5.2. LimitationsFour limitations of

5.2. Limitations
Four limitations of the study should be considered.
First, the study used IT unit informants to assess their business application domain knowledge and their client’s technical knowledge. Since there is a realistic possibility that they might overestimate the former and underestimate the latter, the results should be interpreted with caution.
Second, the DCR effectiveness measure assumed that client departments had the greater responsibility for exercising DCRs. (No such assumption was
made in the DMR exercise effectiveness measures.)
This assumption fails to fully account for self control through which IT departments also share some of this responsibility. This assumption does not severely threaten the findings because self control has been found to be used only to a limited degree, and its relationship with performance remains empirically untested. However, caution is warranted in asserting that the client department exercised DCRs because the average value of DCR decentralization is 3.76, which suggests that they are close to the midpoint of the scale but skewed slightly towards IT. It is plausible that this skewing arises from the use of IS directors as the primary informants.
Third, the model explained 13.8% of the variance in ISD effectiveness but only 6.4% in ISD efficiency (i.e.,

結果 (繁體中文) 1:

5.2. LimitationsFour limitations of the study should be considered.First, the study used IT unit informants to assess their business application domain knowledge and their client’s technical knowledge. Since there is a realistic possibility that they might overestimate the former and underestimate the latter, the results should be interpreted with caution.Second, the DCR effectiveness measure assumed that client departments had the greater responsibility for exercising DCRs. (No such assumption wasmade in the DMR exercise effectiveness measures.)This assumption fails to fully account for self control through which IT departments also share some of this responsibility. This assumption does not severely threaten the findings because self control has been found to be used only to a limited degree, and its relationship with performance remains empirically untested. However, caution is warranted in asserting that the client department exercised DCRs because the average value of DCR decentralization is 3.76, which suggests that they are close to the midpoint of the scale but skewed slightly towards IT. It is plausible that this skewing arises from the use of IS directors as the primary informants.Third, the model explained 13.8% of the variance in ISD effectiveness but only 6.4% in ISD efficiency (i.e., <10%) beyond the controls, although these &R2 values were significant. The smaller &R2 for ISD efficiency therefore should be viewed as a limitation of the study.Fourth, projects in the study were relatively small (40 person-months, on average). This might partially account for why both classes of decision rights in the sample leaned slightly towards IT. Although the most visible IT project failures studies have focused on large, mega projects, the majority of the routine development work in organizations encompasses smaller projects.

結果 (繁體中文) 2:

5.2。限制
這項研究的四個限制，應考慮。
首先，研究中使用的IT設備舉報人評估其商業應用領域的知識和他們的客戶的技術知識。既然有一個現實的可能性，他們可能高估前者而輕視後者，結果應謹慎解讀，
二，DCR有效性的措施假定客戶部門有行使DCRS更大的責任。（沒有這樣的假設是
取得了DMR鍛煉效果的措施。）
這個假設不能完全解釋自我控制，通過它的IT部門也分享一些這方面的責任。這種假設並不嚴重威脅的結論，因為自我控制已被發現僅用於在有限的程度，及其與績效的關係仍然是經驗性檢驗。然而，謹慎是必要的斷言委託部門行使DCRS因為DCR分權的平均值為3.76，這表明它們已經接近規模的中點，但對稍微傾斜。這是合理的這個偏移起因於使用是導演作為主要信息提供。
第三，該模型在ISD有效性解釋13.8％的方差，但只有6.4在ISD效率％（即，<10％）之外的控制，雖然這些和R2值分別為顯著。較小和R2為ISD效率因此應被視為本研究。的限制
第四，在研究中的項目相對較小（40人月，平均）。這可能部分解釋為什麼這兩類樣本中決策權稍稍向IT俯身。雖然最明顯的IT項目失敗的研究都集中在大型，超大型項目，大多數組織中的日常開發工作，包括較小的項目。

結果 (繁體中文) 3:

5.2。研究的局限性應該考慮四個方面的問題：首先，研究使用它的組織告密來評估他們的業務應用領域知識和客戶的科技知識。由於有一個現實的可能性，他們可能高估了前者和低估後者，結果應謹慎解釋，DCR效果度量假定客戶部門行使本有更大的責任。（沒有這樣的假設是
在DMR鍛煉效果的措施。
了）這個假設不能完全說明自我控制通過該部門也分擔一些責任。這種假設並不嚴重威脅的結果因為自我控制已經被發現使用只能在有限的程度，及其與效能的關係仍然憑經驗未經考驗的。然而，謹慎是說客戶部門行使本因為DCR分權的平均值是3.76保證，這表明它們是接近的中點的規模，但稍微偏向於它。這是合理的，這種現象出現的使用是董事會作為主要的線人。
第三，該模型解釋了13.8%的變異在ISD的效果但在ISD效率只有6.4%（即，< 10%）超出控制，雖然這些&R2值均顯著。小&R2 ISD效率，囙此應該被視為一個限制的研究。
第四，在研究專案相對較小（40人月，平均）。這可能部分解釋為什麼這兩個類別的樣本中的決策權傾向於它。雖然最明顯的項目失敗的研究都集中在大型，大型項目，在組織中的大多數常規發展工作包括較小的項目。