We characterized these studies in terms of their research approach, including
the number of requirements they specified and their level of granularity—in other
words, whether they were abstract variables like ‘‘appropriate technology’’ or
specific IS features like ‘‘drill down.’’ Our search revealed not only studies
identifying individual requirements (e.g., [26]), but also approaches using lists of
requirements (e.g., [38]), frameworks, and structural equation models (SEM). As a
result, these publications differ significantly. Frequently cited SEM are DeLone
and McLean’s [39] IS success mode and Venkatesh’s et al. [40] technology
acceptance model. Most of these references provide a rigorous understanding of
EIS requirements, but no direct guidance for EIS design [41].
Following Warmouth and Yen [42], we categorize our findings in terms of the
scope of information the requirements cover, bearing in mind the major developments
in corporate management from the preceding section, along with the EIS
functions and EIS user interface. We also add a new category, information management,
to cover how EIS handle relevant information flows. Table 1 shows the
most-cited EIS requirements we identified.
Although it is a mature field of research, our literature review reveals that the
study of EIS requirements analysis still has shortcomings. First, list approaches are
practical, but most often incomplete; second, the identified requirements need to