Research on information systems failures and successes: status update and future directions

Information systems success and failure are among the most prominent streams in IS research. Explanations of why some IS fulfill their expectations, whereas others fail, are complex and multi-factorial. Despite the efforts to understand the underlying factors, the IS failure rate remains stubbornly high. A Panel session was held at the IFIP Working Group 8.6 conference in Bangalore in 2013 which forms the subject of this Special Issue. Its aim was to reflect on the need for new perspectives and research directions, to provide insights and further guidance for managers on factors enabling IS success and avoiding IS failure. Several key issues emerged, such as the need to study problems from multiple perspectives, to move beyond narrow considerations of the IT artifact, and to venture into underexplored organizational contexts, such as the public sector. © 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

“Real impact”: challenges and opportunities in bridging the gap between research and practice – making a difference in industry, policy, and society

Achieving impact from academic research is a challenging, complex, multifaceted, and interconnected topic with a number of competing priorities and key performance indicators driving the extent and reach of meaningful and measurable benefits from research. Academic researchers are incentivised to publish their research in high-ranking journals and academic conferences but also to demonstrate the impact of their outputs through metrics such as citation counts, altmetrics, policy and practice impacts, and demonstrable institutional decision-making influence. However, academic research has been criticized for: its theoretical emphasis, high degree of complexity, jargon-heavy language, disconnect from industry and societal needs, overly complex and lengthy publishing timeframe, and misalignment between academic and industry objectives. Initiatives such as collaborative research projects and technology transfer offices have attempted to deliver meaningful impact, but significant barriers remain in the identification and evaluation of tangible impact from academic research. This editorial focusses on these aspects to deliver a multi-expert perspective on impact by developing an agenda to deliver more meaningful and demonstrable change to how “impact” can be conceptualized and measured to better align with the aims of academia, industry, and wider society. We present the 4D model - Design, Deliver, Disseminate, and Demonstrate - to provide a structured approach for academia to better align research endeavors with practice and deliver meaningful, tangible benefits to stakeholders.</p