A semiotic information quality framework: Development and comparative analysis

Journal of Information Technology

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 88-102

  Price, Rosanne ^a   Shanks, Graeme ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Data quality; Decision support; Information quality; Semiotics

Indexed keywords

DATA ACQUISITION; DATA STORAGE EQUIPMENT; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; OPERATIONS RESEARCH; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

DATA QUALITY; DECISION SUPPORT; INFORMATION QUALITY; USERS;

SEMIOTICS;

EID: 20444443822     PISSN: 02683962     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000038     Document Type: Article

References (24)

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.
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.
3. Barnouw, E. (ed.) (1989). International Encyclopedia of Communications, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
5. English, L. (1999). Improving Data Warehouse and Business Information Quality, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
12. Krueger, R.A. (1994). Focus Groups: A practical guide for research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
14. Morris, C. (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs, in International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. 1, London: University of Chicago Press.
15. Pierce, C.S. (1931-1935). Collected Papers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
18. Redman, T.C. (1996). Data Quality for the Information Age, Boston, MA: Artech House.
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.
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.
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.
22. Wand, Y. and Wang, R.Y. (1996). Anchoring Data Quality Dimensions in Ontological Foundations, Communications of the ACM 39(11): 86-95.
23. Wand, Y. and Weber, R. (1995). On the Deep Structure of Information Systems, Information Systems Journal 5: 203-223.
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.