The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Key Issues in Information Systems Management
Abstract
The results from a five-part Delphi survey of chief IS executives and corporate general managers indicate the most critical information systems management issues and consensus on their importance. The research project is the second in a series of such studies conducted by the Society for Information Management and the MIS Research Center at the University of Minnesota. The research confirmed the expected in some areas and revealed surprises in other areas. While strategic planning continued to top all issues in importance, many changes have occurred since 1983. Three new issues have joined the top ten issues in importance. Also, the rank order of several issues in the top ten has shifted. Survey results are discussed in terms of the differing views of IS executives and corporate general managers. A review of how these views have changed over time is also presented. A number of conclusions are drawn about managing information systems and about the changing nature of the IS executive’s job.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Design science in information systems research
(2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.5555/2017212.2017217 · Cited by 8,254
The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002 · Cited by 4,771
Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology
Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y. K., Sheng, O. R. L., & Tam, K. Y. (1999) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.1999.11518247 · Cited by 1,951
Consensus measurement in Delphi studies
von der Gracht, H. A. (2012) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013 · Cited by 1,831
Survey research methodology in management information systems: an assessment
Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. (1993) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.1993.11518001 · Cited by 1,288
Coping With Systems Risk: Security Planning Models for Management Decision Making1
Straub, D. W., & Welke, R. J. (1998) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249551 · Cited by 1,120
Kearns, G. S., & Sabherwal, R. (2006) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222230306 · Cited by 573
Personas and user-centered design: how can personas benefit product design processes?
Miaskiewicz, T., & Kozar, K. A. (2011) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.03.003 · Cited by 559
An Assessment of the Contingency Theory of Management Information Systems
Weill, P., & Olson, M. H. (1989) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.1989.11517849 · Cited by 351
(2003) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 202
Jeffers, P. I. (2010) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443571011024629 · Cited by 85
Metadata
- Authors
- Brancheau, J. C., & Wetherbe, J. C.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 1987-03-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-45
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W2146388695
- Cited by
- 817
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 60.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
