This research conducted by me, a master student of the Faculty of Management and Organisation at the University of Groningen

(1)

The upcoming pages maintain the appendices referred to throughout ‘Striving for Excellence’.

(2)

Appendix 1: CTC in Sri Lanka

The Ceylon Tobacco Company (CTC) is located in the capital city of Sri Lanka; Colombo.

This research conducted by me, a master student of the Faculty of Management and Organisation at the University of Groningen; the Netherlands took place in this interesting context.

Sri Lanka has a population of 19.8 million people. The Island hangs like a pendant from the ear of India, physically and culturally. The main language and religions where inherited from India, but Sri Lanka’s culture and society have unique, distinct qualities. The Island has a longer history of western rule than any other Asian country its size. Signs of Portuguese, Dutch and British influences linger in institutions as churches, tea estates and forts, as well as in popular folk tunes, food, alcohol, and music. The European influences are also noticeable in Sri Lanka’s tobacco industry. This is obvious for CTC is owned by the British American Tobacco organisation. More about this can be read in the previous graph.

Buddhism is the dominant creed of the largest ethnic group in Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese, and is followed by 70% of the population. It plays an extremely important role in the country, both spiritually and culturally. About 15 percent of the population, mainly Tamils, is Hindu. Muslims count for about nine percent and Christians about 7 percent.

The ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is an ongoing conflict between the majority Sinhalese and minority Tamils on the island-nation of Sri Lanka. Since 1983, there has been on-and-off civil war, mostly between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or the LTTE, who want to create an independent Tamil Eelam state in the northeast of the island. It is estimated that the war has left 65,000 people dead since 1983 and caused great harm to the population and economy of the country. A cease-fire was declared in 2002, but renewed violence in late 2005 led to fears of a renewed civil war.

Colombo, the place where CTC is located has a population of 1.2 million and lies at the lower west coast of Sri Lanka. Colombo is the political, economic and cultural centre of Sri Lanka.

The city was the scene of quite a few bombings during Sri Lanka’s war years, but security has been relaxed since a cease fire was declared and peace talks began. For me Colombo has proved to be a great city to perform my research in. It was very different from the European context I am used to. This was noticeable mainly in my daily life. CTC is a modern western organisation, for that reason it was a comfortable and save place to perform this research.

(3)

Appendix 2: Problem analysis

Below the problem analysis for the QuIS is given in a table. The different problem owners are indicated per problem as well. The numbers in front of the problem owner are the relevant problem owner numbers:

1. Support staff, this is the staff that maintains and gives user support of the QuIS.

2. Quality assurance manager, this is the person responsible person for the QuIS.

3. Supplier, assists in problem solving when the support staff does not succeed and is an important party for further QuIS developments.

4 QuIS users, insert and extract information into and from the QuIS.

5. Higher management, the overall authority of CTC, the Quality Assurance Manager reports to this layer.

CTC Internal problems

General problems Problem (problem owner

nr.)

Description Impact QuIS being slow and getting

slower (1,2,3,4,5)

When quality measurem ents take place the QuIS occasionally tends to be slow. When more data is captured into the database it will get slower and slower. There is a downwards spiral taking place for the systems speed.

Users of the system are not satisfied with the performance of the system.

Their tasks take more time then necessary.

QuIS Budgetary problems(2,5)

Within CTC there is a limited budget for the QuIS. Different projects compete for available budgets.

- Some of the QuIS intended features had to be neglected.

- Now the need for additional features of the QuIS has arisen.

Limited number of QuIS experts (1,4)

Within CTC there are only two persons who know the system thoroughly. Knowledge for QuIS support is still mainly possessed by one person. Overall QuIS knowledge is mainly possessed by the Quality Assurance manager.

- When there are QuIS issues only the IT-system expert can fix most of them. This sometimes causes delays.

- Users get less satisfied with the system when the system is down or does not function properly Lower effectiveness QuIS

docum entation structure (2)

The relevant documentation on the QuIS is not being managed in a structured way. This should be organised for all the important documents.

It takes time to find the relevant documents.

QuIS failures, support staff Problem (problem owner nr.)

Description Impact

Complete system failures (1,4,3)

This type of problem occurs when the vital link between the database and the server of the QuIS system gets interrupted. This is the most severe problem that can occur.

Frequency occurrence is once a month maximum.

The system is not functioning at all when this type of error occurs.

Quality measurements can not be taken and reports on quality information can not be generated.

Online data problems (1,4,3) Sometimes data is inserted into the QuIS and is not successfully captured into the database. Frequency is once each two weeks average.

Often this data can be retrieved; this can be done because the QuIS is programmed in a manner that it does not loose its data easily. But sometimes the data gets lost and needs to be captured again.

Interaction between QuIS and measurement tools (1,4,3)

Sometimes problems occur when information is captured by the QuIS from measurement tools. Some of these problems are enduring.

New problems occur once each two months maximum.

Only the specific measurement can not take place. The problems can take significant time to solve. Some of these problems are still pending.

User related issues Problem (problem owner nr.)

(4)

Low support and knowledge of users when QuIS fails (1,2,4)

It takes more time than necessary to solve issues. There is low user knowledge on what to do when the QuIS fails. If the QuIS fails users call the helpdesk. Most users don’t have much know-how on QuIS error solving and are not being much supportive.

The relation between the users and the support staff is influenced negatively. Problem solving takes too much time.

Resistance to change (1,2,5) During the implementation of the QuIS resistance to change occurred. People where afraid that the system would impact their jobs negatively. Still the QuIS is not supported very well within all the relevant departments.

People where not cooperative immediately. Currently similar problems are experienced.

QuIS information insertion (1,2,4,5)

QuIS input users do not receive many benefits of the QuIS, it is mainly a burden for them. When the system does not work appropriately a part of the input users take the opportunity not to use the QuIS.

Information is not captured and no reports can be generated This problem is mainly located at QA and SMD. At PMD the situation is viewed to be more positive towards the QuIS.

Lack of user computer knowledge (2,4)

Some of the users (mainly input) do not have adequate IT skills. It is hard for them to cope with QuIS changes or exceptional QuIS situations. They rate their computer knowledge low and state that there is a lack of computer training.

Dissatisfaction on the QuIS and users being less cooperative in relation to the QuIS.

External problems

BAT- prescriptions Problem (problem owner nr.)

BAT Quality measurement prescriptions changes (1,2,5)

BAT Quality measurement prescriptions change from time to time. The system supports adaptations necessary, but this costs time, mainly of the supplier and consequently money of CTC.

One of the platforms within the QuIS is already obsolete while BAT changed the prescriptions for quality measurements. Unnecessary resources where wasted for these functionalities. This also caused delay to the project.

QuIS Supplier related problems Problem (problem owner nr.)

Know how at supplier (1,2,5) Much of the know how on the QuIS application is located at the supplier.

- High dependability on the supplier for changes, failures, alterations, and extensions of the QuIS, CTC cannot execute these change herself.

- Each time specific issues occur supplier support is necessary.

Third layer QuIS support problems (QuIS problem solving by supplier) (1,2)

Easy to fix QuIS problems are dealt with quickly by the supplier. More complex problems like bugs in the system take more time.

Some of the complex problems take a long time to fix.

Rigidity of the supplier (2) During the project the supplier was not very flexible when changes to the QuIS where proposed. The main problem was on misinterpretations of specifications by the supplier.

Time delay in the delivery of the QuIS and much negotiation was necessary.

Lack of suppliers expertise in industry (2)

The supplier did not have any experience in the tobacco industry.

- It took much effort to get the specifications for the system right.

- When the system was programmed still some of the functionalities where not conform the needs of CTC.

- It took much time and recourses to correct these issues.

Lack of cooperation of quality measurement tool suppliers (1,2)

Some of the quality measurements tools are old and communicate with the QuIS through old software packages running on older computers. Some of the suppliers do not support integration with the QuIS very well.

Some of the software packages and computers functioning in between measurement tools and the QuIS are outdated and still sensitive to error.

(5)

Appendix 3: Sources user analysis questionnaire attributes

Scales

Bailey &

Pearson (1983) 20x

Ives et.al.

(1983) 21x

Miller &

Doyle (1987) 28x

Remenyi et.

al. (1995) 27x 1

Completeness of output information of the

QuIS. X X x X

2 Accuracy of output information of the QuIS. X X x X

3 Relevance of report contents. X x X

4 Up-to-datedness of output information. X X x X

5

Flexibility of the system to produce

professional reports. x

6

Availability of output information at the

moment needed. X x X

7

Efficiency of information insertion into the

QuIS. X

8

Up-to-datedness of the QuIS hardware and

software. X

9 Speed of the QuIS. X X

10 Performance of the QuIS. X

11

Higher management involvement in defining

and monitoring the QuIS. X X X X

12 Overall cost-effectiveness of QuIS. X X

13

Use of a steering committee for developing

and monitoring the QuIS. X X

14 User’s feeling of participation. X X X X

15

The degree of personal control the user has

over the QuIS. X X X X

16 Users understanding of the system. X X X X

17 User confidence in the system. X X X X

18

Prompt processing of requests for changes

to the QuIS. X X

19

Ability of the system to improve personal

productivity. X

20 Documentation to support training. X

21 Good training methods for new QuIS users. X

22 Extent of user training. X X

23 Overall QuIS contribution to users work. X

24 Short lead time for new QuIS developments. X X X

25

QuIS responsiveness to changing user

needs. X X

26

Support for users in preparing proposals for

new QuIS features. X

27

Flexibility of the system to respond to new

circumstances. X

28

Ease of access for users to the computing

facilities for the QuIS. X X X

29 Clear documentation on the QuIS. X X X

30 Ease of use of the QuIS system. X X

31

High degree of technical competence from

the QuIS support staff. X X X X

32

Positive attitude of IS personnel towards

users. X X X X

33

Fast response time from QuIS support staff

to remedy problems. X X

34

A low percentage of hardware and software

downtime for the QuIS. X X

35 Efficient running of current system. X

36 Data security and privacy. X X X x

37 User restrictions x

38 Possibilities of sharing quality information.

(6)

(obj/ben) 39

Possibility for exporting data to other systems. (obj/ben)

40

Application of modern technology for the

QuIS. X

41

Setting of system priorities to reflect overall

organisational objectives. X X

42

User-oriented system analysts who know

user operations. X X

43

Quality and competence of systems analysts

employed by the IS department. X x

(7)

Appendix 4: QuIS management level user analysis questionnaire

QuIS Survey

The following questionnaire is constructed to measure your overall satisfaction with CTC’s Quality Information System (QuIS). All of your responses will be kept confidential and will only be released in a generalised format. The content of part A is on your personal data. Part B measures the ‘importance’ of several attributes of the QuIS. Part C measures the ‘actual performance’ of the QuIS; the attributes are the same as in part B but rated on a different scale.

The attributes in part D are on your experience in using computers. The questionnaire will take about 15 minutes of your time.

Please circle the numbers which are most relevant for you.

NOTE: during the questionnaire the abbreviation QuIS stands for ‘Quality Information System’

Part A Personal data Name: ...

Function: ...

Part B

The importance of different attributes of the QuIS

Please consider the following attributes of the QuIS. Evaluate how ‘IMPORTANT’ you feel that each attribute is in ensuring that the QuIS is effective and successful within your organisation. Below is reproduced a scale from 1 to 7 with each number representing a degree of importance. Using the description provided on this scale, circle the number you feel most represents your evaluation of the importance of each of the attributes listed on the following pages.

Irrelevant Not Important Important Critical

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

A. Functioning of the QuIS

1. Completeness of output information of the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Accuracy of output information of the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Relevance of report contents. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Up-to-datedness of output information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 Flexibility of the system to produce professional reports. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Availability of output information at the moment needed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Efficiency of information insertion into the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Up-to-datedness of the QuIS hardware and software. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Speed of the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Performance of the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

B. Linkage to the strategic process of the firm 11. Higher management involvem ent in defining and

monitoring the QuIS.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Overall cost-effectiveness of QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Use of a steering committee for developing and monitoring

the QuIS.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Higher management involvem ent in defining and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

C. User involvement

14. User’s feeling of participation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. The degree of personal control the user has over the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Users understanding of the system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(8)

17. User confidence in the system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Prompt processing of requests for changes to the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Ability of the system to improve personal productivity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20 Documentation to support training. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Good training methods for new QuIS users. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. Extent of user training. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. Overall QuIS contribution to users work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

D. Responsiveness to new systems needs

24. Short lead time for new QuIS developments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. QuIS responsiveness to changing user needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. Support for users in preparing proposals for new QuIS

features.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. Flexibility of the system to respond to new circumstances. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

E. Ability to respond to end user needs

28. Ease of access for users to the computing facilities for the QuIS.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. Clear documentation on the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. Ease of use of the QuIS system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

F. IS staff quality

31. High degree of technical competence from the QuIS support staff.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. Positive attitude of IS personnel towards users. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. Fast response time from QuIS support staff to remedy

problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

G. Reliability of service

34. A low percentage of hardware and software downtime for the QuIS.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. Efficient running of current system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. Data security and privacy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

37. User restrictions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

H. Expert questions

38. Possibilities of sharing quality information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. Possibility for exporting data to other systems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. Application of modern technology for the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. Setting of system priorities to reflect overall organisational

objectives.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42. User-oriented system analysts who know user operations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43. Quality and competence of systems analysts employed by

the IS department.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Part C

Actual performance achieved by the QuIS

Now please consider the same attributes as in part B, and evaluate the degree of the ‘ACTUAL PERFORMANCE' attained for the QuIS. A scale of 1 to 7 is reproduced below, each number representing a level of performance.

Please evaluate each attribute on the basis of this scale, and circle the appropriate number.

Very Poor Poor Good Excellent

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

(9)

9. Speed of the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Overall cost-effectiveness of QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Use of a steering committee for developing and monitoring

the QuIS.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Higher management involvem ent in defining and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

14. User’s feeling of participation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. The degree of personal control the user has over the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Users understanding of the system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. User confidence in the system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Prompt processing of requests for changes to the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Ability of the system to improve personal productivity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20 Documentation to support training. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Good training methods for new QuIS users. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. Extent of user training. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. Overall QuIS contribution to users work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

features.

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(10)

Very Poor Poor Good Excellent ---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. Efficient running of current system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. Data security and privacy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

37. User restrictions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

H. Expert questions

38. Possibilities of sharing quality information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. Possibility for exporting data to other systems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. Application of modern technology for the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. Setting of system priorities to reflect overall organisational

objectives.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42. User-oriented system analysts who know user operations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43. Quality and competence of systems analysts employed by

the IS department.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(11)

Appendix 5: Outcomes QuIS management level user analysis questionnaire

Importance Performance

Attribute Imp SD Mean SD

1 Completeness of output information of the QuIS.

6.27 1.10 5.36 1.12

2 Accuracy of output information of the QuIS. 6.55 0.82 5.45 1.21

3 Relevance of report contents. 6.18 0.60 5.09 1.38

4 Up-to-datedness of output information. 6.36 0.81 5.00 1.18 5 Flexibility of the system to produce professional reports. 5.82 0.75 4.82 0.75 6 Availability of output information at the moment needed. 6.27 0.79 5.36 1.03 7 Efficiency of information insertion into the QuIS. 5.91 0.94 4.73 1.01 8 Up-to-datedness of the QuIS hardware and software. 5.55 0.93 5.00 0.77

9 Speed of the QuIS. 6.27 0.90 4.91 0.70

10 Performance of the QuIS. 6.27 0.79 6.00 1.00

38 Possibilities of sharing quality inform ation. 5.64 1.69 5.60 0.70 39 Possibility for exporting data to other systems. 5.00 1.73 4.90 1.10

A. Functioning of the QuIS Average 6.01 0.99 5.19 1.00

B. Linkage to the strategic process of the firm

11

Higher management involvement in defining and monitoring the QuIS.

5.90 0.57 5.45 0.93

12 Overall cost-effectiveness of QuIS. 5.20 0.92 4.80 0.92

13

Use of a steering committee for developing and monitoring the QuIS.

5.70 0.67 5.09 1.04

40 Application of modern technology for the QuIS. 4.91 1.45 5.10 0.88 41

Setting of system priorities to reflect overall

organisational objectives. 5.64 0.92 5.20 0.79

B. Linkage to the strategic process of the firm Average 5.47 0.91 5.13 0.91

14 User’s feeling of participation. 5.91 0.70 5.00 1.00

15

The degree of personal control the user has over the

QuIS. 5.18 1.17 4.45 0.82

16 Users understanding of the system. 6.18 0.87 4.73 0.79

17 User confidence in the system. 6.36 0.67 4.91 0.83

18 Prompt processing of requests for changes to the QuIS.

5.55 0.93 4.36 0.92

19 Ability of the system to improve personal productivity. 5.27 1.01 4.64 0.81

20 Documentation to support training. 5.64 0.92 4.73 1.19

21 Good training methods for new QuIS users. 5.73 0.79 4.36 0.92

22 Extent of user training. 5.45 0.82 4.64 0.81

23 Overall QuIS contribution to users work.

5.80 0.63 4.55 1.57

C. User involvem ent Average 5.71 0.85 4.64 0.97

D. Responsiveness to new systems needs

24 Short lead time for new QuIS developments. 5.18 1.40 4.60 0.70 25 QuIS responsiveness to changing user needs. 5.91 0.83 4.30 0.95

(12)

26

Support for users in preparing proposals for new QuIS

features. 5.36 1.03 4.30 0.82

27

Flexibility of the system to respond to new circumstances.

6.00 1.26 4.60 0.70

D. Responsiveness to new systems needs Average 5.61 1.13 4.45 0.79

28

Ease of access for users to the computing facilities for the QuIS.

5.64 0.81 5.00 0.82

29 Clear documentation on the QuIS. 6.00 0.89 4.91 1.30

30 Ease of use of the QuIS system. 6.27 0.90 4.82 0.87

E. Ability to respond to end user needs Average 5.97 0.87 4.91 1.00

F. IS staff quality 31

High degree of technical competence from the QuIS support staff.

5.55 1.29 5.00 0.63

32 Positive attitude of IS personnel towards users. 6.09 0.83 5.18 0.98

33

Fast response time from QuIS support staff to remedy problems.

6.09 0.94 4.91 0.94

42

User-oriented system analysts who know user

operations. 5.64 0.81 5.10 0.88

43

Quality and competence of systems analysts employed

by the IS department. 5.82 0.98 4.91 0.70

F. IS staff quality Average 5.84 0.97 5.02 0.83

G. Reliability of service 34

A low percentage of hardware and software downtime for

the QuIS. 5.45 1.75 4.90 0.88

35 Efficient running of current system. 5.82 0.87 4.73 0.79

36 Data security and privacy. 5.82 1.17 5.70 0.82

37 User restrictions 5.45 0.82 5.30 0.82

G. Reliability of service Average 5.64 1.15 5.16 0.83

(13)

Appendix 6: QuIS executing level user analysis questionnaire

QuIS Survey

The following questionnaire is constructed to measure your overall satisfaction with CTC’s Quality Information System (QuIS). All of your responses will be kept confidential and will only be released in a generalised format. The content of part A is on your personal data. Part B measures the ‘importance’ of several attributes of the QuIS. Part C measures the ‘actual performance’ of the QuIS; the attributes are the same as in part B but rated on a different scale.

The attributes in part D are on your experience in using computers. The questionnaire will take about 15 minutes of your time.

Please circle the numbers which are most relevant for you.

NOTE: during the questionnaire the abbreviation QuIS stands for ‘Quality Information System’

Part A Personal data Name: ...

Function: ...

Part B

The importance of different attributes of the QuIS

Please consider the following attributes of the QuIS. Evaluate how ‘IMPORTANT’ you feel that each attribute is in ensuring that the QuIS is effective and successful within your organisation. Below is reproduced a scale from 1 to 7 with each number representing a degree of importance. Using the description provided on this scale, circle the number you feel most represents your evaluation of the importance of each of the attributes listed on the following pages.

----1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

9. Speed of the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

12. User’s feeling of participation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. The degree of personal control the user has over the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Users understanding of the system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. User confidence in the system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Prompt processing of requests for changes to the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Ability of the system to improve personal productivity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18 Documentation to support training. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(14)

19. Good training methods for new QuIS users. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. Extent of user training. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Overall QuIS contribution to users work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

features.

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. Efficient running of current system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

Part C

Actual performance achieved by the QuIS

Now please consider the same attributes as in part B, and evaluate the degree of the ‘ACTUAL PERFORMANCE' attained for the QuIS. A scale of 1 to 7 is reproduced below, each number representing a level of performance.

Please evaluate each attribute on the basis of this scale, and circle the appropriate number.

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

9. Speed of the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(15)

Very Poor Poor Good Excellent ---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

12. User’s feeling of participation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. The degree of personal control the user has over the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Users understanding of the system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. User confidence in the system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Prompt processing of requests for changes to the QuIS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Ability of the system to improve personal productivity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Documentation to support training. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Good training methods for new QuIS users. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. Extent of user training. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Overall QuIS contribution to users work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

features.

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. Efficient running of current system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(16)

Appendix 7: QuIS executing level user analysis questionnaire (Singhalese)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

Appendix 8: Outcomes QuIS executing level user analysis questionnaire

Imp Perf

Imp SD Mean SD

1 Completeness of output information of the QuIS. 5.83 1.17 5.7 0.82 2 Accuracy of output information of the QuIS. 5.83 1.17 5.5 1.27 3 Relevance of report contents.

5.83 0.98 5.7 0.82

4 Up-to-datedness of output inform ation.

6.17 0.75 5.7 0.82

5 Flexibility of the system to produce professional reports.

5.83 0.98 5.56 0.88

6 Availability of output information at the moment needed.

5.67 1.51 5.1 1.1

7 Efficiency of information insertion into the QuIS. 5.17 1.47 5 1.56 8 Up-to-datedness of the QuIS hardware and software.

5.2 2.39 5.5 0.71

9 Speed of the QuIS.

5 1.79 4.4 1.58

10 Performance of the QuIS.

6.33 0.82 5.2 0.79

A. Functioning of the QuIS Average 5.69 1.3 5.34 1.04

B. Linkage to the strategic process of the firm 11

Higher management involvement in defining and monitoring the

QuIS. 6.47 1.47 5.56 0.88

12 User’s feeling of participation. 6 0.89 5.4 0.52

13

The degree of personal control the user has over the QuIS.

5.5 0.84 5.1 1.37

14 Users understanding of the system. 5.5 1.05 5.3 0.82

15 User confidence in the system. 6.17 0.98 5.33 1

16 Prompt processing of requests for changes to the QuIS. 5.5 1.38 5.3 0.67 17 Ability of the system to improve personal productivity. 6.17 0.75 5.33 0.5

18 Documentation to support training. 5.4 1.52 5.1 1.29

19 Good training methods for new QuIS users. 5.5 1.52 4.9 1.45

20 Extent of user training. 6 0.89 5 1.66

21 Overall QuIS contribution to users work. 5.17 1.17 5.8 0.79

C. User involvem ent Average 5.69 1.1 5.26 1.01

D. Responsiveness to new systems needs

22 Short lead time for new QuIS developments. 6 1 5.6 0.7

23 QuIS responsiveness to changing user needs. 6 1 5.8 0.79

24

Support for users in preparing proposals for new QuIS features.

5.6 1.14 5.7 0.95

25

Flexibility of the system to respond to new circumstances.

6.4 0.55 5.8 0.79

D. Responsiveness to new systems needs Average 6 0.92 5.73 0.81

26

Ease of access for users to the computing facilities for the QuIS.

5.83 0.75 5.9 0.74

27 Clear documentation on the QuIS. 5.67 0.82 5.2 1.69

28 Ease of use of the QuIS system. 6.17 0.75 5.6 0.97

(21)

E. Ability to respond to end user needs Average 5.89 0.77 5.57 1.13

F. IS staff quality 29

High degree of technical competence from the QuIS support staff.

6 0.63 5.4 0.52

30 Positive attitude of IS personnel towards users. 6.33 0.52 5.8 0.63 31

Fast response time from QuIS support staff to remedy problems.

5.83 1.17 5.3 0.95

F. IS staff quality Average 6.06 0.77 5.5 0.7

32

A low percentage of hardware and software downtime for the QuIS.

5.17 1.47 4.4 1.43

33 Efficient running of current system.

5.5 1.38 4.6 1.51

G. Reliability of service Average 5.33 1.43 4.5 1.47