The current swirl of diversity could signal a return to the days of ad hoc systems development, lack of formalmethodology, and consequent increase in failure.

In this paper we reflect on the first 17 years of the Information Systems Journal (ISJ). The reflections are considered under three headings: origin of papers (authors, geographical period, gender and departments), research paradigms (positive/interpretive, qualitative/quantitative, non-empirical/empirical, espoused theories and research method) and finally, topics. We find that throughout the period, the published papers evidenced a greater internationalization of the journal. On the other hand, some regions and countries are poorly represented. Another imbalance concerns the lack of practitioner papers along with an authorgender imbalance. Qualitative research exceeds quantitative research by a factor of more than 2:1. Interestingly, papers classified as descriptive/conceptual/ theoretical have been largely superseded in the period by those that have some empirical evidence to illustrate the points made. Sometimes it is argued that the discipline of information systems lacks theory and thinking pieces but the ISJ suggests that this is far from the truth. Further, our analysis has revealed around 250 topics discussed using many research methods to explain the phenomena. Depending on the point of view, this may show that the discipline either lacks focus or is exciting and pluralistic. We lean to the latter view, but others have argued for focusing on fewer topics and research methods.This first issue of Volume 18 of the Information Systems Journal (ISJ) marks another milestone -four in fact -of the journal's progress. First, we have moved from four to six issues annually. This reflects that the journal is now attracting a larger number of high quality submissions. It has been doing so for some time but we have waited to make this move until we were convinced that the expanded content was sustainable in terms of quality papers. Second, from this issue, the journal receives the official approval of the Association of Information Systems (AIS) -hence the AIS logo on the front cover. The AIS represents the international information systems academic

The implementation of the Computer-Aided Despatch system at the London Ambulance Service has been one of the most notorious cases of failure within the information systems (IS) literature. What is less well known is that there followed, some time later, a much more successful implementation, described as a turnaround. This paper, based on a case study approach, describes the context and detail of that implementation. A framework from the literature, used in an analysis of the initial failure, is used to analyse and compare the similarities and differences in the development of the two systems. The framework provides four interacting elements and relationships for analysis. These elements are Supporters, Project Organisation, Information System, and the Environment in which they operate. The turnaround system was found to address directly almost all the issues identified as problematic in the failure. These included the approach taken by management to understand the needs of users, including issues unrelated to the system itself, their involvement in the development process, an improvement in the availability of resources (brought about in some part because of the previous failure), the ability to follow a relaxed timeline driven by users' acceptance levels, the preparation of infrastructure projects to develop confidence, participation and prototyping, thorough testing, phased and simple implementation, and trust building. Certain environmental factors could not be so directly addressed but nevertheless were overcome by attention to detail and internal needs. Conclusions indicate that the factors addressed are not new and are to be found in the success literature. What is unusual is that they were implemented in this case in such unlikely circumstances.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Evaluation of IS/IT investments is a notoriously difficult area. Some doubt that IT investments are ever really productive; others point to mismeasurement as a major reason for such a conclusion and for the so-called IT ‘productivity paradox’. The paper reviews traditional approaches to IS/IT evaluation, and discusses their limitations. An eight-stage, multidimensional approach is then put forward to address those limitations.

Public institutions, in their efforts to promote meaningful citizen engagement, are increasingly looking at the democratic potential of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs).Previous studies suggest that such initiatives seem to be impeded by socio-technical integration barriers such as low sustainability, poor citizen acceptance, coordination difficulties, lack of understanding, and failure to assess their impact. Motivated by these shortcomings, the paper develops and applies a business model perspective as an interceding framework for analysis and evaluation. The underlying principle behind this approach is that it is not technology per se 2 which determines success, but rather the way in which the business model of the technological artifact is configured and employed to achieve the strategic goals. The business model perspective is empirically demonstrated with the case of an online petitioning system implemented by a UK local authority. The case illustrates the importance of considering ICTs in public engagement from a holistic view to make them more manageable and assessable.