Norhaiza Khairudin, Rozainee Khairudin, Mohd Noor Abdul Hamid, Philip Hancock, Tanya McGill, Zainah Ahmad Zamani


This research examined how managers in universities incorporate non-financial measures in their Learning Management Systems decision-making processes and particularly focused on the importance of the Human Capital perspective in LMS decision making processes. A mixed-methods approach to data collection was used involving both interviews and questionnaires. The qualitative data from the interviews were coded and analysed. A descriptive coding method using thematic analysis was used for the data coding. The qualitative data were analysed using an inductive approach where the categories of criteria and indicators were not determined before the interview. The participants in this research were five members of LMS decision-making teams at two different universities in Australia and 24 participants from different universities in Malaysia who were involved in LMS decision- making pro-cesses at their universities. The results of this research indicated that there was substantial support for using a multi-dimensional decision making model among IT decision makers at universities, particu-larly the Human Capital perspective and they believed that Human Capital measures are important and should be considered in a LMS decision making process.The research has both implications for theory and for practitioners where it contributes to the knowledge on LMS decision making in univer-sities and IT decision making in general, and also in improving actual decision making practices.

Full Text:



Agbonlahor, R. O. (2006). Motivation for use of information technology by university faculty: A developing country perspective. Information development, 22(4), 263-277.

Al-Ajlan, A. S. (2012). A comparative study between e learning features, methodologies, tools, and new developments for e learning. In D. E. Pontes (Ed.), Information system Management college of Business and Economics Qassim University Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (pp. 191-214): Intech.

Alias, N. A., & Nik Abdul Rahman, N. S. (2005). The supportive distance learning environment: A study on the learning support needs of Malaysian online learners. The European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 2005(2). Retrieved from

Alias, N. A., & Zainuddin, A. M. (2005). Innovation for better teaching and learning: Adopting the learning management system. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology, 2(2), 27-40.

Bahroom, R., & Latif, L. A. (2012). Open and distance learning as the key driver of lifelong learning. Proceedings of the National Conference on Lifelong Learning (22-23 September 2012). Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education

Basir, H. M., Ahmad, A., & Noor, N. L. M. (2010). Strategic management of e-learning implementation programme in Malaysian public universities issues on policy and key initiatives. Proceedings of the International Conference on Science and Social Research (CSSR) (5-7 December, 2010) (pp. 1143-1148). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: IEEE.

Black, E. W., Beck, D., Dawson, K., Jinks, S., & DiPietro, M. (2007). Considering implementation and use in the adoption of an LMS in online and blended learning environments. TechTrends, 51(2), 35-39.

Cavus, N., & Zabadi, T. (2014). A Comparison of Open Source Learning Management Systems. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 521-526.

Chua, B. B., & Dyson, L. E. (2004). Applying the ISO 9126 model to the evaluation of an elearning system. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds.), Beyond the Comfort Zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (5-8 December 2004) (pp. 184-190). Perth, Western Australia.

Coates, H. (2006). Student engagement in campus-based and online education. London: Routledge.

Cribb, G., & Hogan, C. (2003). Balanced Scorecard: linking strategic planning to measurement and communication. Proceeding for Conference of Information Services (June 2003). Gold Coast, Queensland: Bond University.

Embi, M. A. (2011). e-Learning in Malaysian institutions of higher learning: Status, trends and challenges. Proceedings of the International Conference on Lifelong Learning (ICLLL 2011) (14-15 November, 2011). Kuala Lumpur: Open University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.

Guan, E. C., Latifah, A. L., & Ramli, B. (2011). Enculturation of lifelong learning: perspectives from the New Economics Model. Proceedings of the International Conference on Lifelong Learning (ICLLL 2011) (14-15 November, 2011). Kuala Lumpur: Open University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.

Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105.

Jenkins, M., Browne, T., Walker, R., & Hewitt, R. (2011). The development of technology enhanced learning: findings from a 2008 survey of UK higher education institutions. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(5), 447-465.

Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. P. (1993). Putting the balanced scorecard to work. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 134 - 142.

Keyes, J. (2005). Implementing the IT balanced scorecard: Aligning IT with corporate strategy. Boca Raton, Florida: Auerbach Publications.

Khairudin, N., & Hamid, M. N. A. (2015). The Development of a LMS Decision Making Model: Evaluating the Importance of Non-Financial Measures in LMS Decision Making at Universities.

Kinkle, L. M. (2010). A case study of the University of Mississippi and its response to the growth of online institutions. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis presented for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy, Capella University. Retrieved from ProQuest LLC

Klobas, J. E., & McGill, T. J. (2010). The role of involvement in learning management system success. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22(2), 114-134.

Laurillard, D. (2007). Modelling benefit-oriented costs for technology enhanced learning. Higher Education, 2007(54), 21-39.

Lewis, B., MacEntee, V., & Youngs-Maher, P. (2002). Software compare and contrast: Blackboard, WebCT and Lotus Notes a panel discussion Proceedings of the 2005 Informing Science and IT Education Joint Conference (June 16-19 2002). Flagstaff, Arizona, USA.

Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. (2009). Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of Learning Management Systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 686-694.

Mott, J., & Granata, G. (2006). The value of teaching and learning technology: Beyond ROI. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 29(2), 48-54.

OECD. (2005). E-learning in tertiary education: where do we stand? , from,2340,en_2649_37455_34900984_1_1_1_37455,00.html

Ramayah, T., Ahmad, N. H., & Lo, M. C. (2010). The role of quality factors in intention to continue using an e-learning system in Malaysia. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2010), 5422-5426.

Ruben, B. D. (1999). Toward a balanced scorecard for higher education: rethinking the college and university excellence indicators framework. Higher Education Forum, 99(2), 1-10.

Shannon, S. J., & Doube, L. A. (2003). Factors influencing the adoption and use of web-supported teaching by academic staff at the University of Adelaide. Proceedings of the ASCILITE 2003. Melbourne, Australia.

Van Grembergen, W. (2000). The balanced scorecard and IT governance. Information Systems Control Journal, 2(1), 40-43.

Venter, P., Jansen van Rensburg, M., & Davis, A. (2012). Drivers of learning management system use in a South African open and distance learning institution. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 183-198.

Wainwright, K., Osterman, M., Finnerman, C., & Hill, B. (2007). Traversing the LMS terrain. Proceedings of the 35th annual ACM SIGUCCS - Conference on User Services (7-10 October 2007) (pp. 355-359). New York: ACM Press.


  • There are currently no refbacks.


The editors and publisher of Jurnal Psikologi Malaysia have made every possible effort to verify the accuracy of all information contained in this publication. Any opinions, discussions, views and recommendations expressed in the article are solely those of the authors and are not of Jurnal Psikologi Malaysia, its editors or its publisher. Jurnal Psikologi Malaysia, its editors and its publisher will not be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, special, exemplary, or other damages arising therefrom.