The Information and Communications Technology (ICT) evaluation literature spans several decades. ICT evaluation approaches range from objective and positivistic to subjective and interpretive. While positivistic approaches have dominated the past, there is increasing recognition of the value of interpretivist methods and the need for ongoing project evaluation. Formative continuous participative evaluation (CPE) offers several benefits in terms of project control, enhanced stakeholder relationships and benefit realisation; nonetheless this is often ignored in practice. There is a paucity of ICT evaluation within the Higher Education sector. The 14 Irish Institutes of Technology (IoTs) recently underwent an extensive transformation of their ICT systems, through a nationwide implementation of a suite of integrated IS. This research study, centred on the evaluation of the Student MIS implementation was interpretive in nature; case studies were conducted in five IoTs. This paper focuses specifically on one issue uncovered through the research i.e. the misalignment between the Student MIS and the IoTs requirements. The paper proposes a set of guidelines for addressing this issue through focusing on the theoretical underpinnings of CPE and its importance for organisational learning and benefit realisation.
C. Miskelly, A. Moggridge, C. Stephenson, and M. Williams, “Formative and interpretive approaches to the evaluation of community focused web-fronted projects,” Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Academic Conferences, Reading, pp. 281–288, 11– 12 November, 2004.
A. Roudsari, E. J. Berridge, M. Vodel, and E. Carson, “Design and evaluation of ICT-based patient information systems to support the management of chronic diseases,” Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation, Madrid, Spain, MCIL, Read- ing, pp. 547–556, 25–26 September, 2003.
N. Shiratuddin and M. Landoni, “Evaluation of content activities in children’s educational software,” Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation, Oxford, United Kingdom, MCIL, Reading, pp. 79–87, 17–18 September, 2001.
M. Gemmell and R. Pagano, “A post-implementation evaluation of a student information system in the UK higher education sector,” Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2003.
N. Doherty and L. McAulay, “The relationship between the ex ante and ex post information systems evaluation: Reflections from the literature and the practice of evaluating e-commerce investments,” Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Information Technology Eva- luation, Paris, France, MCIL, Reading, pp. 129–136, 15–16 July, 2002.
E. Berghout and M. Nijland, “Full lifecycle management and the IT management paradox,” In Remenyi, D. and Brown, A. (eds.), Make or Break Issues in IT Management, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 77–107, 2002.
N. Doherty and M. King, “The treatment of organisational issues in systems development projects: The implications for the evaluation of information technology investments,” Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2001.
B. Farbey, F. Land, and D. Targett, “Evaluating investments in IT: Findings and a framework,” In Willcocks, L.P. and Lester, S. (eds.), Beyond the IT Productivity Paradox, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 183–215, 1999.
L. P. Willcocks, G. Fitzgerald, and M. Lacity, “To outsource IT or not? Research on economics and evaluation practice,” In Willcocks, L. P. and Lester, S. (eds.), Beyond the IT Productivity Paradox. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 293–333, 1999.
C. E. Hillam and H. M. Edwards, “A case study approach to evaluation of Information Technology/Information Systems (IT/IS) investment evaluation processes within SMEs,” Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2001.
H. Saastamoinen, “Exception-based approach for information systems evaluation: The method and its benefits to information systems management,” Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 51–60, 2005.