A Framework on the Factors Affecting to the Implementation of Management
Information Systems to Support Educational Institutions: A Review of the Literature
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a conceptual framework of the
factors affecting to the implementation of
management information systems (MIS) to support
educational institutions and the methodology of this
study was a systematic in-depth literature review
indicated adoption factors that could have impacts.
Articles were selected from two databases such as
Google and Google Scholar. The aim of this study
was achieved by identifying factors that affect the
implementation of the MIS in order to support
educational organizations. The finding of the study is
a conceptual framework and it shows that three main
factors, namely, technological factors, organizational
factors, and the people factors that affects to the
implementation of MIS to support educational
institutions. Finally, this framework will assist in
creating an awareness of the factors that incorporated
at academic institutions.
KEYWORDS
Educational Institutions, Factors, Framework,
Management Information Systems
1 INTRODUCTION
Management Information Systems (MIS) is a
system that converts data into information and it
communicates in an appropriate form for all
levels of managers in educational organizations
(Patterson, 2005). It is a collection of manpower,
tools, procedures and software that performs a
different task with a different level of
organizations (Tripathi, 2011). The physical
layout of organizations has changed due to MIS
since it can accommodate local networks and
departmental integrated systems. MIS is a
formalized procedure in order to provide
management at all levels and in all the different
functions to make very efficient, effective for
planning, directing, evaluating, and controlling
activities for which they are accountable
(Munirat et al., 2014). The use of MIS has
become very important for educational
institutions in terms of facilitating work
procedures and improve efficiency and
productivity and improve the performance as a
general. In addition, MIS can provide useful
information timeously, can improve the labor
productivity, cost savings, and provide
information without mistakes and delays and
finally to improve the management work (Al-
Mamary et al., 2014). According to Villanueva
(2003:5), “Educational management information
system is an organized group of information and
documentation services that collects, stores,
processes analyzes and disseminates information
for educational planning and management”.
Nath and Badgujar (2013) stated that MIS
provides several benefits to educational
institutions such as to come out with appropriate
responses in an organization; effective and
efficient coordination with different departments
in the organization; relevant data and document
access; use of less labor; organizational and
departmental technique improvement; and the
management of day-to day activities. Babu and
Sekhar (2012) argued the main purpose of MIS
is to help educational organizations to achieve
goals by providing managers with insight into
regular operations for organizations that allows
controlling, to organize, and to plan more
efficiently and more effectively. According to
O’Brien (1999), in educational institutions, MIS
is used to support administrative activities,
namely, attendance monitoring, assessment
records, reporting, financial management, and
resource and the staff allocation.
2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
According to Fabunmi (2003), MIS is very
useful in terms of making decisions in solving
problems that are faced by many educational
1
organizations and these problems are namely,
poor programme scheduling, poor estimate of
staff requirements, lack of accurate information
on students, personnel and facilities, piling-up of
administrative matters, wastage of spaces, and
lack of feasible budget estimates. Studies by
Adebayo (2007) indicated that MIS plays a
significant role in the decision-making because it
provides information for better decision making
on issues that are affecting to organizations for
human and material resources. Siegel (2003)
indicated “there is a limitation in Kenya on how
MIS are planned, developed, implemented,
utilized, exploited, managed, controlled and
maintained which has led to a lack of local
standards and benchmarks”.
3 RESEARCH QUESTION
What factors affecting to the implementation of
MIS to support educational institutions?
4 METHODOLOGY
to address the review question and used it as a
second filter.
4.3 Design of Studies
Studies have included which were empirically
validated from the experimental or the
observational research, including the qualitative
research (Croucher et al., 2003). Furthermore,
the study also has taken into account articles
which were published and unpublished work.
4.4 Quality Appraisal Criteria
This study included the literature review that has
met all the five required steps of quality
appraisal criteria (Croucher et al., 2003) in terms
of validity and trustworthiness findings. Lastly,
it was selected only those studies were
considerable, acceptable, reliable, and
empirically valid. In addition, the study also
included that had a good research question and
model or theoretical framework.

The objective of this paper was to identify Table 1

factors in terms of implementing MIS to support Study Selection: Quality Criteria
educational institutions. In addition, at the end,
Question Is the research question E
the systematic literature review was made on the
basis of a few steps and these steps are the clear?
formulation of review question, devising search Theoretical Is the theoretical or D
strategy, application of study selection criteria, perspective
ideological perspective of
study design, and the quality appraisal (Croucher the author (or funder)
explicit?
et al., 2003).
Study design Is the study design E
appropriate to answer the
4.1 Devising Search Strategy question?
Sampling Qualitative: Is the sample E
A search strategy was comprehensive and all adequate to explore the
articles were collected from the two databases. range of subjects and
settings, and has it been
The first fifteen pages were checked for each of drawn from an appropriate
the Databases of Google and Google Scholar. population?
Keyword was used “Management information Quantitative: Is the sample
systems factors to educational institutions” in size adequate for the
order to retrieve articles from the two search analysis used and has it
been drawn from an
Databases. appropriate population?
Data collection Was the data collection E
4.2 Study Selection Criteria adequately described and
rigorously conducted to
According to Croucher et al. (2003), before ensure confidence in the
findings?
studies have entered into the systematic review,
there were two filters and the first filter were a Data analysis Was the data analysis E
set of inclusion and exclusion criteria, selecting adequately described and
only the literature that was related to our review rigorously conducted in the
findings?

2
Reflexivity Has consideration been D
given to alternative
explanations of results?
Has consideration been
given to any limitations of
the methods or data that
may affect the results?
Generalizability Do any claims to D
generalizability follow
logically, theoretically or
statistically form the data?
Ethics Have ethical issues been D*
addressed and
confidentiality respected?
E=Essential, D=Desirable, *Ethic may be essential in other
sensitive fields Source: Croucher et al. (2003) as cited in
Wallace et al. (2005).
5 LITERATURES REVIEWS
A study conducted by Sirma et al. (2014) in
Kenyan public universities and their population
was the process owners and the system users
from all the departments in Egerton University.
The results of the study indicated that university
management support, end-user training,
understanding and approval by the management,
and the availability of the ICT (information and
communication technology) competence staff
were considered important factors for the
successful implementation of MIS in educational
institutions. Shah (2013) conducted a study in
order to improve the efficiency of school office
activities and revealed that several factors affect
to the implementation of MIS and these factors
are a lack of time, a lack of confidence or skills,
a lack of training, a lack of senior management
support, and the lack of technical support.
Bii and Wanyama (2001) argued a lack of
funding and information policies for all sectors
of their economy, including higher educational
institutions have affected in order to implement
the MIS. Demir (2006) conducted a study in 98
educational institutions in Turkey to explore
their perceptions about MIS and the results of
the study indicated that technological
infrastructure of organizations is insufficient. A
study conducted by Al-Mamary et al. (2014)
indicated a number of researchers have
concluded information quality such as relevance,
understandability, accuracy, conciseness,
completeness, currency, timeliness, and usability
(Petter et al., 2008) are important factors for the
MIS implementation in higher educational
institutions. According to Petter et al. (2008) and
Gen-Liang (2012), the service quality, namely,
responsiveness, accuracy, reliability, technical
competence, and the empathy of personal staff
affects to the implementation of MIS in
educational institutions. Several researchers have
indicated that the organizational factors such as
the top management support (Nowduril and Al-
Dossary, 2012), user training (Igbaria et al.,
1997; Bechina and Ndlela, 2007; Chen and
Hsiao, 202; Shih and Huang, 2009; Cho, 2007;
Urbach et al., 2011; Rouibah et al., 2009; Igbaria
et al., 1995, and Dezdar and Ainin, 2011) affect
to implement the MIS in educational institutions.
Researchers have concluded that the peoples
factors, namely, computer self-efficacy (Zhao,
2010; Brown, 2002; Ramayah and Aafaqi, 2004;
Saba, 2012) and the user experience (Sabherwal
et al., 2006; Igbaria and Iivari, 1995; Chuttur,
2009; Kim, 2008; Zviran et al., 2004) affect to
implement the MIS in educational institutions.
Studies conducted by Barki et al., (2005) and
Ewusi-Mensah (1997) indicated following
factors, lack of expertise, lack of development
expertise, lack of application on specific
knowledge, lack of user experience on
information systems, and the contributors to the
MIS project risk significant effect to the
implementation of MIS in educational
institutions. Similarly, studies by Block (2005)
and Keil et al. (1998) indicated for the effective
implementation of MIS in organizations in the
USA and the results of the study revealed that
lack of user commitment, ineffective
communications with users, conflicts among
user departments as well as the lack of
information systems training by some of the
personnel is all a hindrance to the effective
implementation of MIS systems in educational
organizations.
In UK, a study conducted by Caldwell (2009) on
the effective implementation of MIS in
organizations and the study revealed that it is
very hard to obtain the external expertise,
including the vendor support, in terms of
facilitating to the successful implementation of
MIS. Furthermore, the study also revealed that
“Client-Server decentralized servers, systems
integration software, technical support and
software updates and version control (Caldwell,
2009 as cited in Munene, 2015), from the study,
3
it is evident that the issue of training cannot be Figure 1. Flowchart of the studies included in the review
ignored in the effective implementation of MIS process (Adapted from Dagys et al., 2015)
in organizations”. In Kenya, a study conducted
by Borura (2010) as cited in Munene (2015) on 6.1 PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL
the MIS implementation in Kenyan parastatals FRAMEWORK
and author collected data by the use of the
structured questionnaire. The questionnaires Technological
Factors
were distributed through the ‘drop and pick’  System Quality
method and in some cases it was sent via email.  Information Quality
 Service Quality
Results revealed that lack of adequate training  Existing Systems
 Standardization
among staff who used the MIS system. Another  Compatibility
study by Ravichandarani and Rai (1999) in  Channing
Technologies
Miami on 20 different organizations and the
result revealed contributing to the ineffectiveness
of MIS implementation includes cost overruns,
missed deadlines, inaccurate features, and the Organizational
out-and-out failure. Furthermore, the study also Factors
 Top Management
indicated that cost factor have impacted on the Support
implementation of the MIS in organizations.  User Training
 Inter-department
Coordination
 Individual Support
6 RESULTS  Organizational Support
 Timeframe and
Scheduling
This study included a total of 43 articles  Strategic Planning
systematically reviewed on MIS implementation  Budgeting
 Organizational Affecting to the
factors and the proposed framework was Directives Implementation of MIS in
 Organizational Culture Educational Institutions
designed by compiling 31 articles, as indicated  Internal and External
in the flowchart below: Politics
 Contracts
 External Consultants
Initial Pool
of articles
(n=43)

3 duplicates
Removal of excluded
duplicates
(n=40) People Factors
 Computer Self-
efficacy
 User Experience
 Organizational
Expertise
 Individual Expertise
5 Records  Internal Leadership
Second screening
of articles
excluded after  Staffing
screening of title  Resistance to Change
(Inclusion criteria
passed) (n=35)
and abstract 3 Margins:
 Training

Figure 2. A proposed conceptual framework on the factors

4 excluded after
full text review. affecting to the implementation of MIS in educational
Final number of
articles (Quality Reason for institutions
criteria passed) exclusion:
(n=31)  Studies
published before 7 DISCUSSION
2000 (n=3)
 Involved
Taxonomy (n=1) The prime objective of this study was to identify
factors that affect MIS implementation in

4
educational institutions and the methodology computer self-efficacy (Zhao, 2010; Brown,
was based on a systematic review process such 2002), user experience (Chuttur, 2009;
as the formulation of review question, devising Sabherwal et al., 2006; Igbaria and Iivari,
search strategy, application of study selection 1995), organizational expertise (Beaumaster,
criteria, study design, and quality appraisal. A 1999), individual expertise (Beaumaster,
total of 43 articles was retrieved from the Google 1999), internal leadership (Beaumaster,
and Google Scholar Databases and a total of 31 1999), staffing (Beaumaster, 1999), resistance
articles passed the quality appraisal criteria. All to change (Beaumaster, 1999), training
the major factors of MIS implementation in (Beaumaster, 1999).
educational institutions were considered to
design the proposed framework in line with the
Above three dimensions (factors) may be
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis,
grouped into three sub-groups: close context,
1989) and the Theory of Planned Behavior
medium context, and the larger context. Davis
(TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) to adopt a technology. The
(1989), following the Technology Acceptance
results led to three categories and these factors
Model, but’s then forwards the following
are:
variables: perceived usefulness, perceived ease
 Technological factors affected to implement of use, actual use, and the user acceptance.
the MIS in educational institutions and under Regardless of which theory is followed, the three
these factors several other sub-factors which dimensions are external variables which can
affected in educational institutions such as
influence the perceived usefulness and perceived
system quality (Hasan et al., 2013),
ease of use of MIS implementation in
information quality (Al-Mamary et al., 2014,
educational institutions and more generally its
Petter et al., 2008), service quality (Petter et
implementation. However, there is a need for the
al., 2008; Gen-Liang, 2012), existing systems
future research in order to validate further which
(Beaumaster, 1999), standardization
factors affect the implementation of MIS in
(Beaumaster, 1999), compatibility
educational institutions and how they interact as
(Beaumaster, 1999), changing technologies
well as to develop a framework based on those
(Beaumaster, 1999).
MIS adoption factors.
 Organizational factors affected to the
implementation of MIS in educational
8 CONCLUSION AND
institutions and under these factors several
RECOMMENDATION
other sub-factors which affected in
educational institutions such as top
The findings and the analysis of literature
management support (Igbaria et al., 1997),
reviews indicated factors having an influences
user training (Igbaria et al., 1997, Al-Mamary
on the implementation of MIS in educational
et al., 2015), inter-departmental coordination
institutions. A total of 43 articles was retrieved
(Beaumaster, 1999), individual support
from the Google and Google Scholar Database
(Beaumaster, 1999), organizational support
and a total of 31 articles was included, but on the
(Beaumaster, 1999), timeframes and
other hand, several other articles which were not
scheduling (Beaumaster, 1999), strategic
included because of irrelevancy. This emerging
planning (Beaumaster, 1999), budgeting
proposed conceptual framework is crucial in
(Beaumaster, 1999), organizational directives
developing instructional programs to improve
(Beaumaster, 1999), written guidelines
the MIS implementation in educational
(Beaumaster, 1999), organizational culture
institutions by instructors and learners. The
(Beaumaster, 1999), internal and external
main limitation of this study was to conduct the
politics (Beaumaster, 1999), contracts
study with only 31 articles. However, a larger
(Beaumaster, 1999), external consultants
number of articles might provide the sound
(Beaumaster, 1999).
theoretical analysis in the proposed conceptual
 People factors affected to the implementation framework. Furthermore, this study recommends
of MIS in educational institutions and under educational institutions should consider above
these factors several other sub-factors which factors in order to implement the MIS.
affected in educational institutions such as

5
REFERENCES
1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour.
Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179-211. De Young, 509-526.
2. Al-Mamary, Y. H., Shamsuddin, A., & Aziati, N.
(2015). Investigating the key factors influencing on
Management Information Systems adoption among
Telecommunication Companies in Yemen: The
Conceptual Framework
Development. Management, 6(1).
3. Arntzen, A. A. B., & Ndlela, M. N. (2009). Success
factors in implementing knowledge based systems.
Academic Conferences Limited.
4. Adebayo, F. A. (2007). Management Information
System for Managers. Ado-Ekiti: Green Line
Publishers.
5. Al-Mamary, Y. H., Shamsuddin, A., & Aziati, N.
(2014). The meaning of management information
systems and its role in telecommunication companies
in Yemen. American Journal of Software
Engineering, 2(2), 22-25.
6. Babu, K.V.S.N.J., & Sekhar, B.M.R. (2012). MIS. Vs.
DSSS in decision making. Global Journal of
Management and Business Research, vol. 12, no. 16,
version 1.0.
7. Barki, H., Rivard, S., & Talbot, J. (1993). Toward an
assessment of software development risk. Journal of
management information systems, 10(2), 203-225.
8. Beaumaster, S. (1999). Information technology
implementation issues: an analysis.
9. Bin, W., Chu-hong, Z., Qiong-yu, H., & Zhen-peng,
L. (2010, November). Empirical research on the
factor of ERP's user customer satisfaction based on
triadic reciprocal determinism. In Management
Science and Engineering (ICMSE), 2010
International Conference on (pp. 58-66). IEEE.
10. Block, R. (2005). The Politics of Projects: NJ.
Englewood Cliff: Prentice-Hall.
11. Brown, I. T. (2002). Individual and technological
factors affecting perceived ease of use of web-based
learning technologies in a developing
country. EJISDC: The Electronic Journal on
Information Systems in Developing Countries, (9), 5.
12. Caldwell, B. (2009). Client server: can it be saved?
Information Week, 584, 36-44.
13. Chen, R. F., & Hsiao, J. L. (2012). An investigation
on physicians’ acceptance of hospital information
systems: a case study. International journal of
medical informatics, 81(12), 810-820.
14. Cho, V. (2007). A study of the impact of
organizational learning on information system
effectiveness. International Journal of Business and
Information, 2(1), 127-158.
15. Chuttur, M. Y. (2009). Overview of the technology
acceptance model: Origins, developments and future
directions. Working Papers on Information
Systems, 9(37), 9-37.
16. Croucher, K., Quilgars, D., Wallace, A., Baldwin, S.,
& Mather, L. (2003). Paying the mortgage. A
Systematic Literature Review of Safety Nets for
Homeowners, York: Department of Social Policy and
Social Work.
17. Dagys, K. M., Popat, A., & Aldersey, H. M. (2015).
The Applicability of eLearning in Community-Based
Rehabilitation. Societies, 5(4), 831-854.
18. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived
ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
19. Demir, K. (2006). School management information
systems in primary schools. TOJET: The Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2).
20. Dezdar, S., & Ainin, S. (2011). The influence of
organizational factors on successful ERP
implementation. Management Decision, 49(6), 911-
926.
21. Ewusi-Mensah, K. (1997). Critical issues in
abandoned information systems development
projects. Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 74-80.
22. Fabunmi, M. (2003). Management Information
Systems in Education. In Babalola J. B. (ed.). Basic
Text in Educational Planning. Ibadan: Department of
Educational Management, University of Ibadan,
Ibadan.
23. Gen-Liang, Z. (2012). Consumer acceptance of
Internet as a channel of distribution. Journal of
Business and Management Research, 1, 20-27.
24. Hasan, Y., Shamsuddin, A., & Aziati, N. (2013). The
impact of management information systems adoption
in managerial decision making: A review. The
International Scientific Journal of Management
Information Systems, 8(4), 010-017.
25. Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T., & Davis, G. B. (1995).
Testing the determinants of microcomputer usage via
a structural equation model. Journal of management
information systems, 11(4), 87-114.
26. Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self-
efficacy on computer usage. Omega, 23(6), 587-605.
27. Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., & Cavaye, A. L.
(1997). Personal computing acceptance factors in
small firms: a structural equation model. MIS
quarterly, 279-305.
28. Keil, M., Cule, P. E., Lyytinen, K., & Schmidt, R. C.
(1998). A framework for identifying software project
risks. Communications of the ACM, 41(11), 76-83.
29. Kibet Bii, H., & Wanyama, P. (2001). Automation
and its impact on the job satisfaction among the staff
6
 of the Margaret Thatcher Library, Moi
University. Library Management, 22(6/7), 303-310.
30. Kim, M. R. (2008). Factors influencing the
acceptance of e-learning courses for mainstream
faculty in higher institutions. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance
Learning, 5(2), 29-44.
31. Munene, I. W. (2015). Factors affecting
implementation of management information system in
selected financial cooperatives in Nairobi,
Kenya (Doctoral dissertation).
32. Munirat, Y., Mohammed, I., & Kazeem, A. O. The
Impact of Management Information System (MIS) on
the Performance of Business Organization in
Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities Social
Sciences and Education (IJHSSE) Volume, 1, 76-86.
33. Nath, R. P., & Badgujar, M. (2013). Use of
management information system in an organization
for decision making. ASM's International E-Journal
of Ongoing Research in Management And IT.
34. Nowduri, S. (2012). Management information
systems and its support to sustainable small and
medium enterprises. International Journal of
Business and Management, 7(19), 125.
35. O’Brien, J. (1999). Management Information Systems
– Managing Information Technology in the
Internetworked Enterprise. Boston: Irwin McGraw-
Hill.
36. Patterson, A. (2005). Information Systems- Using
Information. Learning and Teaching.
37. Petter, S., DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (2008).
Measuring information systems success: models,
dimensions, measures, and
interrelationships. European journal of information
systems, 17(3), 236-263.
38. Ramayah, T., Aafaqi, B., & Ignatius, J. (2004). Role
of self-efficacy in e-library usage among students of
a public university in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of
Library and Information Science, 9, 39-58.
39. Ravichandran, T., & Rai, A. (1999). Total quality
management in information systems development:
key constructs and relationships. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 16(3), 119-155.
40. Rouibah, K., Hamdy, H. I., & Al-Enezi, M. Z.
(2009). Effect of management support, training, and
user involvement on system usage and satisfaction in
Kuwait. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 109(3), 338-356.
41. Saba, T. (2012). Implications of E-learning systems
and self-efficiency on students outcomes: a model
approach. Human-Centric Computing and
Information Sciences, 2(1), 1.
42. Sabherwal, R., Jeyaraj, A., & Chowa, C. (2006).
Information system success: individual and
organizational determinants. Management
science, 52(12), 1849-1864.
43. Shah, M. (2014). Impact of management information
systems (MIS) on school administration: What the
literature says. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 116, 2799-2804.
44. Shih, Y. Y., & Huang, S. S. (2009). The actual usage
of ERP systems: An extended technology acceptance
perspective. Journal of Research and Practice in
Information Technology, 41(3), 263.
45. Siegel, D. (2003). ICT, the Internet, and Economic
Performance: Empirical Evidence and Key Policy
Issues. In UNCTAD and UNECE Conference.
Geneva.
46. Sirma, J., Obegi, Felix., & Ngacho, C. (2014). An
analysis of factors influencing implementation of
computer based information systems in public
universities in Kenya: A case study of Egerton
University. Information and Knowledge
Management, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 19-25.
47. Tripathi, K. (2011). Role of management information
system (MIS) in human resource. IJCST, 2(1), 58-62.
48. Urbach, N., Smolnik, S., & Riempp, G. (2011).
Determining the improvement potentials of employee
portals using a performance-based analysis. Business
Process Management Journal, 17(5), 829-845.
49. Villanueva, C. C. (2003). Education management
information system (EMIS) and the formulation of
education for all (EFA) plan for action, 2002-2015,
In Cooperation with UNESCO Almaty Cluster Office
and the Ministry of Education of Tajikistan.
50. Wallace, A., Bevan, M., Croucher, K., Jackson, K.,
O’Malley, L., & Orton, V. (2005). The impact of
empty, second and holiday homes on the
sustainability of rural communities: A systematic
literature review. The centre for housing policy, The
University of York, 1-142.
51. Zhao, L. (2010). Study on online banking adoption
and its predictors. In Multimedia and Information
Technology (MMIT), 2010 Second International
Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 155-158). IEEE.
52. Zviran, M., Pliskin, N., & Levin, R. (2005).
Measuring user satisfaction and perceived usefulness
in the ERP context. Journal of computer information
systems, 45(3), 43-52.