding. Mo
reover, majo
ri
ty participant
s (8
0.7%
) a
n
swered that
percentag
e
of the proj
ect
su
ccess l
e
vel
is mo
re th
an
50%
and
33.
9% of
the
p
a
r
ticipa
nts stat
ed that
this p
e
rcentag
e
wa
s
more than 75%.
Table 1. IS project profiles
Measures Items
%
Development go
als
Oper
ational requi
rements
41.9
Managerial req
u
irements
16.1
Strategic require
ments
17.7
Oper
ational and
managerial req
u
irements
6.5
Oper
ational & strategic requireme
nts
8.1
Oper
ational, man
agerial & strategic requirements
9.7
Ow
ne
rship of IS
strategic plan
Available
71.0
Not available
6.5
U
n
kn
ow
n
22.6
IS development
strateg
y
100% bu
ying
3.2
M
a
jo
r
i
ty
b
u
y
i
ng
27.4
50-50
21.0
Majorit
y
internal
development
43.5
100% inter
nal de
velopment
4.8
Funding
100% inter
nal fu
nding
30.6
Majorit
y
internal f
unding
38.7
50-50
12.9
Majorit
y
e
x
ternal
funding
12.9
100% e
x
ter
nal fu
nding
4.8
Success Level
< 25 %
6.5
25-50 %
12.9
50-75 %
46.8
> 75 %
33.9
4.2.
The Mea
s
ure
m
ent Model
Ass
essme
n
ts
Table 2 and Figure 3
show the assessment
results. First, indi
cator reli
ability was
evaluated by
assessing every co
rrel
a
tion between t
he items to t
he variable [35],[37]-[41]. The
item reli
abilit
y wa
s eval
u
a
ted u
s
in
g th
ree
loadi
ng
asse
ssm
ents.
(1
) T
he ite
m
s
with l
oad
ings
unde
r 0.4
we
re d
e
leted [3
5]. (2)
Loadi
n
g
s 0.4
to 0.7
were
con
s
ide
r
ed to
be u
s
e
d
if it will hav
e
increased the composite reliab
ility (CR) and the
cross loading
value must higher than the
others. (3) Lo
ading
s
above
0.7
we
re
use
d
[37
-
40].
Th
e result
wa
s the a
u
thors
d
e
leted five ite
m
s
(PCT1,
PCT
2
, PCT4, I
C
T1
, and
ICT5
)
becau
se th
eir non
-standa
rd loa
d
ing
s
. S
e
co
nd, inte
rn
al
consi
s
tency reliability
wa
s evaluated u
s
ing
CR
with
values a
bov
e 0.7 [41]. CR wa
s p
r
efe
r
red
rathe
r
tha
n
Cro
nba
ch’
s
alpha
(CA
)
becau
se
CR take
s into
accou
n
t th
a
t
indicators
have
different lo
ading
s [38],[43] wh
ere
a
s CA tend
s
to severely unde
re
stimat
es referring
its
assumptions
in term of the internal
consi
s
te
ncy reli
ability [43]. Thir
d, convergent
validity
was
evaluated u
s
i
ng the
a
v
er
ag
e
va
r
i
an
ce
extr
a
c
te
d
(AVE) with the acc
eptable
thres
hold of 0.5 [37]-
[41]. Fourth,
discrimi
nant
validity was a
s
sesse
d
thro
ugh a
nalysi
s
of cross-loadi
ng [34] u
s
in
g
the
s
q
uare root of the AVE in
line
with its definition
that
is
the extent t
o
which a giv
en variable is
different fro
m
the others [37]-[41]. In sho
r
t,
the result of these out
e
r
m
odel evaluati
ons
statistically d
e
mon
s
trate
d
that the oute
r
model
has g
ood p
s
ychom
etric
pro
perti
es. Seq
uenti
a
lly,
this dem
on
stration re
com
m
ende
d to b
e
contin
ued i
n
to the stru
ct
ural mo
del a
s
sessme
nts [
33]-
[36] respectiv
e
ly.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
ISSN: 16
93-6
930
TELKOM
NIKA
Vol. 13, No. 2, June 20
15 : 686 – 69
3
690
Table 2. The
measurement
model asse
ssment
s
Variables Items
OL
Item CL
AVE
RV of the Variabl
e
CR
ICT PAC
PCT
PSC
ICT
PAC PCT PSC
ICT
ICT2
0,875
0,875
0,636
0,303
0,456
0,603
0,777
0,819
ICT3
0,742
0,742
0,363
0,274
0,467
ICT4
0,703
0,703
0,226
0,198
0,379
PAC PAC1
0,884
0,506
0,884
0,447
0,555
0,623
0,565
0,789
0,891
PAC2
0,818
0,458
0,818
0,305
0,424
PAC3
0,834
0,473
0,834
0,372
0,576
PAC4
0,665
0,373
0,665
0,339
0,372
PAC5
0,725
0,405
0,725
0,204
0,331
PCT
PCT3
0,770
0,275
0,345
0,770
0,329
0,599
0,339
0,433
0,774
0,750
PCT5
0,778
0,251
0,325
0,778
0,379
PSC
PSC1
0,810
0,437
0,470
0,344
0,810
0,594
0,559
0,587
0,458
0,771
0,879
PSC2
0,804
0,475
0,644
0,363
0,804
PSC3
0,794
0,385
0,489
0,359
0,794
PSC4
0,826
0,490
0,298
0,420
0,826
PSC5
0,598
0,357
0,284
0,272
0,598
Figure 3. Re
sults of the SmartPLS analy
s
is
4.3. The Stru
ctural Mod
e
l Asse
ssmen
ts
These a
s
sessment
s were
ca
rrie
d
out t
h
rou
gh
six a
s
sessme
nt st
age
s an
d the
re
sults
were p
r
e
s
ent
ed g
r
ap
hicall
y in Figu
re 3
and T
able
3.
First,
β
was e
v
aluated
with
the ab
ove va
lue
of 0.1 to dete
r
mine th
e pat
h impa
ct withi
n
the mo
del [
37]-[41]. The
results
pre
s
e
n
ted stati
s
tica
lly
that the six paths were
sig
n
ificant. Seco
nd,
R
2
wa
s e
v
aluated to d
e
scrib
e
varia
n
ce of the target
endo
geno
us variable [3
7]-[41] with values a
ppro
x
imately 0.670 su
bsta
ntial, aroun
d 0
.
333
mode
rate, an
d about 0.1
9
0
and lo
we
r
wea
k
. The
re
sults
pre
s
e
n
ted that
R
2
of
PCT (0.1
15
) wa
s
wea
k
, whi
c
h i
t
was me
ant that ICT we
akly ex
plained
11.5% of the PCT varian
ce
, PCT and ICT
together
mod
e
rately exp
r
e
s
sed 3
8
.5% of the PAC
varian
ce, a
nd
ICT, PCT, an
d PAC toget
he
r
also m
ode
ra
tely describe
d
45,8% of the PSC varian
ce. Thi
r
d,
t-
tes
t
wa
s evaluate
d
via
bootstrappi
ng
pro
c
edu
re u
s
ing two-taile
d test wi
th a
significan
c
e
level of 5%, where
a
s th
e
hypotheses will
be
accepted if the
t
-test is la
rge
r
than
t
-value
s (1.9
6) [3
9]-[40]. The re
sults
indicated that
overall hy
pot
heses were
a
c
cepted.
Fourth,
f
2
was evaluated t
o
examine the pre
d
ictive
variable effects in the structu
r
al
model [37]-[4
1
] with value
s
of about 0.
02 low,
0.15
medium, o
r
0
.
35 larg
e effects. The
re
su
lts
s
h
ow
ed
th
a
t
IC
T
PA
C pres
ented the larges
t
effec
t, PCT
PSC
pre
s
ente
d
th
e lo
we
st effe
ct,
and the fou
r
rest p
a
ths p
r
ese
n
ted the
medium effe
cts. Fifth,
Q
2
wa
s evaluate
d
via blindfol
ding
pro
c
ed
ure to
give evid
en
ce th
at the
p
r
opo
se
d m
o
d
e
l ha
s
predictive relevan
c
e with
thresh
old
values
above
ze
ro [3
7]-[41
]. Figure
3 p
r
esents t
hat t
he mo
del h
a
s
p
r
edi
ctive relevan
c
e. Sixth,
q
2
wa
s al
so
e
v
aluated via
blindfoldin
g
p
r
ocedu
re to
measure
the predi
ctive
rel
e
vance’s rel
a
tive
impact
with thre
shol
d valu
es 0.02, 0.1
5
, or 0.35 for
small, medium
or large effe
ct size [39]-[
40].
In brief, despi
te all of the hypotheses
st
atistically a
c
cepted, but it wa
s only ICT
PAC which has
the large effe
ct and the me
dium predi
ctive relevan
c
e.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
TELKOM
NIKA
ISSN:
1693-6
930
Influences of
The Input Fa
ctors To
wa
rd
s The Su
cc
ess of An Inform
ation .... (A'
ang Subi
ya
kto)
691
Table 3. The
Structu
r
al mo
del asse
ssme
nts
H Paths
β
t
-tes
t
f
2
q
2
Remar
ks
β
t
-tes
t *
f
2
q
2
H1 ICT
P
C
T
0.339
5,283
0,130
0,088
Signifi
cant
Accepted Medium
small
H2 PCT
PAC
0.273
4,864
0,106
0,051
Significant
Acc
epted Medium
small
H3 ICT
PA
C
0.473
11,774
0,315
0,178
Significant
Accepted Large
medium
H4 PCT
PSC
0.215
3,827
0,059
0,030
Significant
Accepted Lo
w
small
H5 PAC
PSC
0.304
3,710
0,114
0,029
Significant
Acc
epted Medium
small
H6 ICT
PS
C
0.322
3,942
0,094
0,079
Significant
Acc
epted Medium
small
5. Discus
s
ions
In this sectio
n
,
two discu
ssi
on points a
r
e
related to the demog
ra
phic
informatio
n and the
inferential m
e
asu
r
em
ent re
sults.
First, it is rea
s
on
able that
majority parti
ci
pa
nts (80.7
%
) pre
s
ente
d
the proje
c
t succe
s
s
percenta
ge
was m
o
re than
50% a
nd a
r
o
und 3
3
.9%
of
the pa
rtici
p
a
n
ts eve
n
me
n
t
ioned that th
e
su
ccess p
e
rcentage
wa
s
more th
an 7
5
%. It is
because the IS
proje
c
t may
have carried
out
based o
n
av
ailability of the IS strategi
c pla
n
a
s
sta
t
ed by abo
ut 71%
of the
partici
pant
s, the
grad
ual p
r
oje
c
t implem
ent
ation a
s
presented by
the
developm
ent
goal attainm
e
nt focu
sing
o
n
the ope
ration
al into strate
gic requi
rem
ents, an
d the intern
al pa
rty involved as p
r
e
s
ente
d
by
almost 7
0
% o
f
the partici
pa
nts. In sh
ort, the stat
e
and
attainment of
the IS proje
c
t
su
ccess
were
in line
with
th
e p
r
eviou
s
IS
project
success
studi
e
s
,
e.g., [2] and
[18] who
elu
c
i
dated th
at th
e IS
proje
c
t su
cce
ss
related to
both the proj
e
c
t
manag
eme
n
t and pro
d
u
c
t utilization su
ccesse
s.
Secon
d
, alth
ough the ove
r
all oute
r
mo
del st
atisti
call
y demon
strat
ed goo
d psy
c
hometri
c
prop
ertie
s
, the five rejectio
n indicators
were ne
eded
to be notice
for bein
g
inco
nsi
s
tent with
the
selected pri
o
r literatures
[4],[8
],[9],[18],[19]. In this study,
thi
s
might unsupported by t
he
develop
ed in
strum
ent, the
coll
ecte
d da
ta or th
e tren
d of the
IS p
r
oje
c
t impl
em
entation i
n
th
e
sampl
ed in
sti
t
ution. In addi
tion, based o
n
the stru
ctu
r
al model
assessment
s, we also noti
c
e
two
highlight poi
n
t
s. (1) Howe
ver, the esti
mated value
s
of ICT
PCT pre
s
ente
d
signifi
cantly, the
hypothe
sis
was a
c
cepted,
and the
Q
2
were pre
d
ictive relevance, but
R
2
of the PCT was
explained
we
akly (1
1,5%)
by IC
T. The
signifi
can
c
e,
accepta
n
ce, and relevan
c
e of the path
are
con
s
i
s
tent wi
th the basi
s
literature
s
u
s
ed.
Ho
weve
r, the we
ak
explanation
sho
u
ld p
r
op
e
r
ly
become an a
ttention, relat
ed to the develope
d in
stru
ment and the
colle
cted dat
a in the study
or
this mig
h
t be
the tende
ncy
of the IS proj
ect impl
em
en
tation in the
sampled
in
stitution. (2
) Sim
ilar
to the
signifi
cance, a
c
cept
ance, an
d
rel
e
vance of th
e path, th
e lo
w
f
2
of th
e P
C
T
PSC is
als
o
suitabl
e to be
noticed. Thi
s
might unsup
ported
by the develope
d in
strum
ent, the colle
cted dat
a
and th
e
analy
s
is o
r
p
o
rtrait of the
p
r
oje
c
t impleme
n
tation trend
s
wh
erea
s PCT
di
d not
influe
nce
PSC.
6.
Limitations
There are th
ree inhe
rent li
mitations of this
st
u
d
y
.
First
,
t
he colle
ct
ed data of the survey
were
obtaine
d from
the
sa
mpled
instituti
on. Th
eref
o
r
e
,
the findin
g
s
sho
u
ld
not b
e
gen
eralize
d
f
o
r
the othe
r in
stitutions. It is
becau
se d
a
ta
from t
he
oth
e
r in
stitution
s
may be
different fro
m
wh
at
were foun
d a
nd di
scussed
in this stu
d
y. Se
cond, th
e que
stionn
ai
re item
s were ado
pted a
n
d
adapte
d
from
the
sel
e
cte
d
literatu
r
e
s
, t
hus the
othe
r studie
s
whi
c
h use different
item
s
m
a
y
prod
uce the
different findi
ngs. T
h
ird, th
is
study
invol
v
ed the
sel
e
cted re
sp
ond
e
n
ts
who
mo
st of
them are the
proje
c
t team members in
almost
60%. Acco
rdingly,
the other proportio
n
s of the
respon
dent
s
may differe
ntly pre
s
ent th
e
finding
s.
In brief,
the su
b
s
eq
uent re
se
arche
s
can
take
this study find
ings a
nd re
co
nsid
erin
g the limitations.
7. Conclusio
n
The contextual effect
s of an IS proj
ect pe
rformance have
been inte
rested fo
r
resea
r
chers
and practitio
ners refe
rri
n
g
to it
s environmental a
s
pect
s
sin
c
e
many years ago.
Mean
while,
several
studi
e
s
p
r
e
s
ente
d
t
hat the
proj
e
c
t succe
s
s fa
ctors a
r
e
not
universal
for all
proje
c
ts. A
ccordin
gly, this exploratory
study
wa
s
co
ndu
cted to
resp
ond
this issue i
n
o
r
de
r to
investigate th
e proje
c
t su
cce
ss
state
an
d to exam
in
e
the co
ntextua
l
influen
ce
s o
f
input facto
r
s.
The propo
se
d method wa
s developed
by adopting sele
cted literatures. Smar
tPL
S
2
.
0
w
a
s
us
e
d
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
ISSN: 16
93-6
930
TELKOM
NIKA
Vol. 13, No. 2, June 20
15 : 686 – 69
3
692
rega
rdi
ng to i
t
s vast p
o
tent
ial in SEM m
e
thod
with th
e rel
a
tive sa
mple
size (n=62) fo
r a
s
se
ssing
the mea
s
u
r
e
m
ent an
d
stru
ctural
mo
del.
De
spite thi
s
study have
se
veral limitatio
ns, the
results o
f
the mea
s
ure
m
ent and
structural mod
e
l
assessm
ent
s are pote
n
tial paramete
r
s that may b
e
a
con
s
id
eratio
n
point for the next st
udies, espe
cially the mode
rate
R
2
of PCS that pre
s
ent
s the
model a
c
cept
ability
Ackn
o
w
l
e
dg
ements
This
work
was supp
orte
d
by the Research
-Based
National Pu
blicatio
n Pro
g
ram
No.
Un.01/KPA/182/2014, the Center of
Research and P
ublication, Syar
if Hidayatull
ah State Islamic
University Ja
karta, Ind
one
sia.
Referen
ces
[1]
Lim CS, Moh
a
med MZ
. Criteria of proj
ec
t success: an exp
l
or
ator
y
r
e
-e
xami
nati
on.
International
Journ
a
l of Proj
ect Manag
e
m
e
n
t (IJPM)
. 1999; 17(4): 243-248. DOI:10.
1016/S0263-7863(
98)00040-4.
[2] Kerzner
HR.
Project
ma
nag
e
m
e
n
t: a systems appr
oach to
pla
nni
ng, sch
e
duli
ng, a
nd c
o
n
t
rollin
g
. Joh
n
W
ile
y
& So
ns. 201
3.
[3]
Ho
w
s
a
w
i
EM, Eager D, Ba
gi
a R.
Understa
ndi
ng pro
j
ect
success: T
he four-lev
el pro
j
ect success
framew
ork
. IEEE Internati
ona
l Co
nfere
n
ce on IEE
M
. Singap
ore
.
2011: 6
2
0
-
624. DOI:
10.11
09/IEEM.201
1.61
179
91.
[4]
McLeo
d L, MacDon
ell SG. Factors that affect
soft
w
a
r
e
systems dev
el
o
p
ment pro
j
ect outcomes: A
surve
y
of
researc
h
.
A
C
M Co
mputi
ng S
u
rveys
CSUR.
2
011;
43(4):
24. DOI:
10.11
45/1
9
7
8
8
02.19
78
803.
[5]
Subi
ya
kto A, Ahla
n AR.
Implem
entatio
n o
f
input-proc
e
ss
-output
mo
del
for measurin
g informati
o
n
s
y
stem project
success.
T
E
L
K
OMNIKA Indones
ian
Jour
n
a
l of
El
ectrica
l
Engi
ne
erin
g
. 201
4; 12(
7):
5603-5612. DOI:
10.11591/t
e
lkom
nika.v12i7.5699.
[6]
DeL
one
W
H
, McLea
n E. T
he De
Lo
ne
and
McLea
n mo
del
of inform
ation
s
y
stems s
u
cce
ss: a ten-
ye
ar
upd
ate.
Jo
urna
l of
Man
age
ment Infor
m
a
t
ion Syste
m
s
. 2
0
0
3
; 19(
4): 9-3
0
.
http://mesharpe.metapress.com/
content/PEQDJK46VY52V4Q6
[7]
Davis W
S
. HIPO Hierarch
y
Plus Input-P
roce
ss-Output.
T
he informa
tion s
y
stem consu
l
tant’
s
han
db
ook: S
y
s
t
ems Anal
ysis
and D
e
si
g
n
. CRC, Florida. 1
9
98: 503-
51
0.
[8]
Kell
ogg W
K
. Logic mo
del d
e
v
e
lo
pment g
u
id
e. Michig
an: W
K
Kello
gg F
o
u
ndati
on. 20
04.
[9]
De W
i
t A. Measur
ement
o
f
project s
u
c
c
ess.
IJPM
. 1988; 6: 164-170.
DOI: 10.1016/0263-
786
3(88)
90
04
3
-
9.
[1
0
]
D
v
i
r
D
,
Li
p
o
v
etsky
S, Sh
en
ha
r A, T
i
sh
l
e
r A.
In search
of proj
ect clas
sificatio
n
: a n
on-u
n
ivers
a
l
appr
oach to pr
oject success
factors.
Resea
r
ch Policy
. 1988; 27(9): 915-
35. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-
733
3(98)
00
08
5
-
7.
[11]
McLeo
d L, Do
olin B, Mac
D
o
nell SG. A per
s
pective-
base
d
und
erstand
in
g
of project suc
c
ess.
PMJ
.
2012; 43(5): 68-86.
DOI: 10.1002/pm
j.21290.
[12]
Hussei
n
BA, K
l
akeg
g OJ. Mea
s
urin
g the
imp
a
ct of
risk factors associated
w
i
t
h
pr
oject success criteria
in earl
y
p
h
a
s
e.
Procedi
a-
Socia
l
and
Behav
iora
l Scienc
es
. 201
4; 119: 711
-718. DOI:
10.10
16/j.sbs
p
ro
.201
4.03.0
7
9
.
[13]
Azimi A, Man
e
s
h F
S
. A ne
w
mode
l to id
enti
f
y
a
nd
ev
al
uat
e critical s
u
cce
ss factors in th
e IT
projects;
Case stud
y: us
ing RF
ID techn
o
lo
g
y
i
n
Irani
an
fuel distributi
o
n s
y
stem.
IJISM
. Januar
y-Ju
ne 20
10; 99-
112. http://ijism
.
ricest.ac.ir/index
.
php/ijism/art
i
cle/vie
w
/
1
42/125.
[14]
Atkinson R. Pr
oject man
a
g
e
m
ent: cost, time an
d qu
alit
y, t
w
o
best gu
es
ses an
d a ph
e
nome
non, its
time to accept
other succ
ess
criteria.
IJPM
. 1999; 17: 337-
342. DOI: 10.
1016/S0263-7863(98)00069-
6.
[15]
Sudh
akar GP.
A mod
e
l
of crit
ical s
u
ccess
fa
ctors for soft
w
a
re
proj
ects.
JEIM.
2012;
25
(
6
): 53
7-55
8.
DOI: 10.1108/174103
91211272829.
[16]
Xu
X, Z
han
g
W
,
Barkhi R. I
T
infrastructure capa
bi
lities
an
d IT
project su
ccess: a d
e
vel
opme
n
t tea
m
persp
ective.
ITM
. 2010; 11(
3): 123-142. DOI:
10.1007/s10799-010-0072-3.
[17]
Belo
ut A, Ga
uvrea
u
C. F
a
ctors influe
nci
ng pro
j
ect su
ccess: the impact of huma
n
resourc
e
mana
geme
n
t.
IJPM
. 2004; 22(
1): 1-11. DOI:
10.10
16/S0263-7863(
03)
00003-6.
[18]
Jugd
ev K, MÜller R. A retro
s
pective l
ook
at
our evo
l
vin
g
un
derstan
di
n
g
of proj
ect su
ccess.
PMJ
.
2005; 36: 19-31. DOI: 10.
1109/EMR.200
6.261387.
[19]
Subi
ya
kto A, Ahla
n AR.
A C
oher
ent F
r
ame
w
ork for Understandi
ng
Critic
al Success F
a
ctors of ICT
Project Env
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t.
Proceeding of
ICRIIS. Kual
a Lumpur. 2013:
342–347. DOI:
10.11
09/ICRII
S
.2013.6
7
1
6
7
3
3
.
[20]
Ghapa
nch
i
H,
Aurum A. T
he im
p
a
ct of
pr
oject c
apa
bil
i
ti
es o
n
pr
oject
performa
nce:
Case
of o
p
e
n
source soft
w
a
r
e
proj
ects.
IJP
M
. 2012; 30(
4): 407–
41
7. DOI: 10.
101
6/j.ij
pro
m
an.20
11.1
0
.0
02.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
TELKOM
NIKA
ISSN:
1693-6
930
Influences of
The Input Fa
ctors To
wa
rd
s The Su
cc
ess of An Inform
ation .... (A'
ang Subi
ya
kto)
693
[21]
Gable GG, Seder
a D, Chan T
.
Re-conc
eptualizing information
s
y
st
em success: The IS-impact
measur
ement mode
l.
JAIS
. 2
008; 97: 377–408. http://ais
el.
a
isnet.org/jais/
vol9/iss
7/.
[22]
Belassi W,
T
u
kel OI. A
ne
w
framew
ork for determi
ning critical success/
failure factors in projects.
IJPM
. 1996; 14(3): 141-151. D
OI: 10.1016/0263-7
863(
95)
00064-
X
[23]
Hussein BA, Silva PP, Pigagaite G.
Percep
tion of co
mpl
e
xities in d
e
vel
o
p
m
e
n
t proj
ects
. IEEE 7th
IDAACS. 2013;
2: 537-542. D
OI: 10.1109/IDAACS.
2013.6662982.
[24]
Ran
dere
e
K, F
a
rama
w
y
AT
E. Islamic persp
ec
tives on c
o
n
f
lict manag
em
ent
w
i
thi
n
pro
j
ect manag
ed
envir
onme
n
ts.
IJPM.
2011;
29
(1): 26-32. DOI: 10.1016/
j.ijpr
o
man.2010.01.
013.
[25]
Liu JYC, Che
n
HG, Chen CC, Sheu T
S
.
Relati
ons
hips
amon
g interp
e
r
sona
l conflict,
requirem
ents
uncerta
int
y
,
and
soft
w
a
re
proj
ect p
e
r
formance.
IJ
P
M
.
201
1; 29(
5): 54
7-55
6. DOI:
10.10
16/j.i
j
pro
m
an.20
10.0
4
.0
07.
[26]
Marne
w
i
ck C,
Les L
a
b
u
sch
agn
e. F
a
ctors that
influ
enc
e the o
u
tcom
e of inform
ati
on tech
no
log
y
proj
ects in S
o
uth Africa: An
empir
i
cal
inv
e
stigati
on.
Act
a
Commercii
.
2009; 9(1):
78-89. DOI:
10.41
02/ac.v9
i
1.98.
[27]
Cha
ndras
ekar
an A, Li
nd
erm
an K,
Schr
oed
er R. T
he role
of proj
ect an
d org
aniz
a
tio
n
a
l co
nte
x
t i
n
mana
gin
g
hi
g
h
‐
tech R&D
proj
ects.
Productio
n
an
d Operatio
ns Mana
ge
me
nt
. 2014. DOI:
10.11
11/p
o
ms.122
53.
[28]
Qureshi
SM,
Kang
C. A
nal
ysi
n
g
the
org
a
n
izati
ona
l fact
ors of
proj
ect
compl
e
xit
y
us
i
ng structur
al
equ
atio
n mode
llin
g.
IJPM
. 2015; 33(1): 165–176. DOI: 10.
1016/j.ijprom
an.
2014.04.006.
[29]
Nasir MH, Sa
h
i
bu
ddi
n S. Criti
c
al success fa
ct
ors for soft
w
a
re pro
j
ects: A
comparativ
e s
t
ud
y
.
SRE
.
2011; 6(10): 2174-2186.
DOI: 10.5897/SRE
1
0.1171.
[30]
Amiri M, Sarfi A, Kahreh
MS, Maleki M
H
.
Investigati
o
n the
Critica
l
Success Fac
t
ors of CRM
Impleme
n
tatio
n
in t
he Ur
ba
n
Mana
geme
n
t; Case Stu
d
y
: T
ehra
n
Mu
nici
p
a
lit
y
.
Intern
atio
nal B
u
ll
etin
of
Business Adm
i
nistration.
201
1; 9: 120-1
32.
[31] MC
Kapte
i
n,
et a
l
.
Pow
e
rful
and c
onsist
ent
ana
lysis of l
i
k
e
rt-type ratin
g
s
c
ales
. Proc
ee
d
i
ngs
of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Com
puting
Sy
stems. ACM. 2010: 2391-2394. DOI:
10.11
45/1
7
5
3
3
26.17
53
686.
[32]
Cres
w
e
ll JW
, Rese
arch des
i
gn: Qualitativ
e
,
quantit
ative,
and mi
xed me
thods ap
pro
a
c
hes. Sage
Publ
icatio
ns. 2
013.
[33]
Marshal
l C, Ro
ssman GB. Designi
ng q
u
a
litat
ive rese
arch. Sage Pu
blic
atio
ns. 2010.
[34]
F
o
rnell
C, L
a
rcker DF
. Eval
uatin
g structur
al e
q
u
a
tion m
ode
ls
w
i
th
un
observ
abl
e va
riabl
es a
n
d
measur
ement error.
JMR
. 1981: 39-5
0
. http://
w
w
w
.
jstor.or
g
/
stable/31
51
31
2.
[35]
Afthanorh
an W
M
ABW
. A Co
mpariso
n
Of Partial
L
east Sq
uare Structura
l
Equatio
n Mod
e
lin
g (PLS-
SEM) and
Co
varia
n
ce B
a
se
d Structural
E
quati
on M
ode
l
i
ng (
C
B-SEM)
for Co
nfirmat
o
r
y
F
a
ctor
Anal
ys
is.
IJESIT
. 201
3;
2
(5): 198-
205
.
http://
w
w
w
.
ij
esi
t.com/Volume
%
20
2/Issue%
2
05/IJESIT
201305_
27.p
d
f.
[36]
Beringer C, Jonas D, Kock A.
Behavior of internal stakeholder
s in project portfolio management and
its impact on s
u
ccess.
IJPM.
2013; 31(6): 830-846. DOI:
10.1016/j.ijprom
an
.2012.11.006.
[37]
Hens
eler J,
Ri
ngl
e CM, Si
nk
ovics R
R
. T
he use of
partia
l
l
east sq
uares
p
a
th mod
e
l
i
ng
i
n
inter
nati
ona
l
marketing.
Ad
vances
in
Internati
ona
l M
a
rketing.
2009;
20: 277-
319.
DOI: 10.1108/S1474-
797
9(20
09)
00
0
002
00
14.
[38]
Urbac
h N, Ahl
e
man
n
F
.
Struct
ural e
quati
o
n
mode
lin
g in
in
formation s
y
st
ems rese
arch
usin
g parti
a
l
least squares.
JITTA
. 2010; 11(2): 5-40. http://aisel
.aisnet.org/jitta
/vol11/is
s
2/2
[39]
Hair JF, Rin
gle
CM, Sarstedt
M. PLS-SEM: Inde
ed a s
ilver
bull
e
t.
JMTP.
2011; 1
9
(2): 13
9-15
2. DOI:
10.27
53/MT
P1069-
667
91
90
2
0
2
[40]
Hair JF
, Sarstedt M, Rin
gle
CM, Mena J
A
. An a
ssess
ment of the u
s
e of parti
al l
east squ
a
r
e
s
structural eq
uatio
n mode
li
ng i
n
marketing res
earch
.
JAMS
. 2012; 40(3): 414
-433. DOI:
10.10
07/s1
17
4
7
-01
1
-02
61-
6.
[41]
Wong KKK. P
a
rtial
Least S
quar
es Structu
r
al Eq
uati
on
Mode
lin
g (PL
S
-SEM) T
e
chniq
ues Us
in
g
SmartPLS.
Marketi
ng Bu
llet
i
n
. 2013;
24:
1-32.
http://m
arketing-
bull
e
tin.mass
e
y
.ac.nz/v
24
/mb_
v2
4_
t1
_
w
ong
.p
d
f.
[42]
Nun
nal
l
y
J
C
, Bernstei
n IH.
Psychom
etric Theory
. Ne
w
Yor
k
: McGra
w
-Hi
ll,
1994.
[43]
Chin W
W
.
T
he partial l
east s
quar
es ap
proa
ch to
structural
equati
on mo
d
e
lli
ng. In: Marcouli
des GA.
Editor
. Moder
n
Methods for Busin
e
ss Rese
a
r
ch
.
NY:
Psy
c
h
o
lo
g
y
Pr
ess. 2013: 29
5-3
36.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.