International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences © 2013 Available online at www.irjabs.com ISSN 2251-838X / Vol, 5 (1): 92-103 Science Explorer Publications

Identification and Prioritizing Criteria for Evaluation of Information Systems Quality Using ANP and

TOPSIS Techniques: A case study

Nasim Janahmadi1*, andVahidreza Mirabi2

1. Department of Information Technology Management, Electronic Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. 2. Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Management, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University,

Tehran, Iran.

* Corresponding Author:NasimJanahmadi

ABSTRACT:This work aims at identifying and prioritizing criteria for evaluation of information systems quality using ANP and TOPSIS techniques. This work is practical in terms of goal and it is descriptive – prescriptive type in terms of data collection. Statistical population includes all senior executives and experts involved in information systems in Rasht's private hospitals. All eligible people in information systems were selected because of limitation in population number. Data analysis was used using software ANP and TOPSIS. ANP determines major factors and TOPSIS specifies sub factors in each group. This work shows that there is significant relationship between evaluation criteria of information systems quality and functionally, portability, maintainability, functionally, usability and reliability of model ISO-9126.The highest priority was obtained using ANP method as follows: maintainability, portability, reliability, functionality, efficiency, usability. Key Words: quality, hospital information system, ANP, TOPSIS

INTRODUCTION

Contemporary economy cannot rely on natural resources anymore, and these resources are replaced by

wisdom based resources. Knowledge and information capital, known as implicit asset, is as important as material asset in achieving organization objectives and even it is more important (Olszak and Ziemba, 2003). Today labor environment where organizations are active is increasingly complicating and changing and organizations experience increasing pressure regardless of being private or public, thus they are forced to respond to changing conditions and act in a creative manner (Turban et al., 2008). About 75% of information systems may be regarded as failed systems. Considerable cost and time is spent for implementation of such systems, but organizations and firms cannot benefit from them. One of the most important factors for failure in information systems is lack of quality. When information systems lack appropriate quality, the system would not be able to solve the organization's problems and organization doesn't benefit from investment on information systems. If the quality of information systems is evaluated properly by the customer organizations and the organizations make sure about quality of information systems when purchasing and application of them, then a major part of problems would be solved.

Reasons for failure in implementing information systems may include technical, matters, human, environmental, organizational or managerial resources (Kim & Davidson, 2004). The related problems and issues in this regard may include user training and their resistance against changes, lack of appropriate understanding of skills and resources, poor management, lack of understanding and synchronization with modern technology, lack of senior management support, inadequate software evaluation, lack of consistency with organization strategy, lack of ability in measurement, evaluation and costs of information systems (Milis and Mercken, 2004).

Hospitals as one of main social organizations play a critical role in improvement of national health condition and medical service delivery, and characteristics and needs of hospitals are constantly changing due to operational information growth. Such changes direct hospitals to increasing reliance on computerized information systems. Information systems in hospitals reflect hospital system for managers and policy makers both in executive management and clinical management. The more transparent is this reflection using efficient and coherent

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 5 (1), 92-103, 2013

93

technology, the more transparent picture of the hospital land service delivery would be presented for managers and policy makers. Thus enhancement and improvement of hospital information system is considered as starting point for improvement of managerial abilities in health services in hospital. The main impact of hospital information system on quality of health and medical care quality is related to its role in increased attention to medical care based on medical standards. Information systems help that medical care is implemented based on its standards, and thus intractable care is prevented and medical errors are reduced. In addition, hospital systems cause increased efficiency in medical service delivery by reducing time of medical care in comparison with the time for medical service delivery as traditional manner. Information systems and especially hospital systems have given great promises in the field of service delivery. Unfortunately such promises have not been met yet. Since quality evaluation is an action for measurement and judgment of quality, identification of information system quality criteria helps organizations to have better understanding of their information systems quality considering organization's strategic direction (Kim and Davidson, 2004). In fact, in today labor environment which is highly competitive, understanding information systems impact on organizations' strategies and increased information systems cost, evaluation and adjustment and control of information systems quality has become important (Milis and Mercken, 2004). Thus, the major problem in this work is: "What are criteria for evaluation of information systems quality?"

Theoretical Background and Review of Literature Generally information systemsare systems which provide necessary information for decision making for users. Information system quality may be measured as real participation of a specific information system in achievement of the organizational goals. In information systems literature, information system quality may be measured by user satisfaction level. In addition, user satisfaction has been used for following cases: perceived need, system acceptance, perceived usefulness, user feelings about information system, information system perception and so on (Mahdavi, 2007). Despite of documentations showing improvement in control and efficiency of labor operation, some organizations are dissatisfied with their investments in information technology sector. Such dissatisfactions is somehow related to limited understanding about definition and evaluation of information system quality (Stewart and Mohamed, 2003; Stewart, 2007). According to definition of ISO/IEC 9126, quality model means a form which states relationship between different views on quality. In recent years many research works have been run in the field of standardization of quality features and its effective factors in success of software systems and various qualitative models have been proposed based on classification of such qualitative features, most of which are divided into hierarchical sections (Ruiz-Mercader et al., 2006). External quality mode in standard ISO/IEX 9126 was regarded as the basic model in this work.

Description of Model ISO/IEX 9126 as Research Model Considering urgent need of software industry for standardization of software evaluation, this model firstly was published by International ISO Standard in 1991, and it was modified and completed after about 1 decade in 2001 by ISO experts. This international standard at first level of the model, divides software product quality into 6 qualitative features which multiple sub features (Figure 1). ISO/IEC 9126evaluates characteristics of software product quality and provides necessary guidelines for its use. This standard defines 6 features of quality and describes a processing model for evaluation of software product. Since quality features and its related indices not only can be useful for evaluation of a software product, but also they can be used for definition of quality requirements and other factors. These 6 quality features include: Functionality: capability of the software for implementing tasks which meet explicit and implicit needs in defined conditions. This features includes 4 sub features: Suitability: capability of the software for providing appropriate operations for implementing defined tasks and user needs Accuracy: capability of the software for providing proper results and specified outputs based on software requirements Cooperation: capability of software interaction with one or more systems Security: capability of the software in preserving data and information so that other unauthorized people or systems are not able to read or change them, and authorized people are allowed to have access. Reliability: capability of the software in preserving specified efficiency under specific conditions. This feature includes 3 sub features. Maturity: capability of the software in preventing from failure in case of error

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 5 (1), 92-103, 2013

94

Error Tolerance: capability of the software in preserving specific efficiency in case of error in software or unauthorized copying of the software. In other words, system damage results from occurrence of error in software. Retrieval (reparability): capability of the software in regaining specified efficiency and repairing data which are hurt because of error occurrence Usability: level of understanding, learning and attraction for the user when using software product under specific condition. This feature includes 4 sub features: Comprehensibility: capability of the software in user ability for working with system and performing system tasks Ability to learn: capability of the software in enabling user for learning software applications Practicality (functional capability): capability of the software in enabling use for working with system and its control Attraction: attraction of the software for user. This feature can be measured by many criteria resulting from ideas of users, including color suitability in pages, system graphics and text match and appropriate arrangement of elements. Efficiency: capability of the software for providing appropriate efficiency considering consumed resources under specific conditions. Resources include other software, hardware and software configuration and setting and tools such as printing, diskettes, etc. this feature include 2 sub features: Temporal Behavior: capability of the software for providing appropriate processing and response time for implementing operations in stable conditions Utilization of Resources: capability of the software in proper and optimal use of resources in terms of size and type for implementing operations in specific conditions. Maintainability: capability of change in software including corrections, improvement or adaptation of the software with changes in environment, requirements and defined operational characteristics. This feature include 4 sub features: Analyzability: capability of detecting errors and problems of software or part of it which should be changed Changeability: capability of the software in implementing defined changes if the software is changed by the user. This feature influences capability of working with system. Stability: capability of the software for minimizing unpredicted impacts resulting from software changes Testability: capability of the software evaluation and Validation, so that user is able to track software and confirm changes. Portability: capability of the software for transferring from one environment to another. This feature include 4 sub features: Adaptability: capability of the software in adaptation with different defined environments without using additional tools and operations and in addition to what has been predicted in the software Capability of installation: capability of software installation in a specific environment Coexistence: capability of software for coexistence with other independent software in a shared environment and using share resources Capability of replacement (changeability): capability of software replacement instead of other defined software in the same environment and with the same objective.

Figure 1. Model ISO/IEC 9126

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 5 (1), 92-103, 2013

95

Research Background In this work, we dealt with identification and prioritizing criteria for quality evaluation of information systems using ANP and TOPSIS techniques. It was noted that limited works were available on identification and prioritizing criteria for quality evaluation of information systems in the organization and the limited available works didn’t cover total aspects and indices for evaluation of information systems quality in the organization. Jung (2007) run a work entitled "Confirmation of minor features of software product external quality according to model ISO/IEC 9126". Its main hypothesis was that minor features of external quality are related positively to user satisfaction. Its results indicated that the main factors affecting user satisfaction include: stability, suitability, comprehensibility, capability of cooperation, coexistence, and attraction. It also showed that minor features in external quality except security are related to user satisfaction positively. Molla-Mohammadi (2011) developed a model for evaluation of information and communication technology performance in the view of users. Identified evaluation aspects included: technology infrastructures, working processes, information, communication, security. Data analysis showed that information systems functioning is in an acceptable level in the view of users and working process, information, security and communication aspects are the top priorities and technology infrastructures are in the second priority. Ribeiro et al. (2010) provided a framework for evaluation of ICT performance which deal with integration of frameworks and aspects used for ICT evaluation which was provided previously by different models and authors. The aspects provided in this work include: 1. Organizational variables including relative advantage, technology innovation rate used by the organization, organization support for achieving goals, and organization support for achieving optimal results, 2. Security including (confidentiality, data integration, physical integration, accessibility, consistency, and stability), 3. Technical variables including (technical features, reliability, complexity, experience, environmental aspects, economic aspects). Results of the research indicated that regarding first sample, technical variables were evaluated at lower level versus security aspects and organizational variables. In the second sample, security variable was evaluated lower compared to other technical and organizational variables and in the third one, technical variables were evaluated high and other aspects were evaluated low. Methodology This work is considered as practical researches in terms of the objective and it is descriptive – prescriptive in terms of methodology. Statistical population includes all senior executives and experts involved in information systems in Rasht's private hospitals. All eligible people in information systems were selected because of limitation in population number. Data analysis was used using software ANP and TOPSIS. The tool used for data collection in this work was questionnaire. It was composed of two parts including items of ANP and TOPSIS techniques. It was based on 6 parts and 21 items about influence of effective criteria on information systems quality of hospitals in TOPSIS section. In the 2 section of the questionnaire, this work used items based on analysis of network process (ANP) concept for determining weight of 6 categories of the effective factors in hospital information systems quality. In addition, in order to insure content validity, since the questionnaires were provided according to factor identified in research background and opinions of experts, questionnaire validity is confirmed. Also considering error factor below 0.1, reliability is supported. Statistical analysis was done in descriptive and inferential analysis form and TOPSIS and Super-Decision software were used for data analysis.

Research Hypotheses There is priority in criteria for evaluation of information systems quality Sub- Research Hypotheses There is priority in criteria for evaluation of information systems quality considering usability of model ISO-9126 There is priority in criteria for evaluation of information systems quality considering reliability of model ISO-9126 There is priority in criteria for evaluation of information systems quality considering Portability of model ISO-9126 There is priority in criteria for evaluation of information systems quality considering maintainability of model ISO-9126 There is priority in criteria for evaluation of information systems quality considering functionality of model ISO-9126 There is priority in criteria for evaluation of information systems quality considering efficiency of model ISO-9126

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 5 (1), 92-103, 2013

96

Results Analysis and Findings In order to achieve research results, 10 experts were used. They included senior executives and experienced experts involved in information systems in private hospitals of Rasht. Results analysis is presented in the following.

Research Main Hypothesis: There is priority in criteria for evaluation of information systems quality. 6 major criteria including functionality, Portability, maintainability, efficiency, usability and reliability are rated. Results obtained using Super Decision is given in Table 1 and Figure 2.

Table 1. Geometric average matrix of paired comparisons for main factors by 10 experts Main factors of hospital information systems

Efficiency Functionality Maintainability Portability Reliability Usability Final Weight

Usability 3.75 2.98 3.42 2.06 3.27 1 0.06194 Reliability 0.86 0.79 1.30 1.05 1 0.1862 Portability 0.64 0.76 1.16 1 0.19187 Maintainability 0.52 0.46 1 0.25475 Functionality 0.73 1 0.1562 Efficiency 1 0.1489

Inconsistency= 0.01812

Figure 2. Rating factor influencing information systems quality

According to Table 1 and Figure 2: The highest priority is related to maintainability with normalized weight 0.25475. Portability with normalized weight 0.19187 is in the second priority. Reliability with normalized weight 0.1862 is in the next priority. Functionality with normalized weight 0.1562 is in the next priority. Efficicney with normalized weight 0.1489 is in the next priority. Usability with normalized weight 0.6194 is in the lowest priority. Generally priorities are close. In addition, inconsistency factor in comparisons is 0.01812 which is reliable since it is below 0.1. Sub- Hypothesis 1: There is priority in criteria for evaluation of information systems quality considering usability of model ISO-9126 Results of Super Decision software is given in Table 2 and Figure 3.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 5 (1), 92-103, 2013

97

Table 2. Geometric average matrix of comparisons of main factors in hospital information systems in terms of usability criterion

Main factors of hospital information systems

Efficiency Functionality Maintainability Portability Reliability Final Weight

Reliability 2.26 1.423 0.90 0.6896 1 0.215 Portability 2.5625 2.2 0.793650 1 1.45 0.274 Maintainability 2.477 1.4 1 1.26 1.1 0.259 Functionality 1.269863 1 0.7142 0.45454 0.702740 0.146 Efficiency 1 0.403714 0.787486 0.39024 0.4419 0.104

Inconsistency= 0.00935

Figure 3. Rating major factors influencing on information systems quality in terms of usability criterion

The highest rate in above vector is for Portability and the lowest rate is for efficiency. Sub-Hypothesis 2: There is priority in criteria for evaluation of information systems quality considering reliability of model ISO-9126 Table 3 indicates geometric average matrix for comparisons of major criteria of hospital information systems in terms of reliability.

Table 3. Geometric average matrix for comparisons of major criteria of hospital information systems in terms of reliability Main factors of hospital information systems

Efficiency Functionality Maintainability Portability Usability Final Weight

Usability 3.75 1.68 2.12 2.66 1 0.382 Portability 0.68 0.65 1.16 1 0.375 0.124 Maintainability 0.38 0.42 1 0.86 0.471 0.104 Functionality 0.66 1 2.37 1.51 0.595 0.188 Efficiency 1 1.5 2.6 1.46 0.26 0.199

Inconsistency =0.0583 The highest rate in above vector is for usability and the lowest rate is for maintainability. Sub-Hypothesis 3: There is priority in criteria for evaluation of information systems quality considering portability of model ISO-9126 Table 4 indicates geometric average matrix for comparisons of major criteria of hospital information systems in terms of portability.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 5 (1), 92-103, 2013

98

Figure 3. Rating major factors influencing on information systems quality in terms of reliability criterion

Table 4. Geometric average matrix for comparisons of major criteria of hospital information systems in terms of portability Main factors of hospital information systems

Efficiency Functionality Maintainability Reliability Usability Final Weight

Usability 0.36 0.33 0.45 0.44 1 0.0874 Reliability 2.6 1.26 0.46 1 2.27 0.225 Maintainability 2.82 2.1 1 2.15 2.22 0.349 Functionality 2.4 1 0.46 0.78 2.98 0.212 Efficiency 1 0.404 0.35 0.37 2.75 0.125

Inconsistency =0.06116

Figure 5. Rating major factors influencing on information systems quality in terms of portability criterion The highest rate in Figure 5 is for maintainability and the lowest rate is for usability. Sub- Hypothesis 4: There is priority in criteria for evaluation of information systems quality considering maintainability of model ISO-9126

00.05

0.10.15

0.20.25

0.30.35

0.4

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 5 (1), 92-103, 2013

99

Table 5 shows geometric average matrix for comparisons of major criteria of hospital information systems in terms of maintainability. Table 5. Geometric average matrix for comparisons of major criteria of hospital information systems in terms of maintainability

Main factors of hospital information systems

Efficiency Functionality Portability Reliability Usability Final Weight

Usability 0.266 0.335 0.406 0.44 1 0.08 Reliability 2.1 1.56 0.363 1 2.27 0.218 Portability 2.7 1.8 1 2.75 2.46 0.361 Functionality 1.36 1 0.55 0.63 2.98 0.183 Efficiency 1 0.73 0.36 0.46 3.75 0.155

Inconsistency =0.06765

Figure 6. Rating major factors influencing on information systems quality in terms of maintainabilitycriterion

Considering Figure 6, the highest rate is for portability and the lowest rate is for usability. Sub- Hypothesis 5: There is priority in criteria for evaluation of information systems quality considering functionality of model ISO-9126 Table 6 indicates geometric average matrix for comparisons of major criteria of hospital information systems in terms of functionality.

Table 6. Geometric average matrix for comparisons of major criteria of hospital information systems in terms of functionality Main factors of hospital information systems

Efficiency maintainability Portability Reliability Usability Final Weight

Usability 0.444 0.3424 0.39 0.315 1 0.0813 Reliability 2.562 0.769 0.74 1 3.17 0.249 Portability 1.56 0.602 1 1.35 2.56 0.23 maintainability 1.923 1 1.66 1.3 2.92 0.296 Efficiency 1 0.519 0.64 0.39 2.25 0.142

Inconsistency = 0.02218

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 5 (1), 92-103, 2013

100

Figure 7. Rating major factors influencing on information systems quality in terms of functionality criterion

Considering Figure 7, the highest rate is for maintainability and the lowest rate is for usability. Sub- Hypothesis 6: There is priority in criteria for evaluation of information systems quality considering efficiency of model ISO-9126. Table 7indicates geometric average matrix for comparisons of major criteria of hospital information systems in terms of efficiency.

Table 7. Geometric average matrix for comparisons of major criteria of hospital information systems in terms of efficiency Main factors of hospital information systems

Functionality Maintainability Portability Reliability Usability Final Weight

Usability 0.505 0.291 0.427 0.315 1 0.08342 Reliability 1.34 0.78 0.74 1 3.17 0.2205 Portability 1.141 0.684 1 1.35 2.34 0.2208 Maintainability 2.273 1 1.46 1.28 3.43 0.312 Functionality 1 0.439 0.875 0.741 1.98 0.163

Inconsistency =0.00965

Figure 8. Rating major factors influencing on information systems quality in terms of efficiency criterion

Considering Figure 8, the highest rate is for maintainability and the lowest rate is for usability. Finally obtained results were analyzed using TOPSIS software. Results are given in Table 8 and Figure 9.

Table 8. Final prioritization of sub factors influencing hospital information systems quality using TOPSIS

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

00.05

0.10.15

0.20.25

0.30.35

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 5 (1), 92-103, 2013

101

Sub Factor Priority Ordered

11

1

dd

d

Security 1 0.596163737 0.412409 Stability 2 0.587910613 0.37848 Resource utilization 3 0.429469735 0.386344 Temporal behavior 4 0.426294649 0.305161 Ability to learn 5 0.418820947 0.304629 Accuracy 6 0.418820947 0.3965 Adaptability 7 0.41240856 0.587911 Changeability 8 0.396500372 0.304629 Optimal Reliability 9 0.396500372 0.426295 Ability to cooperation 10 0.396500372 0.42947 Comprehensibility 11 0.388796245 0.388796 Suitability 12 0.388796245 0.418821 Ability to treatment 13 0.387023044 0.387023 Attraction 14 0.387023044 0.387023 Coexistence 15 0.386344409 0.377905 Capability of installation 16 0.378479612 0.304629 Optimal Usability 17 0.37790475 0.305161 Optimal portability 18 0.305160751 0.304629 Error tolerance 19 0.305160751 0.3965 Analyzability 20 0.304628775 0.388796 Testability 21 0.304628775 0.418821 Maturity 22 0.304628775 0.3965 Retrieval 23 0.304628775 0.596164

Figure 9. Final prioritization of sub factors influencing hospital information systems quality Investigation of Hypotheses and Recommendations H1: There is significant relationship between criteria for evaluation of information systems quality and functionality of model ISO-9126. Super Decision and TOPSIS software were used for testing above hypothesis. It was found that there is significant relationship between criteria for evaluation of information systems quality and functionality of model ISO-9126. Considering results of the test, the highest priority was related to maintainability and reliability, portability, efficiency and usability were put in the next places. Results of this hypothesis were consistent with results obtained by Jung (2007). Given the fact that maintainability had the highest priority for improvement of information system quality evaluation, it is recommended senior executives in hospitals pay more attention to indices related to capability of information maintenance. Thus special attention to this criterion prevents from data damage and loss over the time and developing a backup version of the data can also be suggested.

00.10.20.30.40.50.6

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 5 (1), 92-103, 2013

102

H2: There is significant relationship between evaluation criteria of information system quality and portability of model ISO-9126. Super Decision and TOPSIS software were used for testing the hypothesis. It was found there is significant relationship between evaluation criteria of information system quality and portability of model ISO-9126. Considering results of the test, the highest priority was related to maintainability and reliability, functionality, efficiency and usability were in the next places. Results of this hypothesis were consistent with results obtained by Jung (2007). Given the fact that maintainability had the highest priority for improvement of information system quality evaluation, it is recommended senior executives in hospitals pay more attention to indices related to capability of information maintenance. H3: There is significant relationship between evaluation criteria of information system quality and maintainability of model ISO-9126. Super Decision and TOPSIS software were used for testing the hypothesis. It was found there is significant relationship between evaluation criteria of information system quality and maintainability of model ISO-9126. Given the results, the highest priority was related to portability, and reliability, functionality, efficiency and usability were in the next places. Results of this hypothesis were consistent with results obtained by Jung (2007). Considering that portability criterion had the highest priority for improvement of information system quality evaluation, it is recommended senior executives in hospitals pay more attention to indices related to data portability criterion. Hence, data should be stored in tools which are transferable to other places easily and cheaply. H4: There is significant relationship between evaluation criteria of information system quality and efficiency of model ISO-9126. Super Decision and TOPSIS software were used for testing the hypothesis. It was found there is significant relationship between evaluation criteria of information system quality and efficiency of model ISO-9126. Considering results of the test, the highest priority was related to maintainability, and portability, reliability, functionality and usability were in the next places. Results were consistent with results obtained by Jung (2007). Given the fact that maintainability had the highest priority for improvement of information system quality evaluation, it is recommended senior executives in hospitals pay more attention to indices related to capability of information maintenance. Therefore, special attention to this criterion prevents from data loss over the time and also creating a backup version of data is suggested. H5: There is significant relationship between evaluation criteria of information system quality and usability of model ISO-9126. Super Decision and TOPSIS software were used for testing the hypothesis. It was found there is significant relationship between evaluation criteria of information system quality and usability of model ISO-9126. Considering results of the test, the highest priority was related to portability, and usability, reliability, functionality and efficiency criteria were in the next places. Results were consistent with results obtained by Jung (2007). Given the fact that portability had the highest priority for improvement of information system quality evaluation, it is recommended senior executives in hospitals pay more attention to indices related to portability criterion. Hence, data should be stored in tools which are transferable to other places easily and cheaply. H6: There is significant relationship between evaluation criteria of information system quality and reliability of model ISO-9126. Super Decision and TOPSIS software were used for testing the hypothesis. It was found there is significant relationship between evaluation criteria of information system quality and reliability of model ISO-9126. Considering results of the test, the highest priority was related to usability, and efficiency, functionality, portabilityand maintainabilitywere in the next places. Results of this hypothesis were consistent with results obtained by Jung (2007). Given the fact that usability criterion had the highest priority for improvement of information system quality evaluation, it is recommended senior executives in hospitals pay more attention to indices related data usability. So data should be provided optimally and comprehensibly for related people, and providing vague information which leads to contrast.

CONCLUSION Nowadays our country is in an important stage in turning information systems, almost in every organization, information systems projects spend considerable time and cost over what was predicted, and sometimes the completed systems do not act properly despite of all these cost and tomes. If such great investments could not meet final objective of the system users, then such systems would be regarded as failed ones. Recently medical centers in the country especially hospitals have attempted to mechanize information management systems. One major reason for failure of information systems in hospitals is lack of quality for them.

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 5 (1), 92-103, 2013

103

When information systems in hospital lack Adaptabilityquality, the system would not be able to solve hospital problems and satisfaction of the customers is not achieved. If the quality of information systems is properly evaluated by the hospital customers and the hospitals make sure about the quality when they purchase information systems and use them, then considerable part of such problems would be overcome. This work shows that there is significant relationship between evaluation criteria of information systems quality and functionally, portability, maintainability, functionally, usability and reliability of model ISO-9126. Considering limited works in the field of identification and prioritization of evaluation criteria for information systems quality, it is suggested dimensions and indices of this model using experts ideas are developed in future works and software with higher accuracy are used. Involvement of some factors in research results which were out of the author control, and limited access to experts were limitations of the work.

REFERENCES Hung SY, Ku CY, Chang CM.2005.E-government applications and user acceptance in Taiwan.Electronic Government Strategies and

Implementation, 421-440. Jung HW.2007. Validating the external quality subcharacteristics of software products according to ISO/IEC 9126.Computer Standards &

Interfaces, 29(6), 653-661. Kim CS, Davidson LF.2004. The effects of IT expenditures on banks’ business performance: Using a balanced scorecard approach. Managerial

Finance, 30(6), 28-45. Mahdavi A. 2007. "Designing evaluation model of information systems service quality based on genetic algorithms", Journal of Agricultural

Science and Technology, pp. 235-263 Milis K, Mercken R.2004.The use of the balanced scorecard for the evaluation of information and communication technology

projects.International Journal of Project Management, 22(2), 87-97. Molla-Mohammadi A. 2011. "Evaluation of information and communication technology performance Evaluation in the view of its users (case

study: Qom Agricultural Organization)," Master's thesis. Olszak CM, Ziemba E.2003.Business Intelligence as a Key to Management of an Enterprise.Informing Science Institute, Informing Science+

Information Technology Education, Pori, Finland. Ribeiro PCC, Scavarda AJ, Batalha MO.2010. RFID in the international cattle supply chain: context, consumer privacy and legislation.

International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 6(2), 149-164. Ruiz-Mercader J, Merono-Cerdan AL, Sabater-Sánchez R.2006. Information technology and learning: Their relationship and impact on

organisational performance in small businesses. International Journal of Information Management, 26(1), 16-29. Stewart RA, Mohamed S.2003. Evaluating the value IT adds to the process of project information management in construction. Automation in

Construction, 12(4), 407-417. Stewart RA.2007. IT enhanced project information management in construction: pathways to improved performance and strategic

competitiveness. Automation in Construction, 16(4), 511-517. Turban E, Sharda R, Aronson JE, King DN.2008.Business intelligence: a managerial approach. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.