Information system, which belongs to newly developed subjects, has become increasingly close to our daily routine now. It is applied in almost everywhere of our society, such as school, library and even supermarket. However, many people confused about what is a information system actually. Whitten et al. (2001) defined it as "an arrangement of people, data, processes, information presentation, and information technology that interact to support and improve day-to-day operations in a business as well as support the problem-solving and decision-making needs of management and users." As a product of information technology, it inherits many merits of previous information technology products. With a high-level information system, business transaction becomes much more convenient and efficient resulting from the fast speed of data exchange of computers and sophisticated business process. Due to the great benefits from an information system, a growing number of companies and organizations are engaging in exploiting their own information systems now. despite this, it is reported that at least 31.1% of information system projects will be terminated before completion(Kapur,1997, cited by Lemon, Liebowitz, burn, & Hakney, 2002). Bartis et al (2008) indicate that only 16% of information system projects are completed on time and do not exceed budget. Why do these information systems failed? Many researches have been done to identify the failure factors, which indicated a fact that different person may has different standard of information system failure. The topic of IS failure has been a fervent area for academics and IT experts who may engage in information system, software engineering or computer science to discuss and debate for many years(Beynon-Davies, 1999). Poon et al (2001) point out that it is difficult and even impossible to justify the performance of information system because some benefits are intangible. As a result, it is hard to distinguish information system failure and success. Moreover, by discovering the relationship between critical failure factors and critical success factors can help people to make better decisions of determining the factors requiring more emphasis(Fowler, 2007). In this essay, the definition and types of information system failure, which can contribute to differentiate Information system success and failure and explain why systems fail, will be discussed first. And then how critical failure factors and critical success factors work along with each other is going to be analyzed. Next, I will look at two cases of information system failure and try to find their objectives and reasons of final failure. At last, some effective solutions will be advised to reduce the likelihood of information system failure.
body
Since the 1970s, a number of studies have been carried out to understand the concept of information system failure. Failure is either a project that has been cancelled or a project that does not meet its budget ,time, and goals(Fowler, 2007). Lemon et al (2002) also state that success of information system is "Success, on time, within budget with all of appropriate functionality". Failure is defined as occurring when it does not meet its requirement(Arnott & Dodson, 2008). System failure happens when the whole system does not operate as expected or it is user-hostile that rejected by users(Yeo, 2002). However, almost few projects can be seen as successful according to those various descriptions developed by researchers(Wilson et al.,2002, cited by Fowler, 2007). Defining information system failure can be a difficult process due to the fact that different measures are needed to assess the impact of effectiveness of systems for different users(Fowler, 2007). Poon et al (2001) chose five evaluation criteria to measure the information system: access, use, satisfaction, positive impact on executives, and expansion. Garrity and sanders (1988) concluded them to three levels: firm or organization level, function or process level, and individual level. A concept of expectation failure proposed by Lyytinen et al(1987) along with Sauer's concept of termination failure are popularly accepted by people, which can contribute to differentiate IS success and IS failure:
Correspondence failure. If an information system does not meet its original objectives, it will be considered as a failure. "This is the most common form of IS failure discussed in the literature and typically reflects a management perspective on failure"(Beynon-Davies, 1999). Normally, the objectives and requirements can be specified in advance, so it is possible to compare its achievements with its original goals(Yeo, 2002). Usually, managers are responsible for this failure, because scheduled evaluation of its system should be made to notice them the potential likelihood of failure.
Process failure. There are two types of process failure. Firstly, a project that is not developed within its scheduled budget or time should be considered as a failure, this is a very common type of failure which is universally existed in failed information systems and its outcome is a disaster for companies and organizations in most times. Secondly, some information systems failed during the process for other reasons. For instance, technological problem is commonly perceived, it is the main reason for why some companies cannot develop workable systems. These factors happen because of inaccurate plan of senior executives and poor execution of project members.
Interaction failure. User satisfaction is one of the most basic targets of an information system. A number of systems are complex and with user-hostile interfaces which will build a gap between users and the systems. These information systems are certain to induce user resistance. Lose of users is inevitable because users will try to find alternative systems. On the other hand, Yeo(2002) argue that heavy usage does not mean good user satisfaction on account of legal compulsion is existed so that users cannot find alternative systems. It is realistically existed just like some companies with most advanced technologies are prone to concentrate on income but not user experience.
Expectation failure. All the three types above deem the information system as mainly a neutral technical artifact (Klein et al., 1987). On the contrary, expectation failure occurs when an information system failed to meet an specific group of stakeholders expectation (Lyytien et al., 1987). It is a comprehensive measurement that not only involves rational elements but also contains irrational factors, which means that it evaluates an information system by actual utility rather than only desired situation. This is the reason for why some information systems which are regarded as successes at first but failed in actual application.
Termination failure. Sauer has a stricter definition of information system failure. According to his concept, an information system should be deemed as a failure only when there is no any interest of it from stakeholders. One of his determinants of information system failure is notion of a flaw. Flaws are existed in almost all information systems. Some of them have low harm to the holistic performance of information systems and could be removed. But if irremovable flaws of an information system achieve an unacceptable volume, supporters will lose their interests and terminate it. So Sauer pay more attention to the result rather than the expectation.
Information system failures cost a great number of resources every year and considered as disasters for middle or small sized companies and organizations. A host of researches have been conducted to analyze why these failures happen. However, Yeo (2002) said the identification and criteria of information system failure factors can be a highly complex task. There are too many factors concerning IS failures. Many experts are trying to classify and avoid them. Fowler et al (2007) conclude six critical failure factors as follows:
Lack of effective project management skills. This is the most important factor because managers are who play roles of taking charge of all arrangements in a company (Fowler et al, 2007). Fowel et al (2007) report that most information failures are attributed to ineffective management. It is imperative for managers to effective skills to deal with emergencies and other negative situations like employee resistance. Without effective project management, any organizations or companies will result in chaos which contributes directly to information system failure.
Lack of enough user involvement. Users are direct stakeholders of information systems, because information systems are invented to provide services. Lack of user involvement may place the users in a neglected position which will bring about many damages. In addition, Yeo et al (2002) claim that those failed information systems may cause many potential damages to organizations, and these damages are difficult to be found. Supported by appropriate mistake submission solutions, users can give back their direct user experience and advices which are of great importance to companies. On the other hand, lack of enough user involvement will cause blindness and a waste of resources.
Lack of top-management commitment to the project. "any significant project will require redefinition of job roles and responsibilities. Top management support is required to ensure this happens smoothly"(Lemon, et al., 2002).The importance of IT governance is generally ignored in the failure literature(David, Shirley, & David, 2006). Senior executives are the decision makers who are responsible for determining the holistic direction and framework of their projects during the whole process of information system development. Without an elaborate plan and scheduled commitment, information systems are likely to run exceed its budget and due time, and even worse, may drift its original target.
Lack of required knowledge in the project personnel. Firstly, for the sake of saving money, time or some other reasons, members involved in the project may be selected in haste. Consequently, some team members do not possess enough IT skills so that they can hardly deal with the challenges that will be confronted in the development of information system(Fowler, 2007). Secondly, even if they have comprehensive information technology skills, professional knowledge about the field where they will design a system for may be not familiar to them. So without required knowledge in the project, the products that they will produce cannot meet the requirement of initial expectation.
Poor user training. "End users need to fully understand the system, its nuances and any other special conditions. Proper training for users is mandatory"(Lemon, et al., 2002). Information systems now have become increasingly complex and huge due to more and more functions required by users and progressing information technology. Otherwise, to fully understand those functions and use them is not simple regardless of the great endeavors made by explorers who intend to provide user-friendly interfaces. Lack of proper training, especially for those who do not know much about information technology such as aged people, will be bound to cause user resistance and lose.
User resistance. The promotion of information will benefit some people and unavoidablely invade some others benefit. For instance, because the application of information system in a company , the power relationships would be changed which may result in resistance of its introduction and operation(Poon & Wagner, 2001). Beynon-Davies (1999) lists several counter-implementation strategies: lay low, rely on inertia, keep the project complex, and minimize the implementer legitimacy and influence. With following these strategies, opponents can heavily impact the introduction and operation of information system.
An understanding of critical success factor can help to fully understand information system failure. Critical success factor is a useful tool to specify what happens in an information system failure. They are readily understood by executives, managers, and other stakeholders, which will contribute to transfer theories into practice(Arnott & Dodson, 2008). Londesey and Frolick(1988) conclude ten CSFS which are highly accepted by academics: a committed and informed executive sponsor, an operating sponsor, appropriate IS staff, appropriate technology, management of data, a clear link with business objectives, an evolutionary resistance and management of system evolution and spread. So CFFs and CSFs not simply have common factors, the situation is more complex because they have some different factors and the priorities are also different. Fowler et al (2007) also list five most influential factors of success: top-management commitment, project team commitment, effective project management, project personnel knowledge and enlisting of external contractors. According to his CFFS, the adequate of user involvement is not mentioned in the factors of success. The explanation is that many systems are constructed to replace old systems, and these systems have similar functions but new framework. So user involvement is not necessary because it has already been done in the past. Formal user training is also not important when the systems are internet based. A trial version of system can be put on the internet, so users can be more familiar with the new information system before it comes out. Furthermore, some inquiring services can be provided to support the users when they encounter any difficulties.
Pan(2005) analyzed a case of information system failure in his paper. According to him, ElectroCo is a subsidiary of a Japanese corporation. Its procurement activities depended on paper-based documents. Owing to the frenzied rush to adopt e-commerce and the intention to save resources, the procurement manager decided to make an electronic procurement system. At first, the project proceeded slowly due to the noncooperation of users. By transferring two employees out of the department, the project manager solved the problem and kept the project going quickly. However, he didn't inform the suppliers of this system. When the project almost completed, the manager made an announcement to the suppliers about the new system and expected to get active feedback. Although the manager detected the suppliers' suspicion, he believed they will give in to his request. After that the project manager emphasized on the development of the system and neglected rumours among suppliers. At last, the suppliers allied and suggested postponing the project for some fictional reasons which was rejected but caused heated debate in the company. User stood on the suppliers' side which led the final abandonment of the project.
The electronic procurement system described here has the main purpose to eliminate paperwork and source worldwide for cheaper material supply(Pan, 2005). Apparently, this is a termination failure and the direct reason for the abandonment of the system is the opposition of suppliers. If they held active attitudes toward the system or gave in to it, the abandonment will be avoided. In addition, the user resistance also played an important role here. Without users' fictional description, the decision made by the senior management may be different.
Arnott, D., & Dodson, G. (2008). Decision support systems failures. Handbook on Decision Support Systems 1: Basic Themes, 763-790.
Beynon-Davies, P. (1999). Human error and IS failure: The case of the LAS CADS project. Interacting with Computers, 11, 699-720.
David, A., Shirley, G., & David, W. (2006). MANAGERIAL IT UNCONSCIOUSNESS. Communications of the ACM, 49(7), 6.
Fowler, J. H., P. (2007). Are information systems' success and failure factors related? . Organizational and End User Computing, 19(2), 1-22.
Lemon, W., Liebowitz, J., burn, J., & Hakney, R. (2002). IS project failure: A comparative study of two countries.
. Global Information Management, 10(2), 28-39.
Pan, G. S. C. (2005). IS project abandonment: A stakeholder analysis. Information Management 25, 173-184.
Poon, P. P., & Wagner, C. (2001). CSFs revisited: Success and failure cases of ISs for senior executives. Decision Support Systems, 30, 393-418.
Yeo, K. T. (2002). Critical failure factors in IS projects. Project Management 20, 241-246.
