ISD efficiency (α = 0.84 (MIS direc

ISD efficiency (α = 0.84 (MIS director) and 0.75 (client department manager); respondents: both MIS director and client department manager) was measured in terms of percentage overrun (or under-run) relative to the originally planned level in the project’s budget, schedule, and development and programming effort for the IT respondent. This percentage deviation measures inefficiency, requiring the construct sign to be reversed to capture ISD efficiency. The client respondent provided an assessment of the project on these three facets of efficiency using a seven-point Likert scale with the following anchors: much worse, as planned, and much better. This approach was used because the client managers might not have access to precise information about overruns or overruns as percentages of the originally planned level of programming effort.

結果 (繁體中文) 1:

ISD 效率 (α = 0.84 (MIS 主任) 和 0.75 (客戶部經理); 受訪者: MIS 總監和客戶部經理) 衡量溢出的百分比 (或不足)，最初計畫在專案的預算、 日程和發展和為 IT 答辯人程式設計工作水準。此百分比偏差的措施效率低下，需要構造示意反轉，以捕獲 ISD 效率。用戶端答辯人提供專案的評估上的效率與以下錨使用七點 Likert 範圍這些三個方面: 變得更糟，計畫，和好得多。這種方法因為客戶經理可能無法訪問有關超支或超支的最初計畫的程式設計工作量級別百分比的精確資訊。

結果 (繁體中文) 2:

ISD效率（α= 0.84（MIS主管）和0.75（客戶部經理）;回答者：既有MIS總監兼客戶部經理）測量百分比溢出方面（或在運行），相對於原計劃水平，在項目的預算，進度，開發和編程工作的IT受訪者。這個比例差衡量效率低下，需要構建標誌被逆轉捕捉ISD效率。更糟糕的，是有計劃，有更好的：以7點李克特量表具有以下錨的客戶端申請人提供的項目的評估效率這三個方面。這種方法被使用，因為客戶經理可能沒有獲得關於超支或超支的編程工作的原計劃水平的百分比的準確信息。