Internati
o
nal
Journal of Ele
c
trical
and Computer
Engineering
(IJE
CE)
V
o
l.
5, N
o
. 2
,
A
p
r
il
201
5, p
p
.
27
1
~
27
9
I
S
SN
: 208
8-8
7
0
8
2
71
Jo
urn
a
l
h
o
me
pa
ge
: h
ttp
://iaesjo
u
r
na
l.com/
o
n
lin
e/ind
e
x.ph
p
/
IJECE
Measurement of Informatio
n System Project Success
Based on Perceptions of the Internal Stakeholders
A’
an
g S
ubi
y
a
k
to
*
,
Abd.
Rahman
Ahlan
**
, Mira
Karti
w
i
**
,
Husni
Teja Suk
mana
**
*
* Department of
Information S
y
s
t
em, S
y
arif
Hiday
a
tullah State Islamic Univ
ersity
, Jakarta, Indones
i
a
** Departmen
t
o
f
Information
S
y
stem, Inte
rna
t
i
o
na
l
Isla
mi
c
Uni
v
ersi
ty
Ma
lay
s
i
a
,
Kuala Lum
pur, M
a
la
y
s
ia
*** Departmen
t
of Informatics Engineer
ing, S
y
ar
if Hida
y
a
tullah
State Islamic Univ
ersity
, Jak
a
rta, Indonesia
Article Info
A
B
STRAC
T
Article histo
r
y:
Received Dec 10, 2014
Rev
i
sed
Feb 9, 20
15
Accepted
Feb 17, 2015
In this r
e
sear
ch, adoption of
the De
Lone and
McLean (D&M)
information
s
y
s
t
em
(IS
) s
u
cc
es
s
m
odel and i
t
s
adapt
a
tion
wit
h
the pro
j
e
c
t s
u
c
ces
s
theor
i
es
were us
ed to
ex
plore s
t
a
t
e of
an
IS
project s
u
c
c
e
s
s
and to ex
am
ine fa
ctors
whic
h a
ffe
ct the suc
c
e
ss.
A surv
ey
towa
rds the interna
l
projec
t stakeho
l
ders
in a university
was carried out
with a
response rate of 48% (n
=62). Partial
least squares-str
u
ctural equation
m
odelling (PLS-SEM) analy
s
is then was
applied becaus
e
of th
e sample si
ze. Majority
respondents (80.7%)
repres
ent
e
d th
at
the s
u
cces
s
l
e
vel is
m
o
re
tha
n
50% where
i
n
form
ation
quality
,
s
y
s
t
em
quality
,
service quality
, s
y
s
t
em
use, and user
satisfaction
substantially
ex
plain 58.8% of
varian
ce in th
e success variable.
Although, a
numeral of
the findings was
reproducib
le with the prior studies,
thes
e
findings also presented in
consistencies,
particu
l
arly
connected to aspects of
information quality
and
organization ut
ilization. Consequently
,
research
ers
and pract
ition
e
r
s
will rem
a
in firm
to profit from
the data ca
t
e
red in this
stud
y
and
it is
hoped that futur
e
resear
ch will
establish upon the findings
described h
e
rein as efforts are pulled
in to
m
a
ke the IS pr
ojec
t succ
ess
parti
c
ular
l
y
in th
e sam
p
led
insti
t
u
tion.
Keyword:
D&M
m
odel
In
fo
rm
ation sy
stem
PLS-SEM
Project s
u
ccess
Survey
Copyright ©
201
5 Institut
e
o
f
Ad
vanced
Engin
eer
ing and S
c
i
e
nce.
All rights re
se
rve
d
.
Co
rresp
ond
i
ng
Autho
r
:
A’a
n
g S
ubi
y
a
k
t
o,
Depa
rt
m
e
nt
of
In
fo
rm
at
i
on Sy
st
em
, Sy
ari
f
Hi
d
a
yatu
llah
State Islam
i
c Un
iversity Jak
a
rta,
Jl.
Ir
. H
,
Ju
anda
No
. 95
, Tanger
a
ng
,
154
12
,
In
don
esia.
Em
ail: aang_s
ubiyakt
o@uinjkt.ac.id
1.
INTRODUCTION
Nowad
a
ys, it is h
a
rd
to
refu
te th
at IS is an
en
ab
l
e
r [
1
, 2]
i
n
rei
n
f
o
rci
n
g a
nd i
m
pro
v
i
n
g
busi
n
ess
of
the
users
,
but
firstly, they m
u
st success
f
ully devel
o
p thei
r s
y
ste
m
s to get t
h
e
be
nefits
[3]. This
m
eans that the
success of t
h
e
proj
ects
will be t
h
e fi
rst c
h
allenge
for t
h
e
use
r
s
[3]. Me
anwhile, som
e
resea
r
che
r
s, e
.
g. [4]
warne
d
that t
h
e project
failures ca
n ca
us
e substantia
l fin
a
n
c
ial lo
sses to
th
e
p
r
oj
ect o
w
n
e
rs and ev
en
j
e
op
ard
i
ze th
ei
r su
rv
iv
al. Th
is h
a
s b
een
an
interesti
n
g
issu
e
for research
ers an
d
practitio
ners sin
ce m
a
n
y
years
ago es
pecially after the Sta
n
dish Group published t
h
eir fi
rst su
rv
ey f
i
nd
ing
s
in
1
994
[6
]. A
ccor
d
ing
l
y,
man
y
sch
o
l
a
rs, e.
g.
[
7
]
wh
o
pr
op
os
ed D
&
M
IS s
u
ccess m
odel
i
n
19
9
2
, ha
d
bee
n
t
r
y
i
ng t
o
res
p
o
n
d
t
o
t
h
i
s
i
s
sue i
n
or
der t
o
rai
s
e t
h
e pr
oject
s
u
ccess l
e
vel
.
R
e
searche
r
s [
8
-
1
0]
m
e
nt
i
oned t
h
at
t
h
e m
odel
has been t
h
e
pre
d
om
inant basis of IS succ
ess
m
easurem
e
n
t over two
las
t
decades,
only they t
oo concl
ude
d that the
wide
p
opu
larity o
f
th
is m
o
d
e
l is a
l
so
strong
in
d
i
catio
n
of th
e d
e
m
a
n
d
for its u
tilizatio
n
in
th
e furth
e
r su
ccess
measurem
ent studies
in t
h
e
conte
x
t for ca
rrying
out
and d
e
v
e
lop
i
ng
t
h
e goo
d ex
am
ple. Specifically, [8]
su
gg
ested
bo
th research
ers and
practitio
n
e
rs
to
u
s
e t
h
e ov
erall d
i
m
e
n
s
io
n
s
o
f
t
h
e m
o
d
e
l in
o
r
d
e
r t
o
presen
t the
who
l
e po
rtrait o
f
p
r
o
cession
al
m
o
d
e
l. Simila
rly, [8-10
]
foun
d
th
at m
o
st sch
o
l
ars wh
o
h
a
ve u
tilized
th
is m
o
d
e
l
to
d
a
te, h
a
v
e
o
n
l
y fo
cu
sed
on
u
tilizatio
n
of th
e selected
parts of th
e m
o
d
e
l,
wh
ich
co
uld
affect th
e
ov
erall
validity of their system
measurem
ents.
There
f
ore, the
s
e scholars
[8
-10
]
sugg
ested
r
e
sear
ch
er
s and
p
r
actitio
n
e
rs t
o
u
s
e th
e co
m
p
lete
m
o
d
e
l to g
a
in
th
e
ov
erall
measu
r
em
en
t valid
ity.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
088
-87
08
IJEC
E V
o
l
.
5, No
. 2, A
p
ri
l
20
15
:
27
1 – 2
7
9
27
2
In
th
is st
u
d
y
, we drew
h
e
av
ily fro
m
th
e D&M IS su
ccess m
o
d
e
l [7
] and
in
teg
r
ated
it with
processi
onal a
nd
causal c
o
nc
epts from
selected project
s
u
ccess the
o
ries
[11-14] in
order to m
easure
an IS
proj
ect success. This m
odelling a
p
proac
h
i
s
in line
wi
t
h
[15]
who m
e
ntione
d that
num
e
rous m
ode
ls are
devel
ope
d
bas
e
d o
n
t
h
e p
r
e
v
i
ous t
h
eo
ri
es ra
t
h
er t
h
a
n
o
n
e
m
pi
ri
cal pro
o
f
s
. Thi
s
st
u
d
y
was pe
rf
orm
e
d
i
n
or
der
to explore the
state of IS project
succes
s in Syarif Hi
dayatullah State Is
l
a
m
i
c Universit
y
(Uni
versitas Islam
Nege
ri
[
U
I
N
]
)
Jakart
a a
nd e
x
am
i
n
e whet
he
r
const
r
uct
s
t
h
at
affected t
h
e project in
pa
rticular fro
m
p
e
rcep
tio
ns
of the internal project stakeholde
rs. Sim
i
lar to
th
e wo
rk
of Xu
et al.
[5
], th
e ter
m
IS in
th
is stu
d
y
was u
s
ed
in
ter
c
h
a
ng
eab
l
y
w
ith
in
fo
r
m
atio
n
techn
o
l
og
y (
I
T
)
and
i
n
fo
r
m
atio
n
and
co
mm
u
n
i
catio
n
techno
logy (
I
C
T)
refe
rri
n
g
t
o
a
s
y
st
em
whi
c
h
w
a
s use
d
t
o
de
pl
oy
b
u
si
ness
pr
ocesses
an
d i
t
s
ser
v
i
ces.
A
su
rvey
was c
a
r
r
i
e
d
ou
t
on as a sam
p
l
e
of
13
0 I
S
p
r
o
j
ect
st
akeh
ol
der
s
wh
o
have
be
en i
n
vol
ved i
n
IS p
r
o
j
ect
s wi
t
h
6
2
(
48%
) u
s
abl
e
q
u
e
stio
nn
aires
retu
rn
ed
. C
o
n
s
id
ering
th
e
small size o
f
th
e
sam
p
le, an
SEM-
PLS an
alysis w
a
s
p
e
rf
or
med
on
the data. T
h
e study addre
sses
two resea
r
ch
que
stions: (1
) How is the level of succes
s the curre
nt IS
projec
t
?
(2)
What a
r
e t
h
e factors t
h
at a
ffect the
IS
project s
u
ccess
?
Th
e
p
a
p
e
r is
o
r
g
a
n
i
zed
as
fo
ll
o
w
s. In
t
h
e seco
nd
section
,
we su
mm
arize t
h
e in
si
g
h
t
s
o
f
th
e literatu
re
on project
succ
ess the
o
ries
and the
D&M
IS
success
m
ode
l in order t
o
de
velop t
h
e
proposed
hypothese
s
.
We
th
en
d
e
scri
b
e
th
e research
m
e
th
od
in
th
e t
h
ird
section
an
d
presen
t th
e an
al
ysis resu
lts in
th
e fo
urth
secti
o
n. In
th
e fifth
section
,
we d
i
scu
ss th
e resu
lts fro
m
th
e th
eo
re
tical and practical
pers
pectiv
es an
d
ad
dress li
mitatio
n
s
of t
h
i
s
st
udy
a
s
wel
l
as a
d
di
ng
su
g
g
est
i
o
ns
fo
r
p
o
ssi
bl
e t
h
e
fut
u
re
resea
r
ch
. I
n
t
h
e l
a
st
sect
i
o
n
,
we
pr
ovi
de
ove
ral
l
sum
m
ary
an
d c
o
ncl
u
si
on
o
f
t
h
e
wh
ol
e st
u
d
y
.
2.
THEORETICAL FRAME
W
ORK
AND
HYPOTHESES DE
VELOPMENT
Conce
p
ts of the project succe
ss ha
ve bee
n
discou
rsi
ng
am
ong resea
r
che
r
s and practitione
rs
for
m
a
ny
years [14-17] especially for determin
i
ng w
h
at
t
h
e success defi
ni
t
i
on i
s
. The defi
ni
t
i
on h
a
s been cha
n
ge
d o
v
er
ti
m
e
s, d
i
scu
ssed
often
tim
es, a
n
d
still lack
of
ag
reem
en
t,
p
a
rticu
l
arly fo
r
wh
ich
criteria will h
a
v
e
u
s
ed
[14
-
17
].
De
W
i
t
[1
1]
m
e
nt
i
oned t
h
a
t
“The
m
o
st
app
r
op
ri
at
e criteria for succe
ss are th
e project’s objectives. The
degrees to which these objec
tives have bee
n
m
e
t dete
r
m
ine the success
of the proj
ect.” He also indicate
d
con
s
i
d
erat
i
o
n of
t
h
e pr
oject
m
a
nagem
e
nt
and pr
od
uct
su
c
cess separations, as it then was define
d clea
rly by
[12
]
th
at p
r
o
j
ect su
ccess is a co
m
b
in
atio
n
o
f
p
r
o
j
ect
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
su
ccess an
d
p
r
od
u
c
t
su
ccess. In
add
itio
n,
[1
3]
enri
c
h
ed t
h
i
s
defi
ni
t
i
on a
nd m
e
nt
i
one
d t
h
at
‘‘t
he sat
i
s
f
act
i
on o
f
al
l
stakeh
ol
de
rs
’’ as
hi
s pr
oject
s
u
ccess
defi
ni
t
i
on. R
e
t
r
os
pect
i
v
el
y
,
[
14]
t
h
e
n
co
nc
l
ude
d t
h
at
pr
o
j
ect
success c
o
n
n
o
t
e
s wi
t
h
di
ffe
re
nt
t
h
i
n
g
s
t
o
d
i
fferen
t
p
e
o
p
l
e, and
v
e
ry con
t
ex
t-d
e
p
e
nd
en
t. Based
o
n
t
h
e ab
ov
e m
e
n
tio
n
e
d
literatures, we con
c
lud
e
th
at th
e
success of
a project
can be measured
t
h
r
o
ug
h
pr
ocessi
o
n
al
an
d causal
revi
ew
s o
f
t
h
e pr
oje
c
t
per
f
o
r
m
a
nce
fro
m
th
e p
r
oj
ect
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
th
e product u
tilizat
io
n
d
i
men
s
io
n
s
w
ith
co
nsid
eri
n
g
the p
e
rsp
ectiv
es
o
f
th
e
st
akeh
ol
de
rs
[
1
2
-
17]
.
O
n
t
h
e ot
her
ha
n
d
,
t
h
ree
p
r
i
o
r
m
e
t
a
-anal
y
si
s st
u
d
i
e
s
[8
-1
0]
i
n
di
cat
ed t
h
at
m
a
ny
I
S
researc
h
ers ha
ve bee
n
used
D&M IS s
u
cc
ess m
odel
[7] for over two decades
a
n
d suggeste
d to use the
co
m
p
lete
m
o
d
e
l for
reach
i
ng
the
o
v
e
rall
v
a
lid
ity o
f
th
e m
easu
r
em
en
t.
Th
e au
t
h
o
r
s [7
] d
e
scrib
e
d
t
h
at the
m
odel was de
velope
d
base
d on the
comm
unication
researc
h
[18] and t
h
e i
n
form
ati
on “influe
n
ce” the
o
ry [19]
in
to
three co
mp
on
en
ts: th
e creatio
n
o
f
a syst
e
m
, th
e u
s
e
of
the system
, and the c
o
nse
que
nces (im
p
act)
of t
h
is
syste
m
.
Accord
ing
l
y,
we ad
op
ted th
e ov
erall m
o
d
e
l
[7
] an
d
adap
ted
th
e log
i
cal sen
s
e i
n
lin
e
with
th
e pro
j
ect
success t
h
eories [11-14] in the cont
ext of an
IS project success
m
easur
em
en
t (Fig
ure 1
)
.
We assu
mp
t the
syste
m
creation is a proj
ect
managem
e
nt success.
The
sy
ste
m
uses the
product
utiliza
tion success, a
nd t
h
e
syste
m
im
pact as the
projec
t succe
ss. Con
s
id
ering
th
e
p
r
ev
iou
s
t
h
ree m
e
ta an
alysis stud
ies [8
-10
]
, we
pr
o
pose
d
1
3
h
y
pot
he
ses i
n
re
gar
d
t
o
a
b
o
v
e
m
e
nt
i
oned
i
ssu
es:
H1
a:
In
fo
rm
ati
o
n Qu
ality (INQ)
aff
ects significan
tly System
Use (SYU);
H1b
:
Inform
ati
o
n Qu
ality (INQ)
affect
s significan
tly User
Satisfactio
n (USF);
H1c: Inform
ati
o
n
Quality
(INQ) affects
significantly
IS Proj
ect Success
(PSC);
H2
a:
System
Qu
ality (SYQ) affect
s si
g
n
i
fican
tly Syste
m
Use (SYU);
H2b
:
System
Qu
ality (SYQ) affects si
gn
ifi
can
tly User Sat
i
sfactio
n
(USF);
H2c:
System
Quality (SYQ) a
ffects si
gni
ficantly
IS Proj
ect Success
(PSC);
H3
a: Serv
ice Qu
ality
(SVQ)
affects
sign
ifi
can
tly Syste
m
Use
(SYU);
H3b
:
Serv
ice
Qu
ality (SVQ) affects si
gn
ifi
can
tly User Sat
i
sfactio
n
(USF);
H3c:
Service
Quality (SVQ) affects si
gnifi
cantly IS
Proj
e
c
t Success (PSC);
H4a:
System
Use (SYU) a
ffe
c
t
s signi
fican
tly User Satisfacti
o
n (USF);
H4
b: Sy
stem
Use
(S
YU
)
a
f
fects signi
ficant
l
y IS Project Success
(PSC
);
H5:
Use
r
Satis
faction (USF)
affects si
gni
ficantly IS
Projec
t Success
(PSC
).
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ECE
I
S
SN
:
208
8-8
7
0
8
Meas
u
rem
e
nt
of
I
n
f
o
r
m
at
i
o
n
Syst
em
Pr
oj
ect
S
u
ccess
Base
d
o
n
Perce
p
t
i
o
n
s
of
…
(
A
’a
n
g
Su
bi
yakt
o)
27
3
Fi
gu
re
1.
The
pr
o
pose
d
m
ode
l
(A
da
pt
ed
fr
o
m
[7-1
4]
)
3.
R
E
SEARC
H M
ETHOD
Fi
gu
re 2
pre
s
e
n
t
s
t
h
e ei
g
h
t
st
ages o
f
t
h
i
s
st
u
d
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
has
been
per
f
o
rm
ed d
u
ri
ng Ja
n
u
a
r
y
t
o
Oct
o
be
r
2
014
.
Th
e popu
latio
n
w
a
s 212
in
ter
n
al
pr
oject stak
eho
l
d
e
rs of
th
e IS
p
r
o
j
ect, i.e. t
o
p m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
, bu
si
n
e
ss un
it
managers
,
IS/IT unit m
a
nagers,
project m
a
nagers
, a
n
d pr
oject
tea
m
m
e
mbers
.
T
h
e data were receive
d from
th
e p
e
rson
n
e
l
ad
m
i
n
i
stratio
n
u
n
it o
f
th
e sam
p
led
in
stitu
tion. Referred
to
th
e k
e
y in
fo
rm
an
t p
o
i
n
t
[20
-
21
], we
r
a
ndo
m
l
y sele
cted
130
(
49%)
respon
d
e
n
t
s wh
o exp
e
r
i
enced in t
h
e
projects and
t
h
en
se
nt
9
0
on
-l
i
n
e
que
st
i
o
n
n
ai
res
and
40
pa
per
-
b
ase
d
q
u
est
i
o
n
n
ai
res.
6
2
of
1
30
(4
8%
) res
p
on
de
nt
s pa
rt
i
c
i
p
at
ed i
n
t
h
e s
u
rvey
,
i
n
cl
udi
ng
3
9
(3
0%
) el
ect
ro
ni
c an
d
2
3
(
1
8%)
pa
per
-
b
as
ed
versi
ons
.
The c
o
l
l
ect
ed
raw
dat
a
t
h
e
n
were
pr
ocesse
d
usi
n
g M
S
. E
x
cel
2
0
0
7
a
nd c
o
nv
e
r
t
e
d i
n
t
o
.cs
v
f
i
l
e
form
at
usi
ng SP
SS
versi
o
n 2
0
as i
n
p
u
t
f
i
l
e
for
Sm
art
P
LS 2.
0
anal
y
s
i
s
. Ta
bl
e 1
p
r
esent
s
t
h
e
dem
ogra
phi
c i
n
f
o
rm
at
i
on o
f
t
h
e
resp
o
nde
nt
s
.
In
st
ru
m
e
n
t
s o
f
th
e stu
d
y
were su
rv
ey qu
estio
nn
aires in
cl
ud
ing
inv
itatio
n letter, in
tro
ductio
n
,
an
d
que
st
i
on
pa
ges
wi
t
h
a l
i
nk t
o
t
h
e
el
ect
ro
ni
c ver
s
i
o
n. T
h
e
q
u
est
i
o
n
i
t
e
m
s
i
n
cl
u
d
e
d
3
r
e
sp
on
de
nt
p
r
o
f
i
l
e
, 6
pr
o
j
ect
pr
ofi
l
e
,
and
29 e
x
am
inat
i
on
q
u
est
i
o
ns. T
h
e m
easurem
ent
it
em
s
were a
n
ch
o
r
ed
on a 5
-
p
o
i
n
t
Li
kert
scale ranging from
“strongly disagree” to “s
trongly agr
ee”
[22] in which
responde
nt
s we
re aske
d to indicate
t
h
e app
r
op
ri
at
e resp
onse
.
I
n
or
der t
o
e
n
su
r
e
val
i
d
i
t
y
of thi
s
i
n
st
rum
e
nt
,
we ado
p
t
e
d a
num
ber of v
a
l
i
d
at
ed
sources
questions from
the pre
v
ious
resea
r
ch
works (T
able 3),
perform
e
d pre-test
to receive em
pirical
feedbac
k
from five academ
i
c
ians
who e
x
perie
n
ced a
n
d skilled in IS
/IT researc
h
es, and assesse
d the
m
easurem
ent
m
odel
[31
-
3
6
]
wi
t
h
t
h
e f
o
u
r
i
ndi
cat
o
r
del
e
t
i
ons
(S
VQ
6, S
Y
Q
2
,
USF
1
, a
nd PC
S5
) beca
use
o
f
u
n
reliab
ilities o
r
inv
a
lid
ities o
f
th
e i
n
d
i
cators (Tab
le
3
)
.
In the a
n
alysis stage, PLS-SEM
with
Sm
ar
tPLS 2
.
0
was co
nsid
ered
to
b
e
u
s
ed
b
ecause th
e sm
a
ll
si
ze of t
h
e sa
m
p
l
e
wi
t
h
n=
62
[3
1-
3
6
]
.
The desc
ri
pt
i
v
e
analysis was perform
e
d to
p
r
esen
t profiles o
f
th
e
resp
o
nde
nt
s (T
abl
e
1) an
d t
o
capt
u
re pr
o
f
i
l
e
of t
h
e p
r
oject
perform
a
nce, especially in
order to ans
w
er the first
research
qu
estio
n (Tab
le
2
)
.
Mean
wh
ile, the in
feren
tial an
alysis was
p
e
rfo
r
m
e
d
to
ex
amin
e th
e fo
rm
u
l
ated
hypotheses
. Specifically, the
m
easure
m
en
t m
o
d
e
l assessmen
ts
were cond
u
c
ted
reflectiv
ely to
ev
alu
a
te th
e
v
a
lid
ity an
d
reliab
ility
o
f
th
e v
a
riab
les an
d th
eir in
d
i
cators u
s
i
n
g
ind
i
cato
r reliab
ility, in
tern
al con
s
isten
c
y
reliability, converge
n
t validity, and discrim
i
nant validity
assessm
ents [33-36]. Furt
herm
ore, the structural
m
odel assess
ments we
re carried out to e
v
al
uate th
e co
efficien
t of d
e
term
in
atio
n
(
R
2
)
of
the en
dog
enou
s l
a
ten
t
v
a
riab
les, th
e
p
a
th
co
efficients
(
β
), the e
ffe
ct size (
f
2
), and
th
e stru
ctural p
a
th sign
ifican
ce
v
i
a boo
tstrap
p
i
ng
to
v
a
lid
ate th
e
h
ypo
th
eses [33-36
].
Figure
2. The
research procedure
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
088
-87
08
IJEC
E V
o
l
.
5, No
. 2, A
p
ri
l
20
15
:
27
1 – 2
7
9
27
4
4.
R
E
SU
LTS AN
D ANA
LY
SES
The
descri
pt
i
v
e anal
y
s
i
s
pres
ent
e
d t
h
e
dem
o
g
r
a
phi
c i
n
fo
r
m
at
i
on of t
h
e
resp
o
nde
nt
s (
T
abl
e
1
)
an
d
the IS project
state (Table
2). All
of t
h
e
re
sponde
n
ts we
re educated
w
ith
th
e m
a
j
o
rity o
f
th
e
resp
ond
en
t
s
(9
1.
9%
) g
r
ad
u
a
t
e
d bac
h
el
o
r
and a
b
ove
, es
peci
al
l
y
t
h
e
m
a
st
er de
grees
whi
c
h we
re t
h
e hi
g
h
est
pe
rc
ent
a
ge
(5
6.
5%
). Di
st
r
i
but
i
o
n o
f
I
S
pr
o
j
ect
ex
peri
ence sh
o
w
s t
h
at
,
m
o
st
of t
h
e resp
o
nde
nt
s
(9
1.
9%)
ha
ve
bee
n
expe
ri
ence
d
u
nde
r
1
0
y
ears
on
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
ect
an
d m
o
st
o
f
t
h
em
(40
.
3%
)
have
bee
n
ex
p
e
ri
ence
d
du
ri
n
g
5-
1
0
y
ears. M
o
re
ov
er, t
h
e
hi
ghest
perce
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
t
h
e res
p
on
de
nt
s (
5
8.
1%)
w
a
s t
h
e
pr
oje
c
t
t
e
am
m
e
m
b
ers.
In
ad
d
ition
,
t
h
ere are
fiv
e
m
a
in
d
e
scri
p
tio
ns
o
f
th
e
p
r
o
j
ect
state. 1
)
Mo
st
o
f
th
e respo
n
d
e
n
t
s (4
1.9
%
) ind
i
cated
th
at th
e
d
e
v
e
lop
m
en
t g
o
a
ls
of th
e pro
j
ect
were to
fu
lfil
o
p
e
ration
a
l requ
irem
en
ts. 2)
Th
e m
a
j
o
rity o
f
th
em
stated
(71
%
) t
h
at th
eir in
stitu
tio
n
h
a
s th
e IS strateg
i
c p
l
an
. 3) The IS dev
e
lop
m
en
t p
r
o
j
ect was p
e
rfo
r
m
e
d
m
a
jori
t
y
by
i
n
t
e
rnal
pe
rs
on
n
e
l
s
(4
3.
5%)
.
4
)
I
n
t
h
e
pr
oje
c
t
fun
d
i
ng
poi
nt
s, t
h
e
hi
g
h
e
s
t
perce
n
t
a
ge
of t
h
e
resp
o
nde
nt
s (
3
8.
7%) a
n
swe
r
e
d
t
h
at
t
h
e pr
oj
ect
was fun
d
e
d
m
a
jori
t
y
by
i
n
t
e
rnal
fu
n
d
i
n
g.
On t
h
e ot
he
r han
d
,
the lowest
perc
entage (4.8%
)
answere
d
th
e
proj
ect was
fund
ed
10
0
%
b
y
ex
tern
al fund
ing
.
5
)
Majority o
f
th
e
resp
o
nde
nt
s (
8
0.
7%) a
n
s
w
ere
d
t
h
at
pe
rce
n
t
a
ge o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
success l
e
ve
l
was m
o
re t
h
a
n
5
0
% a
n
d 3
3
.
9
%
o
f
t
h
e res
p
on
de
nt
s st
at
ed t
h
at
t
h
i
s
perce
n
t
a
ge
was m
o
re t
h
a
n
7
5
%.
F
u
rt
he
r
m
ore,
th
ere are th
e two
resu
lts of the
in
feren
tial an
al
yses, in
clud
i
ng the m
easurement and
struct
ural m
odel asses
s
m
e
nts.
First
, the m
eas
urem
ent
m
odel assessm
ents. 1)
In
d
i
ca
to
r relia
b
ility
was e
v
a
l
uat
e
d
usi
n
g t
h
e val
u
es
o
f
t
h
e i
ndi
cat
o
r
l
o
adi
n
g
s
wi
t
h
l
o
adi
ng
of
0.
7 or a
b
o
v
e [
3
2
-
36]
. R
e
fe
rre
d
t
o
[3
1]
wh
o ci
t
e
d [3
2]
, SV
Q
6
wa
s
dr
o
ppe
d
beca
u
s
e i
t
s
l
o
adi
n
g
was l
e
ss
t
h
a
n
0.
4.
2)
In
tern
a
l
con
s
istency rea
lib
ility
w
a
s ev
alu
a
ted u
s
ing
co
m
p
o
s
ite realib
ility
(CR) w
ith
th
e th
resh
o
l
d
v
a
lu
e
0
.
7
[3
2-37
]. A
ltho
ugh, sev
e
ral stud
ies, e.g
.
[31
]
in
d
i
cated
the use
of Cronbac
h
’s alpha
(CA) i
n
this as
sessm
ent,
we consi
d
ere
d
to
us
e CR because
CA tends to se
verely
u
n
d
e
resti
m
ate
th
e in
tern
al con
s
isten
c
y reliab
ility o
f
v
a
riable [3
9
]
esp
ecially i
t
s assu
m
p
tio
n
th
at all in
dicato
r
s
with
in
t
h
e
v
a
ri
ab
le hav
e
th
e
sam
e
ran
g
e
and
m
ean
in
g,
equ
a
lly reliab
l
e,
an
d withou
t co
n
s
i
d
eri
n
g th
ei
r item
lo
ad
ing
s
[
38-
39
].
3)
Con
vergen
t
va
lid
ity
wa
s evaluate
d usi
ng
AVE with t
h
e accepta
ble thres
h
old
of
0.5 [32-
3
6
]
. Tab
l
e 3
sh
ows th
e result wh
ich
it p
r
esen
ted
th
at all o
f
th
e v
a
riab
les h
a
v
e
AVE in
ab
ov
e the u
s
ed
t
h
res
hol
d val
u
e.
4
)
Discri
mina
n
t
va
lid
ity
wa
s eval
uat
e
d t
h
r
o
u
g
h
an
al
y
s
i
s
of c
r
o
ss-l
o
adi
n
g [
3
2-
36]
a
n
d
del
e
t
e
d
SYQ2, USF1
,
an
d PCS5
b
e
cau
s
e their lo
adin
g
s
was
un
der th
an
th
ei
r cro
ss-l
o
ad
ing
s
(Tab
le
3
)
. Sim
i
lar to
stu
d
i
es, e.g. [3
1
]
an
d
[4
0
]
who
refe
rred
t
o
th
e
d
e
fi
n
ition
th
at is th
e ex
ten
t
to
wh
ich a g
i
v
e
n
v
a
riab
le is
di
ffe
re
nt
fr
om
t
h
e ot
he
rs [
40]
, t
h
e squ
a
re
d AVE
of t
h
e va
ri
abl
e
s we
re al
so use
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
assessm
ent
.
Tabl
e
4
shows
that t
h
e
square
d
AVE
of the
va
riable
s was
greater
th
at th
eir co
rrelatio
n
v
a
rian
ces. In
sho
r
t, th
e resu
lts
of t
h
e a
b
ove
mentioned ass
e
ssm
ents
prese
n
t that the m
easurem
ent item
s
o
f
th
is stud
y d
e
m
o
n
s
tr
at
e a go
od
p
s
ycho
m
e
tric p
r
op
erties, esp
e
cially fo
r m
easu
r
i
n
g th
e st
ruct
ural m
odel ass
e
ssm
ents [33-36] res
p
ectively.
S
econd
,
t
h
e structural m
odel assessm
ents. 1)
T
h
e c
o
efficient of
determ
ination (
R
2
) wa
s
eval
uate
d
wi
t
h
val
u
es
o
f
ap
pr
o
x
i
m
at
ely
0.
67
0 a
r
e c
o
nsi
d
e
r
ed
s
ubst
a
nt
i
a
l
,
val
u
es
aro
u
n
d
0
.
3
3
3
m
oderat
e
, an
d
val
u
e
s
aro
u
n
d
0
.
1
9
0
weak
[
3
3-
36]
.
Al
l
ot
her
vari
abl
e
s t
o
get
h
e
r
sub
s
t
a
nt
i
a
l
l
y
expl
ai
ne
d
5
5
.
8
% o
f
t
h
e
vari
a
n
ce i
n
Tabl
e 1.
R
e
s
p
o
nde
nt
pr
ofi
l
e
s
Measures
Ite
m
s
%
E
ducation High
school
8.
1
Diplo
m
a
-
Bachelor
27.4
M
a
ster
56.
5
Doctor
8.
1
IS Pro
j
ec
t
Experience
< 2 y
e
ar
s
35.
5
2-
5 y
ear
s
16.
1
5-
10 y
ear
s
40.
3
>10
y
ear
s
8.
1
Position Top
Manager
1.6
Business
unit
m
a
n
a
ger
27.
4
I
S
/I
T
unit
m
a
nager
6.
5
Pr
oject
m
a
nager
6.
5
Project
tea
m
m
e
mber
58.1
Tab
l
e 2
.
I
S
pr
oj
ect
pro
f
iles
Measures
Ite
m
s
%
Develop
m
ent
goals
Oper
ational r
e
quirem
e
nts
41.
9
M
a
nager
i
al r
e
quir
e
m
e
nts
16.
1
Str
a
tegic r
e
quir
e
m
e
nts
17.
7
Oper
ational and
m
a
nager
i
al r
e
quir
e
m
e
nts
6.
5
Oper
ational & str
a
tegic r
e
quir
e
m
e
nts
8.
1
Oper
ational,
m
a
nager
i
al
&
str
a
tegic requir
e
m
e
nts
9.
7
Ownership of
IS strat
e
g
i
c
plan
Available
71.
0
Not available
6.
5
Unknown
22.
6
I
S
develop
m
ent
str
a
tegy
100% buy
ing
3.
2
M
a
jor
i
ty
buy
ing
27.
4
50-
50
21.
0
Majorit
y
internal d
e
velop
m
ent
43.
5
100% inter
n
al dev
e
lop
m
ent
4.
8
Funding
100% inter
n
al fun
d
ing
30.
6
M
a
jor
i
ty
inter
n
al f
undin
g
38.
7
50-
50
12.
9
M
a
jor
i
ty
exter
n
al fundin
g
12.
9
100% exter
n
al fun
d
ing
4.
8
Success L
e
vel
< 25 %
6.
5
25-
50
%
12.
9
50-
75 %
46.
8
> 75 %
33.
9
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ECE
I
S
SN
:
208
8-8
7
0
8
Meas
u
rem
e
nt
of
I
n
f
o
r
m
at
i
o
n
Syst
em
Pr
oj
ect
S
u
ccess
Base
d
o
n
Perce
p
t
i
o
n
s
of
…
(
A
’a
n
g
Su
bi
yakt
o)
27
5
PSC
.
Whi
l
e
,
IN
Q,
SY
Q, a
nd
SV
Q t
o
ge
t
h
er m
oderat
e
l
y
expres
sed
42
.5
% o
f
t
h
e
SY
U va
ri
anc
e
a
n
d
su
bstan
tially d
e
scrib
e
d
69
.7% o
f
th
e
US
F variance
. 2) The pat
h
coe
f
ficients
(
β
)
were ev
alu
a
ted
with
th
e
abo
v
e
val
u
e
of
0.
1 t
o
acco
u
n
t
fo
r a cert
a
i
n
i
m
pact
wi
t
h
i
n
the m
odel
[3
3-
36]
. Fi
gu
re 3 a
nd Ta
bl
e 5 s
h
o
w
t
h
a
t
eig
h
t
of
12
β
s
were statistically sig
n
i
fican
t an
d
the h
i
gh
est
n
u
m
b
e
r of
β
s
was bet
w
een S
VQ a
nd
PSC (
0
.
4
1
6
)
.
3) T
h
e effect
size (
f
2
) was eval
uat
e
d usi
n
g val
u
e
s
of a
p
p
r
op
ri
at
el
y
0.02
0,
0.
15
0,
or
0.3
5
0
i
ndi
cat
e t
h
e
pre
d
i
c
t
o
r
va
ri
a
b
l
e
’s l
o
w
,
m
e
di
um
, or l
a
rge
e
ffect
i
n
t
h
e structural m
odel. The
res
u
lt p
r
esen
ts th
at two
o
f
12
pat
h
s
have
o
n
l
y
t
h
e
m
e
di
um
effect
s an
d t
h
e
ot
her
s
ha
ve s
m
al
l
e
r effect
s. 4)
S
t
ru
ctura
l
p
a
t
h
sign
ifica
n
ce
i
n
bo
ot
st
ra
p
p
i
n
g
was evaluate
d using critical
t
-v
alu
e
(1
.65
0
) fo
r two
-
tailed test with
sig
n
i
fican
ce lev
e
l = 1
0
perce
n
t [34] to validate the
hypothe
se
s [33-36].
Table
5 s
h
ows t
h
at four
of 12
hypothe
s
es are acce
pte
d
a
n
d
the othe
rs are rejecte
d
. In bri
e
f, res
u
lts of the stru
ct
ural
m
odel
assessm
e
nt
s abo
v
e presen
t co
nsisten
c
ies and
in
con
s
isten
c
ies with
t
h
e
p
r
ev
i
o
u
s
stud
ies.
Fi
gu
re 3.
The
Sm
art
P
LS
resu
lts of t
h
e
research m
odel
Table
3. T
h
e
measurem
ent m
odel assessm
ents
Ref.
I
ndicator
s
OL
Cr
oss-
loadings
CR
AVE
INQ
PSC
SVQ
SYQ
SYU
USF
[7]
Accur
a
cy
(I
NQ1)
0.
894
0.
894
0.
597
0.
712
0.
693
0.
574
0.
715
0.
936
0.
744
[7]
T
i
m
e
liness (
I
N
Q2)
0.
854
0.
854
0.
573
0.
716
0.
708
0.
623
0.
666
[7]
Co
m
p
leteness (
I
N
Q3)
0.
906
0.
906
0.
477
0.
660
0.
725
0.
436
0.
631
[7]
Relevance (
I
NQ4)
0.
858
0.
858
0.
542
0.
626
0.
716
0.
363
0.
699
[7]
Consistency
(
I
N
Q5)
0.
797
0.
797
0.
456
0.
531
0.
699
0.
383
0.
568
[7]
Resour
ces savings (
PSC1)
0.
851
0.
589
0.
851
0.
698
0.
654
0.
526
0.
612
0.
897
0.
685
[23]
M
a
nager
i
al effectiveness
(
PSC2)
0.
789
0.
425
0.
789
0.
486
0.
526
0.
229
0.
459
[23]
Pr
oductivity
im
pr
o
v
em
ent (
PSC3)
0.
828
0.
459
0.
828
0.
533
0.
498
0.
427
0.
559
[24]
Custo
m
er satisfaction (
PSC4)
0.
842
0.
549
0.
842
0.
671
0.
611
0.
434
0.
603
[25]
Co
m
p
etitive
advantage
(PSC5)
Deleted
[7]
Assur
a
nce (
S
VQ1)
0.
828
0.
646
0.
597
0.
828
0.
641
0.
432
0.
583
0.
919
0.
696
[7]
Em
pathy (
S
VQ2)
0.
889
0.
705
0.
686
0.
889
0.
700
0.
513
0.
636
[7]
Responsive
n
ess (
S
VQ3)
0.
786
0.
642
0.
642
0.
786
0.
751
0.
561
0.
714
[26]
Flexibility (S
VQ4)
0.
852 0.561
0.491
0.
852
0.
613
0.
491
0.
614
[26]
Interpersonal quality (S
VQ5) 0.811
0.
596 0.614
0.
811
0.
562
0.
434
0.
661
[27]
Security
(SV
Q
6)
Deleted
[7]
E
a
se-
o
f-
use (
S
YQ1)
0.
881
0.
699
0.
625
0.
621
0.
881
0.
486
0.
642
0.
930
0.
726
[7]
Reliability
(SYQ2)
Deleted
[28]
Flexibility (S
YQ3)
0.827
0.668
0.
549 0.658
0.
827
0.
641
0.
678
[7]
Functionality (SY
Q
4)
0.
803 0.687
0.
580 0.612
0.
803
0.
493
0.
569
[8]
Maintainability (S
YQ5)
0.
867 0.761
0.
614 0.774
0.
867
0.
588
0.
711
[7]
Response tim
e
(
S
YQ6)
0.
880
0.
673
0.
608
0.
686
0.
880
0.
494
0.
714
[7]
Natur
e
of use (
S
YU1)
0.
825
0.
401
0.
415
0.
380
0.
424
0.
825
0.
403
0.
871
0.
692
[7]
E
x
tent of use (
S
YU2)
0.
885
0.
569
0.
451
0.
590
0.
646
0.
885
0.
547
[29]
I
n
tensity
of use (
S
YU3)
0.
783
0.
408
0.
380
0.
468
0.
489
0.
783
0.
426
[30]
Adequacy
(U
SF1)
Deleted
[30]
E
ffectiveness
(
U
SF2)
0.
935
0.
677
0.
603
0.
705
0.
669
0.
499
0.
935
0.
940
0.
839
[30]
E
fficiency
(
U
SF3)
0.
940
0.
714
0.
582
0.
683
0.
708
0.
498
0.
940
[23]
Over
all satisfactio
n (
U
SF4)
0.
871
0.
704
0.
677
0.
731
0.
759
0.
534
0.
871
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
088
-87
08
IJEC
E V
o
l
.
5, No
. 2, A
p
ri
l
20
15
:
27
1 – 2
7
9
27
6
5.
DIS
C
USSI
ONS
Accord
ing
to
th
e resu
lts o
f
th
e
analysis stage and the two researc
h
que
stions
, two m
a
in
discussi
on
poi
nt
s
of t
h
e st
udy
a
r
e:
First
, although the perform
ance
o
f
th
e
IS
p
r
o
j
ects
was ind
i
cated
esp
ecially to
fu
lfil th
e
o
p
e
ration
a
l
requ
irem
en
ts with
th
e in
ternal d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
rs an
d fun
d
i
n
g
s
,
i
t
was ca
rri
e
d
out
base
d
o
n
t
h
e
d
e
vel
o
ped
I
S
st
r
a
t
e
gi
c
p
l
an
. Th
erefo
r
e, it is
n
o
t
su
sp
ri
n
g
l
y if th
e lev
e
l o
f
th
e su
ccess is
m
a
j
o
rity su
ccessfu
l
. As it was in
d
i
cated
b
y
m
o
st of the
re
sponde
n
ts (80.7%) wh
o a
n
swered t
h
at
perce
n
tage
of the
project
succes
s l
e
vel was
m
o
re than
50%. Moreove
r
, 33.9%
of the responde
nts
stated that
th
is p
e
rcen
tag
e
was m
o
re th
an
75
%. Th
e
gradu
a
l
o
b
j
ectiv
e
attain
m
e
n
t
s
fro
m
t
h
e o
p
e
ration
a
l to
th
e strateg
i
c
ob
j
ectives b
a
sed
o
n
th
e IS
strateg
i
c p
l
an
were
in
line with the
previ
ous
proj
ect
perform
a
nce studies
[11-14] especially
whi
c
h de
scri
bed t
h
at the s
u
ccess
of
a
p
r
oj
ect can b
e
in
d
i
cated throug
h th
e
proj
ect
man
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
an
d th
e
produ
ct
u
tilizatio
n
su
ccesses.
S
econd
, the
r
e are three iss
u
es in rega
rd t
o
the find
i
n
gs
of t
h
i
s
st
u
d
y
:
1) The fi
ndi
ngs
pre
s
ent
statistically th
at INQ and
SYU a
ffect
i
n
sig
n
i
fican
tly PSC as th
is was i
ndicated by the
pat
h
significance
assessm
en
t (Tab
le 5). It is i
n
co
n
s
isten
t
with
th
e resu
lts
o
f
th
e
p
r
ev
iou
s
m
e
ta-an
a
lysis st
u
d
i
es related to
D&M
IS succe
ss m
o
del
,
e.g
.
[
8
-
1
0]
and p
r
oj
ect s
u
ccess theories [11-14]. For ins
t
an
ce, [
8
]
desc
ri
be
d t
h
at
m
o
st
of t
h
e
pat
h
s
bet
w
een
bot
h
IN
Q a
n
d
SY
U (
s
y
s
t
e
m
use)
an
d
PSC
(
n
et
be
ne
fi
t
s
) i
n
b
o
t
h
i
ndi
vi
d
u
a
l
and
o
r
gani
zat
i
onal
lev
e
ls o
f
an
alyses are th
e sign
ifican
t p
a
t
h
s in
m
o
d
e
rate
sup
port. In
t
h
is stu
d
y
, th
is m
i
g
h
t
u
n
supp
orted b
y
th
e
co
llected
d
a
ta
o
r
t
h
is mig
h
t
be th
e tr
en
d
of t
h
e p
r
oject
i
m
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on. 2
)
M
a
jo
ri
t
y
of t
h
e effect
s
of t
h
e
fi
ve
exam
ined factors t
o
wa
rd PSC (10 of
th
e
1
3
p
a
ths)
p
r
esen
t statisticall
y
th
e sm
a
ll effects, on
ly two
p
a
t
h
s
(SV
Q
USF a
nd
SVQ
PSC) wh
ich
h
a
ve statistical
ly
effects in
the
m
e
diu
m
size,
and eve
n
one pat
h
(SY
U
PSC
) doe
s not
prese
n
t effect statistically. These findi
ng
s are in
co
n
s
isten
t
with
th
e p
r
ev
iou
s
st
u
d
i
es
[7-14
]
. Sim
i
lar to
th
e first issu
e, th
is m
i
g
h
t u
n
s
u
ppo
rted
b
y
th
e co
llected
d
a
ta
o
r
p
o
rtrait o
f
th
e pro
j
ect
perform
a
nce trends. 3) It is s
u
rpri
si
ng to notice that only f
o
ur of the
13
hypothe
ses are statistically accepted
in
th
e h
ypo
thesis v
a
lid
atio
n
(Tab
le
5
)
.
In
reg
a
rd
to
th
e selected
th
eories an
d
m
o
d
e
l wh
ich
were u
s
ed
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p th
e
research m
o
d
e
l, th
is is an
in
con
s
isten
c
y,
es
pecially with the project
succ
ess the
o
ries [12-17]
whi
c
h desc
ri
be
d t
h
at
t
h
e
pr
oje
c
t
success s
h
o
u
l
d
be su
p
p
o
r
t
e
d by
t
h
e t
w
o
aspect
s, i
.
e. t
h
e
pr
oje
c
t
m
a
nag
e
m
e
nt
(INQ, SYQ,
an
d SVQ) and th
e
produ
ct
u
tilizatio
n
(S
YU and USF), no
t
on
ly one of t
h
e
b
o
t
h asp
ects.
Sim
i
l
a
rl
y
,
t
h
i
s
m
i
ght
uns
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d by
t
h
e col
l
ect
ed dat
a
or
p
o
rt
rai
t
o
f
t
h
e pr
oject
pe
rf
o
r
m
a
nce t
r
en
ds w
h
i
c
h i
t
s
im
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
o
n was onl
y
foc
u
se
d
t
o
t
h
e pr
o
j
ect
m
a
nagem
e
nt
s
u
ccesses.
On t
h
e ot
her
h
a
nd
, seve
ral
l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
ons were
i
nhere
nt
with
in
th
is stu
d
y
d
e
sp
ite efforts to
g
u
a
rd
ag
ain
s
t
it.
First
, th
e
fi
n
d
i
n
g
s of t
h
is
stu
d
y
sho
u
l
d
no
t b
e
g
e
n
e
ralized
for an
o
t
h
e
r
in
stitu
tio
n
b
e
cau
s
e t
h
e
d
a
ta is on
ly
fro
m
th
e sa
m
p
led
in
stitu
tion
.
Data fro
m
th
e o
t
h
e
r so
urces m
a
y b
e
d
i
fferen
t
fro
m
what was repo
rted
an
d
di
scuss
e
d he
re
i
n
.
S
econd
, t
h
is stud
y inv
o
l
ved
th
e selected stak
eh
o
l
d
e
r ty
p
e
s.
Althou
gh
in
vo
lv
em
en
t of th
ese
key inform
ants [20-21] we
re
conducted
to
reach com
p
rehe
nsive
n
ess
of th
e findi
ngs, it might also be
diffe
r
so
m
e
wh
at on
certain
issu
es
p
r
esen
ted in
t
h
e i
n
stru
m
e
n
t
s. Acco
rd
ing
l
y,
we
d
i
dn
't co
n
t
ro
l fo
r t
h
is
p
o
s
sib
ility o
f
su
ch
h
a
p
p
e
n
i
ng
in
th
is study.
Third
, the
subseque
nt re
searche
s
can
put
th
is curren
t find
ing
s
and
its
conce
p
t
u
al
i
zat
i
on es
peci
al
l
y
recon
s
i
d
eri
ng t
h
e ab
ove m
e
nt
i
one
d l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
ons co
ul
d be a
d
dress
e
d i
n
o
r
d
e
r t
o
i
m
p
r
ov
e th
e
valid
ity o
f
th
e fin
d
i
ng
s. As
p
r
esen
ted
i
n
th
e
analysis stage, the factors
c
o
nsi
d
e
r
ed i
n
t
h
i
s
st
udy
only explaine
d 58.8% their
variances.
Th
e
r
efo
r
e, t
h
e
ot
he
r rel
e
va
nt
fact
ors a
n
d i
ssue
s
can be i
n
c
o
r
p
orat
e
d
in
to
th
e n
e
x
t
research m
o
d
e
l to
in
crease th
e p
r
ed
ictiv
e
po
wer
.
F
o
r e
x
am
pl
e, i
n
l
i
ght
of the
fact
that INQ a
nd
SYU
were
not
found to affec
t
signi
fi
cantly the
IS proj
ect success
in
t
h
e sa
m
p
led institution.
It is
reasona
ble
to
sugg
est th
at
b
y
add
i
ng
atten
tio
ns
i
n
t
h
ese
fact
or
s an
d c
o
nsi
d
e
r
i
n
g t
o
i
n
cor
p
orat
e t
h
e
o
t
her
rel
e
va
nt
fa
ct
ors,
e.g.
environm
e
n
tal
context [17, 43, 44]
m
a
y
be
e
n
courage
level of t
h
e
project success
attainm
e
nt.
Tabl
e
4. T
h
e
s
qua
re
d
AVE
o
f
t
h
e
vari
a
b
l
e
s
INQ
PSC
SVQ
SYQ
SYU
USF
INQ
0,
863
PSC
0,
619
0,
828
SVQ
0,
759
0,
732
0,
834
SYQ
0,
819
0,
698
0,
789
0,
852
SYU
0,
562
0,
501
0,
587
0,
637
0,
832
USF
0,
765
0,
681
0,
774
0,
780
0,
559
0,
916
Tabel
5. T
h
e
st
ruct
ural
m
odel
assessm
ent
s
Hy
potheses
β
f
2
t
-test
Analyses
β
f
2
t-
test *
INQ
PSC
-
0
,
080
0,
005
0,
446
insigni
ficant s
m
all
Rejected
INQ
SYU
0
,
051
0,
002
0,
224
insigni
ficant s
m
all
Rejected
INQ
USF
0
,262
0,065
1,900
signif
i
cant
s
m
all
Accepted
SVQ
P
S
C
0
,416
0,128
2,185
signif
i
cant
Mediu
m
Accepted
SVQ
SYU
0
,
209
0,
026
1,
016
significant
s
m
all
Rejected
SVQ
USF
0
,331
0,118
1,963
signif
i
cant
Mediu
m
Accepted
SYQ
PSC
0
,
266
0,
036
1,
164
significant
s
m
all
Rejected
SYQ
S
Y
U
0
,430
0,085
1,865
signif
i
cant
s
m
all
Accepted
SYQ
USF
0
,
279
0,
066
1,
462
significant
s
m
all
Rejected
SYU
PSC
0
,
019
-
0
,
003
0,
139
insigni
ficant -
Rejected
SYU
USF
0
,
040
0,
002
0,
310
insigni
ficant s
m
all
Rejected
USF
PSC
0,
202
0,
024
1,
143
significant
s
m
all
Rejected
* T
w
o-
tailed at p
<
0.
10
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ECE
I
S
SN
:
208
8-8
7
0
8
Meas
u
rem
e
nt
of
I
n
f
o
r
m
at
i
o
n
Syst
em
Pr
oj
ect
S
u
ccess
Base
d
o
n
Perce
p
t
i
o
n
s
of
…
(
A
’a
n
g
Su
bi
yakt
o)
27
7
6.
CO
NCL
USI
O
N
The study pres
ents relevance
of t
h
e D&M m
odel fo
r its ad
op
tion
and
adap
tatio
n
with
t
h
e selected
pr
o
j
ect
succe
ss
t
h
eo
ri
es. B
e
si
des, s
o
m
e
fi
nd
i
ngs a
r
e c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
nt
wi
t
h
t
h
e fi
ndi
ng
s o
f
t
h
e
pre
v
i
o
us st
udi
es, t
h
e
cu
rren
t
find
ings are also
p
r
esen
ted
sev
e
ral i
n
con
s
isten
c
ies, esp
ecially related
to
th
e info
rm
atio
n
qu
ality an
d
sy
st
em
use fac
t
ors.
H
o
wev
e
r,
we
co
n
duct
e
d
i
n
deed
s
o
m
e
eff
o
rt
s
t
o
desi
gn
a
n
d
pe
rf
o
r
m
t
h
i
s
st
udy
,
severa
l
li
mitatio
n
s
are still
in
h
e
ren
t
with
in
th
e stu
d
y
. Acco
rd
ing
l
y, th
e sub
s
eq
u
e
n
t
ex
p
l
an
at
ory research
es are n
e
ed
ed
to explain why inform
at
ion
quality and sy
ste
m
is affected insignific
a
n
tly the proj
ect
success as it is also
n
eed
ed
t
o
g
i
v
e
th
e ad
equ
a
te
atten
tio
n
to th
e foreg
o
i
n
g
sign
ifican
t
factors in
o
r
d
e
r t
o
imp
r
ov
e th
e attai
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e proj
ect
su
ccess i
n
th
e
sam
p
led
in
stit
u
tio
n. Th
er
efore, we
reco
mmen
d
t
h
at th
e institu
tio
n
,
research
ers,
an
d practitio
n
e
rs
will b
e
stand
to b
e
n
e
fit
from
th
e in
fo
rm
at
io
n
p
r
ov
id
ed
i
n
th
is
stud
y and
it is hop
ed that th
e
fu
t
u
re research
es will bu
ild u
pon
th
e find
ing
s
repo
rted
h
e
rein
as effo
rts to
attain
th
e IS
p
r
oj
ect su
ccess
esp
ecially in
the sam
p
led
in
stitu
tio
n
.
ACKNOWLE
DGE
M
ENTS
Thi
s
w
o
r
k
wa
s
sup
p
o
rt
e
d
by
t
h
e R
e
search
-
B
ased Nat
i
o
na
l
Publ
i
cat
i
on P
r
o
g
ram
No.
U
n
.
01/
KP
A/
1
82/
20
1
4
.
The
Ce
nter of Research
and Publica
tio
n
,
Syarif
Hid
a
yatu
ll
ah
State
Islam
i
c Un
iv
ersity Jak
a
rta, In
don
esi
a
.
REFERE
NC
ES
[1]
G. Kirkup and
A. Kirkwood. “
I
nform
a
ti
on and
com
m
unications
techno
logi
es (I
CTs) in high
er e
ducat
ion t
each
in
g:
A tal
e
of
gradu
a
l
i
sm
rather
than
r
e
volution
”
.
Learning, M
e
dia
and
Technolog
y
.
vol. 30
(2), pp. 185-
199, 2005
.
[2]
C.J. Pate
l,
et
al
. “The effects of information
an
d communicatio
n technolog
ies (
I
CT
s) on higher
education: Fro
m
objec
tivism
to s
o
cia
l
constru
c
t
i
v
i
sm
”.
Int’
of
Vocational an
d Tech
nical Educa
tion
. vol. 3 (5)
,
pp
. 1
13-120, 2011
.
[3]
Y.E.
Chan
and B
.
H. R
e
ich
.
“
I
T
al
ignm
ent: wha
t
h
a
ve we
l
earn
e
d
?”
Journal of IT
.
vol. 22
(4), pp. 2
97-315, 2007
.
[4]
A. Subiy
a
kto
an
d A.R. Ahlan. “
A coherent framework for understanding cr
itica
l
success factors of ICT p
r
oject
envir
onment
”. Proceed
ing of
IC
RIIS’13. pp. 342
-347, IE
EE
, 201
3.
[5]
X.
Xu,
et al
. “
I
T infras
t
ru
cture
capab
ili
ties
and
IT proje
c
t
success: a developmen
t team
perspec
t
ive”
.
Informatio
n
Technology and
Management
.
vo
l. 11
(3), pp. 123
-142, 2010
.
[6]
The Standish Gr
oup Intern
ation
a
l. “
CHAOS Manifesto 2013:
Thin
k big
,
a
c
t small
”. West Yarmouth
,
MA, 2003
.
[7]
W.H. DeLone and E. M
c
Lean
. “The DeLon
e
and McLean m
odel of
in
formation s
y
s
t
e
m
s suc
c
e
ss:
a
te
n-y
e
ar
update”.
Journal of Manag
ement
Information Systems
. vol. 19
(4),
pp. 9-30
, 2003
.
[8]
S.
Pe
tte
r,
et
al
.
“Measuring information s
y
stems
success: models, dimensions,
meas
ures, and interrelationships”.
European Journ
a
l of Informatio
n Systems
. vol. 1
7
, pp
. 236–263
,
2008.
[9]
D.
W.
I.
N.
Urbach,
et a
l
. “
T
he
s
t
ate of r
e
s
ear
ch
on inform
ation s
y
s
t
em
s
s
u
cces
s
”
.
Busine
ss &
Inf
o
rmation
Sy
ste
m
s
Engineering
. vol. 1
(4), pp. 315-3
25, 2009
.
[10]
N. Urbach and B. Müller. “
The updated DeLone
and McLean model
of informat
ion systems success
”. Informatio
n
S
y
ste
m
s The
o
ry
,
New York: Springer. pp
. 1
-
18, 2
012.
[11]
A.
De
Wi
t
.
“Mea
sure
me
nt
of pr
oject success”.
I
n
ternational Jou
r
nal of Project
Management (
I
JPM)
. vol. 6
,
pp.
164-170, 1988
.
[12]
Wateridge J. “How can
IS/IT pro
j
ec
ts
be
m
eas
ure
d
for s
u
c
ces
s
”
.
IJ
P
M
. vol. (16)1
,
pp. 59-63, 1998
.
[13]
T.
Van Aken.
“
De weg naar projec
t succes: Ee
rder via werkstij
l dan instrumenten
”.
De
Tijdstroom
. p. 411, 199
6
cit
e
d in
[4]
[14]
K. Jugdev and R. MÜller. “
A
retrospec
tive
lo
ok
at our evolv
i
ng understandi
ng of project s
u
ccess”.
Projec
t
Management Jo
urnal
. vol. 36
, p
p
. 19-31
, 2005
.
[15]
A. Belout and C. Gauvreau
. “Factors
influen
c
ing project success: the imp
act of human resou
r
ce management”.
IJPM
.
vol.
22 (
1
), pp
. 1-11
, 200
4.
[16]
G.P
.
P
r
abhakar
.
"P
rojects
and
their m
a
n
a
gem
e
nt: a
lit
era
t
ure
review".
In
terna
tional Journal of
Business
and
Management.
vo
l. 3
(8), P3, 2008
.
[17]
E.
M.
Howsawi,
et al
. “
Understanding project su
ccess: the
four
-l
eve
l projec
t suc
cess framework
”.
P
r
oceed
ing of
IEEE-I
EEM, Sin
g
apore. pp. 620-
624, 2011
.
[18]
R.O. Mason. “Measuring in
formation ou
t
put: a
communication sy
stems appro
ach
”.
In
formation Management
. vo
l.
1 (5), pp. 219–2
34, 1978
, cited in [7]
.
[19]
C.E. Shannon and W.
Weaver.
“
T
h
e mathematical theor
y
of co
mmunication
”
.
Illinois: Universi
t
y
of Illino
i
s Press.
1949, cited in
[7
]
.
[20]
J.W
.
Creswell. “
Research design: Qualitative,
quantita
t
i
ve, an
d mixed methods approaches
”. Sage Publicatio
ns.
2013.
[21]
C. Marshall
and
G.B. Rossman. “
Designing qualitative research
”.
Sage Publication
s
. 2010.
[22]
M.C. Kaptein,
et
al
. “
Powerfu
l
and consistent a
nalysis
of likert-
type ratings
cales
”. P
r
oceed
ings
of the S
I
GCHI
Conference on
Human Factors in Computing S
y
stems, ACM
.
pp. 2391-2394, 201
0.
[23]
G.
G.
Gable,
et a
l
. “
R
e-conc
eptu
a
lizing
inform
atio
n s
y
s
t
em
s
u
cces
s
:
THE IS
-im
p
act m
eas
urem
ent
m
odel”.
Journal
of th
e Associa
tio
n for Informatio
n Systems
. vol. 9
7
, pp
. 377–408
,
2008.
[24]
R. Sabherwal. “The relationship betw
een infor
m
ation s
y
stem planning sophi
stication and inf
o
rmation s
y
stem
s
u
cces
s
:
an
em
pi
rica
l as
s
e
s
s
m
ent
”
.
D
ecis
i
on
Sc
ie
nces
. vo
l. 301, p
p
. 137–167
, 199
9.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
088
-87
08
IJEC
E V
o
l
.
5, No
. 2, A
p
ri
l
20
15
:
27
1 – 2
7
9
27
8
[25]
H. Alm
u
tairi an
d G.H. Subram
anian. “
A
n em
pirica
l appl
i
c
a
tion
of the Delone
a
nd McLean Mo
del in the Kuwa
iti
privat
e s
e
ctor”
.
Journal of Comp
uter Information
Systems
. vol. 45
3, pp
. 113–122
,
2005.
[26]
J.C.J. Ch
ang an
d W.R. King
. “
M
easuring th
e
performance
of
inform
ation
s
y
stem
s:
A functional scor
ecard”.
Journal of Mana
gement In
formation Systems
. vol. 221, pp. 85–115
, 2005
.
[27]
T. Xu,
et
al
. “
S
e
c
urit
y in
ter
act
io
n of web serv
ices in heterogen
e
o
u
s platforms”.
TELKOMNIKA Indonesian Journal
of Electrical En
gineering
. vol. 1
2
(4), 2014.
[28]
J. Iivari. “An empirical test
of DeLone-McLean model of
info
rma
tion s
y
ste
m
s suc
c
e
ss”
.
ACM
Sigmis Database
.
vol. 36(2)
, pp
. 8
-
27, 2005
.
[29]
Y.
S.
Wa
ng.
“Asse
ssing e
-
c
o
mme
rc
e s
y
ste
m
s suc
c
e
ss: a re
spec
i
fi
cation and
valid
ation o
f
th
e DeLone and
McLean
model of IS success”.
Informatio
n Systems
Journal
. vo
l. 18, pp. 5
29–557, 2008
.
[30]
P. Seddon and
M.Y. Kiew. “
A
partial
t
e
st and
developm
ent of DeLone a
nd McLean
'
s
Model of IS
success”.
Australasian Jou
r
nal of In
formation Systems
. vol.
4 (1), pp. 90-109
, 2007
.
[31]
A.H. Memon and I.A.
Rahman. “Analy
sis of
Cost Overrun Factors
for Small Sc
ale Constr
uction Proje
c
ts
in
Malay
s
ia Using
PLS-SEM Method”.
Mod
e
rn Ap
plied
Science
. vo
l. 7
(8), p78, 201
3.
[32]
J. Hulland
. “
U
se of par
tia
l
least
squares (PLS) in
strat
e
gi
c
m
a
nag
e
m
e
nt res
e
arch
:
a rev
i
ew
of
four
recent studies”.
Strategic Manag
ement
Journal
. v
o
l. 20
(2), pp. 19
5-204, 1999
.
[33]
N. Urbach and F. Ahlemann. “Structu
ral equation modelling in
information s
y
s
t
em
s
res
earch u
s
ing partia
l leas
t
squares”.
Journa
l of Information
Tec
hnology Theory and App
l
ication
. vo
l. 11 (2)
,
pp. 5-40
, 2010
.
[34]
J.
F.
Ha
ir,
et al
. “
P
LS
-S
EM
: Indeed a s
ilv
er bull
e
t
”
.
The Journal o
f
Marketing Theory and Practice
.
vol. 19 (2)
,
pp
.
139-152, 2011
.
[35]
J.
F.
Ha
ir,
et a
l
.
“An assessment
of the use of
par
t
i
a
l le
a
s
t squa
re
s st
ruct
ural
equation
modelling in
marketin
g
res
earch
”.
Journ
a
l of the Academ
y
of Marketing S
c
ien
c
e
. vol. 40
(
3
), pp
. 414-433
,
2012.
[36]
K.K.K. Wong. “Partial Leas
t Squares Structur
al
Equation
Modelling
(PLS-SEM) Techn
i
ques Using Smart PLS”.
Marketing
Bul
l
et
in
. vo
l. 24, pp. 1
-
32, 2013
.
[37]
J.C. Nunnally
an
d I.
H. Bernstein. “
Ps
ychometr
i
c T
h
eor
y
”. N
e
w York: McGraw-Hill. 1994.
[38]
L.J. Cronbach.
"Coefficient alp
h
a and
the in
ter
n
al structur
e of tests".
Ps
ychom
etr
i
ka
. vol. 16 (
3
), pp. 297–334
,
1951.
[39]
W.
W.
Chi
n
.
"T
he
pa
rt
ia
l
le
a
s
t squares approach to stru
ctural equ
a
tion
modelling".
Mode
rn Me
thods for Busine
ss
Research
. vol. 2
95 (2), pp. 295-3
36, 1998
.
[40]
P. Ifinedo
. “
I
nt
ernet
/
E-Business
Te
chnologi
es
Accept
a
nc
e in
Canada’s SMEs: Focus on Or
ganiz
a
tion
a
l
an
d
Environmental F
actors”.
in
E
-
Bus
i
ness–Applica
tio
ns and Global
A
ccep
tance
.
R
ijek
a
: In
Tech, Croatia. 2012
.
[41]
C. Fornell and D
.
F. Larck
e
r. “Ev
a
lua
ting stru
ctur
al
equation mod
e
ls with
unobser
vable v
a
riab
les
and measuremen
t
error”.
Journal o
f
Marketing
Res
e
arch
. vo
l. 18 (1
), pp
. 39-50
, 198
1.
[42]
G. Fitzg
e
rald
an
d N.L. Russo. “The tu
rnaround
of the
London
ambulance serv
ice computer
-
a
id
ed dispatch
s
y
stem
(LASCAD)”.
EJ
IS.
vol. 14
(3)
,
p
p
. 244–257
, 200
5.
[43]
L. M
c
Leod
and
S
.
G. M
acDonel
l
.
“
F
actors
th
at
af
fect
s
o
ftwa
re s
y
s
t
ems development proj
ect outco
mes: a survey
of
res
earch
”.
ACM
Computing
Surveys. vol.
43
(4),
pp. 24-56
, 2011
.
[44]
A. Subiy
a
k
t
o,
et
al
. “An Alter
n
ativ
e Method f
o
r Determ
ining
Critic
al Success Factors of Inform
ation S
y
stem
P
r
oject
”.
TELKOMNIKA Teleco
mmunication, C
o
mputing,
Electr
onics and Con
t
rol
. Vol. 12
(3), p
p
. 665-674
, 201
4.
BIOGRAP
HI
ES OF
AUTH
ORS
A’ang S
ubi
yakt
o is
a le
ctur
er i
n
the Dep
a
rtm
e
nt of IS
at
the
S
y
arif
Hida
ya
tu
llah S
t
ate Is
l
a
m
i
c
University
Jakar
t
a, Indon
esia. He graduated from the
bachelor
and
master degr
ees in IS and has been
stud
y
i
ng his Ph. D in IT at the
De
pa
rt
me
nt
of IS,
t
h
e
Int
e
rnat
iona
l
Isl
a
mi
c
Uni
v
e
r
si
ty
Ma
lay
s
ia
,
Malay
s
ia. His research
topic
is about IT/IS pr
oject manag
e
ment, especially
in the pro
j
ect
perform
ance
m
eas
urem
ent.
Abd. Rahm
an Ahlan is
an
As
s
o
ciat
e P
r
ofes
s
o
r in
the Dep
a
rtm
e
nt
of IS
at th
e Int
e
rnat
ional
Is
lam
i
c
Universit
y
Mala
ysia
, Mala
ysi
a
.
He graduat
e
d with hi
s PhD in IS at the Card
iff Universit
y
, MSc
in
IT at the Univ
er
s
i
t
y
of W
a
rwick
,
UK and BBA at
the Intern
ation
a
l Islam
i
c Univer
sit
y
Mal
a
ysia
. His
research
topics are around I
T
/I
S implementation issues and
pr
oject manag
e
ment with
man
y
intern
ation
a
l pub
lications
in r
e
puted publishers.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ECE
I
S
SN
:
208
8-8
7
0
8
Meas
u
rem
e
nt
of
I
n
f
o
r
m
at
i
o
n
Syst
em
Pr
oj
ect
S
u
ccess
Base
d
o
n
Perce
p
t
i
o
n
s
of
…
(
A
’a
n
g
Su
bi
yakt
o)
27
9
Mira Kartiwi
is an Associate
Professor in the
De
p
a
r
t
me
nt
of
I
S
a
t
t
h
e International Islamic
Universit
y
Mal
a
ysia
. She
com
p
leted h
e
r Ph.D,
MIS,
B.
Com in Busine
ss IS a
t
the Unive
r
sity of
Wollongong, Australia. Her research topics are
around datab
a
se, data Mini
ng, e-
commerce, and e-
heal
th with
m
a
n
y
int
e
rnat
ional
p
ublications
in r
e
puted pub
lishers
Hus
n
i Tej
a
S
u
km
ana is
a
l
e
c
t
ure
in th
e De
partem
ent
of In
form
atics
Eng
i
n
eering
,
th
e S
y
a
r
if
Hiday
a
tu
llah State Islamic Univer
sity
Jakarta,
Indonesi
a. He g
r
aduated from
master and doctoral
degree
in Computer Science
at the Sunmoon Un
iversi
ty
, South Korea. His previous research top
i
cs
are re
lat
e
d to E
m
bedded S
y
s
t
e
m
, however, he
becom
e
s
inter
e
s
t
ed in res
e
a
r
ches
rela
ted to I
T
s
e
r
v
ice
management.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.