Information Technology Management Based From Technology Component Contribution Assessment On Academic Information System: A Case Study
Keywords:
technometric, technoware, humanware, inforware, orgaware, information systemAbstract
This study evaluates the academic information system at ITENAS using the Technology Contribution Coefficient (TCC) approach. The TCC values based on perceptions of lecturers, staff, and students were 0.718, 0.713, and 0.690, respectively. While staff and lecturers viewed the system as modern and effective, students perceived it as only moderately effective. This perception gap is primarily attributed to deficiencies in the Inforware component, especially in documentation quality and accessibility. Moreover, the low contribution intensities of Inforware (0.116) and Orgaware (0.081) reflect their underappreciated strategic role by the institution’s technical task unit. To address these issues, improvement strategies must begin with a comprehensive usability evaluation, focusing on learnability, efficiency, memorability, effectiveness, and satisfaction. Emphasis is placed on the development of better supporting documentation, such as SOPs and work instructions (WIs), using participatory design methods. Tools like storyboards—developed through Hierarchical Task Analysis—can enhance users’ understanding and engagement. These approaches strengthen the Humanware aspect by aligning user needs with system functionality.Improving Orgaware maturity through usability testing and refining system documentation is expected to indirectly enhance Humanware performance. This study recommends future research to assist the technical task unit in conducting usability assessments and redesigning the system through a human-centered, participatory design approach to ensure sustainable and user-driven improvements.
References
P. P. Senna, A. C. Barros, J. Bonnin Roca, and A. Azevedo, “Development of a digital maturity model for Industry 4.0 based on the technology-organization-environment framework,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 185, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2023.109645.
A. Padovano, C. Sammarco, N. Balakera, and F. Konstantinidis, “Towards sustainable cognitive digital twins: A portfolio management tool for waste mitigation,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 198, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2024.110715.
S. Mitić, M. Nikolić, J. Jankov, J. Vukonjanski, and E. Terek, “The impact of information technologies on communication satisfaction and organizational learning in companies in Serbia,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 76, pp. 87–101, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.012.
S. Kheybari, F. M. Rezaie, S. A. Naji, M. Javdanmehr, and J. Rezaei, “Evaluation of factors contributing to the failure of information systems in public universities: The case of Iran,” Inf. Syst., vol. 92, p. 101534, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.is.2020.101534.
H. Hessari and F. Daneshmandi, “Investigating the Eff ect of Technostress on the Perceived Organizational Commitment by Mediating Role of Individual Innovation,” Nov. 2023. Accessed: Jul. 23, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.07806
UNESCAP, A Framework For Technology-Based Development Technology Content Assessment. United Nations Economic And Social Commission For Asia and The Pacifi c, 1989.
S. Cyfert, W. Dyduch, W. Szumowski, and G. Prause, “Are we ready for digital transformation? The role of organizational culture, leadership and competence in building digital advantage,” Central European Management Journal, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 219–231, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1108/CEMJ-11-2024-0346.
Saiful Bahry, Farrah Diana, M. Masrom, and M. N. Masrek, “Measuring validity and reliability of website credibility factors in infl uencing user engagement questionnaire,” International Journal of Web Information Systems, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 18–28, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1108/IJWIS-08-2020-0050.
B. Ghadrdoost et al., “Validity and reliability of a virtual education satisfaction questionnaire from the perspective of cardiology residents during the COVID-19 pandemic,” J. Educ. Health Promot., vol. 10, no. 1, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_32_21.
A. A. Rumanti and V. Hadisurya, “Analysis of Innovation based on Technometric Model to Predict Technology Life Cycle in Indonesian SME,” International Journal of Innovation in Enterprise System, vol. 1, no. 01, pp. 29–36, 2017, doi: 10.25124/ijies.v1i01.7.
S. Criollo-C, M. González-Rodríguez, A. Guerrero-Arias, L. F. Urquiza-Aguiar, and S. Luján-Mora, “A Review of Emerging Technologies and Their Acceptance in Higher Education,” Educ. Sci. (Basel)., vol. 14, no. 1, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14010010.
I. Haff ke, B. Kalgovas, and A. Benlian, “The transformative role of bimodal IT in an era of digital business,” Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 2017-Janua, pp. 5460–5469, 2017, doi: 10.24251/hicss.2017.660.
E. Martínez-Caro, J. G. Cegarra-Navarro, and F. J. Alfonso-Ruiz, “Digital technologies and fi rm performance: The role of digital organisational culture,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 154, no. June 2019, p. 119962, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119962.
I. Outoukarte, S. Ben Fares, H. Itouni, K. K. Rassou, and A. Tahiri, “Distance learning in the wake of COVID-19 in Morocco,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 6, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16523.
A. M. Elkaseh, K. W. Wong, and C. C. Fung, “Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness of Social Media for e-Learning in Libyan Higher Education: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis,” International Journal of Information and Education Technology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 192–199, 2016, doi: 10.7763/ijiet.2016.v6.683.
A. Ali, H. C. Murphy, and S. Nadkarni, “Hospitality students’ perceptions of digital tools for learning and sustainable development,” J. Hosp. Leis. Sport Tour. Educ., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2014.02.001.
H. Baber, “Modelling the acceptance of e-learning during the pandemic of COVID-19-A study of South Korea,” International Journal of Management Education, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 100503, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100503.
I. L. Nunes, “Ergonomics and Usability – key factors in Knowledge Society,” Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, vol. 2, no. June, pp. 87–94, 2006.
O. S. I. Fayomi, I. G. Akande, V. Essien, A. Asaolu, and U. C. Esse, “Advances in Concepts of Ergonomics with Recent Industrial Revolution,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 1107, no. 1, p. 012010, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1757-899x/1107/1/012010.
J. Sauer, K. Seibel, and B. Rüttinger, “The infl uence of user expertise and prototype fi delity in usability tests,” Appl. Ergon., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 130–140, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2009.06.003.
“ISO 9241-11,” 1998. [Online]. Available: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/c4f936de-9ec3-4eae-91ee-
W. M. A. F. W. Hamzah, N. Haji, Md. Yazid Mohd Saman, Mohd Hafi z Yusoff , and Azliza Yacob, “Infl uence of Gamifi cation on Students ’ Motivation in using E-Learning Applications Based on the Motivational Design Model,” Inernational Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 30–34, 2015.
J. Keller and K. Suzuki, “Learner motivation and E-learning design: A multinationally validated process,” Journal of Educational Media, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 229–239, 2004, doi: 10.1080/1358165042000283084.
J. Küsel and S. Markic, “Participatory Action Research in the Development of Higher Education with Digital Media,” Action Research and Innovation in Science Education, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 7–12, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.51724/arise.55.
K. Holtzblatt and H. Beyer, Storyboards. 2017. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-800894-2.00013-2.
M. Coenraad, D. Weintrop, D. Eatinger, J. Palmer, and D. Franklin, “Identifying spheres of infl uence for a culturally relevant computing curriculum through participatory design,” Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, CSCL, vol. 2, pp. 815–816, 2020.
