Redefining System Use Constructs through Insights into Information Systems Success


Journal of Computer and Communication Networks

Received On : 03 April 2025

Revised On : 02 June 2025

Accepted On : 18 July 2025

Published On : 02 August 2025

Volume 01, 2025

Pages : 162-173


PDF
Download

DOI
https://doi.org/10.64026/JCCN/2025016
Article Views
Abstract

Information Systems (IS) encompass the cohesive combination of software, hardware, data, individuals, and protocols that collaborate harmoniously to produce, manipulate, retain, and dispense data inside an organization. These systems are specifically developed to facilitate and enhance business operations, aid in managerial decision-making, and assist in strategic planning. This study critically analyzes the complexities of achieving success in Information Systems (IS) by thoroughly examining the Delone and McLean (1992) model and subsequent changes proposed by Seddon. The study examines the connections between different constructs and research methods to clarify the important role of system utilization and its impact on user satisfaction, perceived usefulness, and overall advantages. In addition, it explores the changing understandings of the system usage idea, specifically in situations where use is voluntary or required. By combining results from several studies, this research enhances our comprehension of the aspects that contribute to the performance of information systems. It provides significant insights for both academic research and practical implementation in organizational environments. This will help organizations make better decisions and implement strategies more effectively.

Keywords

Seddon Model, Delone and Mclean Model, Construct Interrelation, User Satisfaction, Information System Success, Modified Seddon Model, Intention to Use, Voluntary and Mandatory Contexts.

  1. A. Popovič, R. Hackney, P. S. Coelho, and J. Jaklič, “Towards business intelligence systems success: Effects of maturity and culture on analytical decision making,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 729–739, Dec. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2012.08.017.
  2. M. Z. Elbashir, P. A. Collier, and M. J. Davern, “Measuring the effects of business intelligence systems: The relationship between business process and organizational performance,” International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 135–153, Sep. 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.accinf.2008.03.001.
  3. O. Isik, M. C. Jones, and A. Sidorova, “BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE (BI) SUCCESS AND THE ROLE OF BI CAPABILITIES,” Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 161–176, Oct. 2011, doi: 10.1002/isaf.329.
  4. D. Paradza and O. Daramola, “Business Intelligence and Business Value in Organisations: A Systematic Literature Review,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 20, p. 11382, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.3390/su132011382.
  5. H. A. Simon, “Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning,” Organization Science, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 125–134, Feb. 1991, doi: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.125.
  6. K. R. Karwan and R. E. Markland, “Integrating service design principles and information technology to improve delivery and productivity in public sector operations: The case of the South Carolina DMV,” Journal of Operations Management, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 347–362, Sep. 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2005.06.003.
  7. C. Avgerou, “Information Systems in Developing Countries: A Critical Research Review,” Journal of Information Technology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 133–146, Sep. 2008, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000136.
  8. M. E. Ben-Akiva, S. Gao, Z. Wei, and Y. Wen, “A dynamic traffic assignment model for highly congested urban networks,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 24, pp. 62–82, Oct. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2012.02.006.
  9. “The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update,” Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 9–30, Apr. 2003, doi: 10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748.
  10. Z. Irani, “Information systems evaluation: navigating through the problem domain,” Information & Management, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 11–24, Oct. 2002, doi: 10.1016/s0378-7206(01)00128-8.
  11. R. Mechler, “Reviewing estimates of the economic efficiency of disaster risk management: opportunities and limitations of using risk-based cost–benefit analysis,” Natural Hazards, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 2121–2147, Feb. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11069-016-2170-y.
  12. M. Tengö, E. S. Brondizio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, and M. Spierenburg, “Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach,” AMBIO, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 579–591, Mar. 2014, doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3.
  13. S. Petter, W. DeLone, and E. McLean, “Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships,” European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 236–263, Jun. 2008, doi: 10.1057/ejis.2008.15.
  14. U. Schultze and D. E. Leidner, “Studying Knowledge Management in Information Systems Research: Discourses and Theoretical Assumptions,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 3, p. 213, Sep. 2002, doi: 10.2307/4132331.
  15. V. K. Jain and D. K. Sobek, “Linking design process to customer satisfaction through virtual design of experiments,” Research in Engineering Design, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 59–71, Aug. 2006, doi: 10.1007/s00163-006-0018-2.
  16. K. Majumdar, “Shannon versus semantic information processing in the brain,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery/Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 9, no. 3, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1002/widm.1284.
  17. N. Urbach and B. Müller, “The Updated DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success,” Information Systems Theory, pp. 1–18, Aug. 2011, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_1.
  18. R. Vogel, “The Visible Colleges of Management and Organization Studies: A Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Journals,” Organization Studies, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1015–1043, Aug. 2012, doi: 10.1177/0170840612448028.
  19. A. Lutfi, M. Al-Okaily, A. Alsyouf, and M. Alrawad, “Evaluating the D&M IS Success Model in the Context of Accounting Information System and Sustainable Decision Making,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 13, p. 8120, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14138120.
  20. C. Viavattene, J. A. Jiménez, O. Ferreira, S. Priest, D. Owen, and R. McCall, “Selecting coastal hotspots to storm impacts at the regional scale: a Coastal Risk Assessment Framework,” Coastal Engineering, vol. 134, pp. 33–47, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.coastaleng.2017.09.002.
  21. A. Subiyakto and Abd. R. Ahlan, “Implementation of Input-Process-Output Model for Measuring Information System Project Success,” TELKOMNIKA Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering, vol. 12, no. 7, Jul. 2014, doi: 10.11591/telkomnika.v12i7.5699.
  22. R. Muradian, E. Corbera, U. Pascual, N. Kosoy, and P. H. May, “Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services,” Ecological Economics, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 1202–1208, Apr. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006.
  23. Y.-S. Wang and Y.-W. Liao, “Assessing eGovernment systems success: A validation of the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 717–733, Oct. 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2007.06.002.
  24. A. Jeyaraj, “DeLone & McLean models of information system success: Critical meta-review and research directions,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 54, p. 102139, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102139.
  25. N. Pushparaj, V. J. Sivakumar, M. Natarajan, and A. Bhuvaneskumar, “Two decades of DeLone and Mclean IS success model: a scientometrics analysis,” Quality & Quantity, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 2469–2491, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11135-022-01464-z.
  26. B. M. Abdel-Karim, N. Pfeuffer, and O. Hinz, “Machine learning in information systems - a bibliographic review and open research issues,” Electronic Markets, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 643–670, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s12525-021-00459-2.
  27. J. Floropoulos, C. Spathis, D. Halvatzis, and M. Tsipouridou, “Measuring the success of the Greek Taxation Information System,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 47–56, Feb. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.03.013.
  28. C. Tam and T. Oliveira, “Understanding the impact of m-banking on individual performance: DeLone & McLean and TTF perspective,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 61, pp. 233–244, Aug. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.016.
  29. D. L. Hoffman and T. P. Novak, “Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 50–68, Jul. 1996, doi: 10.1177/002224299606000304.
  30. A. Pakes, “On Patents, R & D, and the Stock Market Rate of Return,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 390–409, Apr. 1985, doi: 10.1086/261305.
  31. R. Saadé and B. Bahli, “The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: an extension of the technology acceptance model,” Information & Management, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 317–327, Jan. 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2003.12.013.
  32. D. L. Moody, “Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions,” Data & Knowledge Engineering, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 243–276, Dec. 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.datak.2004.12.005.
  33. P. B. Seddon, “A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success,” Information Systems Research, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 240–253, Sep. 1997, doi: 10.1287/isre.8.3.240.
  34. Y. Wang, “Assessing e‐commerce systems success: a respecification and validation of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success,” Information Systems Journal, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 529–557, Sep. 2008, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00268.x.
  35. J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 115–135, Aug. 2014, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
  36. S. Bushway, B. D. Johnson, and L. A. Slocum, “Is the Magic Still There? The Use of the Heckman Two-Step Correction for Selection Bias in Criminology,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 151–178, Mar. 2007, doi: 10.1007/s10940-007-9024-4.
  37. T. Vuckovic, D. Stefanovic, D. Ciric Lalic, R. Dionisio, Â. Oliveira, and D. Przulj, “The Extended Information Systems Success Measurement Model: e-Learning Perspective,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 3258, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.3390/app13053258.
  38. Y. Duan, M. Miao, R. Wang, Z. Fu, and M. Xu, “A framework for the successful implementation of food traceability systems in China,” The Information Society, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 226–242, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1080/01972243.2017.1318325.
  39. T. Burns, “Micropolitics: Mechanisms of Institutional Change,” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 257, Dec. 1961, doi: 10.2307/2390703.
  40. M. Z. Elbashir, P. A. Collier, and M. J. Davern, “Measuring the effects of business intelligence systems: The relationship between business process and organizational performance,” International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 135–153, Sep. 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.accinf.2008.03.001.
  41. B. Morschheuser, L. Hassan, K. Werder, and J. Hamari, “How to design gamification? A method for engineering gamified software,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 95, pp. 219–237, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2017.10.015.
  42. Z. Liu, J. Moon, B. Kim, and C.-P. Dai, “Integrating adaptivity in educational games: a combined bibliometric analysis and meta-analysis review,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 1931–1959, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11423-020-09791-4.
  43. K. Goffin, P. Åhlström, M. Bianchi, and A. Richtnér, “Perspective: State‐of‐the‐Art: The Quality of Case Study Research in Innovation Management,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 586–615, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12492.
  44. J. D. McKeen, T. Guimaraes, and J. C. Wetherbe, “The Relationship between User Participation and User Satisfaction: An Investigation of Four Contingency Factors,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 4, p. 427, Dec. 1994, doi: 10.2307/249523.
  45. L. A. Bettencourt and S. W. Brown, “Contact employees: Relationships among workplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors,” Journal of Retailing, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 39–61, Mar. 1997, doi: 10.1016/s0022-4359(97)90014-2.
  46. C.-S. Kuo and C.-C. Hsu, “Continuance Intention to Use and Perceived Net Benefits as Perceived by Streaming Platform Users: An Application of the Updated IS Success Model,” Behavioral Sciences, vol. 12, no. 5, p. 124, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.3390/bs12050124.
  47. S. Mardiana, J. H. Tjakraatmadja, and A. Aprianingsih, “Validating the Conceptual Model for Predicting Intention to Use as Part of Information System Success Model: The Case of an Indonesian Government Agency,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 72, pp. 353–360, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.150.
  48. F. B. Franque, T. Oliveira, C. Tam, and F. de O. Santini, “A meta-analysis of the quantitative studies in continuance intention to use an information system,” Internet Research, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 123–158, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1108/intr-03-2019-0103.
  49. Cenfetelli and Bassellier, “Interpretation of Formative Measurement in Information Systems Research,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 4, p. 689, 2009, doi: 10.2307/20650323.
  50. J. Brisswalter, M. Collardeau, and A. Ren??, “Effects of Acute Physical Exercise Characteristics on Cognitive Performance,” Sports Medicine, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 555–566, 2002, doi: 10.2165/00007256-200232090-00002.
  51. M. Ali, L. Zhou, L. Miller, and P. Ieromonachou, “User resistance in IT: A literature review,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 35–43, Feb. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.09.007.
  52. B. Cheng, M. Wang, J. Moormann, B. A. Olaniran, and N.-S. Chen, “The effects of organizational learning environment factors on e-learning acceptance,” Computers & Education, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 885–899, Apr. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.014.
  53. P. B. Lowry and J. Gaskin, “Partial Least Squares (PLS) Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) for Building and Testing Behavioral Causal Theory: When to Choose It and How to Use It,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 123–146, Jun. 2014, doi: 10.1109/tpc.2014.2312452.
  54. H. Sun and P. Zhang, “The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 53–78, Feb. 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.013.
  55. J. F. Hair, M. C. Howard, and C. Nitzl, “Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 109, pp. 101–110, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069.
  56. M. Callon and V. Rabeharisoa, “Research ‘in the wild’ and the shaping of new social identities,” Technology in Society, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 193–204, Apr. 2003, doi: 10.1016/s0160-791x(03)00021-6.
  57. M. Sjöberg, A.-K. Edberg, B. H. Rasmussen, and I. Beck, “Documentation of older people’s end-of-life care in the context of specialised palliative care: a retrospective review of patient records,” BMC Palliative Care, vol. 20, no. 1, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1186/s12904-021-00771-w.
  58. Y. Mansoori and M. Lackéus, “Comparing effectuation to discovery-driven planning, prescriptive entrepreneurship, business planning, lean startup, and design thinking,” Small Business Economics, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 791–818, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11187-019-00153-w.
  59. S. H. P. W. Gamage, J. R. Ayres, and M. B. Behrend, “A systematic review on trends in using Moodle for teaching and learning,” International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 9, no. 1, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1186/s40594-021-00323-x.
  60. Ø. Sørebø, H. Halvari, V. F. Gulli, and R. Kristiansen, “The role of self-determination theory in explaining teachers’ motivation to continue to use e-learning technology,” Computers & Education, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1177–1187, Dec. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.001.
  61. D. Karaboga and B. Akay, “A survey: algorithms simulating bee swarm intelligence,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 31, no. 1–4, pp. 61–85, Jun. 2009, doi: 10.1007/s10462-009-9127-4.
  62. S. Lakhal, H. Khechine, and D. Pascot, “Student behavioural intentions to use desktop video conferencing in a distance course: integration of autonomy to the UTAUT model,” Journal of Computing in Higher Education, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 93–121, Jun. 2013, doi: 10.1007/s12528-013-9069-3.
  63. MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Podsakoff, “Construct Measurement and Validation Procedures in MIS and Behavioral Research: Integrating New and Existing Techniques,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 2, p. 293, 2011, doi: 10.2307/23044045.
  64. J. Osborne, “Teaching Scientific Practices: Meeting the Challenge of Change,” Journal of Science Teacher Education, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 177–196, Apr. 2014, doi: 10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1.
  65. Z. R. Dagher, “Does the use of analogies contribute to conceptual change?,” Science Education, vol. 78, no. 6, pp. 601–614, Nov. 1994, doi: 10.1002/sce.3730780605.
CRediT Author Statement

The author reviewed the paper and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Author(s) thanks to Dr. Dong Yonggui for this research completion and support.

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Ethics Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Availability of Data and Materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

Author Information

Contributions

All authors have equal contribution in the paper and all authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding Author



Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs is a more restrictive license. It allows you to redistribute the material commercially or non-commercially but the user cannot make any changes whatsoever to the original, i.e. no derivatives of the original work. To view a copy of this license, visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Cite this Article

Li Hua Fang and Dong Yonggui, “Redefining System Use Constructs through Insights into Information Systems Success”, Journal of Computer and Communication Networks, pp. 162-173, 2025, doi: 10.64026/JCCN/2025016.

Copyright

© 2025 Li Hua Fang and Dong Yonggui. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Journals
JCCN JDBIM JSSF
Policies
Publication Ethics Copyright Policy Open Access Policy Article Posting Policy Advertising Policy Privacy Policy Data Availability Policy
Ethics
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests Allegations of Misconduct Appeals Process Complaints Process Peer Review Process Authorship Criteria Terms and Conditions
Resources
Ansis Manager Contact Us
Information
Authors Editors Librarians Societies Journal News
© Ansis Publications, All Right Reserved. Designed By Ansis Publications
Home About Us Resource Contact