The information systems discipline in Australian universities : a contextual framework

This chapter presents the contextual framework for the second phase of a multi-method, multiple study of the information systems (IS) academic discipline in Australia. The chapter outlines the genesis of a two-phase Australian study, and positions the study as the precursor to a larger Pacific-Asia study. Analysis of existing literature on the state of IS and on relevant theory underpins a series of individual Australian state case studies summarised in this chapter and represented as separate chapters in the book. This chapter outlines the methodological approach employed, with emphasis on the case-study method of the multiple state studies. The process of multiple peer review of the studies is described. Importantly, this chapter summarises and analyses each of the subsequent chapters of this book, emphasising the role of a framework developed to guide much of the data gathering and analysis. This chapter also highlights the process involved in conducting the meta-analysis reported in the final chapter of this book, and summarises some of the main results of the meta-analysis.

Formative and reflective measurement and validation mismatch in survey research : an archival analysis of information systems success constructs 1985-2007

The generic IS-success constructs first identified by DeLone and McLean (1992) continue to be widely employed in research. Yet, recent work by Petter et al (2007) has cast doubt on the validity of many mainstream constructs employed in IS research over the past 3 decades; critiquing the almost universal conceptualization and validation of these constructs as reflective when in many studies the measures appear to have been implicitly operationalized as formative. Cited examples of proper specification of the Delone and McLean constructs are few, particularly in light of their extensive employment in IS research. This paper introduces a four-stage formative construct development framework: Conceive > Operationalize > Respond > Validate (CORV). Employing the CORV framework in an archival analysis of research published in top outlets 1985-2007, the paper explores the extent of possible problems with past IS research due to potential misspecification of the four application-related success dimensions: Individual-Impact, Organizational-Impact, System-Quality and Information-Quality. Results suggest major concerns where there is a mismatch of the Respond and Validate stages. A general dearth of attention to the Operationalize and Respond stages in methodological writings is also observed.

Privacy and security in open and trusted health information systems

The Open and Trusted Health Information Systems (OTHIS) Research Group has formed in response to the health sector’s privacy and security requirements for contemporary Health Information Systems (HIS). Due to recent research developments in trusted computing concepts, it is now both timely and desirable to move electronic HIS towards privacy-aware and security-aware applications. We introduce the OTHIS architecture in this paper. This scheme proposes a feasible and sustainable solution to meeting real-world application security demands using commercial off-the-shelf systems and commodity hardware and software products.

Open and trusted information systems/health informatics access control (OTHIS/HIAC)

Information and Communications Technologies globally are moving towards Service Oriented Architectures and Web Services. The healthcare environment is rapidly moving to the use of Service Oriented Architecture/Web Services systems interconnected via this global open Internet. Such moves present major challenges where these structures are not based on highly trusted operating systems. This paper argues the need of a radical re-think of access control in the contemporary healthcare environment in light of modern information system structures, legislative and regulatory requirements, and security operation demands in Health Information Systems. This paper proposes the Open and Trusted Health Information Systems (OTHIS), a viable solution including override capability to the provision of appropriate levels of secure access control for the protection of sensitive health data.

Eco-retrofitting with building integrated living systems

Building integrated living systems (BILS), such as green roofs and living walls, could mitigate many of the challenges presented by climate change and biodiversity protection. However, few if any such systems have been constructed, and current tools for evaluating them are limited, especially under Australian subtropical conditions. BILS are difficult to assess, because living systems interact with complex, changing and site-specific social and environmental conditions. Our past research in design for eco-services has confirmed the need for better means of assessing the ecological values of BILS - let alone better models for assessing their thermal and hydrological performance. To address this problem, a research project is being developed jointly by researchers at the Central Queensland University (CQ University) and the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), along with industry collaborators. A mathematical model under development at CQ University will be applied and tested to determine its potential for predicting their complex, dynamic behaviour in different contexts. However, the paper focuses on the work at QUT. The QUT school of design is generating designs for living walls and roofs that provide a range of ecosystem goods and services, or ‘eco-services’, for a variety of micro-climates and functional contexts. The research at QUT aims to develop appropriate designs, virtual prototypes and quantitative methods for assessing the potential multiple benefits of BILS in subtropical climates. It is anticipated that the CQ University model for predicting thermal behaviour of living systems will provide a platform for the integration of ecological criteria and indicators. QUT will also explore means to predict and measure the value of eco-services provided by the systems, which is still largely uncharted territory. This research is ultimately intended to facilitate the eco-retrofitting of cities to increase natural capital and urban resource security - an essential component of sustainability. The talk will present the latest range of multifunctional, eco-productive living walls, roofs and urban space frames and their eco-services.

Assessing information systems success models : empirical comparison (Research in Progress)

Information System (IS) success may be the most arguable and important dependent variable in the IS field. The purpose of the present study is to address IS success by empirically assess and compare DeLone and McLean’s (1992) and Gable’s et al. (2008) models of IS success in Australian Universities context. The two models have some commonalities and several important distinctions. Both models integrate and interrelate multiple dimensions of IS success. Hence, it would be useful to compare the models to see which is superior; as it is not clear how IS researchers should respond to this controversy.

Evaluating information systems

The book within which this chapter appears is published as a research reference book (not a coursework textbook) on Management Information Systems (MIS) for seniors or graduate students in Chinese universities. It is hoped that this chapter, along with the others, will be helpful to MIS scholars and PhD/Masters research students in China who seek understanding of several central Information Systems (IS) research topics and related issues. The subject of this chapter - ‘Evaluating Information Systems’ - is broad, and cannot be addressed in its entirety in any depth within a single book chapter. The chapter proceeds from the truism that organizations have limited resources and those resources need to be invested in a way that provides greatest benefit to the organization. IT expenditure represents a substantial portion of any organization’s investment budget and IT related innovations have broad organizational impacts. Evaluation of the impact of this major investment is essential to justify this expenditure both pre- and post-investment. Evaluation is also important to prioritize possible improvements. The chapter (and most of the literature reviewed herein) admittedly assumes a blackbox view of IS/IT1, emphasizing measures of its consequences (e.g. for organizational performance or the economy) or perceptions of its quality from a user perspective. This reflects the MIS emphasis – a ‘management’ emphasis rather than a software engineering emphasis2, where a software engineering emphasis might be on the technical characteristics and technical performance. Though a black-box approach limits diagnostic specificity of findings from a technical perspective, it offers many benefits. In addition to superior management information, these benefits may include economy of measurement and comparability of findings (e.g. see Part 4 on Benchmarking IS). The chapter does not purport to be a comprehensive treatment of the relevant literature. It does, however, reflect many of the more influential works, and a representative range of important writings in the area. The author has been somewhat opportunistic in Part 2, employing a single journal – The Journal of Strategic Information Systems – to derive a classification of literature in the broader domain. Nonetheless, the arguments for this approach are believed to be sound, and the value from this exercise real. The chapter drills down from the general to the specific. It commences with a highlevel overview of the general topic area. This is achieved in 2 parts: - Part 1 addressing existing research in the more comprehensive IS research outlets (e.g. MISQ, JAIS, ISR, JMIS, ICIS), and Part 2 addressing existing research in a key specialist outlet (i.e. Journal of Strategic Information Systems). Subsequently, in Part 3, the chapter narrows to focus on the sub-topic ‘Information Systems Success Measurement’; then drilling deeper to become even more focused in Part 4 on ‘Benchmarking Information Systems’. In other words, the chapter drills down from Parts 1&2 Value of IS, to Part 3 Measuring Information Systems Success, to Part 4 Benchmarking IS. While the commencing Parts (1&2) are by definition broadly relevant to the chapter topic, the subsequent, more focused Parts (3 and 4) admittedly reflect the author’s more specific interests. Thus, the three chapter foci – value of IS, measuring IS success, and benchmarking IS - are not mutually exclusive, but, rather, each subsequent focus is in most respects a sub-set of the former. Parts 1&2, ‘the Value of IS’, take a broad view, with much emphasis on ‘the business Value of IS’, or the relationship between information technology and organizational performance. Part 3, ‘Information System Success Measurement’, focuses more specifically on measures and constructs employed in empirical research into the drivers of IS success (ISS). (DeLone and McLean 1992) inventoried and rationalized disparate prior measures of ISS into 6 constructs – System Quality, Information Quality, Individual Impact, Organizational Impact, Satisfaction and Use (later suggesting a 7th construct – Service Quality (DeLone and McLean 2003)). These 6 constructs have been used extensively, individually or in some combination, as the dependent variable in research seeking to better understand the important antecedents or drivers of IS Success. Part 3 reviews this body of work. Part 4, ‘Benchmarking Information Systems’, drills deeper again, focusing more specifically on a measure of the IS that can be used as a ‘benchmark’3. This section consolidates and extends the work of the author and his colleagues4 to derive a robust, validated IS-Impact measurement model for benchmarking contemporary Information Systems (IS). Though IS-Impact, like ISS, has potential value in empirical, causal research, its design and validation has emphasized its role and value as a comparator; a measure that is simple, robust and generalizable and which yields results that are as far as possible comparable across time, across stakeholders, and across differing systems and systems contexts.