Designing Academic Information System Performance Measurement

using Performance Prism and ISO/IEC 25010

Liulliyah

and Apol Pribadi Subriadi

Department of Information System, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia

Keywords:

Academic Information System, Performance Measurement, System Quality, Performance Prism, ISO/IEC

25010

Abstract:

Higher education institutions currently have invested heavily in Information Technology (IT). Information

systems supported by IT can improve service quality and add value to tertiary institutions. Academic services

are the main business processes in higher education. An effective Academic Information System (AIS) can

support an effective academic service system. To ﬁnd out and assess the extent to which the performance of

AISs in carrying out its objectives and optimizing IT investment needs to be evaluated system performance.

This performance evaluation is done by measuring system performance so that it can make improvements to

the quality of the system. Measurement of information system performance is carried out on the quality of the

system it self. Performance measurement also involves all stakeholders. The objective of this study is to design

performance measurements of AISs. The results of this study are a design of AIS performance measurement

using the performance prism method in terms of stakeholders and ISO/IEC 25010 in terms of system quality.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the world of education, where the core of the

business process is academic activities, the informa-

tion system service is essential to support transac-

tional activities, such as facilitating course registra-

tion, recording student achievements, etc. (LPTSI,

2016). Transactional activities, as mentioned previ-

ously, have been accommodated in an Academic In-

formation System (AIS). An AIS is a system that

provides information services related to academic

data(Setiyawan et al., 2013). (Sprague Jr and Carlson,

1982) States that AISs are more a series of systems

and activities in an organization that uses information

as its source to regulate and process. This system pro-

vides output in the form of information to leaders or

decision-makers with different uses and goals (Levin

and Kirkpatrick, 1971).

Poltekkes Kemenkes Surabaya has built an AIS

starting in 2011. This system was built to facilitate

the academic section in processing academic data and

conducting academic services. For students, AISs can

make it easier to obtain information about academics.

In its development, the AIS has changed from time to

time following the user’s wishes. After experiencing

many changes, there are still some problems such as

some menus still have errors, or there are still menus

that are not yet as requested. Given these problems

need to be evaluated system performance.

Performance evaluation is carried out to assess the

extent to which information system performance in-

creases effectiveness and efﬁciency in achieving the

institutional strategic goals so that steps can be taken

to improve or innovate the latest technology and help

maximize investment in Information Technology (IT)

(Al Agani et al., 2018). The main objective of the in-

formation system evaluation function is the improve-

ment in quality (Lagsten, 2011).

The Poltekkes Kemenkes Surabaya has evaluated

the system, but it is still manual so that AIS’s per-

formance no exact value is obtained. System eval-

uation is needed in the form of AIS performance

measurement. Information systems need to be mea-

sured in terms of product quality and service qual-

ity, especially in the ”capability” function of the in-

formation system itself (Govindaraju, ). Also, the

views of stakeholders about the ability of information

system functions can affect the willingness of these

stakeholders to propose IT innovation (Zhu, 2004)

(Ravichandran et al., 2005).

The purpose of this study is to design a perfor-

mance measurement system for academic information

using the Performance Prism method from the stake-

holder side and ISO/IEC 25010 in terms of system

Liulliyah, . and Subriadi, A.

Designing Academic Information System Performance Measurement using Performance Prism and ISO/IEC 25010.

DOI: 10.5220/0009908102110218

In Proceedings of the International Conferences on Information System and Technology (CONRIST 2019), pages 211-218

ISBN: 978-989-758-453-4

211

quality.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Performance Prism is a performance measurement

model developed by (Neely et al., 2002) and is

stakeholder-oriented. Performance Prism has impor-

tant and special features (Neely et al., 2001). Per-

formance prism has ﬁve aspects, the top and bottom

are stakeholder satisfaction and stakeholder contribu-

tions. Whereas the next three sides are strategy, pro-

cess, and capability (Neely et al., 2001). The objec-

tive of this research is to design performance mea-

surements of AISs.

Performance Prism has several advantages in mea-

suring performance including identifying stakehold-

ers from many interested parties, such as owners and

investors, suppliers, customers, workers, government

and surrounding communities. ISO/IEC 25010 is

an international standard in software testing. The

ISO/IEC 25010 standard was developed to replace

ISO 9126 based on the development of Information

and Communication Technology (ICT) (BS ISO/IEC

25010:2011, 2011). The ISO 9126-1 method can be

used and adopted for testing various software quali-

ties but needs to adjust to the conditions of the soft-

ware to be tested .

Using Performance Prism in higher institutions is

very good (Smulowitz, 2015) because higher institu-

tions have different system characteristics. Perfor-

mance prism can evaluate all the ’wants and needs’

of stakeholders who might be ignored. Whereas the

’wants and needs’ of stakeholders can be the key to

the success of higher education in planning for sus-

tainability.

In research (Jun, 2011) using performance prism

to measure ERP software. (Jun, 2011) mentions that

performance prism is a beneﬁcial performance mea-

surement model in providing management services

because it is comprehensive and easy to understand,

besides it is not only stakeholder oriented, but perfor-

mance prism also measures the contribution made by

stakeholders to the organization.

(Yu and Zhu, 2011) in his research stated that the

evaluation system using performance prism has good

practical operability because it uses all stakeholders

and their ﬁve facets, namely stakeholder needs, or-

ganizational strategy, business processes and stake-

holder contributions as a consideration.

(Kara, Lamouchi and Ramdane-Cherif, 2017) us-

ing ISO 25010 and the concept of fuzzy logic to eval-

uate the Ambient Assisted Living System, the eval-

uation results can show the required quality models

and produce quality indicators that can help users in

making the right decision at the same time.

(Huda, 2017) in his research, trying to integrate

Webqual 4.0 with ISO/IEC 25010. Measurement of

academic and ﬁnancial information systems produces

more complete indicators so that the assessment of

software quality is better.

Research (Lesmideyarti et al., 2017) uses ISO /

IEC 25010 to measure the performance of academic

information systems and compares with academic

information system measurements using ISO / IEC

9162. The results of measurements using ISO / IEC

25010 are more accurate because of the characteris-

tics of ISO / IEC 25010 more complete.

3 METHODOLOGY

This research was carried out in several stages which

are depicted in Figure 1 as follows :

Figure 1: Research Stages

3.1 Data Collection Phase

Data collection techniques are the most strategic step

in research because the primary purpose of the re-

search is to get data. Data collection can be done

in variety ways, various sources, and various set-

ting (Sugiyono, 2011). The following data collection

methods are used:

3.1.1 Observation

Observation is one of the essential tools to collect

data. Observing means paying attention to phe-

nomena in the ﬁeld through the ﬁve senses of the

researcher, often with instruments or devices, and

recording them for scientiﬁc purposes. These obser-

vations are based on research objectives and research

questions (John et al., 2009). This observation was

CONRIST 2019 - International Conferences on Information System and Technology

212

carried out by looking directly at the processes and ac-

tivities that are running in the case study of Poltekkes

Kemenkes Surabaya.

This technique is done to get a real picture of

an event and learn what activities are carried out in

the Academic Subdivision of Poltekkes Kemenkes

Surabaya.

3.1.2 Interview

Interviews are used as data collection techniques if

the researcher wants to conduct a preliminary study to

ﬁnd problems that must be investigated, but also if the

researcher wants to know things from the respondents

in more depth (Sugiyono, 2011). In this study, in-

terview techniques in the form of personal interviews

(personal interviews), personal interviews conducted

by doing face-toface with respondents. This inter-

view method is conducted to ﬁnd information related

to academic activities or activities carried out by the

Poltekkes Kemenkes Surabaya by interacting with the

Academic Subdivision and IT Unit. From the results

of this interview, data, and information in the form of

using AIS and AIS changes were collected.

3.1.3 Literature Review

This literature review is carried out to collect and

compare the results of several similar studies, such

as previous studies regarding the design of measure-

ments with the performance prism and ISO / IEC

25020 methods, then study them. Comparing the re-

sults of previous studies also helps the author to ﬁnd

things that distinguish between the author’s research

with previous studies.

3.2 Design of Performance

Measurement

For the design of performance measurements using

Performance Prism and ISO / IEC 25010. In this

modeling starts from applying the performance prism

method. Conducting interviews with stakeholders on

each performance prism facet. Then map it to ISO

/ IEC 25010. Furthermore, do performance calcula-

tions.

4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

In this research, several stages will be carried out in

measuring the performance of the AIS Poltekkes Ke-

menkes Surabaya, among others:

4.1 Problem Identiﬁcation

Identify the problem to describe what is experienced

by IT decision-makers based on their experiences

(John et al., 2009). At this stage, several processes

are carried out, namely: i). Analysis of case studies,

and ii). Literature study

4.1.1 Case Study Analysis

The selection of the Poltekkes Kemenkes Surabaya

AIS as a case study due to several considerations in-

clude:

1. AISs have been developed starting in 2011 and al-

ways developing from year to year

2. An AIS is needed by the academic community

and has provided many beneﬁts for its users

3. AISs continue to change following the wishes of

users, which means AISs adjust the wants and

needs of users. By following the principle of per-

formance prism that prioritizes the needs of users/

stakeholders

4. AISs have tried to follow the desires of the user,

but until now there are still some menus that are

not yet according to the user’s wishes

4.1.2 Literature Study

A literature study is done by collecting supporting

data about theories that support research, related re-

search, and methods that are widely used as a refer-

ence in this research. A literature study is done by

examining books, literature, notes, and reports that

are related to performance measurement using perfor-

mance prism and ISO / IEC 25010.

4.2 Development of Performance

Measurement Models

According to (Logsdon and Lewellyn, 2000) the ap-

plication of standards is essential because standard-

ization can create conditions and pressures among

stakeholders so as to improve sufﬁcient quality. From

a stakeholder perspective, an vital element of the qual-

ity of the corporate governance structure is the ca-

pacity to protect the interests of various stakehold-

ers (Gnan et al., 2013). Although involving stake-

holders is complex and timeconsuming, the beneﬁts

are more signiﬁcant because by involving stakehold-

ers the risk of losing speciﬁc information is smaller

(Delnoij et al., 2010). Stakeholder analysis must be

used as one important evaluation (Farbey et al., 1999),

Designing Academic Information System Performance Measurement using Performance Prism and ISO/IEC 25010

213

and understanding stakeholder strategies are beneﬁ-

cial and can affect the success of information systems

(Vaidya et al., 2011).

Because quality is the elements contained in a

product (Tausworthe, 1995). Then the quality is not

absolute but based on the perspective of the assessor

(Gentleman, 1997).

Understanding the ability of information system

functions to meet business needs is very important for

organizations (Peppard and Ward, 1999). One way is

to explore the use and satisfaction of users to mea-

sure the effectiveness and success of information sys-

tems. User satisfaction in using information systems

can affect the performance of these users (Gelderman,

1998). While the quality of the system has a direct

and indirect impact on satisfaction (G

urkut and Nat,

2017).

Based on a literature, a conceptual model was

made regarding the measurement of performance of

the AIS. The conceptual model developed in this

study is described as follows:

Figure 2: Conceptual Model

Figure 2 is a system measurement model by com-

bining the performance prism model and ISO / IEC

25010. It can be seen in the picture that the satisfac-

tion aspects of each stakeholder will be supported by

strategies, processes, stakeholder contributions, and

the ability of the system itself. Measurement indi-

cators resulting from stakeholder satisfaction will be

combined with existing measurement indicators in

ISO / IEC 25010.

4.3 Analysis of Problem Solving

In this study, there are several stages in the analysis of

problem-solving, namely:

4.3.1 Identiﬁcation of Stakeholders

Done by collecting data which is directly involved

in AIS based on discussions and interviews with the

Head of IT Unit. The role of each stakeholder towards

AIS is also identiﬁed to ﬁnd out the role of each stake-

holder so that stakeholder grouping can be identiﬁed.

The identiﬁed stakeholders have then grouped again

into key stakeholders

4.3.2 Identiﬁcation of the Five Facets of

Performance Prism

Interviewing the determination of the facet of Prism’s

performance is conducted on all key stakeholders.

Table 1 is the format of the questions asked during

the interview grouping the ﬁve performance facets of

Prism for each key stakeholder.

Table 1: Format for the Determination of Five Facets of

Performance Prism.

Facets Question

Satisfaction What do you want and need

from AIS?

Strategy According to you, what

strategies can be done to

meet these wants and needs?

Process What processes can be im-

plemented to realize the

strategy?

Capabilities What abilities must AIS

have in order for this process

to be carried out?

Contribution What kind of contributions

can you make to AIS in sup-

porting the process?

4.3.3 Mapping ISO/IEC 25010

At this stage, an ISO/IEC 25010 General overview is

grouped according to AIS conditions. Next, a com-

parison of the ﬁve facets of performance prism iden-

tiﬁcation for each key stakeholder is made based on a

grouping of the ISO/IEC 25010 general picture.

4.3.4 Identiﬁcation of Performance Indicators

After designing a general description of the quality of

ISO/IEC 25010 and comparing with ﬁve facets of per-

formance prism, the next step is to identify the perfor-

mance indicators that refer to the results of compari-

son of ﬁve facets of performance prism of each stake-

holder with an overview of ISO/IEC 25010. After

that, the classiﬁcation is done according to the basic

framework of performance prism (Arianto and Par-

tiwi, 2009).

CONRIST 2019 - International Conferences on Information System and Technology

214

Table 2: Indicator for Performance Measurement.

Key Per-

formance

Indicator

Performance Indicator

Functional

Suitability

Functions on AIS are capable

perform tasks according to their

respective goals

AIS provides right results with

the required level of precision.

The function of AIS can facili-

tate the completion of tasks and

goals that have been determined

Performance

efﬁciency

Response and processing time

as well as the level of AIS

throughput when carrying out

its functions meet the require-

ments

The resources used by AIS in

carrying out its functions meet

the requirements

The maximum limit or AIS pa-

rameter meets the requirements

CompatibilityAIS can perform the necessary

functions efﬁciently while shar-

ing the same environment and

resources with other products,

without harming other products.

AIS can exchange information

and use information that has

been exchanged

Usability Users can recognize whether

AIS ﬁts their needs.

AIS can create users to under-

stand the way easily operate

AIS

AIS is easy to operate and ac-

cess

AIS protects users from making

mistakes.

The user interface at AIS allows

pleasant and satisfying interac-

tions for users

AIS can be used by people with

the broadest range of character-

istics and abilities to achieve the

goals speciﬁed in the context of

a particular use

Reliability AIS is able to bear, handle or

cover up the failures and errors

that occur

AIS operates and can be ac-

cessed when needed to be used

AIS is able to maintain a certain

level of performance in the case

of software errors or violations

committed by users

AIS is able to rebuild perfor-

mance levels and recover data

that is directly affected by fail-

ures or interruptions

Security AIS ensures that data can only

be accessed by those who are

authorized to have access.

AIS prevents unauthorized ac-

cess to, or modiﬁcation of, com-

puter programs or data

In AIS an action or event can

be proven to have occurred so

that the development or opera-

tion cannot be denied later

The actions of an entity on AIS

can be traced uniquely to the en-

tity The identity of the subject

or resource at AIS can be proven

as claimed

MaintainabilityAIS consists of discrete compo-

nents such that changes to one

part have minimal impact on

other components.

An asset in AIS can be used

in more than one system, or in

building other assets

AIS is able to diagnose the

cause of failure and conduct

failure identiﬁcation

AIS can be effectively and efﬁ-

ciently modiﬁed without intro-

ducing defects or reducing the

quality of existing products

System errors that appear on

AIS can be ﬁxed quickly

The AIS Testing process is easy

Portability AIS is easy to adapt or oper-

ate in diverse operating environ-

ments without applying other

actions or rules

Designing Academic Information System Performance Measurement using Performance Prism and ISO/IEC 25010

215

AIS is easy to install/uninstall in

certain environments

AIS is easy to move to other

sites where software has been

built or speciﬁed

Timeliness AIS operates according to the

applicable schedule

Table 2 is the result of the identiﬁcation of per-

formance indicators after comparing the performance

indicators obtained from performance prism with the

performance indicators of ISO / IEC 25010. Merging

the two models produces more complete performance

indicators. These performance indicators will then be

assessed by distributing questionnaires to competent

respondents. The results of this questionnaire are the

average values of each performance indicator.

4.3.5 AHP Weighting

At this stage, the AHP is weighted three times, the

steps and weighting calculations refer to the AHP

rules and formulas (Saaty, 2008). The weighting party

is competent. It understands AIS, which in this case,

is the Head of the IT Unit because the weighted cri-

teria must be weighted according to company needs

(Arianto and Partiwi, 2009). Weightings carried out

include:

1. Weighting among key stakeholders to determine

the weight of interests of key stakeholders,

2. Weighting between 5 facets of Performance Prism

for each key stakeholder, to determine the impor-

tance of the 5 facets of Performance Prism for

each key stakeholder.

3. Weighting between performance indicators each

stakeholder, this is to determine the weight of each

performance indicator of each key stakeholder.

The weighting is based on interviews with the

Head of IT Unit. Furthermore, the calculation is done

based on AHP rules and formulas. The weighting

of performance indicators and critical stakeholders is

carried out to provide performance values based on

the weight of their respective interests. While the

weighting of 5 performance prism facets is used as a

reference for future performance improvement if per-

formance indicators that have poor performance are

found.

4.3.6 Test Validity and Reliability

Validity and reliability tests are done to avoid incon-

sistent answers from respondents. SPSS can deter-

mine whether the answers given by respondents are

appropriate to be included in the calculation or not.

The rules used are as follows:

1. Kaplan and Saccuzo reliability test (1993), if

Cronbach’s alpha coefﬁcient ≥ 0.77, the results

of the questionnaire can be said to be reliable.

2. Test the validity of the Product Moment (Pear-

son Correlation) method, if the value of Corrected

Item - Total Correlation > 0.3 then the data can be

said to be valid whereas if the Pearson Correlation

value ≤ 0.3 then it is considered invalid

4.3.7 Scoring Value with OMAX

At this stage, a comparison of real performance in-

dicator data obtained earlier through a questionnaire

with a maximum target (level 10) and the worst pos-

sible condition (level 0). The calculation uses the

OMAX formula (Riggs, 1981), which has been ap-

plied to the system built to help with the calculation.

The real situation is obtained from the results of rep-

resentative questionnaires from each key stakeholder.

The result is a score (level) for each performance in-

dicator using the interval formula in OMAX. The re-

sults of performance indicators will be seen in the

Trafﬁc Light System in the form of colors that de-

scribe the state of AIS performance. The results of the

performance values of each performance indicator are

classiﬁed into the Trafﬁc Light system according to

the amount of each performance and in the form of 3

colors, namely red, yellow, and green. Because what

is used in the performance appraisal is a Likert scale,

the maximum target (level 10) and the worst condi-

tions that may occur (level 0) are determined based

on the upper and lower limits of the Likert Scale. The

results of this trafﬁc light system will show which per-

formance indicators have been achieved, which have

not been achieved as well as indicators that are far

from the target and thus require recommendations for

improvement.

4.4 Conclussion

At stage is concluded the answers to initial prob-

lem formulation and provide suggestions based on

the results of the analysis that has been done. The

conclusion is the ﬁnal stage in the study, where the

overall results of the discussion and data processing

have been carried out. The conclusion also discusses

whether or not the problem was raised, or a new prob-

lem arises that can be used as a suggestion for further

research.

CONRIST 2019 - International Conferences on Information System and Technology

216

5 CONCLUSIONS

This study uses performance prism and ISO/IEC

25010 to design performance measurements of aca-

demic information system in the Poltekkes Kemenkes

Surabaya. Performance prism is a measurement

model that focuses more on stakeholders, while

ISO/IEC 25010 is a model of measuring system qual-

ity with international standards. This method should

be implemented for testing. This design produces in-

dicators that can be used as a reference for measuring

academic information systems and can later be used

as recommendations for improvement. The indicators

generated are based on the results of the interviews

and literature review. To produce more detailed indi-

cators, in-depth interviews with each stakeholder are

needed. As well as from the conceptual model pro-

duced it needs to be implemented and used to measure

the performance of information systems in future re-

search.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Mr. Apol Pribadi Subriadi

for explanation about performance measurement and

guidance to author in writing this article. I do appre-

ciate his professional instructions during writing this

research. I also thank you to Mr. Joko Suwito who

was the main informan from Poltekkes Kemenkes

Surabaya.

REFERENCES

Al Agani, M., Munadi, R., and Subianto, M. (2018). Evalu-

asi kinerja sistem informasi akademik menggunakan it

balanced scorecard pada universitas serambi mekkah

banda aceh. Jurnal Informatika Upgris, 4(1).

Arianto, E. and Partiwi, S. G. (2009). Analisa pengukuran

kinerja dengan menggunakan metode performance

prims (studi kasus: Pt petrokimia gresik). Jurnal Juru-

san Teknik Industri Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Novem-

ber Surabaya.

Delnoij, D. M., Rademakers, J. J., and Groenewegen, P. P.

(2010). The dutch consumer quality index: an exam-

ple of stakeholder involvement in indicator develop-

ment. BMC health services research, 10(1):88.

Farbey, B., Land, F., and Targett, D. (1999). Moving is

evaluation forward: learning themes and research is-

sues. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,

8(2):189–207.

Gelderman, M. (1998). The relation between user satisfac-

tion, usage of information systems and performance.

Information & management, 34(1):11–18.

Gentleman, W. M. (1997). If software quality is a percep-

tion, how do we measure it? In Quality of Numerical

Software, pages 32–43. Springer.

Gnan, L., Hinna, A., Monteduro, F., and Scarozza, D.

(2013). Corporate governance and management prac-

tices: stakeholder involvement, quality and sustain-

ability tools adoption. Journal of Management & Gov-

ernance, 17(4):907–937.

Govindaraju, R. Measuring the performance of information

system function.

urkut, C. and Nat, M. (2017). Important factors affect-

ing student information system quality and satisfac-

tion. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and

Technology Education 3/2018, 14:923–932.

Huda, D. N. (2017). Peningkatan kualitas sistem informasi

akademik dan keuangan berdasarkan webqual 4.0 dan

iso/iec 25010: Studi kasus sekolah tinggi teknologi

indonesia tanjungpinang. Jurnal Bangkit Indonesia,

6(2):1–1.

John, W. C. et al. (2009). Research design: Qualitative,

quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage

Publication.

Jun, S. (2011). Bmei 2011 - proceedings 2011 interna-

tional conference on business management and elec-

tronic information.

Lagsten, J. (2011). Evaluating information systems ac-

cording to stakeholders: A pragmatic perspective and

method. Electronic Journal of Information Systems

Evaluation, 14(1).

Lesmideyarti, D., Rochimah, S., and Yuhana, U. L. (2017).

Penyusunan dan pengujian metrik operabilitas untuk

sistem informasi akademik berdasarkan iso 25010.

Inspiration: Jurnal Teknologi Informasi dan Komu-

nikasi, 7(2):92–100.

Levin, R. I. and Kirkpatrick, C. A. (1971). Quantitative

approaches to management.

Designing Academic Information System Performance Measurement using Performance Prism and ISO/IEC 25010

217

Logsdon, J. M. and Lewellyn, P. G. (2000). Expanding ac-

countability to stakeholders: Trends and predictions.

Business and Society Review, 105(4):419–419.

LPTSI (2016). Layanan teknologi dan sistem informasi.

Neely, A., Adams, C., and Crowe, P. (2001). The perfor-

mance prism in practice. Measuring business excel-

lence.

Neely, A. D., Adams, C., and Kennerley, M. (2002). The

performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and

managing business success. Prentice Hall Financial

Times London.

Peppard, J. and Ward, J. (1999). ‘mind the gap’: diagnos-

ing the relationship between the it organisation and the

rest of the business. The Journal of Strategic Informa-

tion Systems, 8(1):29–60.

Ravichandran, T., Lertwongsatien, C., and Lertwongsatien,

C. (2005). Effect of information systems resources

and capabilities on ﬁrm performance: A resource-

based perspective. Journal of management informa-

tion systems, 21(4):237–276.

Riggs, J. L. (1981). Production systems: Planning, analysis

and control. Technical report.

Saaty, T. L. (2008). Relative measurement and its general-

ization in decision making why pairwise comparisons

are central in mathematics for the measurement of in-

tangible factors the analytic hierarchy/network pro-

cess. RACSAM-Revista de la Real Academia de Cien-

cias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matemati-

cas, 102(2):251–318.

Setiyawan, A., Purnama, B. E., et al. (2013). Pembuatan

sistem informasi akademik berbasis web pada sekolah

menengah atas negeri 1 ngadirojo. IJNS-Indonesian

Journal on Networking and Security, 4(3).

Smulowitz, S. (2015). Evidence for the performance prism

in higher education. Measuring Business Excellence.

Sprague Jr, R. H. and Carlson, E. D. (1982). Building effec-

tive decision support systems. Prentice Hall Profes-

sional Technical Reference.

Sugiyono, P. (2011). Metodologi penelitian kuantitatif kual-

itatif dan r&d. Alpabeta, Bandung.

Tausworthe, R. C. (1995). Software quality management

through process and product modeling. Annals of Soft-

ware Engineering, 1(1):119–139.

Vaidya, R., Myers, M. D., and Gardner, L. (2011). The

design–reality gap: The impact of stakeholder strate-

gies on is implementation in developing countries.

In IFIP International Working Conference on Gov-

ernance and Sustainability in Information Systems-

Managing the Transfer and Diffusion of IT, pages

119–134. Springer.

Yu, B. and Zhu, B. (2011). Design of performance evalu-

ation system for the informatization of chemical en-

terprise based on performance prism. In 2011 IEEE

3rd International Conference on Communication Soft-

ware and Networks, pages 394–396. IEEE.

Zhu, K. (2004). The complementarity of information

technology infrastructure and e-commerce capabil-

ity: A resource-based assessment of their business

value. Journal of management information systems,

21(1):167–202.

CONRIST 2019 - International Conferences on Information System and Technology

218