Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T07:48:32.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF STRATEGIC DASHBOARDS THROUGH THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL

Part of: Design Organisation and Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

J.-M. Vasnier ,
N. Maranzana ,
M. Messaadia  and
A. Aoussat
J.-M. Vasnier*
Affiliation:
CESI - Lineact, France
N. Maranzana
Affiliation:
Arts et Métiers ParisTech, France
M. Messaadia
Affiliation:
CESI - Lineact, France
A. Aoussat
Affiliation:
Arts et Métiers ParisTech, France
*
*jmvasnier@cesi.fr

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the age of the fourth industrial revolution, the competition between enterprises is fierce to operate efficiently and hold on to their customers. Due to lack of time and methodology, many leaders struggle to establish optimized strategies for their businesses. To do so, the key processes need to be measured using dashboards that proactively help decisions making, facilitate the strategy execution and keep the employees focused. The purpose of this article is to identify the design features of a risk analysis dashboard and their effects on the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness.

Keywords

small and medium size enterprise (SME)case studyvisualisationstrategic dashboardtechnology acceptance model (TAM)
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 777 - 786
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Abduldaem, A. and Gravell, A. (2019), “Principles for the Design and Development of Dashboards: Literature Review”, Proceedings of INTCESS 2019 - 6th International Conference on Education and Social Sciences, 4-6 February 2019, Dubai.Google Scholar
Bititci, U., Cocca, P. and Ates, A. (2016), “Impact of visual performance management systems on the performance management practices of organisations”, Int. J. Prod. Res, Vol. 54, pp. 1571–1593. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1005770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandy, A. et al. (2017), “Proposal for a new usability index for product design teams and general public”, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), Vol. 8, Human Behaviour in Design, Vancouver, Canada, 21-25.08.2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820310001617711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chin, W.W. (2010), Bootstrap cross-validation indices for PLS path model assessment, Esposito Vinzi, V. et al. (eds.) Handbook of Partial Least Squares, pp. 83–97, Springer Handbooks. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_4Google Scholar
Coulibaly, A.D. (2004), “La défaillance des PME belges: Analyse des déterminants et modélisation statistique” No. 437, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Presses univ. de Louvain.Google Scholar
Cox, L.A. Jr. (2008), “What's wrong with risk matrices?”, Risk Analyis, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.xGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2006), “Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckerson, W.W. (2011), Performance Dashboards: Measuring, Monitoring, and Managing Your Business, Second Ed., John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119199984Google Scholar
Gimbert, X., Bisbe, J. and Mendoza, X. (2010), “The Role of Performance Measurement Systems in Strategy Formulation Processes”, Long range Planning, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 477–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, R.M. (2016), Contemporary strategy analysis, Text and cases edition, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janes, A., Sillitti, A. and Succi, G. (2013), “Effective dashboard design”, Cutter IT Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 17–24.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), “Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74, Jan-Feb 1996, pp. 75-85. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2016.411004Google Scholar
Louw, L. and Radder, L. (1998), “The SPACE Matrix: A Tool for Calibrating Competition”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-6301(98)80048-4Google Scholar
Marcoulides, G.A. and Saunders, C. (2006), “Editor's comments – PLS: A Silver Bullet?”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. iii-ix. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148727Google Scholar
Rahman, A.A., Adamu, Y.B. and Harun, P. (2017), “Review on dashboard application from managerial perspective”, In 2017 International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS), IEEE, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/icriis.2017.8002461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty, T.L. (2008), “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process”, International journal of services sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijssci.2008.017590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholtz, B., Mahmud, I. and Ramayah, T. (2016), “Does usability matter? An analysis of the impact of usability on technology acceptance in ERP settings”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, Vol. 11, pp. 309–330. https://doi.org/10.28945/3591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sukumar, A., Edgar, D. and Grant, K. (2011), “An investigation of e-business risks in UK SMEs, World Review of Entrepreneurship”, Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 380–401. https://doi.org/10.1504/wremsd.2011.042892Google Scholar
Surendran, P. (2012), “Technology acceptance model: A survey of literature”, International Journal of Business and Social Research (IJBSR), Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 175–178. https://doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v2i4.161Google Scholar
Tezel, A., Koskela, L. and Tzortzopoulos, P. (2016), “Visual management in production management: a literature synthesis”, Journal of manufacturing technology management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 766–799. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-08-2015-0071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasnier, J.M. et al. (2019), “Efficient identification model of strategic key dimensions in SMEs”, Proceedings of the International conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Mangement, Dubai, March 10-13, 2019. (To be published)Google Scholar
Velcu-Laitinen, O. and Yigitbasioglu, O.M. (2012), “The Use of Dashboards in Performance Management: Evidence from Sales Managers”, International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, Vol. 12, pp. 36–58. https://doi.org/10.4192/1577-8517-v12_2Google Scholar
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (1996), “A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 451–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb01822.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yigitbasioglu, O.M. and Velcu, O. (2012), “A review of dashboards in performance management: Implications for design and research”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2011.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar