Net Impacts in Front Office IS: a First Operationalization of Delone and McLean Model in the Banking Sector

Abstract

The variable Net Impacts, a key variable in the models for information systems evaluation, is rarely operationalized according to a rigorous method and never for the banking sector. DeLone and McLean (2016) note that the challenge of developing measures to evaluate information systems is still relevant. The measurement and conceptualization of variables in real contexts is both very important and relatively absent in the literature. This research aims at operationalizing the Net Impacts construct resulting from DeLone and McLean's (2016) evaluation model for information systems, in the specific context of retail banks. It also aims at highlighting the socio-demographic variables influencing this construct. This original work conducted with 763 people applies the Churchill paradigm (1979) to provide a reliable and valid measure of Net Impacts, inspired by the Balanced Score Card. The main result of the research concerns the empirical validation of the measure of Net Impacts. This tool consists of three categories, relating to customer satisfaction, productivity and risk and ten items, which take into account the user but also include customer perception. This three-dimensional construct shows how the information system supports the user in a wide spectrum of work. Also, by showing that in the banking field, only the function occupied by the user influences the perception of the impact of IS, we contribute to a better knowledge of the variables related to the evaluation of IS. Thus, this instrument represents a strategic tool for monitoring and guiding efforts to increase performance. The proposed instrument is very easy for CIOs and managers to use in order to evaluate their information systems with users.

Technostress Creators and Job Performance Among Frontliners: Theorizing the Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy

“…An information technology success can be measured through its impact on work at the users’ level ( Michel et al, 2019 ), and users’ outcomes can be dichotomized into psychological and behavioral outcomes ( Yavas and Babakus, 2010 ). This study is concerned with user’s behavioral outcomes illustrated by employee performance.…”

User Satisfaction on Human Resources Management Information System: Implementation in Enforcement Organization

“…Therefore, the evaluation of the system quality is mostly measured by its ease of use perceptiveness, purpose, and consistency, the quality of the data, convenience, and the mixture pattern. Besides, it is also believed that only IS users are able to evaluate the system quality (Michel & Cocula, 2017). It is also reported that certain attributes or qualities such as valuable, reliability, the quality of the information, and the flexibility of the system can be assessed by system quality.…”

Net impact implementation application development life-cycle management in banking sector

“…They introduced the information system success model (ISSM), which is currently regarded as one of the key models for IS evaluation by the scientific community. However, businesses rarely use it [27]. Instead, they mention guidelines like ITIL, COBIT, or CMMI to guarantee the quality of IS, the monitoring of practices or the level of IS maturity, and even its governance [27].…”

“…However, businesses rarely use it [27]. Instead, they mention guidelines like ITIL, COBIT, or CMMI to guarantee the quality of IS, the monitoring of practices or the level of IS maturity, and even its governance [27]. ISSM, initially made up of five factors, is multidimensional, recognizing that both temporal and causal influences are necessary for IS to succeed as a built process [27] 171 model shows that information and system quality influence user happiness and IS use, which in turn effect individual impact.…”

“…Utilization can influence user pleasure, but vice versa is also true. Organizational effects result from individual effects [27]. DeLone and McLean defined the individual and organizational levels of effect in their 1992 model using a taxonomic method.…”