CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58Big Data and Business IntelligenceAccounting and Organizational ManagementDecision Support System Applications

The Use of Dashboards in Performance Management: Evidence from Sales Managers

Open access
Yigitbasioglu, Ogan M., Velcu-Laitinen, Oana·2012·The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research
DOI 10.4192/1577-8517-v12_2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to identify and empirically examine the key features, purposes, uses, and benefits of performance dashboards.We find that only about a quarter of the sales managers surveyed in Finland used a dashboard, which was lower than previously reported.Dashboards were used for four distinct purposes: (i) monitoring, (ii) problem solving, (iii) rationalizing, and (iv) communication and consistency.There was a high correlation between the different uses of dashboards and user productivity indicating that dashboards were perceived as effective tools in performance management, not just for monitoring one"s own performance but for other purposes including communication.The quality of the data in dashboards did not seem to be a concern (except for completeness) but it was a critical driver regarding its use.This is the first empirical study on performance dashboards in terms of adoption rates, key features, and benefits.The study highlights the research potential and benefits of dashboards, which could be valuable for future researchers and practitioners.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This survey of Finnish sales managers found that only about a quarter used a performance dashboard, far below rates reported in the business press. Dashboard use clustered around four purposes — communication/consistency, monitoring, rationalizing, and problem solving — and all were positively correlated with perceived user productivity.

Key findings

  • Adoption was roughly one quarter of the sample: of 145 respondents, 36 used a dashboard (7 of these built in Excel), while 62 of the 109 non-users said other reporting tools made a dashboard unnecessary.
  • Dashboards were used for all four purposes, with communication and consistency ranked highest (mean 5.28 on a 1–7 scale), followed by monitoring (5.15), rationalizing (5.04), and problem solving (4.81).
  • Drill down was the most present key feature (mean 4.51, SD 1.38), ahead of presentation flexibility (4.12) and scenario analysis (4.09); the high standard deviation for drill down suggests many dashboards lacked it.
  • Productivity correlated significantly with rationalizing (r = .744), communication/consistency (.700), monitoring (.693), problem solving (.644), scenario analysis (.619), drill down (.569), and data quality (.421); presentation flexibility was not significant (.315). Perceived data quality averaged 5.48.

Methods

  • Cross-sectional online survey of high-level sales managers (titles "Sales Manager" or "Sales Vice President") in Finnish companies with turnover of at least €1 million and at least 50 employees, drawn from the Fonecta ProfinderB2B database; 941 companies queried, 90 emails undelivered, 851 reached, 145 responses (17% response rate), of which 120 came from Sales Vice Presidents.
  • Constructs used pretested measures with at least three items each on a 1–7 Likert scale, adapted from Doll and Torkzadeh (1998), Wiersma (2009), Huh et al. (1990), and Reilly (1982); dashboard purposes, key features, perceived data quality, control tightness, and user productivity were measured.
  • Analysis used factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency, descriptive means, two-tailed Pearson correlations (N = 36), and independent-samples t-tests comparing adopters with non-adopters.

Limitations

  • Stated: the small sample size, driven by the predominance of non-user responses and the low response rate, restricted the statistical techniques available and limits generalizability; the survey was kept short for senior respondents, so not all dashboard features (e.g., visual features) were captured; and the control tightness measures performed poorly (alpha below 0.7) and need refinement.
  • Stated: one data quality item on completeness was dropped because of low loading.
  • Evident from the text: findings rest on self-reported productivity rather than objective performance, come from a single country, and the correlational design cannot establish that dashboard features cause productivity gains.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4192/1577-8517-v12_2

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 43 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Dashboards were used for four distinct purposes: monitoring, problem solving, rationalizing, and communication and consistency.

    “Dashboards were used for four distinct purposes: (i) monitoring, (ii) problem solving, (iii) rationalizing, and (iv) communication and consistency.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
      “Sales managers used dashboards for four distinct purposes (monitoring, problem solving, rationalizing, communication and consistency).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    The quality of data in dashboards did not seem to be a concern, except for completeness.

    “The quality of the data in dashboards did not seem to be a concern (except for completeness) but it was a critical driver regarding its use.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Perceived data quality is as important as objective data quality.
  • Findingnone given

    Data quality was a critical driver regarding the use of dashboards.

    “but it was a critical driver regarding its use.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
      “it was a critical driver for its use.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Perceived data quality is as important as objective data quality.
  • Findingown data

    About a quarter of the sales managers surveyed in Finland used a dashboard.

    “We find that only about a quarter of the sales managers surveyed in Finland used a dashboard, which was lower than previously reported.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
      “According to the results, only about a quarter of the respondents used a dashboard, which was much lower than expected.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Presentation flexibility was not significantly correlated with user productivity.

    “However, presentation flexibility was not significantly correlated with productivity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 22
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 45
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Out of the 145 that responded to the survey, only 36 indicated the use of a dashboard, including 7 that developed the dashboard in Excel.

    “Out of the 145 that responded to the survey, only 36 indicated the use of a dashboard, including 7 that developed the dashboard in Excel.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Dashboards were used for all four purposes, with communication/consistency and monitoring ranking highest.

    “Dashboards were used for all the four purposes, whereby communication, consistency, and monitoring ranked the highest (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Out of the 145 responses, 120 were received from Sales Vice Presidents and the remaining 25 from Sales Managers.

    “Out of the 145 responses, 120 were received from Sales Vice Presidents and the remaining 25 from Sales Managers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Among dashboard features, drill down received the highest mean score, followed by presentation flexibility and scenario analysis, which were less common.

    “The drill down feature received the highest score followed by presentation flexibility and scenario analysis.”
    • Also stated in: § 6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS · plain
      “The other two features (presentation flexibility and scenario analysis) were less common.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Only a quarter of the sales managers in the sample used a dashboard, which was much lower than figures reported by the business press.

    “This study found that only a quarter of the sales managers in the sample used a dashboard, which was much lower than figures reported by the business press.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The business press figures for dashboard adoption are higher than the study's sample.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Dashboard use dimensions (problem solving, rationalization, communication, etc.) were positively correlated with user productivity, all highly significant.

    “There were positive correlations between dashboard use dimensions (problem solving, rationalization, communication, etc.) and user productivity, which were all highly significant (RQ1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Dashboard users tended to be in organizations with a relatively high turnover, more than 200 million EUR.

    “Furthermore, users of dashboards tended to be in organizations with a relatively high turnover (more than 200 million EUR), which could suggest that dashboard adoption, as with other technologies, is likely to be subject to the financial resources of companies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The mean value for data quality was 5.48 on a scale from 1 to 7.

    “The mean value for data quality was 5.48 on a scale from 1-7.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Data quality in dashboards did not seem to be an issue, although there were concerns regarding the completeness of the data.

    “The quality of the data in the dashboards did not seem to be an issue, although there were concerns regarding the completeness of the data (as evidenced by the low loading) (RQ3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisereasoning

    The motivation for using visualization in dashboards can probably be best explained through cognitive fit theory.

    “The motivation for vol.12 using visualization in dashboards can probably be best explained through cognitive fit theory.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Performance dashboards in the form of Excel spreadsheets are most widely used by companies.

    “Thus, despite the criticism as being too flat, too manual and too vol.12 isolated, performance dashboards in the form of Excel spreadsheets are most widely used by companies (Neely et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Neely et al., 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The survey instrument made strong use of pretested measures and included at least three items for each construct to improve construct validity.

    “The survey instrument made strong use of pretested measures and included at least three items for each construct to improve construct validity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This is the first empirical study on performance dashboards in terms of adoption rates, key features, and benefits.

    “This is the first empirical study on performance dashboards in terms of adoption rates, key features, and benefits.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Huh et al. (1990) used the constructs of accuracy, completeness, currency and consistency for data quality.

    “Huh et al. (1990) used the constructs of accuracy, completeness, currency and consistency for data quality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Huh et al. (1990) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Doll and Torkzadeh (1998) measured how intensively employees used management information systems (MIS) to perform their jobs in terms of problem solving, work integration, and customer service.

    “For example, Doll and Torkzadeh (1998) measured how intensively employees used management information systems (MIS) to perform their jobs in terms of (i) problem solving, (ii) work integration, and (iii) customer service.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Doll and Torkzadeh (1998) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The few available scientific studies on dashboards have looked at their motivation, implementation or implementation stages, selection of metrics, and design.

    “As far as scientific publications are concerned, the few available studies on dashboards have looked at their motivation (Wind, 2005;Pauwels et al. 2009), implementation or implementation stages (Muntean et al. 2011;Pauwels et al. 2009), selection of metrics (DeBusk et al., 2003, Pauwels et al. 2009) and their design (Yigitbasioglu and Velcu, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Wind, 2005 source
    • cites Pauwels et al. 2009 source
    • cites Yigitbasioglu and Velcu, 2012 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A further 17% of respondents in the 2004 survey were in the process of developing a dashboard solution in their organizations.

    “and that a further 17% of the respondents were in the process of developing a dashboard solution in their organizations (Eckerson, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Eckerson, 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A more recent Gartner Inc. survey found that dashboards have been rapidly replacing reporting and ad-hoc analysis in Western organizations.

    “Also, a more recent survey by Gartner Inc. found that dashboards have been rapidly replacing reporting and ad-hoc analysis in Western organizations (Sallam, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sallam, 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Building on Doll and Torkzadeh (1998), Wiersma (2009) identified three purposes regarding the use of the BSC: decision-making and decision-rationalizing; communication and consistency; and self-monitoring.

    “Building on Doll and Torkzadeh (1998), Wiersma (2009) identified three purposes regarding the use of the BSC, which may be applicable to the context of dashboards.The purposes were identified as (i) decision-making and decision-rationalizing; (ii) communication and consistency, and (iii) self-monitoring, which agree with Pauwels et al. (2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wiersma (2009) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Cognitive fit theory postulates that decisions made under the fit condition are superior compared to the non-fit.

    “Cognitive fit theory postulates that decisions made under the fit condition are superior compared to the non-fit.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Ninety e-mails were returned as undelivered, which brought down the sample size to 851.

    “Ninety e-mails were returned as undelivered, which brought down the sample size to 851.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisereasoning

    When integrated with enterprise systems, dashboards enable different stakeholders in the same work process to visualize the same information.

    “When integrated with enterprise systems, dashboards enable different stakeholders in the same work process to visualize the same information.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Huh et al. (1990) and Nelson et al. (2005) define quality not in an objective sense, but in terms of the perceptions of data consumers who are working on specific tasks and within specific contexts.

    “Huh et al. (1990) and Nelson et al. (2005) define quality not in an objective sense, but rather in terms of the perceptions of data consumers who are working on specific tasks and within specific contexts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Huh et al. (1990) source
    • cites Nelson et al. (2005) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A 2004 survey by The Data Warehousing Institute reported that about half of 473 business intelligence professionals were using dashboards.

    “For example, already a 2004 survey by The Data Warehousing Institute reported that about half of the 473 business intelligence professionals were using dashboards and that a further 17% of the respondents were in the process of developing a dashboard solution in their organizations (Eckerson, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Eckerson, 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The drill down feature would benefit low analytics that might perform better with less aggregate data, as well as tasks that have a high level of uncertainty.

    “The drill down feature would also benefit low analytics that might perform better with less aggregate data, as well as tasks that have a high level of uncertainty (Bariff and Lusk, 1977;Benbasat and Dexter, 1979).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bariff and Lusk, 1977 source
    • cites Benbasat and Dexter, 1979 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Perceived data quality was measured in terms of data accuracy, reliability, completeness, and timeliness, consistent with Huh et al. (1990) and Reilly (1982).

    “Perceived data quality was measured in terms of data accuracy, reliability, completeness, and timeliness, which was consistent with Huh et al. (1990) and Reilly (1982).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Huh et al. (1990) source
    • cites Reilly (1982) source
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Perceived data quality is as important as objective data quality.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Reminders were sent twice and the total number of responses was 145.

    “Reminders were sent twice and the total number of responses was 145.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The response rate was 17%.

    “This corresponds to a response rate of 17%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    One of the benefits of dashboard implementations is the fast accessibility to information, which refers to the degree to which the dashboard and the information it contains can be accessed with relatively low effort.

    “This might be the case here, as one of the benefits of dashboard implementations is the fast accessibility to information, which refers to the degree to which the dashboard vol.12and the information it contains can be accessed with relatively low effort (Nelson et al., 2005, Pauwels et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Nelson et al., 2005 source
    • cites Pauwels et al., 2009 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These three key features make dashboards a dynamic and effective tool suitable for many types of users and tasks.

    “We think it is these features that make dashboards a dynamic and effective tool suitable for many types of users and tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Some of the above mentioned purposes were confirmed in surveys conducted by professional organizations.

    “Some of the above mentioned purposes were confirmed in surveys conducted by professional organizations (Clark et al., 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Clark et al., 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Sales managers were the target group because they were expected to be one of the user groups that use most frequently the dashboard solutions.

    “Sales managers were the target group because they were expected to be one of the user groups that use most frequently the dashboard solutions (Eckerson, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Eckerson, 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The response rate was influenced by the time of the survey (between Christmas and the New Year) and the senior levels of managers in the target group.

    “The response rate was influenced by the time of the survey (between Christmas and the New Year) and the senior levels of managers in the target group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The purposes identified by Wiersma (2009) agree with Pauwels et al. (2009).

    “which agree with Pauwels et al. (2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pauwels et al. (2009) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Previous research showed that under time pressure, managers may prefer to use sources of information that provide better accessibility to information but who might have a low perception of its quality in terms of accuracy, reliability, and timeliness.

    “Previous research showed that under time pressure, managers may prefer to use sources of information that provide better accessibility to information but who might have a low perception of its quality in terms of accuracy, reliability, and timeliness (Reilly, 1982).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Reilly, 1982 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Since tasks related to performance monitoring involve comparisons of a variety of measures (Key Performance Indicators), the presentation of information in graphical format is well justified.

    “Since tasks related to performance monitoring involve comparisons of a variety of measures (Key Performance Indicators), the presentation of information in graphical format is well justified.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Dashboards incorporate visual and functional features that in combination help improve cognition and interpretation.

    “Dashboards incorporate visual and functional features, which in combination help improve cognition and interpretation (Yigitbasioglu and Velcu, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Yigitbasioglu and Velcu, 2012 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Tabular information is more appropriate for symbolic tasks and for users who are more numerical.

    “On the other hand, tabular information is more appropriate for symbolic tasks and for users who are more numerical (e.g.accountants and financial analysts) (Vessey and Galletta, 1991).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Vessey and Galletta, 1991 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Control tightness measures (results, action, personnel, and cultural controls) were adopted from Wiersma (2009).

    “We also measured control tightness, i.e. results, action, personnel, and cultural controls to see if they were able to explain dashboard adoption.These were adopted from Wiersma (2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wiersma (2009) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Pauwels et al. (2009) suggest four possible purposes of using dashboards: monitoring, consistency, planning, and communication.

    “Pauwels et al. (2009) suggest four possible purposes of using dashboards: (i) monitoring, (ii), consistency (iii) planning, and (iv) communication.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pauwels et al. (2009) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Graphs are well suited for spatial tasks that involve forecasting and comparisons as well as for tasks that require multidimensional data analysis and pattern recognition.

    “For example, graphs are well suited for spatial tasks that involve forecasting and comparisons as well as for tasks that require multidimensional data analysis and pattern recognition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Vessey and Galletta, 1991 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Desired functional features of dashboards include real-time notifications and alerts, drill-down capabilities, scenario analysis, presentation flexibility/theory guided format selections, and external benchmarking.

    “Based on the reviewed literature, desired functional features of dashboards include (i) real-time notifications and alerts, (ii) drill-down capabilities, (iii) scenario analysis, (iv) presentation flexibility/theory guided format selections, and (v) external benchmarking, (Pauwels et al. 2009;Ying et al., 2009, Yigitbasioglu andVelcu 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Pauwels et al. 2009 source
    • cites Ying et al., 2009

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Yigitbasioglu andVelcu 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    From the above features, the authors identify three key features as the most critical: drill down, scenario analysis, and presentation flexibility.

    “From the above features, we identify three (key) features as the most critical: drill down, scenario analysis, and presentation flexibility.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Dashboard purposes and use were based on Doll and Torkzadeh (1998), which were also adopted in Wiersma (2009) in the context of BSC usage.

    “Dashboard purposes and use were based on Doll and Torkzadeh (1998), which were also adopted in Wiersma (2009) in the context of BSC usage.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Doll and Torkzadeh (1998) source
    • cites Wiersma (2009) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Companies might be facing application integration problems.

    “This could suggest that companies might be facing application integration problems, which has been widely reported in the IS literature (e.g.March and Hevner, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites March and Hevner, 2007 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study's sample size was small due to a low response rate and many non-dashboard users, which limited the statistical techniques applied.

    “The main limitation of the study relates to the sample size, which was small due to firstly, the fact that most of the responses we received were from non-dashboard users and secondly, the low response rate.Therefore, we were limited with respect to the statistical techniques we applied to analyse the data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The study provides evidence on the adoption rates, uses, and benefits of dashboards, a field that has so far been clearly neglected.

    “Overall, this study contributes to the accounting and information system literature by providing evidence on the adoption rates, uses, and benefits of dashboards, a field that has so far been clearly neglected.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Empirical research on performance dashboards is almost nonexistent.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Improved performance monitoring, decision rationalization, communication, and problem solving can enhance and speed up decision making, leading to more informed decisions that are less likely to be resisted by others.

    “Thus, improved performance monitoring, decision rationalization, communication, and problem solving can enhance and speed up the decision making process, leading to more informed decisions that are less likely to be resisted by others.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Dashboards should be seen as collaborative tools rather than individual decision support systems.

    “This highlights the fact that dashboards are to be seen as collaborative tools rather than individual decision support systems that help communicate the values and objectives of the company as much as what has to be fixed to achieve them.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    One question regarding the completeness of data from the data quality measure was removed due to low loading.

    “One question regarding the completeness of data from the data quality measure was taken out due to low loading.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Finland is in the top 3 on the worldwide rank of the impact of IT on its development and national competitiveness.

    “The low adoption rate was also surprising given that Finland is in the top 3 on the worldwide rank of the impact of IT on its development and national competitiveness (Dutta and Mia, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dutta and Mia, 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Senior employees may be slower to embrace new tools than employees in other functions.

    “Thus, it might be taking some time for the new tools to be embraced by senior employees who are not as technologically savvy as employees in other functions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Senior employees are not as technologically savvy as employees in other functions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study did not capture all possible dashboard features because the survey was kept short.

    “Another limitation relates to our intention of keeping the survey short as it targeted senior level employees.Thus, we did not for example attempt to capture all of the possible features (e.g.visual features) of the dashboards used by organizations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The control tightness measures did not perform well and would need refinement in future studies.

    “Thirdly, some of the measures, i.e. those relating to control tightness did not perform well and would have to be refined in future studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The low adoption rate may be because the target group was sales managers, whereas previous surveys focused on business intelligence professionals.

    “The reason for this finding might be the target group.Whereas we targeted sales managers, previous surveys focused on business intelligence professionals who are the pioneers in this field.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
55 of 55

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Perceived data quality is as important as objective data quality.

    “In this paper, we adopt the same point of view based mainly on the belief that it is not only important for the data to have high quality but it is equally important for the data to be perceived to have high quality.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Empirical research on performance dashboards is almost nonexistent.

    “Despite their popularity, empirical research on performance dashboards is almost nonexistent.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The business press figures for dashboard adoption are higher than the study's sample.

    “This study found that only a quarter of the sales managers in the sample used a dashboard, which was much lower than figures reported by the business press.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Senior employees are not as technologically savvy as employees in other functions.

    “Thus, it might be taking some time for the new tools to be embraced by senior employees who are not as technologically savvy as employees in other functions.”
4 of 4

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Three correlations are incorrectly marked significant

    Major

    With N=36, the two-tailed p-values for correlations of .306, .304, and .318 are approximately .069, .072, and .059, respectively. None meets the table's stated .05 threshold, despite each having an asterisk.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [5]5. CLARK, B.H.; ABELA A.V.; AMBLER T.; (2006): "Behind the wheel", Marketing Management, vol. 15, n. 3: 18-23.
  2. [10]10. FEW, S. (2006) Information Dashboard Design, The Effective Visual Communication of Data, O"Reilly Media, Inc, First Edition 2006.
  3. [16]16. KAWAMOTO, T.; MATHERS, B. (2007): "Key Success Factors for a Performance Dashboard", DM Review: 20-21.
  4. [24]24. RASMUSSEN N.; CHEN C. Y.; BANSAL M. (2009): Business Dashboards, A Visual Catalogue for Design and Deployment, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboke, New Jersey.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Yigitbasioglu, O. M., & Velcu-Laitinen, O.
Affiliations
Queensland University of Technology (AU)
ORCID
Venue
The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research
Publisher
The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research
Published
2012
Volume
12
Pages
36-58
ISSN
1577-8517 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.4192/1577-8517-v12_2
OpenAlex
W2106770951
Cited by
58
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research (publishedVersion)
Funders
Tekes
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Big Data and Business Intelligence
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Accounting and Organizational Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Decision Support System Applications
Keywords
performance dashboard, performance management, sales managers, monitoring, problem solving, communication, data quality, user productivity

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.

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