most critical applications ... ln the latter case, in-house development using fourth generation tools or acquisition ... electron;c mail, text processing and other desktop tools such as calendars ... provides for a quick retrieval of desired information.
1
, FACULTE DES SCIENCES DE L'ADMINISTRATION UNIVERSITÉLAVAL, QUÉBEC, CANADA Document de travail 91-103 EVAUJATION OF EIS FROM A MANAGERIAL PERSPECTIVE (1) FRANÇOIS BERGERON LOUIS RAYMOND
1 ;/
1
•
Evaluation
of EIS From a Managerial
Perspective
(1)
François Bergeron, Ph.D. Professor and Director Département systèmes d'information organisationnels Faculté des sciences de l'administration Université Laval Québec, Québec, Canada, G1K 7P4 BERGEROF@LAVALVM1 FAX: (418) 656-2624 Phone: (418) 656-7940
Louis Raymond, Ph.D. Professor Département d'administration et d'économique Université du Québec à Trcis-Rivières Trois-Rivières, Québec Canada
(1) An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 11th International Conference on Decision Support Systems, Manhattan Beach, Callfornia, June 3-5, 1991. (reference: June 20, 1991)
dlsk
ESS;
eisjls2.doc;
els,jiss.sty;
lettergothlc,
10 pts.
About the authors François Bergeron 15 professor and chair of the Information Systems Department at Laval University, Québec City, Canada. He consults for public and private organizations in the area of the management of information technologies. His actual areas of research are in the measurement of the business value of information technologies, the implementation of electronic data interchange and the evaluation of executive support systems. Dr Bergeron has published in journals such as MIS Quarterly, Journal of Management Management and Journal of Systems Information Systems, Information Management. He holds a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the Anderson Graduate School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles.
&
Louis Raymond is a professor of information systems at the Département of Administration and Economies, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada. His current research interests relate to organizational information systems and end-user computing. He has published articles in American various journal s such as MIS Quarterly, Information & Management, Journal of Small Business, Journal of Systems Management, and Data Base. He has also co-authored books on information systems and office automation.
-
Acknowledgements The authors w1 sh to thank the Government of Québec (FCAR) for 1ts financ1al contribution and Martin Laforge for his assistance in this research.
RÉSUMÉ
Les Systèmes d'information pour Dirigeants (SID) gagnent continuellement en popularité dans les organisations. Une enquête effectuée auprès de 52 dirigeants canadiens utilisateurs d'un SID nous a permis de mieux connaître leur perception face aux systèmes qu'ils utilisent présentement. De façon générale, ces dirigeants sont plutôt satisfaits de la qualité des informations qu'ils en retirent. Viennent ensuite, en ordre décroissant de satisfaction, les aspects relatifs à l'interface, aux bénéfices et finalement aux capacités techniques de leurs systèmes.
Evaluation
of EIS From a Manageria1
Perspective
Abstract While Executive Information Systems constitute a rising trend in the use of information technology in organizations, much is still unknown in terms of the attributes an EIS should possess in order to increase the probability of successfu1 imp1ementation. A survey was conducted in 28 Canadian organizations, with 52 users giving their perceptions on the various attributes of EIS. Resu1ts indicate that the more important aspects relate to the qual1ty of information and the benefits provided by EIS. Less important are the user-interface and technica1 capabilities. User satisfaction with the attributes of their present system was a1so measured. ln this regard, managers were more content with the qua1ity of information and the user-interface than with the benefits and the technica1 capabi1ities of their EIS. Overa1l, topmanagers were 1ess satisfied with present system than lower-level managers. Keywords: executive attributes, satisfaction.
information
systems,
executive
support
systems,
1
Evaluation
of EIS From a Managerial
Perspective
Introduction
Executive applications
Information
of the
An increasing
Systems
new information
number
of
more than
between
1984 and 1988 (Coffey,
division Rockart
is
25% of
the
of
the
1988). at
Corporation
and De Long (1988)
whereas Although field,
others Rockart
in
order
usage (Friend,
access
increase
area to
of uncertainty
greater
insight
into
the
concerns
the
target
detail
in
speclfic support
fact
technology; have
done
EIS reported
Watson, thirty
systems
ls certalnly
1987). U.S.
even
ln
successful
a 1988,
organizations
were actual complete
characteristics
of
so
in the
successes failures.
a major contribution
of the
chances
thls
1989).
1970s by Lockheed-Georgia,
studied
evolved
indlvldual,
is whether about
key performance
managers.
the
system accessible
to all
organization
of lt
ln this
to the
an pS
should
implementation
and
support managers
being
the
of EIS is to provide or
(Preedy,
regard,
ln many organlzations to a group
the object
lndicators
of EIS ln terms
management team or all has
the
first
and some were
terms
critical
and Weteherbe,
corporations
and
of these
most
1986).
A first easy
unknown ln
to
end of
and
half
and De LongIs study still
U.S.
(Houdeshel
showed mixed results,
much is
possess
the
the
implementing
One of the
surveyed
making use of an EIS. More than
among
(Straub
are
500 largest
one developed
Lockheed
are
technology
organizatlons
indeed,
literature
(EIS)
offer
a richer
1990).
A second
area
individual
CEO, the
top-
Rockart
(1990)
from a system
system,
to
notes
that
EIS
deslgned
for
one
to end up as an organizational
and staff
personnel.
Another
related
2
concern
i s whether
support
system
Watson,
1989).
only
by
lt
to
noted
firms
but
also
ln
the
latter
tools
to
DSS, and
that by
other
small
types
expert
businesses
(Turban
and
can be implemented
not
with
in-house
of manageria l
systems
ElS technology
case,
or acquisition
limited
development
of a cut-down
version
is
by the
resources
using
fourth
of a full-featured
EIS
have been proposed. The newness
concerning
of
ElS uses
performance
the
field
and users.
computer-based
with massive
systems
amounts of data
should
focus
preferably
from a very wide variety be tailored systems
to user
be designed
internal
with
and external
requ;rements
of the
processing
(Watson
et
executive
st i cs.
the
1989),
charts,
1989).
some others
it
is
desktop
tools
such as calendars
1991).
Moreover,
may include
the
an EIS user,
can be drawn
..that
suit
also these
access the
to
unique
electron;c
mail,
and reminder
systems
and De Long (1988) at
more
An EIS should
to
and other
can be implemented
that
important
specifically
systems
system
h;gh
and ;nclude
These
support
simply
provide
and data
sources.
group.
Rockart
v;ew
a non-technical
user
al.,
of
; n dea 1i ng
suggested
grollo ;n minci
selected
EIS are
text
Indeed,
points
execut ives
for
and external
executive
information
ass; st
Garel i ck (1987)
where reports,
(Duffy,
var;ous
that
information
of internal
needs
to
and King,
relevant
;n an environment
some argue
designed
(Jones
on providing
reflected
While
i nformat i on on thei r characteri
text
be i ntegrated
traditional
was also
1989).
generation product
including
large
(Q'Shea,
ElS needs
corporate
noted
that
an
or d;vis;onal
level. Since where
are
the ;ts
field
of EIS ;s
boundaries,
the
in rap;d def;n;t;on
evolut;on
and it
of EIS reta;ned
is for
not yet th;s
clear
research
3
encompasses
most
of the elements
found
above.
The definition
of EIS proposed
in this study is as follows: An Executive Information Systems (EIS) is an information system supported by a ma inframe computer, or a persona 1 computer, used for various business functions on a current basis. The users are either the CEO or a member of the senior management te am reporting directly to him or her. The system is designed specifically for them. It can support various communication, planning or control functions, and prov1de access to relevant information of a general nature. The Executive Information System can be implemented at the corporate or divisional level of the organization.
Given added
the
knowledge
an empirical
preceding
characteristics,
on the attributes
study was designed
EIS, as perceived was to identify
of EIS and
areas of potential
l1terature
characteristics and
personal
Jastrzembski, Rockart types
1s
improvement
attributes
of EIS. These experiences 1986),
and De Long, of
interface,
The
essential benefits
first
information an executive
replete
output
and
One
can
type
of
For
1987;
More
specifically,
by having
acquiring
characteristics
systems.
Another
of
objective
users determine
concerning
are usually
more
what
and
drawn
the" essential
from case
1987;
Watson,
systematic
study
capability,
instance, Z;mmerman,
quality
of
to
timeliness
1989).
to
EISs
in Table
the
Other
(e.g. four user-
1.
quality
is very
and
infer
information,
as presented
relates
studies
Rinaldi of
use an induct ive approach
characterist1cs
of an EIS.
(EDP Analyzer,
a
at
of EIS
characteristics:
and technical
present
aims
of an ideal EIS.
Houdeshel on
usage.
suggestions
suggestions
rarely
1988). EIS
with
(e.g.
the
who use these
Characterist1cs
The
research
their
to determine
by the executives
for them would be the important
this
of
the
important
for
essent;al
qual;ties
Table l:Characteristics
of EIS
Quality of information - is flexible produces correct information produces timely information produces relevant information produces complete information produces validated information User-interface - includes a user-friendly interface (easy-to-use) allows for a secure and confidential access to information has a short response time is accessible at home includes a reliable access procedure produces information quickly minimizes keyboard use provides for a quick retrieval of desired information has a dedicated printer at each terminal Benefits - facilitates facilitates
the attainment of organizational access to information
objectives
allows the user to accomplish more work increases the quality of decision-making provides a competitive advantage saves time for the user. increases communication capacity increases communication quality provides better control in the organization allows the anticipation of problems situations allows planning allows finding the cause of a problem Technical capability - provides access to aggregate (global) information - presents information in graphie form - offers written interpretations - highlights problems indicators - provides for ad-hoc analysis - presents information in hierarchical form - provides high quality graphic information - incorporates graphic and text in the same display - provides exception reports - shows trends, ratios and deviations - provides access to historical data - produces detailed information - provides a forecasting capability - produces information at various levels of details
4
include Main,
validity,
relevancy,
1989; Rinaldi
A second
type
and Jastrzembski,
pertains
EIS.
ln thi s regard,
user
friendliness
include
top executives
the user
have even more
need
such
as minimal
keyboard
use
must
also
provide
(Giordanella,
protected,
by
an
the EIS (Wallis,
EIS
ineludes
support
for
(Rockart to and
advantage
in
and
presentation
of
Newsletter, when
De
Long,
information
same
needed,
EIS
planning,
traeking,
Friend, quality
report
of
is technical provide
(drill-down),
(Pilot
The
secure
and
1987).
and
benefits
1989).' It
or
also
deeision-
competitive
1986).
in nature. detailed f('\Y'
It refers and
different
textual,
formats
of
and a combination
1989;
(traffic
to the
hierarchical
The
Cooperative
1988). It should also generate areas
This
eommunieating
solving,
objectives
Software,
for a
activities.
Ouffy,
problem
allow
histograms,
problematic
and use historieal
and
Executive
1988; Jordan,
highlight
1989;
1988; Madlin,
should
a
and
1988).
intangible
managerial
organizational
such as graphies,
and
for
1988;
of
and
an
would
at home and provide
tangible
support
This
(Goldstein,
1988; EOP Analyzer,
the
1989; Goldstein,
The
1989; Moad,
ad hoc analysis,
of
type of attributes
of data
on the
terms
to
access
1988).
time
with
the access to data should be
be accessible
1989; Jordan,
attainment
eharacteristics.
aggregation
should
refer
response
ln addition,
in productivity,
(Giordanella,
The fourth
short
top-management's
increases the
a
1989).
characteristies
functions
for
1989).
interacts
for easy
characteristics
provided
reports
by which
(Coffey,
Many
of both
interface
(e.g.,
1987; .Wilkinson,
of users
hard copy eapability
tool
1986; Garelick,
completeness
categories
adequately
making,
and
other
access
relates
to the
accuracy
than
interface reliable
flexibility,
lighting),
exception support
as well as aetual data to trace trends
and
5
forecasts
(Rockart,
1988; Welter,
use of ratios and variances
ln summary, been
by
systematically
to these attr1butes
these
1986).
1989; Reid,
It usually
and
researchers.
attr1butes
a w1de
have repeatedly
However,
nor the actual
for in-use ElS. lt 1s important
understanding
makes
1988).
large number of character1st1cs
practit10ners
assessed
to get a better
(Fr1end,
a relatively
suggested
1988; Owen,
no
study
situation
to gather
with
has
regard
th1s information
of the field and to set priorit1es
in terms
of
ElS improvements.
Research
From the preceding importance
as important
empirical
verification.
LongIs
study
researchers to what design
did
the present w1th
differentiate
from
there
information
on
to users
question
question of their
picture
of the
executive could
be or
software.
wishes either
an For
and benef1ts
features,
of and
these
knôwledge
if we are to improve
as the
systems.
systems.
The
literature
characteristics vendor
a demand of
instance,
However,
and addit10nal
satisfaction
offering
is Rockart
implementation.
the
and
provided
to this assertion
ElS
to the
ElS characteri st ics
regards
actual
pertains
have not been the object
1s still needed
and future executive
research
top-managers
commercial
literature
exception
focused
important
attributes
a clear
words,
The major
which
is really
second
in the reviewed
not look at ElS design
of present
A
a f1rst research
of ElS characteri st ics. as percei ved by users.
suggested
De
arguments,
Questions
for
promises certain
various
are
users
by present-day
ElS
of
of EIS does
in-use
from ElS
attributes
with
with
provide
ElS.
reality.
features
satisfied
not
users
One ln
us
must other
emanating
from
vendors
of
the
quality
of
EIS? ln addition
to obtaining
an
evaluation
differences
of
these
between
systems,
existing
this
EIS
will
allow
attributes
and
the
those
identification deemed
to
of
be
most
to the fact that EIS have changed
from
important.
A third supporting and
research
only
question
the chief-executive
middle-management
differences
refers
between
(Rockart,
systems
1990).
top-managers
with EIS and the importance
to
ln
and other
they attribute
available this
to and
regard,
managers
by top
can
expect
one
as to their
to various
used
satisfaction
EIS features.
Methodology
Questionnaires of
the
Canadian
implemented
an EIS (using
28 organizations, implemented EIS
mailed
Information
three questionnaires
from
were
were
Processing
returned
half from
and
used
the public
for
analysis
Descriptive
presented
in Tables
2, 3 and 4. Looking
functions
are
pre-formatted
managers.
These
ad-hoc queries
As developed
to
information
are
and report generation,
the
ori gi n
in-house,
EIS by Comshare,
while
Inc.
of
the
the
(8),
(a
sample
Command
user
other
than they
and electronic
Center
16
and
had fifty only
sector,
wete
had
received
questionnaire
is
and users are
out
the basic are
in
fact
to tables
retrieval used
by
and graphs,
mail.
of
commercial by
they
4, one can note that all EIS
of information
were
hundred
organizations
available,
systems,
others
One
if
from the private
at Table
include the re-formatting
them
52 qupstionnaires
functions
made
asking
in the directory
rate of 17%. Of these,
data on responding
When
listed
above).
and half
organizations, data
not implemented.
given
for a response
shown in Appendix).
of
Society,
the definition
an EIS. From these
users
to 900 organizations
Pilot
the
total
of
EIS products: Executive
28
were
Commander
Software,
Inc.
60 Max 3 750 15 Min 150 Mean 149 68,000 8,000 Table 2: 3,800,000 Descriptive Organizational1,597,300 Data 1123 ,200 (N=28) implementation Characteristics
Table 3. Descriptive
User Data (N=52)
Position
Number of users
5 15
CEC, President Vice-president Department head Other manager
20
Total
52
n 60 12 5 444 229 User Characteristics Ma~ Mi3
12
._-------
Mean 124.2 46.9 17.8
Table 4: Usage Characteristics
Function Imp 1emented (1) (number of organizations)
20 46 51 25 10 9 24 23 EIS Functions 29 3521 46 Ad-hoc queries and Re-formatting (2) out of the 52 sampled Electronic mail
13 28 17 users
(1) out of the 28 sampled organizations
Function Used (2) (number of users)
Number of Mean Monthly Session Sessions Duration (per user) (in min.)
'7
(2),
Executive
Edge
by
Inc. (1). A product of features a
Execucom
Systems
such as Commander
such as an electronic
reminder
capability
investigation
briefing
free-form
(1)
and
Media
by
book (report or chart
calendar).
electronic
data exploration)
Info
Innov,
1990)' includes a variety
EIS (Comshare,
(electronic
(through
Corp.
information), mail,
and access
dynamic
to external
data
bases (newswires).
The
questionnaire
information executives' attribute EIS
system
department
satisfaction
type
unsatisfied
The
1).
each
anchors
of
into four types quality
of
capabilities importance
characteristics the
user's
importance
for analysis
each
(5), while
alpha,
the various
at
the
measuring
by
with
measure
provided
be
rated scale
on
a
five-point
varied
from
very
from very unimportant
EIS characteristics
the
the
benefits
importance
the
actual also
EIS.
obtained
internal
are
and
the
of
its
Overall
consistency
for the reliability
of
for the
component fashion
values
averaging
to the
technical
obtained
in a similar
by
subdivided
pertaining
a value was
value was obtained
his
evidence
to
i.e. characteristics
averaging
were of
executives
scale.
For each respondent,
satisfaction A
the
were based on the same list of
they varied
user-interface,
1). Another
satisfa~tion and
aimed
organization,
and Discussion
purposes,
the
type
(Table
characteristics. Cronbach's
previously,
of the system. of
It
the
satisfaction
(5) for the importance
information,
to
EIS.
attribute
the
Results
As mentioned
the
Both measures
(1) to very satisfied
(1) to very important
related
with their EIS and the level of importance
(Table
scale.
data
and
to EIS characteristics.
characteristics
Likert
gathered
for on
related
all
for both 41
scales,
of the classification
N=52) All
Table 5: Internal (n=52)
Consistency
.89 .75 .94 .96 .88 .82 .93 .83 .91Satisfaction .71 Importance
of the EIS Importance
No. 41 6of items 14 12 9
= > >managers Benefits Interface 1.24 4.64 Capabilities 4.20 4.28 .56 .482.8 4.25 4.00 4.49 4.07 .43 4.04 4.58 4.19 4.04 4.09 Other Mean Mean S.d. managers 4.14 4.22 .41 .61 .32 .50 4.07 (N.S.) Top (N.S.) 0.5 (.629) t(sig.) (1) (N=32) (N=20) Table 6: Importance of Ideal EIS characteristics (.007) 5.5 C.OOO) information -interface characterist1c capabilities provided Quality
IMPORTANCE
of
(1) One-tail;
(N.S.) = non sign1ficant.
and Satisfaction
Cronbach's
(n=52)
alpha
Scales
8 scheme
proposed
1n
th1s
study,
both
for
the
importance
and
satisfact10n
scales, as shown in Table 5. Importance
of EIS Character1st1cs
The
four
importance users.
on
types the
basis
Paired-samples
respondents important
should
ElS' s output a
most
Finally,
important
technical
that a successful to the
associated equal
qua lity with
basis
and
Bégin,
under pressure),
areas
plus
factors)
such
perspective,
external
and validity
the exeeutive
success
satisfy
executives
their
especially
information),
in
the
primarily
user-
information
results
information
requirements of
(Rockart,
timeliness
information
relevancy
be
these
specifie
terms
(internal
(due to the strategie
with better
use of
view an ElS first and
own
have unique
completeness
would
the
capabilities.
to
1988)
ElS
of
the
are
managers,
sueeess
making.
is in
top-level
Bergeron
provides
an
if the
6 show that there
that the respondents, developed
sampled
more
one can interpret
system
the
significantly
question,
1979;
a
are
relate
the benefits on
by
decreasing
then used to determine
in the attributes
less
From such a perspective,
functional
perceived
in Table
attri butes
by
research
a
made
presented
come
needs.
decisions
were
as
ordered
of ElS attributes
Next
ln v1ew of the first
as
types
were
values,
(two-tailed)
important
and the system's
foremost
mean
The results
information.
as indicating
their
order of 1mportance
The
system.
interface
of
characteristics
certain
than others.
possess.
ElS
t-tests
felt that
fact a sign1ficant
such
of
(to
across
their
inputs
by
an
all
critical
nature of deeisions). aehieved
(for
ElS
From if
it
to his or her deeision-
9
An EIS is next viewed to their only
organizations
include
Jones,
1986),
in support
functions
communicating,
but
in terms
also
and entrepreneurs
advantage).
Such support
in
as
terms
effectiveness
of
(making
should
result
(anticipating
(greater
decision-making
The other two types of EIS attributes important the means
by the respondents.
user-interface to
an
information
and
end,
and
is the
Attributes
of the interface
would
be valued
not
(e.g. more timely) his
work.
instance,
The
"traffic
the executive's thus
indicate
EIS attributes, the
tracking
namely
important,
technical
perspective
but
said
of
only
an
functional
(interface
and
executives)
and
of goals).
system
are
functions
;\s they
unique
and
roles.
lead~ to
technical
handling
perspective
better
capabi1ities; are oriented role. These
of user perspectives
system
basically
to be more productive
capabilities
perspective
less
times and user-friendliness
insofar
and disturbance
of a hierarchy
gains,
top-management's
specifie
EIS's
and "drill-down"
an informational a
its
the
or allow the ex~cutive
function
the presence
most
important.
be
lighting"
of
competitive
in view of the fact that
of
such as fast response
in themselves
can
satisfaction
support
information
same
of
and
problem
are felt to be significantly
capabilities
the
of
and
(McLeod
for
and attainment
is not surprising
technical
which
needs,
This
not
and organizational
productivity
process
should
and resolving
improvements
in individual
and
controlling
by top-managers
strategic
to users
This.support
tracking,
played
handlers
efficiency
(improved
roles
it provides
work.
planning,
unique
i.e. as disturbance
situations)
both
of executive
such the
of the benefits
(system (system
capabilities)
for
toward results
in evaluating
outputs)
which
is
and
a
benefits), which
in
is the
least
10
Results question
are
between EIS
pertaining
to
presented
top-managers
importance
Table
6.
No
and other managers
characteristics.
expectations
in
the
It
regarding
would
seem
aspect
of
sign1ficant
that
both
groups
of an ideal
also
to the
employed
to
characteristics significantly
their
than
One must that
system
users
manner,
they
do
not
provided
be
realistic
more
for
them
their satisfaction
The
the
results
same
confirm
managers
at a 11
1990).
information
paired-samples evaluation
that
the
quality
of
benefits
and
the
the
sampled
functional
quality
of
benefits
(and the associated
in
fact
the
in
an
the
end
from
not
from
separate
the
the
fnterfacing ln the
it
same
(benefits)
capabilities
its mean
of
of ends and
support
case,
user-
capabi1ities
for users to consider ideal
were
and
are obtained. role
actual
which system
also
when
seems
expressing
system.
more
significantly
associated
technical
EIS do
were
executives
in terms
from the technical
means
dissociate
(and
or
the
information
end,
outputs
it seems logical
than
were
present
t-tests
of
technical
desired
these
systems
Whereas
to
is
by which
separate
their
toward their present
respondents
shows
the
the
which
important not
1
evaluating
by executive
allow for this support.
question,
respondents'
with
with
outputs,
from the mean
to
on various
have
(Rockart,
first note here the two pairings
i.e.
ends
the
EIS. Table
process,
presently
research
satisfied
attributes
of
second
of their
lt seems
quality
rather than only executives
compare
more
systems.
means.
support
found
with EIS Characteristics
ln answer
interface
would
research
were
placed
EIS. These
the emergi ng vi ew of an idea 1 EIS as bei ng abl e to
Satisfaction
third
differences
as to the importance
the attributes
levels of the organization
the
satisfied
user-interface)
capabilities)
provided
than
with
the
with
the
by their present
11
ElS. This 1s congruent
w1th the type of analysis
execut1ve
systems
date,
display1ng
rather
address1ng
a
Typ1cal
nature
would
(OSS)
executive
capabil1ties,
as
to the
of their
top-managers
1n
organ1zat1onal managerial antic1pat1ng level
information,
house,
ElS are
of
problem
less
capab1l1t1es
present
Edge
aspect
benefits
of the
third
of
th1s
most
ElSs
the dec1s1on make
them
and
expert
while
serv1ng
support
1nto
however
research
group
less
w1th
were
true
that
some
system
(ES)
as a bas1s
the
benefits
of
organ1zational
these
individuals
situations,
The
to prov1de
implementations, more
planning). understand
expected
ad-hoc be
can
benefits
analysis). they
acutely
The
commercially by
top
(e.g., and be
said (e.g.
by
the
specific (e.g.,
view
present-day
the
access
than
of
expectancy
technical
executives
needs of
higher
of
packaged
the1r
the~ techn1cal
supported
their
and
atta1nement
top-managers be
w1th
by the specif1c
must
Given
why
same
and
advantage), which
results
top-managers
overall
provided
impacts
of a competitive
question,
between
satisfied
system. This could be expla1ned
forecasting,
felt
modeling
differences
satis,factorlly.
thus
sense,
1988). Note
significant
to ElS, one can
requ1red
to
and
(Turban,
systems
ln this
required
added
future
used
lacking
report1ng
and relationsh1ps
unknown
widely
and De Long, have
an
Center.
added potent1al
former
objectives,
1n regard
systems
(Rockart
toward
1n most
1ntegration.
terms
roles
and
included
with data
than
avallable
capab1l1t1es
specif1cally
capab1l1t1es
rather
"intelligence",
1n Table 7 1nd1cate
ElS,
past
than
satisfaction
The
or1ented
as Command
Executive
ElS/OSS/ES
managers.
present
systems
more
such
thus prov1ding
for eventual
presented
rather
are
and expla1n1ng,
commerc1ally
knowledge-based
such
As
or
be a product
support
products
other
of
present
information and
wh1ch
than d1agnos1ng
known
1990).
del1ver
to
capabilit1es
technical
to aggregate
limitations
of
or developed
1n-
by
other
users.
significant.
Table 7: Satisfaction
With Actual
EIS characteristics
(n=52)
SATISFACTION All managers (N=52)
S.D.
Mean
Top managers (N=20)
Other managers (N=32)
Mean
Mean
Type of characterictic
1< 1(N.S.) =.79 Benefits = (.009) 1(.661) it ies 3.48 .69 3.62 2.93 3.44 .75 3.29 3.16 3.50 .72 3.39 .82 .83 3.53 3.07 3.43 1.62 2.51 3.25 3.50 .01 1.63 3.36 Hs 3.50 QualCapabil Hy (N. of S. ) 2.7 0.7 0.4 (.501) information -interface provided capabll Hies 1
