The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Key Issues in Information Systems Management: 1994-95 SIM Delphi Results1
Abstract
Over the past 15 years, the Society for Information Management (SIM) has periodically surveyed its members to determine the most critical issues in IS management. Again in 1994-95, SIM institutional and board members were asked to consider what they felt were the most critical issues facing IS executives over the next three to five years. Signaling an evolutionary shift in IS management, this study shows that business relationship Issues have declined in importance compared to technology infrastructure issues. For IS executives and general managers, the key Issue framework suggests some general directions for emphasis and provides a coarse measure for benchmarking their own concerns against those of their peers. The results of this study also impact educational missions in teaching and research to the extent that they need to be sensitive to the views of practicing IS executives.
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
Cites
The productivity paradox of information technology
Brynjolfsson, E. (1993) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/163298.163309 · Cited by 2,604
Cited by
Design Science in Information Systems Research1
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148625 · Cited by 10,707
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
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
Croteau, A.-M., & Bergeron, F. (2001) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/s0963-8687(01)00044-0 · Cited by 459
Kohnke, A., Cole, M. L., & Bush, R. (2014) · Journal of technology management & innovation · doi:10.4067/s0718-27242014000200003 · Cited by 181
Jeffers, P. I. (2010) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443571011024629 · Cited by 85
To what extent will blockchain drive the machine economy? Perspectives from a prospective study
Schweizer, A., Knoll, P., Urbach, N., von der Gracht, H. A., & Hardjono, T. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2020.2979286 · Cited by 39
Metadata
- Authors
- Brancheau, J. C., Janz, B. D., & Wetherbe, J. C.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 1996-06-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 225-242
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W1580996832
- Cited by
- 702
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 62.42
- 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.
