Journal of Information Technology

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 88–102 | Cite as

A semiotic information quality framework: development and comparative analysis

Research Article

Abstract

An organization depends on quality information for effective operations and decision-making. However, there is still no agreement as to how quality should be defined in terms of specific quality categories and criteria. Proposed information quality frameworks have limitations with respect to either consistency, resulting from a non-theoretical approach to framework development, or scope, considering only objective but not subjective information quality perspectives. In this paper, we describe a unique research approach to framework development that addresses these problems and compare it to those used previously for other frameworks. Semiotic theory, the philosophical theory of signs, is used to ensure rigor and scope. It provides a theoretical basis for framework structure – quality categories and their criteria – and for integrating objective and subjective quality views. Empirical refinement based on academic, practitioner, and end-user focus groups is then used to ensure relevance.

Keywords

information quality data quality semiotics decision support 

References

  1. Ballou, D., Wang, R.Y., Pazer, H. and Tayi, G.K. (1998). Modeling Information Manufacturing Systems to Determine Information Product Quality, Journal of Management Science 44(4): 462–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, S.J. and Vidgen, R.T. (2002). An Integrative Approach to the Assessment of e-Commerce Quality, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 3(3): 114–127.Google Scholar
  3. Barnouw, E. (ed.) (1989). International Encyclopedia of Communications, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of Information System Success: A ten-year update, Journal of Management Information Systems 19(4): 9–30.Google Scholar
  5. English, L. (1999). Improving Data Warehouse and Business Information Quality, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Eppler, M.J. (2001). The Concept of Information Quality: An interdisciplinary evaluation of recent information quality frameworks, Studies in Communication Sciences 1: 167–182.Google Scholar
  7. Gendron, M. and Shanks, G. (2003). The Categorical Information Quality Framework (CIQF): A critical assessment and replication study, in Proceedings of the Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems, (Adelaide, Australia, 2003), Adelaide, South Australia: University of South Australia, 1–13.Google Scholar
  8. Kahn, B.K., Strong, D.M. and Wang, R.Y. (1997). A Model for Delivering Quality Information as Product and Service, in Proceedings of Conference on Information Quality, (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997), Cambridge, MA, USA: Massachussets Institute of Technology, 80–94.Google Scholar
  9. Kahn, B.K., Strong, D.M. and Wang, R.Y. (2002). Information Quality Benchmarks: Product and service performance, Communications of the ACM 45(4): 184–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krogstie, J. (2001). A Semiotic Approach to Quality in Requirements Specifications, in: Proceedings of IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on Organizational Semiotics, (Montreal, Canada 2001), London: Chapman and Hall, 231–249.Google Scholar
  11. Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I. and Sindre, G. (1995). Defining Quality Aspects for Conceptual Models, in Proceedings of IFIP8.1 working conference on Information Systems Concepts (ISCO3): Towards a consolidation of views, (Marburg, Germany, 1995), Berlin: Springer, 216–231.Google Scholar
  12. Krueger, R.A. (1994). Focus Groups: A practical guide for research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Lee, Y.W., Strong, D.M., Kahn, B.K. and Wang, R.Y. (2002). AIMQ: A methodology for information quality assessment, Information and Management 40: 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Morris, C. (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs, in International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. 1, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Pierce, C.S. (1931–1935). Collected Papers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Price, R. and Shanks, G. (2004). A Semiotic Information Quality Framework, in Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Decision Support Systems (DSS2004), (Prato, Italy, 2004), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Monash University, 658–672.Google Scholar
  17. Price, R. and Shanks, G. (2005). Empirical Refinement of a Semiotic Information Quality Framework, in Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS38), (Big Island, Hawaii, USA, 2005); Silver Spring, MD: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1–10.Google Scholar
  18. Redman, T.C. (1996). Data Quality for the Information Age, Boston, MA: Artech House.Google Scholar
  19. Shanks, G. and Darke, P. (1998). Understanding Data Quality in Data Warehousing: A semiotic approach, in Proceedings of the MIT Conference on Information Quality, (Boston, MA, USA, 1998), Cambridge, MA, USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 247–264.Google Scholar
  20. Straub, D., Boudreau, M.C. and Gefen, D. (2004). Validation Guidelines of IS Positivist Research, Communications of the Association for Information Systems 13: 380–426.Google Scholar
  21. Stamper, R. (1991). The Semiotic Framework for Information Systems Research, in: Nissen H, Klein H and Hirschheim R (eds.) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  22. Wand, Y. and Wang, R.Y. (1996). Anchoring Data Quality Dimensions in Ontological Foundations, Communications of the ACM 39(11): 86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wand, Y. and Weber, R. (1995). On the Deep Structure of Information Systems, Information Systems Journal 5: 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang, R.Y. and Strong, D.M. (1996). Beyond Accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers, Journal of Management Information Systems 12(4): 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Information Technology Trust 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information Technology, Monash UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations