WebSAMS in Hong Kong Secondary Schoolslibproject.hkbu.edu.hk/trsimage/hp/03007189.pdf · I could not be able to finish the research study. Through the project , I ... effectiveness

Factors AffectingtheEffectivenessof

WebSAMSinHongKongSecondarySchools

By

LeungCheukKwan

03007189

InformationSystemsManagementOption

AnHonoursDegreeProjectSubmittedtotheSchoolofBusinessin

PartialFulfillmentoftheGraduationRequirementfortheDegreeof

BachelorofBusinessAdministration(Honours)

HongKongBaptistUniversity

HongKong

April2006

LeungCheukKwanBBAISM03007189 HKBUHonoursDegreeProject/April06

FactorsAffectingTheEffectivenessofWebSAMSinHongKongSecondarySchools i

Acknowledgement

I must take this opportunity to express my gratitude to my project supervisor, Dr.

TonyC.K.Wong.Hecouldunderstandandtakeuptheprogressofmyresearchstudy

rapidly and provided many valuable feedbacks in a pretty professional manner to

facilitatemyresearchstudy.Thoughhewasextremelybusy,hecouldstillbewilling

tocontributehisvaluabletimeonmy research.

Iwouldalsoliketogiveappreciationtomypreviousprojectsupervisor,Ms.SharonS.

F. Tang. She helped me a lot in preparing the early work of my research study,

especiallyprovidingrecommendationsinfindingusefulmaterials.

Iwasalsogratefultothosesecondaryschoolsteachersandadministrativestaffwhich

hadtakentheirvaluabletimeinrespondingthequestionnaires.Withouttheirsupports,

Icouldnotbeabletofinishtheresearchstudy.

Through theproject, Ihave learnthowto conduct aresearchstudy formally. Ihave

beenmorefamiliarwiththesourceofjournalsandthewaytoreadandanalysisthose

literatures.Theprojectalsogavemeachancetolearnpracticalstatisticanalysisskills,

whichcouldbeveryusefulinthefuturecareerorhigherstudy.


FactorsAffectingTheEffectivenessofWebSAMSinHongKongSecondarySchools ii

Abstract

WebSAMS(WebSchoolAdministrationandManagementSystem) isa newonline

schoolmanagement information system launched by Hong Kong S.A.R. Education

andManpowerBureau(EMB)in2003.Itwasexpectedto improvetheefficiencyof

schooladministrativeworksandthecommunicationsbetweentheschoolsandEMB.

Unfortunately,thesystemwascomplainedlargelythatitwasnoteffectiveenoughto

bring in the expected benefits to the schools. This research paper is hereby to

investigate the influential factors that would affect the system effectiveness of

WebSAMS, so that appropriate steps could be taken thereafter to improve the

effectivenessofWebSAMS.

Thisstudymadeuseof thegoalcenteredviewandthesystemsresourceviewfrom

the literature review to define the system effectiveness.Aquestionnaire surveywas

conducted, which had collected the responses from 119 WebSAMS Users from

different secondary schools in Hong Kong. The survey result focused on how

WebSAMS users perceived the five factors (system quality, information quality,

servicequality,presenceof real timesupportandpresenceof training)wouldaffect

theperceivedusefulnessandtheusersatisfactionofWebSAMSandeventuallyaffect

theeffectivenessofWebSAMSinHongKongsecondaryschoolswithreferenceto the

literaturereview.

Theresearchresultsuggestedthatthesignificantfactors,includingthesystemquality,

presenceofrealtimesupportandpresenceof training,wouldpositively affecttheuser

satisfaction and eventually increase the effectiveness of WebSAMS, which proved

thatthesystemsresourceviewisvalidinthisstudy.Theresultfurtherprovedthatthe


FactorsAffectingTheEffectivenessofWebSAMSinHongKongSecondarySchools iii

system quality is themost vital factor in affecting the effectiveness ofWebSAMS,

whichwassameastheresultofthefivefactorspriority rankingby therespondentsin

the survey. Therefore in order to improve the effectiveness of WebSAMS

fundamentally,EMBandtheWebSAMSofficialunitwererecommendedtoimprove

the WebSAMSs system quality by minimizing the existing system bugs and

upgradingtheserverhardware,andcomplementthesystemqualitybyprovidingmore

adequaterealtimesupportandtrainingtotheWebSAMSusers.

Last but not least, the research result showed us that perceived usefulness is

insignificant to affect the users intention to useWebSAMS, which indeed is also

insignificanttoaffecttheeffectivenessofWebSAMSaltogether,whichindicatedthat

thegoalcenteredviewisnotapplicableinthisstudy.

Keywords:educationalIT,schoolmanagement,systemeffectiveness,WebSAMS


FactorsAffectingTheEffectivenessofWebSAMSinHongKongSecondarySchools iv

TableofContent

1. Introduction 1

2. Objectives 2

3. LiteratureReview 3

4. ResearchMethodology 15

5. Resultsandfindings 19

6. ImplicationsandDiscussions 30

7. Limitations 32

8. Conclusion 32

9. Recommendations 34

References 36

AppendixA:FunctionsofWebSAMS 44

AppendixB:MeasurementItems 47

AppendixC:QuestionnaireSample 53

Appendix D:StatisticData 56


FactorsAffectingTheEffectivenessofWebSAMSinHongKongSecondarySchools 1

1. Introduction

Nowadays, information technology has been widely popularized and applied in

educational area. Different kinds of school management information systems1 were

implemented in facilitatingschooladministrationbymanydifferenttypesofschools

throughout the world in the recent decade (Kalay & Chen, 2002). The

computerization of school administration has therefore become a central issue in

currentschoolmanagement.(Telem,1999)

InHongKong, since the educational policy SchoolBasedManagement (SBM) has

beenintroducedtoallsecondaryschoolin1999,theschoolshavegotmorelibertyin

administrative management. To facilitate SBM, Education and Manpower Bureau

(EMB) has introduced the Web School Administration and Management System

(WebSAMS)since2003,whichexpectedtoprovidetheappliedschoolswithcertain

planning and operational functions needed in many areas such as general

administrationandstudentaffairs.Mostsecondaryschools(94.6%)haveadoptedthe

systembecauseofthepromotionofEMBinthesetwoyears(EMB,2005).Therefore,

WebSAMS has become the main school management information system used for

administrationbysecondaryschoolsinHongKong.

The idea ofWebSAMS is through a central internetbased system and database, to

helptheschoolsontheadministrativeactivitiesespeciallyonthetimeconsumingdata

processing and data exchange (EMB, 2005). However, the situation is not so

optimistic.There isanewsreport(SingPaoDailyNews,Mar3,2004)showedsome

WebSAMSuserscomplained that thenewsystemwas notyetperfect foroperation.

1 ExamplesincludeOverseerbyRobustSoftwareInc.,SchoolGenbyEdvantageIndiaSoftwareSolutionandSchoolWritebyBBASoftware.



They claimed a lot of problems have been aroused when using the system. For

examples, lack of expected data2 which should be included on the exam report,

hardwarefailurebecauseofbigamountofdataprocessing,theexistenceofbugs,etc.

Besides, users could not master the system well due to insufficient support. The

effectiveness of WebSAMS was consequently affected. Absolutely, this is not the

desiredoutcome.Thoughthepublicisinterestedininvestigatinghowtomeasureand

improve the effectiveness of WebSAMS efficiently, most people realize that

measuring information system effectiveness is not an easy task. (Visscher and

Bloemen,1999)

2. Objectives

This paper is going to take up the challenge in discovering and investigating the

practicalfactors that canmeasureandaffect theeffectivenessofWebSAMS,sothat

theWebSAMSdeveloperswouldhaveareferenceonimprovingthesystem.DeLone

andMcLean(1992,2003)haddevelopedanISSuccessModelinordertomeasurean

information systems performance. It has been widely adapted by IS researchers.

(DeLone and McLean, 2003) By further applying the model in this study, we are

going to look at what factors are significantly affecting the effectiveness of

WebSAMS in Hong Kong secondary school. Possible factors affecting system

effectivenesswillbefoundfromliteraturereview.Surveywillbeconducedtoobtain

currentWebSAMS users perception on these factors. By analyzing the results and

findings, some suggestions will be made for improving the effectiveness of

WebSAMSinHongKongsecondaryschool.

2 Examplesoflackingexpecteddataincludeextracurricularactivitiesrecord,awardsandpunishmentsrecordandtotalnumberofstudentsineachform.



Besides, it is obvious that management information systemhas taken an important

role in educational management in this recent. However, there is still insufficient

researchonconductinganevaluationoftheeffectsofthesesystemsonadministrative

activities in the school (Kalay & Chen, 2002). Therefore this paper is hoped to

contribute to the inadequate literature libraryabout the effectiveness of information

systemsineducationaladministration.

3. LiteratureReview

3.1WebSAMS

WebSAMS,short forWebSchoolAdministrationandManagementSystem, isa

web based school management information system introduced by Hong Kong

S.A.R. Education andManpower Bureau (EMB) since 2003. It totally costs 30

millionsHongKongdollarsforthewholedevelopment.Thelatestversionis4.8.

(EMB,2005)

WebSAMSrequirestwoDedicatedServers:WebSAMSandHTTPServer.Every

school has to install both servers in order to useWebSAMS.Table 1 shows the

basichardwareandsoftwarerequirementforbothserversineachschool.

WebSAMSServer HTTPServer

CPU PIII600MHz PII400MHz

RAM 1GBRAM 128MBRAM

Harddisk 3x9GB 4GB

Other Windows2000

Backup

AntiVirusSoftware

ExistingSAMSServer

PCclass

Table1.BasicHardwareandSoftwareRequirementsforWebSAMS

(Li,2003)



3.2ArchitectureofWebSAMS

WebSAMSprovidestheusersaninterfacetoinputandretrievethedataneededby

theschools.Brieflysayingthere isaWebSAMSserverstoringall thedataasan

internal center and a HTTP server serving the external communication in each

school. The Internet users are connecting to the school network via an internet

gatewaywhichprovidestheIPpacketfilteringandNetworkAddressTranslation

(NAT) functions.Usually the schoolswill use a routerwith firewall or a proxy

serverasaninternetgateway.Theschoolnetworkisdividedbyarouterintotwo

segments: intranet and internet segments. WebSAMS is only connecting to the

school server and form an intranet network, but not directly connecting to the

public internet network. Internet users must have authority to connect to the

school network via theHTTP server and then eventually connect toWebSAMS

serverviaaninternalfirewallprotectedrouter.

Internet

W ebSAMSServer HTTPServerW ebSAMSPCs ITEdPCs

W ebSAMSSwitch ITEdSw itchRouter/Firew allintegratingW ebSAMS& ITEdsegments

InternetUsers

ISPModem /Transceiver

InternetGateway

WebSAMSSegm ent

ITEdSegment

Figure 1.Networking Infrastructure betweenWebSAMS, schools and the internet

users(EMB,2003)



3.3FunctionsofWebSAMS

According to WebSAMS Central Document Repository, WebSAMS mainly

providesthefollowing16functionalareas3:

1. Attendance 2. Award&Punishment

3. CodeManagement 4. Communication&DeliverySystem

5. DataManagement 6. FinancialMonitoring&Planning

7. HongKongAttainmentTests 8. HKEAA

9. ReportManagement 10.SchoolManagement

11.SchoolPlacesAllocation 12.SpecialAssessment

13.Staff 14.StaffDeployment

15.Student 16.StudentActivities

3.4DefinitionofEffectiveness

Itwassofaradifficultissuetodefineandmeasureeffectivenessintheviewofan

informationsystem(VisscherandBloemen,1999).Pyzdek(2003)suggestedthat

the effectiveness of a system is a result of three elements, they are reliability,

availability and design capability. However they are not general enough to

conclude what effectiveness is. Typically Grover, Jeong and Segars (1996)

suggested some representative definitions of IS effectiveness based on previous

literature and analysis. The first one is based on the goalcentered approach,

whichdefinesISeffectivenessasthedegreetowhichtheobjectivesofsystems,

ortheorganizationalunitutilizingthesystems,areachieved(p.180).Thesecond

definition is based on the systems resource approach and defines that IS

effectiveness is determined by the attainment of a normative state [ideal case]

ratherthantheachievementifspecifictaskobjectives(p.180).

3 ExamplesofUseineachfunctionalareaarelistedinAppendixA



l TheGoalCenteredView

InthegoalcenteredviewwefocusontheoutcomesoftheITfunction.We

determinethetaskobjectivesofthesystemandthenestablishthecriteriafor

measuringwhethertheseobjectiveshavebeenachieved.(Groveretal.1996)

l TheSystemsResourceView

Inthesystemsresourceviewwefocusontheprocessorfunctionalaspects

of thesystem. In thiscaseeffectiveness ismeasuredagainst such thingsas

userjobsatisfaction,communicationbetweenITstaffandusers,andquality

ofservice.(Groveretal.1996)

Therefore, this study will be based on these two definitions, to see how other

factorsaffectingtheeffectiveness.Thefactorswillbegroupedintosystemfactors

andexternalfactors.

3.5DeLoneandMcLeanISSuccessModel

The original model (Figure 2) was first developed in 1992 by DeLone and

McLean.Sincethen,nearly300articlesinreferredjournalshavereferredtoorgot

useofthemodel(DeLoneandMcLean,2003),thusit isastrongevidenceofthe

widepopularityof thismodel.Themodeloffered acompleteandcoherent,yet

conceptualdepictionoftheinterdependentsuccesscomponents inaninformation

system.(Grembergen,2001).Withreferencetothe later literaturesreviewsand

criticsonthemodel,DeLoneandMcLeanrevisedtheISSuccessModel in2003

(Figure 3) by adding service quality as well as intention to use and replacing

individual impact and organizational impact with a new construct, net benefits.



Themodelwasusedtoexplainthesignificanceofthemeasureddimensionstothe

informationsystemsuccessaswellasitseffectiveness.

Figure2. TheoriginalD&MISSuccessModel(DeLoneandMcLean,1992)

Figure3.UpdatedD&MISSuccessModel(DeLoneandMcLean,2003)

Ononehand, it isobviousthattheISSuccessmodel isnotspecificallyaimedto

school management information system originally. On the other hand, it rather

focusesonhowthesystemaffects theusersusewithoutattempttoincludehow

theusersaffecttheeffectivenessof thesystem.Thereforerelevantfactorsshould



be added to the model in order to increase its descriptive power on the

effectivenessofWebSAMSbothfromthesystemssideandtheuserssideofview.

Model for effective use of a school management information system was

developed by Barret (1999)in order to explain how external factors affect the

effectiveness of a studentmanagement information system.The external factors

used in that model ,including presence of training and presence of real time

supportarevaluableforreferencetothemodifiedD&MISSuccessmodelwhich

will be used in this study in order to investigate the factors affecting the

effectivenessofWebSAMSfromtheusersside.

3.6FactorsaffectingEffectiveness

SYSTEMFACTORS

I. InformationQuality

Pitt,WatsonandKavan(1995)pointedoutthatfortheusers,theinformation

is paramount and the deliverymechanism secondary.Kaydos (1998) stated

thatoneof themost important factorsaffecting themeasurementof system

effectiveness is how relevant the information is. Chang and King (2005)

mentioned that measures of information effectiveness are to assess the

quality of the information provided by IS as well as the effects of the

information on the users job. Therefore, with higher information quality,

usersaresupposedtobemoresatisfiedwiththesystemandthinkthesystem

ismoreuseful.

Wang and Strong (1996), Chang and King (2005) proved the significant

relationship between accessibility, contextual quality, flexibility, intrinsic



quality, presentational quality, reliability, usefulness and the information

quality.Themeasure items of information quality that previous researchers

havesupportedweresummarizedasinTable2.

MeasureItems Definitions Reference

Accessibility Whethertheoutputinformationwouldbe

approachedwhenevertheusersdemand

forit.

[6],[16],[43]

ContextualQuality Whethertheoutputinformationis

consistentwiththeotherinformation

providedbythesamesystem.

[6],[16] ,[43]

IntrinsicQuality Qualityoftheinformationcontent. [6],[16] ,[43]

Presentational

Quality

Materialdesignandthelayoutofthe

outputinformation.

[6],[16] ,[43]

Reliability Correctnessoftheoutputinformation [6],[16] ,[43]

Usefulness Usevalueoftheoutputinformation. [16] ,[43]

Table2.Suggestedmeasureitemsofinformationquality

II. SystemQuality

MeasuresofSystemQualitytypicallyfocusonperformancecharacteristics

of the system under study (Association for Information Systems). Nelson

andTodd (2005)claimed that information quality is relatedmost closely to

theoutputofanIS,systemqualityreflectstheinformationprocessingsystem

required to produce that output. Thus, the dimensions of system quality

represent user perceptions of interactionwith the system over time. In this

sense, higherquality systems should be perceived as easier to use and,

ultimately,havehigherlevelsofusefulnessanduse.

McLean and DeLone (2003) stated that System quality was measured in



terms of easeofuse, functionality, reliability, flexibility, data quality,

portability, integration, and importance. While the Association for

InformationSystemsclaimedthatservicequalityshouldincludethemeasure

of adaptability and response time as well. The measure items of system

quality that previous researchers have supported were summarized as in

Table3.


Adaptability Theeaseofadaptingthenewchanged

modeofworkingduetothesystem.

[44]

EaseofUse UserFriendly. [6],[8],[25],

[37],[44]

Flexibility Thequalityofthesystemtobechangedto

fitthecircumstance.

[6],[8],[44]

Functionality Varityofthesystemfunctions [8],[44]

Integration Theabilityofthesystemtobe

incorporatedintothecommunity

[8],[44]

Reliability Whetheritisdependableforwork [8],[44]

ResponseTime Elapsedtimebetweenuserrequestandthe

systemreply.

[6],[44]

Table3.Suggestedmeasureitemsof system quality

III. ServiceQuality

Pittetal.(1995)observedthatcommonlyusedmeasuresofISeffectiveness

focusontheproductsratherthantheservicesoftheISfunction.Thus,there

isadangerthatISresearcherswillmismeasureISeffectivenessiftheydonot

include in their assessment package a measure of IS service quality This

observation indicated that servicequality isan important factor inaffecting

the effectiveness of the information system. That was why DeLone and



McLean (2003) responded to the literatures which have similar views and

updatedtheISsuccessmodelwithadditionalfactorofservicequality.

Liu andAmett (2000) stated that service quality is refer to responsiveness,

assurance, empathy, and followingup service. Moller and Licker (2001)

claimed that service quality can also be measured by the effectiveness of

online support capabilities, such as answers to frequently asked questions

and customized site intelligence. Themeasure items of service quality that

previousresearchershavesupportedweresummarizedasinTable4.


Assurance Knowledgeandcourtesyofemployees

andtheirabilitytoinspiretrustand

confidence.

[20],

[29],[31]

Empathy Caring,Individualizedattentionthe

serviceprovidergivesitscustomers.

[20],

[29],[31]

FollowingupService Subsequentserviceoncaringthe

problemofthecustomer

[20], [29]

Responsiveness Willingnesstohelpcustomersand

providepromptservice

[20],[29],[31]

Effectivenessof

onlinesupport

capabilities

Onlinesupportcapabilities,such as

answerstofrequentlyaskedquestions

andcustomizedsiteintelligence.

[22]

Table4.Suggestedmeasureitemsof ServiceQuality



EXTERNALFACTORS

IV. PresenceofRealTimeSupport

Inthisstudythescopeofrealtimesupportwouldmeanthepeoplearoundthe

userscanproviderealtimetechnicalsupporttotheuserswhenevertheusers

get some difficulties or problemswhen using theWebSAMS.Higgins and

Compeau (1995) found that support has a positive effect on the user

expectationandthesystemsperformancefortheobjective.Insuch,realtime

support is an important factor to affect whether the system could perform

effectively.

V. PresenceofTraining

Studiesby Barrett(1999)showedthateitherrequestforadditionaltrainingor

lack of training were the major opinions collected from the questionnaire

whichwouldbeabarriertoeffectiveness.Thatisobviousthathowgoodthe

systemis,andhownicetheuserinterfaceis,stillareuselessunlesstheusers

are welltrained with the system and the interface for an effective

performance.

OTHERFACTORS

VI. PerceivedUsefulnessforObjective

Perceived Usefulness was originally one of the constructs in the Daviss

TAMmodel (1989). It isdefinedasthedegree towhichapersonbelieves

thatusingaparticularsystemwouldenhancehisorherjobperformance.In

this study,perceivedusefulness forobjective isaddedandexpected tobea

factor to affect the system effectiveness because of the goalcentered



approach(Groveretal,1996).Perceivedusefulnesswasfoundthatitdirectly

affecttheintentiontocomputeruseasstatedintheTAM.(Calisir,2004)

VII.UserSatisfaction

UserSatisfactionisknownastherecipientresponsetotheuseoftheoutput

ofanIS.(Arnold,1995)Thestudy resultsof Calisir(2004)indicatethatboth

perceived usefulness and learnability are determinants of enduser

satisfaction.Bhattacherjee(2001)alsostatedthatusersatisfaction,inturn,is

influenced by their confirmation of expectation from prior IS use and

perceivedusefulness.Besides, the empirical resultsof the study bySeddon

(1997)providesubstantialsupportforthe"upstream"twothirdsofDeLone

and McLean's model. Three factors, System Quality, Information Quality,

andUsefulness,arefoundtoexplain75%ofthevarianceintheoverallUser

Satisfaction measure. DeLone and McLean (2003) proved that user

satisfactionisthefactoraffectingthenetbenefitsin theISSuccessModel.

VIII. IntentiontoUseandUse

Intention to use is an attitude, whereas use is a behavior. As DeLone and

McLean(2003)saidattitudes,andtheirlinkswithbehavior,arenotoriously

difficulttomeasureThereforeIntentiontoUseandUsearecombinedin

the study. Intention to use and use were found that they will significantly

affecttheISnetbenefits.(Rai,LangandWelker,2002)

IX. NetBenefits

Net Benefits was originally a term specified by Seddon (1997) in his



characterizationoftheoutcomesintheD&MISSuccessModel.Itwasbeing

used in theUpdatedD&MISSuccessModel toreplace the term Impact.

AccordingtoDeLoneandMcLean(2003),thetermNetBenefitsiswholly

positive, without any negative consequence. However, the context of Net

Benefits did not being specified in the model due to the possibility of

different opinions on what constitutes a benefit. Therefore DeLone and

McLean (2003) claimed that The focus of any proposed study must be

definedbut eachmay have a very different definition ofwhat constitutes

net benefits and thus IS success. In other words, It merely transfers the

needtospecifythefocusofanalysistotheresearcher.Followingthisclaim,

wecanspecifythefocusofNetBenefitsaccordingtoourstudysfocus.In

thisstudy,wearegoingtofocusontheeffectivenessoftheWebSAMSasits

netbenefit,thusthemeasureofNetBenefitwillbemainlyfocusedonthe

effectivenessofWebSAMS.

Grover et al. (1996) argue that IS effectiveness is related to the extent to

whichISsatisfiestherequirementsoforganizationsmembers.Theempirical

resultsofthestudybySeddon(1996)alsoprovidesubstantialsupportforthe

useofUsefulnessasan ISSuccessmeasure, andof thehithertounreported

importanceof"Importanceofthetask"inuserperceptionsofISUsefulness.

Therefore user satisfaction and perceived usefulness should be positively

relatedtoeffectiveness.



4. ResearchMethodology

4.1 TheoreticalFramework

The researchmodelwill be constructedwith reference to the literature reviewwith

relative hypothesis. The model is based on the Updated D&M IS Success Model

developedbyDeLoneandMcLean(2003).

Basedontheliteraturereview,18itemswereidentifiedtoaffecttheeffectivenessof

informationsystemandweregroupedintothe3factorsfromtheoriginalISSuccess

Model(InformationQuality,SystemQuality,ServiceQuality)andweresummarized

inTable5.

Factors Elements

InformationQuality Accessibility,ContextualQuality,

IntrinsicQuality,PresentationalQuality,

Reliability,Usefulness

SystemQuality Adaptability,EaseofUse,Flexibility,

Functionality,Integration,Reliability,

ResponseTime

ServiceQuality Assurance,Empathy,Effectivenessof

OnlineSupportCapabilities,

FollowingupService,Responsiveness

Table5.Factorsaftergrouping

The 3 system factors plus 2 external factors (presence of real time support and

presenceoftraining)formthefundamentalconstructsintheresearchmodelwhichare

affecting theperceivedusefulness forobjectiveanduser satisfaction,andeventually

affectingtheintentiontouse/useandthenetbenefits.Thetheoreticalmodelisshown

asbelow:(Figure4)



Figure4.ResearchModel



Hypothesizesaredrawnfromthetheoreticalmodeltodeterminetherelationship

betweendifferentfactors:

H1a:InformationQualityispositivelyrelatedtotheperceivedusefulnessforobjective

H1b:InformationQualityispositivelyrelatedtotheusersatisfaction

H2a:SystemQualityispositivelyrelatedtotheperceivedusefulnessforobjective

H2b:SystemQualityispositivelyrelatedtotheusersatisfaction

H3a:ServiceQualityispositivelyrelatedtotheperceivedusefulnessforobjective

H3b:ServiceQualityispositivelyrelatedtotheusersatisfaction

H4a:PresenceofRealTimeSupportincreaseperceivedusefulnessforobjective

H4b:PresenceofRealTimeSupportincreaseusersatisfaction

H5a:PresenceofTrainingincreaseperceivedusefulnessforobjective

H5b:PresenceofTrainingincreaseusersatisfaction

H6:PerceivedUsefulnessforObjectivewillpositivelyrelatetoIntentiontoUseandUse

H7:IntentiontoUseandUsearepositivelyrelatedtoUserSatisfaction

H8:IntentiontoUsewillpositivelyrelatetonetbenefits

H9:UserSatisfactionwillpositivelyrelatetonetbenefits

As mentioned earlier, the study is based on the goalcentered view and the systems

resourceviewtodefinesystemeffectiveness.Thereforetheresearchmodelisdesigned

tocoverbothviewsinaffectingthesystemeffectiveness.Thepathsaresummarizedas

intable6.

Path ViewH1a,H2a,H3a,H4a,H5aH6H8 GoalCenteredViewH1b,H2b,H3b,H4b,H5bH9 SystemsResourceViewTable6.Thepathsforthetwoviewsindefiningsystemeffectiveness



4.2Sampling

ThetargetsofthequestionnaireweretheusersofWebSAMSfromdifferentsecondary

schools in Hong Kong. Concerning different WebSAMS application environment in

different secondary schools might contribute different results, coverage as many

differentsecondaryschoolsWebSAMSuserssamplesaspossiblefromall18districts

inHongKongwas preferred.Subject to the financial and time limit, therewas some

selection rules applied during the choices of targeted schools. Firstly, the

questionnaires targets focused on all the Governmentaided secondary schools4,

becausemost (376/572, 66%)of the secondary schools inHongKong are belong to

Governmentaided secondary school (EMB, 2005). Then, in each district, out of all

listedGovernmentaided secondary schools fromEMB (2005), at least 50%of those

were selected. The decision of those at least 50% schools was simply following the

alphabeticalorder and select the schools from the top half of the list in each district.

Thenumberoftargetedschoolsandselectedschoolsin each districtisshownintable7.

4.3ResearchDesign

The questionnaires5 aim to obtain users opinion based on their fresh experience of

usingWebSAMSgenerally.Therefore respondentswhohavenotusedWebSAMS for

sixmonthsormorearenotexpectedtoanswerthequestionnaires.Questionswillbe

4 In this study, the schools which belong to the following categories are excluded fromGovernmentaidedsecondaryschoolsascategorizedbyEMB:1. DirectSubsidy Scheme Secondary Schools,2. PrivateSecondarySchools(Day/Evening),3. GovernmentSecondary Schools,4. Caput Secondary Schools,5. EnglishSchoolsFoundation(Secondary)

5 ThemeasurementitemsinquestionnairesarelistedinAppendixBandaquestionnairesampleisshowninAppendixC.



Region District TotalNumberoftargetedschools

TotalNumberofselectedschools

Central&Western 8 4HongKongEast 24 12Islands 10 5Southern 16 8WanChai 11 6

HongKong

Subtotal 69 35KowloonCity 28 14KwunTong 25 13SaiKung 18 9ShumShuiPo 15 8WongTaiSin 22 11YauTsimMong 12 6

Kowloon

Subtotal 120 61North 17 9ShaTin 39 20TaiPo 20 11

NewTerritoriesEast

Subtotal 76 50KwaiChung&TsingYi 31 16TsuenWan 13 7Tuen Mun 36 18YuenLong 31 16

NewTerritoriesWest

Subtotal 111 57Total 376 203

Table7.QuestionnairesTargetedandSelectedSampleSize

askedrelatingtothefivefactors(InformationQuality,SystemQuality,ServiceQuality,

RealTimeSupportandPresenceofTraining)affectingtheeffectivenessofWebSAMS.

Ontheotherhandthepriorityofthefactorswillbeasked.23questionnairesweresent

directly to every selected school by mass post. The respondents might fill in their

representing schools name, but it was not mandatory. Thus the respondents could

reserve the right to choose whether disclosing the responses for their representing

schoolsorasanonymoususers.

5.ResultsandFindings

5.1RespondentsBackground

There are 119 respondents in total, 116 out of those are valid respondentswho have



finished the questionnaires completely6 and returned the questionnaires successfully.

Table8showsthesummaryofthebackgroundofthe116validrespondents.

Theagedistributionshowsthatthereisnotanyseriousageunbalanceexist.76.7%of

therespondentsweremale.Thiswasprobablybecausetheschoolshavedistributedthe

questionnaires to the teachers and school staff that are known to be related to

informationtechnologyintheirschoolsandwhoaremostlymale.Onlyasmall8.6%of

therespondentsareexpertincomputerskill,whichmeansthatthesurveyresponsedid

notcontainseriousprofessionalbiaswhichisdifferentfromnormalsystemuser.

Variables Frequency(validn=116) ValidPercentAge1925 16 13.82630 29 25.03135 11 9.53640 15 12.94145 20 17.24650 14 12.151orabove 11 9.5

GenderMale 89 76.7Female 27 23.3

ComputerSkillRookie 31 26.7Intermediate 38 32.8Advance 37 31.9Expert 10 8.6

WebSAMSAdministratorYes 65 56No 51 44

TimesSpentonWebSAMS(AverageWorkingdays)AlmostNever 2 1.7Lessthanhour 65 56.0Fromhourto1hour 22 19.012hours 18 15.5Morethan2hours 9 7.8

Table8. Validrespondentsbackgroundinformation

6 FinishedcompletelymeansthattherespondentsdidnotneitherchoseWebSAMSwasnotinstalledinmyschoolnorIdidntuseWebSAMSforatleast6months.



AlmosthalfoftherespondentsarenotWebSAMsAdministratorsandtheotherare,this

showsthatthesurveycanreflecttheopinionsbothfromtheadministratorssideandthe

users sideevenly.Only about2%ofthe respondentshadalmostnever spent timeon

WebSAMS on average working days, which indicates that most respondents have

sufficientWebSAMSexperiencetoanswerthequestionnaires.

5.2DescriptiveStatisticandNonparametricTest

Table 9 shows the priority of importance towards the five factors affecting the

effectiveness of WebSAMS from the respondents. The five factors affecting the

effectivenessofWebSAMSwereprioritizedbytherespondentsforbyranking from1

to5(5:mostimportant,1:leastimportant).

Accordingtotheprioritygivenbytherespondents,theythinkthatthemost important

factoraffectingtheeffectivesofWebSAMSwastheSystemQualitywithameanpoint

of4.05andtheleastfactorwasthePresenceofTrainingwithameanpointof2.28.The

resultofFriedmantestandKendallsW(AppendixD)showthattheimportanceofthe

fivefactorsisdifferent(significance=0.000



The respondents mean score of each measurement items in the five factors are

calculated and summarized in each factors reliability test result in Appendix D.

Generallyalmostallofthemeanscoresareatleast largerthanzeroina7pointsscale

range from3 (Mostlydisagree) to3 (MostlyAgree), except thetwo items in system

quality, theyarethe inexistenceofsystembugsandacceptableelapsedresponsetime,

which have the negative mean scores of 0.33 and 0.41 respectively. The result

indicated that the problems of system bugs existence and unsatisfactory elapsed

responsetimearepresent.

5.3ReliabilityandValidity Test

The Factor Structure Matrix Model shown on Figure 5 presents the individual item

loadings and cross loadings, and shows that the individual item loadings and internal

consistenciesmeetorexceedthe0.7criteria(FornellandLarcker,1981)except3cases.

However, given that the overall statistics were adequate, it was felt that a set of

measurement revisionswould be inappropriate (Compeau andHiggins, 1995). It also

showsthatnoneoftheindividualitemsloadmorehighlyonanotherconstructthanthey

do on the construct they were designed to measure, which were surrounded by the

rectangleareas.Table10showsthereliabilitytestresultamongthe9constructsinthe

researchmodel.TheseconstructsdisplayedCronbachsAlphaBasedonStandardizedItems

above0.7,whichsuggestsasatisfactorylevelofreliability(Nunnally,1978)



Figure5.FactorStructureMatrixModel

CronbachsAlphaBasedonStandardizedItemsInformationQuality 0.924SystemQuality 0.883ServiceQuality 0.922RealTimeSupport 0.908Training 0.922PerceivedUsefulness 0.972UserSatisfaction 0.937IntentiontoUse/Use 0.703NetBenefits 0.960

Table10.ReliabilityTestResult



5.4HypothesesTest

A.Theeffectof thefivefactors: InformationQuality,SystemQuality,ServiceQuality,

PresenceofRealTimeSupportandPresenceofTrainingaretheindependentvariables

determiningthedependentvariablePerceivedUsefulness:

Figure6.ResultofRegression(5FactorsagainstPerceivedUsefulness)

Hypotheses BetaValue PValue

(1Tailed)

Result

H1a InformationQualityispositively

relatedtotheperceivedusefulness

forobjective

0.151 0.917 NotSupported

(pvalue>0.05,

beta0.05)

H4a PresenceofRealTimeSupport

increaseperceivedusefulnessfor

objective

0.236 0.003 Supported

(pvalue0)

H5a PresenceofTrainingincrease

perceivedusefulnessforobjective

0.202 0.011 Supported

(pvalue0)

Table11.ResultofRegressionforthe5hypothesesH1a,H2a,H3a,H4a,H5a



Figure 6 shows the SPSS regression result of the five factors against Perceived

Usefulness.WithaRof0.628,62.8%oftheperceivedusefulnesswasexpectedtobe

predictedbythe five factors.Table11concludes theresultof theregression for the5

hypotheses.TheresultsuggeststhatH2a,H4aandH5aweresupportedwithsignificant

coefficients and positive beta values. On the other hand H1a and H3a were not

supportedwithinsignificantcoefficient.

B.Theeffectof thefivefactors: InformationQuality,SystemQuality,ServiceQuality,

PresenceofRealTimeSupportandPresenceofTrainingaretheindependentvariables

determiningthedependentvariableUserSatisfaction:

Figure7.ResultofRegression(5FactorsagainstUserSatisfaction)

Figure7showstheSPSSregressionresultofthefivefactorsagainstUserSatisfaction.

WithaRof0.590,59%of theuser satisfactionwasexpected tobepredictedby the

five factors.Table12concludestheresultof theregression for the5hypotheses.The

resultsuggeststhatH2b,H4bandH5bweresupportedwithsignificantcoefficientsand

positivebetavalues.OntheotherhandH1b,H3bwerenotsupportedwithinsignificant

coefficient.



Hypotheses BetaValue PValue(1Tailed)

Result

H1b InformationQualityispositivelyrelatedtothe usersatisfaction

0.035 0.612 NotSupported(pvalue>0.05,beta0.05)

H4b PresenceofRealTimeSupportincrease usersatisfaction

0.293 0.001 Supported(pvalue0)

H5b PresenceofTrainingincrease usersatisfaction


Table12.ResultofRegressionforthe5hypothesesH1b,H2b,H3b,H4b,H5b

C.TheeffectofthePerceivedUsefulnesstowardsIntentiontoUse/Use:

Figure8.RegressionResultof PerceivedUsefulnessandIntentiontoUse/Use)

From the SPSS regression result in Figure 8, with a R of 0.015, only 1.5% of the

intentiontouseandusewasexpectedtobepredictedbytheperceivedusefulness.We

can findthattherelationship isnotsignificantenoughwithasignificantcoefficientof

0.092>0.05.Thustherelationship issuggestedtobeinsignificant.HypothesisResult

isshowninTable13.



D.TheeffectoftheIntentiontoUse/UsetowardsUserSatisfaction:

Figure9.RegressionResultof IntentiontoUse/UseandUserSatisfaction)

Atthesametime,fromtheSPSSregressionresultinFigure9,withaRof0.036,3.6%

oftheusersatisfactionwasexpectedtobepredictedbytheintentiontouseanduse.We

can find that the relationship is significant enough with a significant coefficient of

0.022 0.05)

H7 Intention toUseandUsearepositivelyrelatedtoUserSatisfaction


Table13.ResultofRegressionforthe2hypothesesH6,H7

E. The effect of the two factors: Intention to Use/Use and User Satisfaction are the

independentvariablesdeterminingthedependentvariableNetBenefits:



Figure10showstheSPSSregressionresultofthetwofactorsIntentiontoUse/Useand

UserSatisfactiontowardsNetBenefits.WithaRof0.569,56.9%ofthenetbenefits

were expected to be predicted by the intention to use and use and user satisfaction.

Besides,theresultisconcludedinTable14.ItsuggeststhatH8isnotacceptablewitha

negativebetavalueandapvalueof0.435>0.05whileH9issupportedbyapositive

betavalueof0.756andapvalueof0.0000.05)

H9 UserSatisfactionwillpositivelyrelatetonetbenefits


Table14.ResultofRegressionforthe2hypothesesH8,H9

Figure11showsthemarkedresearchmodelaccordingtothestatisticresultsabove.The

6 insignificant relationshipsH1a,H1b,H3a,H3b,H6andH8arerepresentedbydots

linesinsteadofnormalstraight line.ImplicationsandDiscussionoftheresultswillbe

madeinthefollowingsection.



Figure11.Resultmarkedonoriginalresearchmodel5. Limitations



6. ImplicationsandDiscussion

Theresultsprovideussomeimplications.

SystemFactors

Outofthethreesystemfactors,onlysystemqualitywasasignificantfactoraffectingboth

the perceivedusefulness and user satisfaction ofWebSAMS,while information quality

and service quality were not qualified as significant factors. Did it mean that the

informationqualityandservicequalityare totally irrelevant to theuser satisfactionand

perceivedusefulness?By followingup individualcases,wecould findthat someof the

respondentsgavesomehighscorestotheinformationqualityandservicequalitysection

while theymight either give some lowor highscores in perceivedusefulness and user

satisfactionoppositely,probablybecausethesystemqualitydominatedtheirdecisionon

thescoresofperceivedusefulnessandusersatisfaction.Thereforetheonlyreasonisthe

unexpectedenormouseffectofsystemqualityoverrodetheeffectsofinformationquality

andservicequalitywitharelativelyhighbetavalueof0.445and0.438towardsperceived

usefulnessandusersatisfactionrespectively.Anyway,whatwearesureisonlyveryfew

respondents (6.1%) of the survey gave a low mean score of lower than 4 in a 7

pointsscale (from 1 Most Disagree to 7 Most Agree) to the information quality of

WebSAMSasshown inFigure12,reflectingthatthe informationqualityofWebSAMS

wasprettysatisfactory,thoughthewholesystemmightormightnotbesatisfactoryatall.

Figure12.Frequencyofmeanscore(InformationQuality)



ExternalFactors

The result shows that both the external factors, presence of real time support and

presenceof trainingsignificantlyaffectbothperceivedusefulnessanduser satisfaction,

andeventuallyaffect theeffectiveness.Theseproved that theeffectsofexternal factors

are significant andarewhatwehaveexpected in the literature reviewand the research

study.

Other Factors

Theresultsshowedthatperceivedusefulnesswasnotsignificantlyaffecting intentionto

useoruse.Thiswasareallyamazingfindinganditwascloselyrelatedtothemandatory

implementation of WebSAMS by EMB. Since WebSAMS has became a mandatory

system tool for all governmentsubsidy secondary schools in these recent years, most

secondaryschoolsstaffhavepreparedthemselvestoacceptandadaptthesystemforthe

school administrative works. Though they might not really satisfied much with the

system, and even they knew the systemwas notperfect, this stilldid not distract them

from using WebSAMS because they realized that the system was actually useful,

especially on the information provided by the system. This could be reflected by their

highmeanscoreofinformationqualityofWebSAMS.ActuallyWebSAMSwastheonly

tooltheschoolscouldusetoobtaindatafromandprovidedatatoEMB,forinstancethe

public exam result of the individual school, the profile of the schools, the students

profiles, etc. Thus intention to use did not have adequate correlation with perceived

usefulness of the system is understandable. And the same reason had also contributed

thereafter to the insignificant relationshipbetween intention touseandthenetbenefits,

referringtoeffectivenessinthisstudy.



7. Limitations

Firstofall,duetothefinancialandtimeshortage,thesamplesizewaslimited.Therefore

therewereonlyabouthalfofthegovernmentaidedsecondaryschoolsweretargetedfor

thesample.Secondly,thequestionnairesweredeliveredtotheschoolsbypostwhichthe

encouragementinresponsewasnotsufficient.Ifpossible,interviewingorquestionnaires

deliveryinpersonswouldbethebestchoice.Thirdly,thesurveytargets,whichwerethe

schoolsstaff,wereextremelybusyontheirjobduties.Itwasnoteasyforthemtopickup

somesparetime fordoingthequestionnaires.Thereforeeventheyhadmaderesponses,

someofthemmightnotresponsethequestionnaireswiththinkingdeeplyandaccurately.

Fourthly, since the system quality ultimately affected the most users perceptions to

WebSAMS ina very highextent, thismightcreatesomebiasas the respondentsmight

feel unsatisfied with WebSAMS easily even the information or service quality of

WebSAMSweresatisfactory,orthereweresufficientrealtimesupportandtraining.

8. Conclusion

Theresultoftheresearchsuggestedthatthesystemquality,presenceofrealtimesupport

and presence of training would affect the user satisfaction of WebSAMS and would

eventuallyaffect thenetbenefit,which is theeffectivenessofWebSAMS in this study.

The result was matched with the news report (SingPao Daily News, Mar 3, 2004)

claimingthatsomeWebSAMSuserscomplainedtheeffectivenessofWebSAMSbecause

they found that the system was not perfect and was not free of bugs, and they have

receivedinsufficientsupportandtraining.

Amongthesethreefactors,systemqualitywassuggestedasthemainfactoraffectingthe

effectiveness of WebSAMS the most, which conformed to the priority ranking of the



factorsaffectingeffectivenessofWebSAMSfromthe respondents in thequestionnaires

survey (Table 9). However, the finding showed that the existence of system bugs and

unacceptable elapsed response time are critical factors which are limiting the system

quality currently.

InformationQuality and ServiceQualitywere suggested less effective in affecting the

effectiveness of WebSAMS. This told us that most WebSAMS users looked into the

systemquality,realtimesupportandtrainingmorethan informationqualityandservice

quality of WebSAMS. Besides, recall what we have defined the effectiveness by two

views: the goalcentered view and the systems resource view. Perceived usefulness is

insignificant toaffect intention touseandeventuallyaffect theeffectiveness.Thus, the

result told us that the goalcentered viewwas not applicable to the case ofWebSAMS

while the systems resource view was valid because the user satisfaction is proved

significantly abletoaffecttheeffectiveness.

Rather than making a list of effectiveness determinants and seeking them out in

benchmarking partnerships with the view to replicating them, the alternative way of

proceeding is to seek out ineffectiveness determinantswith a view to avoiding them.

(Kelly, 2001). Though we know the significant factors affecting the effectiveness of

WebSAMS,thefutureresearchersshouldcontinuetoworkoutthefactorsthatcausethe

WebSAMS ineffectiveness so that the WebSAMS developers would try their best to

avoidthem inthefutures WebSAMSeditions.



9. Recommendations

Since the system quality is the most vital factor in affecting the effectiveness of

WebSAMS,therefore,inordertoimprovetheeffectivenessofWebSAMSfundamentally,

thesystemdevelopersmustworkoutthesolutionstoimprovethesystemqualityassoon

as possible. From the survey result we can see that the existence of system bugs and

unacceptableelapsedresponsetimearethemostcriticalweaknessofthesystemquality.

Hencethesolutionscanbeincludingthefollowing:

Minimizationoftheexistingbugs

It is obvious that a free of bug system is not possible in only some years. Bugs

would be made by programming mistakes unexpectedly. Therefore while the

WebSAMS developers are trying their efforts on debugging the system, they are

suggestedtocollectbugsinformationfromtheusers.Theymayprovideafeedback

function for the users tomakedirect bugs report in the system, so thatwhen the

users encounter system bugs they would be encouraged to report the bugs

conveniently.Launchinganautomaticbugtrackingsystemisalsoanefficientway

indetectingpotentialandexistingbugsinthesystem.Whenevertheusershasmade

unexpected system fault, the detail of the fault and the users identity would be

savedintologfilesothatappropriatefollowupdiagnosiswouldbetaken.

Hardwareupgradeandnetworkimprovement

Unacceptableelapsedresponsetimeisdefinitelyrelatedtoeitherthesystemhosting

servers hardware quality or the network connection speed. As some of the

respondents claimed in an openended question in the survey that the schools

server hardware is toooutdated (PII 800MHZ, 256MBRAM), therefore themost



direct way to improve the effectiveness of WebSAMS is to upgrade the server

hardwaretoamoreupdatedconfiguration,sothattheresponsetimeof thesystem

would be increase.On the other handEMB should providemore subsidy to help

somerelativelyold schoolsonbuildingabetternetwork infrastructure inorder to

receive a better connection quality in both the intranet and internet, which is

essentialtoensuretheresponsetimeofWebSAMSisacceptable.

Besides from improving the system quality, providing realtime supports and training

wouldalso improve theeffectivenessofWebSAMSas suggestedby the result. In short

term the WebSAMS Official Unit might send some system technicians for real time

support to those schools which have installed the system recently. In long term

WebSAMSOfficialUnit should train one to two staff in each school into professional

WebSAMSadministrators, sothat theycouldhelptheir fellowworkmatesbyproviding

real time support and training in their schools on WebSAMS. However, it is

understandablethatschoolstaff isbusyenoughontheirownschoolduties.Itwouldbe

noteasytoinviteavailableschool staff toreceiveextraprofessionaltraining.Therefore

EMB might provide more subsidies to the schools to employ more IT technicians for

supporting the WebSAMS operation, so that the WebSAMS users would receive

sufficientrealtimesupportandtrainingwhentheyencounteredsomeproblems.



References

[1] Almutairi,HelailSubramanian,GirishH.(2005).AnEmpiricalApplicationof the

DeLone andMcLeanModel in the Kuwaiti Private Sector. Journal of Computer

InformationSystems, Spring45,3

[2] Arnold,Vicky.(1995).Discussionofanexperimentalevaluationofmeasurementsof

informationsystemeffectiveness,Journalof InformationSystems,Vol.9 Issue2,

p85,7p

[3] Barrett, Scott. (1999). Information systems: An exploration of the factors

influencingeffectiveuse.JournalofResearchonComputinginEducation,Vol.32

Issue1,pp.417

[4] Bhattacherjee,Anol. (2001).Understanding InformationSystemsContinuance:An

ExpectationConfirmationModel,MISQuarterly,Minneapolis:Sep.Vol.25,Issue.

3p.351,20p

[5] Calisir, Ferah. (2004).The relation of interface usability characteristics, perceived

usefulness, and perceived ease of use to enduser satisfaction with enterprise

resource planning (ERP) systems, Computers in Human Behavior, July, Vol. 20

Issue4,p505,11p

[6] Chang, Jerry ChaJan King, William R. (2005). Measuring the Performance of

Information Systems: A Functional Scorecard. Journal of Management

InformationSystems,Volume22,Number1,pp.85115



[7] Dale,DenisM.Habib,AdelG.(1991).AdministrativecomputingintheAustralian

educational system. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, Vol. 24

Issue1,p120,26p,1chart,1diagram(AN9609221604)

[8] DeLone,WilliamH.McLean,EphraimR.(2003).TheDeLoneandMcLeanModel

of Information Systems Success: A TenYear Update. Journal of Management

InformationSystems,Volume19,Number4,pp.930

[9] DeLone,WilliamH.McLean,EphraimR.(2004).MeasuringeCommerceSuccess:

Applying the DeLone & McLean Information Systems Success Model.

InternationalJournalofElectronicCommerce,Volume9,Number1,pp.3147

[10]Fornell, C. Larcker, VF. (1991). Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservablevariablesandmeasurementerror.JournalofMarketingResearch,18,

3950.

[11]Fung,AlexC.W. (1991).Computer assisted school administration inHongKong.

Journal of Research on Computing in Education, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p41, 21p, 1

chart,1diagram

[12]Grembergen,WimVan.(2001).InformationTechnologyEvaluationMethodsand

Management: IdeaGroupInc(IGI),332p,ISBN:187828990X

[13]Grover,Varun Jeong, SeungRyulSegars,AlbertH. (1996). Information systems

effectiveness: the construct space and patterns of application, Information and



Management, Volume31Issue4

[14]Higgins, Christopher A Compeau, Deborah R. (1995). Computer selfefficacy:

Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, Jun 19, 2

ABI/INFORMGlobalpg.189

[15]Johnson, David Yen, David C. (1991). Management Information Systems and

StudentAffairs,JournalofResearchonComputingEducation,23(1),pp.127139.

[16]Kalay, Poria Chen, David. (2002). Integrating a Decision Support System into a

School:TheEffectsonStudentFunctioning,JournalofResearchonTechnologyin

Education,Vol.34Issue4,p435,18p(AN7554384)

[17]Kaydos,Will. (1998).OperationalPerformanceMeasurement:CRCPress,272p,

ISBN:1574440993

[18]Kelly, Anthony. (2003). Benchmarking for School Improvement: A Practical

GuideforComparingandAchievingEffectiveness:Routledge(UK),184p,ISBN:

0415256666

[19]Li,Raymond.(2003). PreparationForumforWebSAMSImplementation,May17

[20]Liu, C., and Arnett, K. (2000). Exploring the factors associated with Web site

successinthecontextofelectroniccommerce.Information&Management,38,1,

2333.



[21]MaslowskiVisscher,Ralf. (1999).Formativeevaluation ineducationalcomputing

research and development., Journal of Research on Computing in Education,

Winter,Vol.32Issue2,p239,17p,1chart,3diagrams (AN2656463)

[22]Molla, A., and Licker, P.S. (2001). Ecommerce systems success: An attempt to

extend and respecify the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Journal of

ElectronicCommerceResearch,2,4,111.

[23]Money,ArthurSherwoodSmith,MichaelRemenyi,DanIrani,ZahirTwite, Alan.

(2000). The Effective Measurement andManagement of It Costs and Benefits:

Elsevier,384p,ISBN:0750644206

[24]Nissen,MarkE. (2000).AnExperiment toAssess thePerformance of aRedesign

Knowledge System. Journal of Management Information Systems, Volume 17,

Number3,pp.2543

[25]Nelson, R. Ryan Todd, Peter A. (2005). Antecedents of Information and System

Quality: An Empirical Examination Within the Context of Data Warehousing.

JournalofManagement InformationSystems,Volume21,Number4,April ,pp.

199235

[26]NunnallyJC.(1978). Psychometrictheory.2ndedition:NewYork:McGrawHill.

[27]Padro,Susan.(2003).ComputerAssistedSchool InformationSystems:Backtothe

Future.CanadianJournalofScience,Mathematics,&TechnologyEducation,Jan,



Vol.3Issue1,p157,7p(AN9427053)

[28]Pitt, L. F. Watson, R. T. Kavan. (1995). C.B. Service quality: A measure of

informationsystemseffectiveness.MISQuarterly,19, 2,173188.

[29]Porter, Lynnette. (2003). Developing an Online Curriculum: Technologies &

Techniques:IdeaGroupInc(IGI) ,340p, ISBN:1591401364

[30]Pyzdek, Thomas. (2003). The Six Sigma Handbook, Revised and Expanded:

McGrawHillProfessional,848p,ISBN:0071410155

[31]Rai,A.Lang,S.S. andWelker,R.B. (2002).Assessing thevalidityof IS success

models:Anempirical testandtheoreticalanalysis.InformationSystemsResearch,

13,1,pp.5069.

[32]Seddon,P.B.Kiew,MY. (1996).APartialTestandDevelopmentofDeLoneand

McLean'sModelofISSuccess(revisionoftheICIS94paper),AustralianJournal

ofInformationSystems,September, Vol.4Issue1,p90,20p

[33]Seddon,P.B. (1997). ArespecificationandextensionoftheDeLoneandMcLean

modelofISsuccess.InformationSystemsResearch,8,3,240253.

[34]Segars,A.H. Grover, Varun.(1993).Reexaminingperceivedeaseofuseand

usefulness:Aconfirmatoryfactoranalysis.MISQuarterly,December,517522

[35]Subramanian,GirishH.(1994).Areplicationofperceivedusefulnessandperceived



easeofusemeasurement,DecisionSciences,SepDec,Vol.25Issue5/6,p863,11p

[36]Telem, Moshe. (1999). A Case Study of the Impact of School Administration

Computerization on the Department Head's Role, Journal of Research on

ComputinginEducation,Vol.31Issue4,p385,17p,1chart (AN2780737)

[37]Telem,MosheAvidov,Orit. (1995)Theeffectof schoolmanagement information

systems on the nature of a looselyJournal of Research on Computing in

Education,Winter,Vol.28Issue2,p258,12p,1chart(AN9602291846)

[38]Venkatesh,Viswanath. (2000).DeterminantsofPerceivedEaseofUse: Integrating

Control,IntrinsicMotivation,andEmotionintotheTechnologyAcceptanceModel,

InformationSystemsResearch,December,Vol.11Issue4,p342,24p

[39]Visscher,Adrie J. (1994).A fundamental methodology for designingmanagement

informationsystemsforschools.JournalofResearchonComputinginEducation,

Winter,Vol.27Issue2,p231,19p,3charts,2diagrams(AN9506202179)

[40]Visscher, Adrie J. Bloemen, P. P. M. (1999). Evaluation of the use of

computerassistedmanagement information systems in Dutch schools. Journal of

Research on Computing in Education, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p172, 17p, 7 charts, 1

diagram(AN2780725)

[41]Visscher, Adrie J. Spuck, Dennis W. (1991). Computer assisted school

administration andmanagement:The state of the art in seven nations. Journal of

ResearchonComputinginEducation,Vol.24Issue1,p146,23p,4charts



[42]Visscher,AdrieJWild,PhilSmith,DebbieNewton,Len.(2003).Evaluationofthe

implementation,useandeffectsofacomputerisedmanagementinformationsystem

in English secondary schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, June,

Vol.34Issue3,p357,10p366DOI:10.1111/14678535.00332(AN9815587)

[43]Wang,R.Y.,andStrong,D.M.(1996).Beyondaccuracy:Whatdataqualitymeans

todataconsumers.JournalofManagementInformationSystems,12,4,Spring,pp.

534

[44]Homepage of Association for Information Systems [online] from the world wide

web:http://www.isworld.org/

[45]Homepage of Hong Kong Special Administration Region Government, Education

andManpowerBureau[online]fromtheworldwideweb:http://www.emb.gov.hk

[46]Homepage of Hong Kong Special Administration Region Government, Education

andManpower Bureau, School BasedManagement [online] from the world wide

web:http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=180&langno=1

[47]Homepage of WebSAMS Central Document Repository [online] from the world

wideweb:http://cdr.websams.emb.gov.hk/

[48]Editorial, 3000 .

SingPaoDailyNews(HongKong),inMar03,2004,A16



[49]Editorial, , Ta Kung Pao

(HongKong),inAug17,2005,A07

[50]Editorial, SingTao Daily News (Hong

Kong),inAug17,2005,A04

[51] , [online] from the world wide web:

http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=2&nodeid=480

http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=2&nodeid=480



Appendix A:FunctionsofWebSAMS

FunctionalAreas ExamplesofUses1. Attendance l Inputtingstudentattendance

record

l Realtimeorscheduledchecking

l Reportingofabsent

2. Award&Punishment l Inputtingstudentsawardand

punishmentsdata

l Printingofawardletterand

warningletter

l Listingofstudentsawardand

punishmentrecord

3. CodeManagement l Furtherdesigningthecodefor

specialneedsoftheschools

l Providinglongercodetablefield

4. Communication&Delivery

System

l DeliveringdefaultformattoEMB

l Checkingoutputdata

l Simplifyingoutputprocess

5. Communication&Delivery

System

l DeliveringdefaultformattoEMB

l Checkingoutputdata

l Simplifyingoutputprocess

6. DataManagement l Exportingdataindifferentformats

l Providingentityrelationship

diagrams

l DataTablesindex

7. FinancialMonitoring&

Planning

l Monitoringthestatusofincome

andexpenditure

l Copyingyearfinancialdatafor

financialplanning

l Printingoffinancialreport

8. HongKongAttainment

Tests

l Inputtingtestresultdata

l Listingofstudentswhoseresult

requiredinputting

l Comparingstudentsresults

9. HongKongExaminations&

AssessmentAuthority

l DownloadingformsfromEAA

l FasterwaytochangedatainEAA

10.ReportManagement l Providingwiderangeofformatsof



report

l Uploadingfromcrystalreport

11.SchoolManagement l Framingtimetableandschool

calendar

l Definingclassesstructureand

subjectsissues

l Uploading/Downloadingschool

documents

12.SchoolPlacesAllocation l Providingafastandefficient

communicationchanneltothe

SchoolPlacesAllocationUnit

l Receivingschoolplaceallocation

datainamoresafeway

l Checkingofindividualstudents

schoolplaceallocationresult

13.SpecialAssessment l Recordingstudentsspecial

assessmentdata

l Providingdifferentspecialgrading

methods

14.Staff l Updatingpersonaldata

l Batchinputtingteachersduties

l Showingteacherstimetableand

dutiesonline

l LeftofficeTeachersdata

recovering

l Virtualteachers

15.StaffDeployment l Processingstaffabsentandsick

leaverecord

l Assigningavailablestaffforabsent

staff

l Settingdifferentcriterionsfor

deploymentrule

16.Student l Processingnewstudentsdata

input

l Updatingexistingstudentsrecords

17.StudentActivities l Onlinereceivingapplicationfor

activities



l Inputtingstudentsperformance

andpositions

l Listingofattendancerecord

(DatafromWebSAMSCentralDocumentRepository)



AppendixB: MeasurementItems

Factors Questions OriginalQuestions Ref. SPSSVariablenames

Q.4.Theoutputinformationprovidedby

WebSAMSisaccessibleatatimesuitableforits

use.

Howdoyouevaluatetheavailabilityofthe

outputinformationatatimesuitableforitsuse?

(Accessibility)

[6],[16],[43]

IQ4

Q.5.TheinformationprovidedbyWebSAMSis

trueandaccurate.

Howdoyouevaluatethecorrectnessofthe

outputinformation? (Reliability)

[6],[16],[43]

IQ5

Q.6.TheinformationprovidedbyWebSAMSis

mostupdated.

Howdoyouevaluatetheageoftheoutput

information? (IntrinsicQuality)

[6],[16],[43]

IQ6

Q.7.Theinformation contentprovidedby

WebSAMSiscomplete.

Howdoyouevaluatethecomprehensivenessof

theoutputcontent? (IntrinsicQuality)

[6],[16],[43]

IQ7

Q.8.Theoutputinformation providedby

WebSAMSisconsistent.

Howdoyouevaluatetheconsistencyand

dependabilityoftheoutputinformation?

(ContextualQuality)

[6],[16],[43]

IQ8

Q.9.Thematerialdesignofthelayoutand

displayoftheoutputcontentsareeasytoread.

Howdoyouevaluatethematerialdesignofthe

layoutanddisplayoftheoutputcontents?

(PresentationalQuality)

[6],[16],[43]

IQ9

Information

Quality

Q.10. Theinformation contentprovidedby (Usefulness) [16], IQ10



WebSAMSisusefulfortheschools

administrativeworks.

[43]

Q.11. WebSAMSisflexibletochangeor

adjustinresponsetonewconditions,demands,

orcircumstances.

Howdoyouevaluatethecapacityofthe

informationsystemtochangeoradjustin

responsetonewconditions,demands,or

circumstances? (Flexibility)

[6],[40] SQ11

Q.12. WebSAMSiseasytouseandutilizeits

capability.

Howdoyouevaluatetheeaseordifficultyof

utilizingthecapabilityofthecomputersystem?

(Easeofuse)

[6],[8],[25],[37],[44]

SQ12

Q.13. WebSAMSprovidedmethefunctions

thatIexpectedtocompletetheschools


(Functionality) [6],[8],[44]

SQ13

Q.14. WebSAMSprovidedmethefunctions

thatwithouttheexistenceofbugs.

(Functionality,Reliability) [6],[8],[44]

SQ14

Q.15. WebSAMSiseasytoadapt. (Adaptability) [8],[44] SQ15

Q.16. WebSAMScancompletelyintegrate

intomyschoolsadministrativeworks.

(Integration) [8],[44] SQ16

System

Quality

Q.17. Theelapsedtimebetweena

userinitiatedrequestforserviceoractionand

replytothatrequestbyWebSAMSisacceptable.

Howdoyouevaluatetheelapsedtimebetween

auserinitiatedrequestforserviceoractionand

replytothatrequest? (ResponseTime)

[6],[44] SQ17



Q.18. WhenIhaveaproblem,theofficial

WebSAMSsupportunitswill showasincere

interestinsolvingit.

Whenusershaveaproblem,theseISunitswill

showasincereinterestinsolvingit.

(Responsiveness)

[20],[29],[31]

SerQ18

Q.19. Theemployeesoftheofficial

WebSAMSsupportunitshavetheknowledgeto

maintainthesystemandsolveproblemswell.

ISemployeeshavetheknowledgetodotheir

jobswell.(Assurance)

[20],[29],[31]

SerQ19


WebSAMSsupportunitshavegivenme

personalattentions.

ISemployeeshavegivenuserpersonal

attentions.(Empathy)

[20],[29],[31]

SerQ20


WebSAMSsupportunitshavefollowingup

servicetoensureIandotherworkmatescanbe

abletoadaptWebSAMS.

(FollowingupService) [20],[29]

SerQ21

Service

Quality

Q.22. WhenIhaveaproblemonusing

WebSAMSIcanfindsupportsfromcertain

onlinesupportsources.(e.g.Email,WebForum)

(OnlineSupportCapabilities) [22] SerQ22

Q.23. Varietyofrealtimesupportofferedby

myschool(e.g.ITTeam,Workmates)is

sufficient.

RTS23Presenceof

RealTime

Support

Q.24. Myschoolhassupportedme(e.g.IT RTS24



Team,Workmates)onusingWebSAMS.

Q.25. Realtimesupportcouldhelpmealot

onusingWebSAMS.

RTS25

Q.26. Varietyoftrainingprogramsor

workshopsofferedbytheofficialWebSAMS

supportunitsissufficient.

VarietyoftrainingprogramsofferedbytheIS

functionissufficient.

[16] T26

Q.27. Ithinkthetrainingprogramsor

workshopsofferedbytheofficialWebSAMS

supportunitsareuseful.

TrainingprogramsofferedbytheISfunction

areuseful.

[16] T27

Q.28. Varietyoftrainingprogramsor

workshopsofferedbymyschoolissufficient.

T28

Presenceof

Training

Q.29. Ithinkthetrainingprogramsor

workshopsofferedbymyschoolareuseful.

T29

Q.30. WebSAMSenablesmetoaccomplish

studentrelatedtasksmorequickly.

UsingSISenablesmetoaccomplish

studentrelatedtasksmorequickly.

[25],[37] PU30

Q.31. WebSAMSimprovesmyjob

performance.

UsingSISimprovesmyjobperformance. [25],[37] PU31

Q.32. UsingWebSAMSinmyjobincrease

myproductivity.

UsingSISinmyjobincreasemyproductivity. [25],[37] PU32

Perceived

Usefulness

Q.33. UsingWebSAMSenhancesmy UsingSISenhancesmyeffectivenessonthe [25],[37] PU33



effectivenessonthejob. job.

Q.34. UsingWebSAMSmakesiteasiertodo

myjob.

UsingSISmakesiteasiertodomyjob. [25],[37] PU34

Q.35. Overall,IfindWebSAMSusefulon

myjob.

IfindSISusefulonmyjob. [25],[37] PU35

Q.36. IfeelWebSAMScanmeetsthe

informationprocessingneededofmyareaof

responsibility.

Howadequatelydoyoufeelthatthesystem

meetstheinformationprocessingneededof

yourareaofresponsibility?

[6] US36User

Satisfaction

Q.37. Overall,Iamsatisfiedwith

WebSAMS.

HowwouldyourateyoursatisfactionwithSIS? [25],[37] US37

Q.38. ImproveeffectivenessofWebSAMS

helpmetoachievemygoalofwork.

NB38


makemetobemoresatisfied.

NB39


meanproducemorenetbenefits.

NB40

Q.41. Overall,IthinkWebSAMSendsup

withhigheffectivenessonmosttaskscurrently.

NB41

NetBenefits

(Effectiveness)

Q.42. PleaseprioritizethefactorsaffectingtheeffectivenessofWebSAMS(1:least,5:mostimportant,

pleaseuseeachnumberforonlyonetime)

NB42_IQNB42_SQNB42_SerQ



__InformationQuality __SystemQuality __ServiceQuality __PresenceofRealTimeSupport

__PresenceofTraining

NB42_RTSNB42_T

Q.43. IthinkIamabletomasterWebSAMS

verywell.

IU43Intentionto

Use

Q.44. Ihavefacedalotofproblemsinusing

WebSAMSsofar.

IU44_Recode

Howwouldyourateyourcomputerskill?

1)None2)Rookie3)Intermediate

4)Advance5)Expert

Q.45. IamadministeringtoWebSAMS

operationinmyworkingschool.

Other

Q.46. Onaverageworkingdays,howmuch

timedoyouspendonthesystem?

1)Almostnever

2)Lessthan1/2hour

3)From1/2hourto1hour

4)12hours

5)Morethan2hours



AppendixC:QuestionnaireSample

QuestionnaireforacademicresearchworkonFactorsaffectingtheeffectivenessofWebSAMSinHongKongSecondarySchools

ThisquestionnaireconstitutespartofastudentsindividualacademicresearchworkforanHonoursProjectinpartialfulfillmentofthe

BBAgraduation requirement.While theHongKongBaptistUniversity respects andabides by thePrivacyDataOrdinance, it is the

studentsresponsibilitytocomplywiththeOrdinanceduringeveryaspectoftheproject.Pleasecontactthesenderofthisquestionnaire

forspecificdetails.Pleaseignorethisquestionnaireifyouhaverespondedorarenotinterestedinrespondingtoit.Thankyou.

SchoolName:____________________________________________________________(Optional,onlyforfutureacknowledgement)

PartI.GeneralInformation(Pleasetickyouranswer)1. WebSAMS(WebSchoolAdministrationandManagementSystem) isinstalledinyourschool.

Yes. No.[Endofquestionnaire.Thanksforyourkindsupport]2. YouhaveeverusedWebSAMSinthepast6months.

Yes. No.[GotoPartIII]

PartII.PleasebaseonyourexperienceofusingWebSAMStoanswerthefollowingquestions.(Pleasecircleoneofthenumbersinthesevenpointscalethatbestdescribeyourpointsofview)

A.InformationQuality StronglyAgree StronglyDisagree

Q.47. TheinformationprovidedbyWebSAMSisaccessibleatanyrequestedtime. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.48. TheinformationprovidedbyWebSAMSistrueandaccurate. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.49. TheinformationprovidedbyWebSAMSisupdated. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.50. TheinformationcontentprovidedbyWebSAMSiscomplete. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.51. TheoutputinformationprovidedbyWebSAMSisconsistent. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.52. Thescreendisplayoftheoutputcontentsareeasytoread. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.53. Thematerialdesignoftheprintedreportlayoutiseasytoread. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B.SystemQuality StronglyAgree StronglyDisagree

Q.54.WebSAMSisflexibletochangeorupdateinresponsetonewconditions,

demands,orcircumstances.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.55.WebSAMSiseasytouseandutilizeitscapability. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.56.WebSAMSprovidedme thefunctions thatIexpectedtocompletetheschools


7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.57. Icouldnotdiscovertheexistenceofbugsinthesystem. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.58.WebSAMSiseasytoadapt. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.59.WebSAMScancompletelyintegrateintomyschoolsadministrativeworks. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.60. Theelapsedtimebetweenauserinitiatedrequestforserviceoractionand

replytothatrequestbyWebSAMSisacceptable.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1



C.ServiceQuality StronglyAgree StronglyDisagree

Q.61.WhenIhaveaproblem,theofficialWebSAMSsupportunitswillshowa

sincereinterestinsolvingit.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.62. TheemployeesoftheofficialWebSAMSsupportunitshavetheknowledgeto

maintainthesystemandsolveproblemswell.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.63. TheemployeesoftheofficialWebSAMSsupportunitshavegivenme

personalattentions.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.64. TheemployeesoftheofficialWebSAMSsupportunitshavefollowingup

servicetoensureIandotherworkmatescanbeabletoadaptWebSAMS.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.65.WhenIhaveaproblemonusingWebSAMSIcanfindsupportsfromcertain

onlinesupportsources.(e.g.Email,WebForum)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

D.PresenceofRealTimeSupport StronglyAgree StronglyDisagree

Q.66. Varietyofrealtimesupportofferedbymyschool(e.g.ITTeam,Workmates)

issufficient.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.67. Myschoolsupportsme(e.g.ITTeam,Workmates)usingWebSAMS. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.68. RealtimesupportcouldhelpmealotonusingWebSAMS. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

E.PresenceofTraining StronglyAgree StronglyDisagree

Q.69. VarietyoftrainingprogramsorworkshopsofferedbytheofficialWebSAMS

supportunits issufficient.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.70. IthinkthetrainingprogramsorworkshopsofferedbytheofficialWebSAMS

supportunitsareuseful.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.71. Varietyoftrainingprogramsorworkshopsofferedbymyschoolissufficient. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.72. Ithinkthetrainingprogramsorworkshopsofferedbymyschoolareuseful. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

F.PerceivedUsefulness StronglyAgree StronglyDisagree

Q.73.WebSAMSenablesmetoaccomplishstudentrelatedtasksmorequickly. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.74.WebSAMSimprovesmyjobperformance. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.75. UsingWebSAMSinmyjobincreasemyproductivity. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.76. UsingWebSAMSenhancesmyeffectivenessonthejob. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.77. UsingWebSAMSmakesiteasiertodomyjob. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.78. Overall,IfindWebSAMSusefulonmyjob. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

G.UserSatisfaction StronglyAgree StronglyDisagree

Q.79. IfeelWebSAMScanmeetstheinformationprocessingneededofmyareaof

responsibility.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.80. Overall,IamsatisfiedwithWebSAMS. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

H.NetBenefits StronglyAgree StronglyDisagree

Q.81. ImproveeffectivenessofWebSAMShelpmetoachievemygoalofwork. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.82. ImproveeffectivenessofWebSAMSmakemetobemoresatisfied. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1



Q.83. ImproveeffectivenessofWebSAMSmeanproducemorenetbenefits. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.84. Overall,IthinkWebSAMSendsupwithhigheffectivenessonmosttasks

currently.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.85. PleaseprioritizethefactorsaffectingtheeffectivenessofWebSAMS(1:least,5:mostimportant,pleaseuseeachnumberfor

onlyonetime)

__InformationQuality __SystemQuality __ServiceQuality __PresenceofRealTimeSupport __PresenceofTraining

I.UsageInformation StronglyAgree StronglyDisagree

Q.86. IthinkIamabletomasterWebSAMSverywell. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.87. IhavefacedalotofproblemsinusingWebSAMSsofar. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Q.88. IamadministeringtoWebSAMSoperationinmyworkingschool.

Yes. No.Q.89. Onaverageworkingdays,howmuchtimedoyouspendonthesystem?

1)Almostnever 2)Lessthan1/2hour 3)From1/2hourto1hour

4)12hours 5)Morethan2hoursQ.90.Whatwouldyousuggesttoimprovetheeffectivenessof WebSAMS?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

PartIII.Demographicdata (Pleaseticktheappropriatebox)Gender

M F

Age

1)18orbelow 2)1925 3)2630 4)3135

5)3640 6)4145 7)4650 8)51orabove

Howwouldyourateyourcomputerskill?

1)None 2)Rookie 3)Intermediate 4)Advance 5)Expert

Thisistheendofquestionnaire,thankyou!Pleasesendbackthisquestionnairewiththereturnenvelopsattachedwiththismail.



AppendixD:StatisticData

Frequencies

Age

Frequency Percent ValidPercent CumulativePercent

1925 16 13.4 13.8 13.8

2630 29 24.4 25.0 38.8

3135 11 9.2 9.5 48.3

3640 15 12.6 12.9 61.2

4145 20 16.8 17.2 78.4

4650 14 11.8 12.1 90.5

51orabove 11 9.2 9.5 100.0

Valid

Total 116 97.5 100.0

Missing 0 3 2.5

Total 119 100.0

Gender


Male 89 74.8 76.7 76.7

Female 27 22.7 23.3 100.0Valid

Total 116 97.5 100.0

Missing 0 3 2.5

Total 119 100.0

ComputerSkill


Rookie 31 26.1 26.7 26.7

Intermediate 38 31.9 32.8 59.5

Advance 37 31.1 31.9 91.4

Expert 10 8.4 8.6 100.0

Valid

Total 116 97.5 100.0

Missing 0 3 2.5

Total 119 100.0

WebSAMSAdministrator




Yes 65 54.6 56.0 56.0

No 51 42.9 44.0 100.0Valid

Total 116 97.5 100.0

Missing 0 3 2.5

Total 119 100.0

TimeSpentonWebSAMSonAverageWorkingDays


Almostnever 2 1.7 1.7 1.7

Lessthan1/2hour 65 54.6 56.0 57.8

From1/2hourto1hour 22 18.5 19.0 76.7

12hours 18 15.1 15.5 92.2

Morethan2hours 9 7.6 7.8 100.0

Valid

Total 116 97.5 100.0

Missing 0 3 2.5

Total 119 100.0

NParTests

Warnings

TheCochranTestforPriorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(InformationQuality)Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(SystemQuality)Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(ServiceQuality)Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(RealTimeSupport)Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(Training)isnotperformedbecauseallvariablesarenotdichotomouswiththesamevalues.

DescriptiveStatistics

PercentilesN Mean Std.Deviation Minimum Maximum 25th 50th(Median) 75th

Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(InformationQuality)

116 3.02 1.292 1 5 2.00 3.00 4.00

Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(SystemQuality) 116 4.05 1.357 1 5 3.00 5.00 5.00

Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(ServiceQuality) 116 3.16 1.087 1 5 3.00 3.00 4.00

Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(RealTimeSupport)

116 2.49 1.059 1 5 2.00 2.00 3.00

Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(Training) 116 2.29 1.527 1 5 1.00 2.00 3.00



FriedmanTestRanks

MeanRank

Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(InformationQuality) 3.01

Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(SystemQuality) 4.05

Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(ServiceQuality) 3.16

Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(RealTimeSupport) 2.49

Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(Training) 2.28

TestStatistics

N 116

ChiSquare 88.578

df 4

Asymp.Sig. .000

Kendall'sWTestRanks

MeanRank

Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(InformationQuality) 3.01

Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(SystemQuality) 4.05

Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(ServiceQuality) 3.16

Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(RealTimeSupport) 2.49

Priorityoffactorsaffectingeffectiveness(Training) 2.28

TestStatistics

N 116

Kendall'sW .191

ChiSquare 88.578

df 4

Asymp.Sig. .000

Proximities

CaseProcessingSummary



Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

116 97.5% 3 2.5% 119 100.0%

ProximityMatrix

InformationQuality

SystemQuality

ServiceQuality

PresenceofRealTime

Support

Presenceof

Training

PerceivedUsefulness

UserSatisfaction

Intentionto

Use/Use

NetBenefits

IQ4 .836 .552 .260 .326 .307 .373 .417 .078 .369

IQ5 .857 .488 .229 .396 .259 .313 .399 .262 .405

IQ6 .817 .585 .299 .462 .322 .481 .531 .231 .526

IQ7 .810 .643 .237 .281 .312 .357 .422 .096 .388

IQ8 .821 .558 .225 .347 .268 .276 .310 .201 .350

IQ9 .846 .626 .301 .321 .340 .356 .382 .183 .463

IQ10 .816 .591 .321 .295 .327 .257 .298 .089 .335

SQ11 .589 .807 .480 .419 .458 .594 .542 .028 .482

SQ12 .629 .855 .505 .425 .422 .608 .596 .120 .531

SQ13 .602 .790 .473 .435 .394 .546 .540 .068 .496

SQ14 .360 .574 .316 .283 .323 .252 .297 .172 .277

SQ15 .619 .818 .522 .503 .497 .606 .598 .157 .536

SQ16 .585 .771 .391 .338 .419 .590 .574 .017 .471

SQ17 .399 .737 .369 .360 .376 .460 .510 .268 .431

SerQ18 .254 .485 .886 .503 .564 .555 .500 .154 .502

SerQ19 .276 .443 .867 .595 .591 .538 .502 .181 .510

SerQ20 .285 .526 .893 .531 .618 .580 .496 .142 .471

SerQ21 .345 .527 .860 .530 .566 .542 .422 .191 .441

SerQ22 .259 .492 .858 .620 .564 .560 .547 .255 .522

RTS23 .411 .471 .608 .892 .683 .615 .577 .173 .544

RTS24 .365 .472 .588 .935 .595 .604 .594 .184 .547

RTS25 .376 .471 .567 .931 .601 .574 .588 .137 .563

T26 .350 .496 .642 .546 .892 .548 .492 .139 .425

T27 .282 .461 .609 .615 .897 .560 .540 .017 .536

T28 .353 .459 .543 .620 .891 .587 .541 .013 .453

T29 .345 .526 .598 .670 .921 .669 .642 .031 .576

PU30 .376 .619 .607 .616 .594 .914 .755 .077 .715

PU31 .408 .644 .625 .598 .617 .944 .787 .136 .

Documents

WebSAMS in Hong Kong Secondary Schoolslibproject.hkbu.edu.hk/trsimage/hp/03007189.pdf · I could not be able to finish the research study. Through the project , I ... effectiveness