Buhalis, D.; Spada, A. Destination Management Systems: Criteria for Success: An Exploratory Research Journal Information Technology and Tourism 2000 Vol. 3 No. 1 pp. 41-58 more

Information Technology & Tourism, Vol. 3 pp. 41-58, 2000 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. 1098-3058/00 $20.00 + .00 Copyright © 2000 Cognizant Comm. Corp. www.cognizantcommunication.com DESTINATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS: CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS— AN EXPLORATORY RESEARCH DMTTRIOS BUHALIS andANTONELLA SPADA Department of Tourism, University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London, NW1 5LS, UK Rapidly evolving developments in information technologies (ITs) transform the tourism industry to the digital economy. The emergence of destination management systems (DMSs) as "info-structures" en- ables destinations to disseminate comprehensive information about resources and services of destina- tions and local tourism products as well as to facilitate the planning, management, and marketing of regions as tourism entities or brands. This article explores success criteria for DMSs as identified by six key tourism destination stakeholders. It analyzes the needs and wants of stakeholders and thus provides guidance for the development and assessment of DMSs. The study is based on qualitative and quantita- tive research with leading authorities in the field. Attention is drawn to the role played by the public and private sectors, and the need for partnership to ensure successful application of DMSs in the future. Destination management systems Regional development Stakeholders Tourism management and marketing Introduction and the Research Rationale Information technology (IT) has tremendous im- plications for tourism (O'Connor, 1999; Poon, 1993; Sheldon, 1997; Werthner & Klein, 1999), as it changes the "best operation practices and provides opportunities for business expansion in the geo- graphical, marketing and operational sense" (Buhalis, 1998). Consequently, tourism destinations must compete in an increasingly fiercely competi- tive marketplace. ITs have become a critical factor in determining future success or failure, as well as tourism impacts at destinations. Destinations increasingly attract tourists from distant or long-haul markets and thus the need to disseminate information globally will continue to increase. Domestic markets are usually character- ized by short getaway breaks, with trip decisions made on impulse and previous experience, shortly before departure. However, in both cases the em- phasis is on speed and on the ability of destinations to satisfy the needs of buyers by providing appro- priate and accurate information as well as by facili- tating reservations efficiently. The radical develop- ments of IT in tourism also reflect the change in demand patterns of the contemporary "sophisticated Address correspondence to Dimitrios Buhalis at his present address (as of September 1): School for Service Sector, University of Surrey, Guilford GU2 5XH, UK. Tel: + 44-1483-300-800; Fax: + 44-1483-259-387; E-mail: e.d.buhalis@surrey.ac.uk 41 42 BUHALIS AND SPADA and wired traveler" who is increasingly seeking new experiences and destinations and innovative tools to access information. Tourists request a wide vari- ety of information on areas, facilities, attractions, and activities at destinations before departure and once at the destination. It is a combination of tech- nological enablers and demand drivers that has pro- pelled the realization of destination management systems (DMSs). Destinations that provide timely, appropriate, and accurate information to consumers and the travel trade have a better chance of being selected and of strengthening their competitiveness (Buhalis, 1994a; Pollock, 1998a, 1998b; Sheldon, 1993). In addition, destinations are increasingly re- garded as amalgams of small and medium-sized tour- ism enterprises (SMTEs) and, as a result, they need to utilize new technologies not only to enhance the individual competitiveness of each single enterprise locally but also to coordinate all individually pro- duced and delivered services offered in their region (Buhalis, 1994a, 2000; Buhalis & Cooper, 1998; Buhalis & Main, 1998; Go, 1992). It is this set of market trends that propels compre- hensive and efficient DMSs that not only satisfy demand, but also enhance the long-term competi- tiveness of destinations. The concept of DMSs is described as: "a collection of computerised infor- mation, interactively accessible, about a destina- tion" (Buhalis, 1994b; Pringle, 1994). DMSs are usually managed by destination management orga- nizations (DMOs), which may be private or public organizations, or a combination of both (Pollock, 1998b). There is an increasing literature on DMSs (Archdale, 1994; Buhalis, 1993,1994a, 1995,1997; Cano & Prentice, 1998; Frew & O'Connor, 1998, 1999a, 1999b; O'Connor & Rafferty, 1997; Pollock, 1998a & 1999; Sheldon, 1993; Wober, 1998; Vlitos- Rowe, 1992; World Tourism Organization, 1999). However, nearly one decade after the conceptualization of DMSs and the development of more than 200 systems around the world, few systems have yet been established as a major dis- tributor of all products at destinations. The major- ity of DMSs have been implemented at the local level and operate on a limited basis, or they col- lapsed few years after their initial development (Archdale, Jones, & Stanton, 1992; Buhalis, 1997; Pringle, 1994). DMSs are often limited in their scope and ambition either by their organizational struc- ture or by their technology (Archdale, 1994). As a direct consequence of the failure of these systems, an ever-increasing range of commercial applications emergence to satisfy the needs of stakeholders (Frew & O'Connor, !998). These commercial systems may not only impair the accuracy of information about the entire range of facilities and services existing at destinations, by favoring those tourism enterprises that can afford the membership fees, but they also may put SMTEs at a competitive disadvantage. Clearly, destinations where low-tech and marginalized SMTEs are unable to reach their de- sired target markets will suffer economic and social polarization with adverse impact on their host com- munities. Such relative successes and failures have wider implications for both SMTEs and destinations as well as for regional development. DMSs' underdevelopment hitherto, therefore, has prompted the need for a deeper examination of those success criteria that need to be taken into consider- ation when developing or evaluating DMSs. Re- sults from this research are set out to develop a list of success criteria by establishing and evaluating the needs of key stakeholders for destinations and DMSs. These criteria are becoming more important, especially in the light of rapidly evolving techno- logical developments, accompanied by fierce glo- bal competition and a more complex tourism de- mand. As DMSs operate within a framework of constant change, the research also includes an up- to-date analysis of technological, competitive, and demand drivers that are likely to shape the future of these systems. Research Methodology Both primary and secondary research was un- dertaken in order to collect information of suffi- cient quality and quantity. Secondary research fo- cused on a comprehensive literature review with the intent to identify existing research that would be relevant to this study. This illustrates a perspec- tive on the nature and historical development of DMSs. In addition, secondary research aimed to explore both the technological enablers and de- mand drivers that have paved the way for the evo- lution of DMSs. Secondary research was conducted by means of reviewing publications from a wide range of sources. 42 BUHALIS AND SPADA and wired traveler," who is increasingly seeking new experiences and destinations and innovative tools to access information. Tourists request a wide vari- ety of information on areas, facilities, attractions, and activities at destinations before departure and once at the destination. It is a combination of tech- nological enablers and demand drivers that has pro- pelled the realization of destination management systems (DMSs). Destinations that provide timely, appropriate, and accurate information to consumers and the travel trade have a better chance of being selected and of strengthening their competitiveness (Buhalis, 1994a; Pollock, 1998a, 1998b; Sheldon, 1993). In addition, destinations are increasingly re- garded as amalgams of small and medium-sized tour- ism enterprises (SMTEs) and, as a result, they need to utilize new technologies not only to enhance the individual competitiveness of each single enterprise locally but also to coordinate all individually pro- duced and delivered services offered in their region (Buhalis, 1994a, 2000; Buhalis & Cooper, 1998; Buhalis & Main, 1998; Go, 1992). It is this set of market trends that propels compre- hensive and efficient DMSs that not only satisfy demand, but also enhance the long-term competi- tiveness of destinations. The concept of DMSs is described as: "a collection of computerised infor- mation, interactively accessible, about a destina- tion" (Buhalis, 1994b; Pringle, 1994). DMSs are usually managed by destination management orga- nizations (DMOs), which may be private or public organizations, or a combination of both (Pollock, 1998b). There is an increasing literature on DMSs (Archdale, 1994; Buhalis, 1993,1994a, 1995,1997; Cano & Prentice, 1998; Frew & O'Connor, 1998, 1999a, 1999b; O'Connor &Rafferty, 1997; Pollock, 1998a & 1999; Sheldon, 1993;W6ber, 1998;Vlitos- Rowe, 1992; World Tourism Organization, 1999). However, nearly one decade after the conceptualization of DMSs and the development of more than 200 systems around the world, few systems have yet been established as a major dis- tributor of all products at destinations. The major- ity of DMSs have been implemented at the local level and operate on a limited basis, or they col- lapsed few years after their initial development (Archdale, Jones, & Stanton, 1992; Buhalis, 1997; Pringle, 1994). DMSs are often limited in their scope and ambition either by their organizational struc- ture or by their technology (Archdale, 1994). As a direct consequence of the failure of these systems, an ever-increasing range of commercial applications emergence to satisfy the needs of stakeholders (Frew & O'Connor, 1998). These commercial systems may not only impair the accuracy of information about the entire range of facilities and services existing at destinations, by favoring those tourism enterprises that can afford the membership fees, but they also may put SMTEs at a competitive disadvantage. Clearly, destinations where low-tech and marginalized SMTEs are unable to reach their de- sired target markets will suffer economic and social polarization with adverse impact on their host com- munities. Such relative successes and failures have wider implications for both SMTEs and destinations as well as for regional development. DMSs' underdevelopment hitherto, therefore, has prompted the need for a deeper examination of those success criteria that need to be taken into consider- ation when developing or evaluating DMSs. Re- sults from this research are set out to develop a list of success criteria by establishing and evaluating the needs of key stakeholders for destinations and DMSs. These criteria are becoming more important, especially in the light of rapidly evolving techno- logical developments, accompanied by fierce glo- bal competition and a more complex tourism de- mand. As DMSs operate within a framework of constant change, the research also includes an up- to-date analysis of technological, competitive, and demand drivers that are likely to shape the future of these systems. Research Methodology Both primary and secondary research was un- dertaken in order to collect information of suffi- cient quality and quantity. Secondary research fo- cused on a comprehensive literature review with the intent to identify existing research that would be relevant to this study. This illustrates a perspec- tive on the nature and historical development of DMSs. In addition, secondary research aimed to explore both the technological enablers and de- mand drivers that have paved the way for the evo- lution of DMSs. Secondary research was conducted by means of reviewing publications from a wide range of sources. CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL DMS 43 The primary research was based on research frame- works used during the pre-Internet era (Buhalis, 1994b, 1995) as well as on some recent contribu- tions (Frew & O'Connor, 1999a, 1999b). Both quan- titative and qualitative data were collected to en- able the in-depth exploration of this fairly new research area and also to allow the initial quantifi- cation of concepts in order to facilitate further re- search. The combination of research methods also aimed to provide a more accurate analysis as well as to assist in the interpretation of the results. The pri- mary research was divided into three parts. First, an exploratory research of the successful criteria for DMSs was developed. A judgmental sample of five experts was selected to provide their opinion on the most important criteria. Following this stage, a com- prehensive list of relevant criteria was developed. Second, a quantitative research was undertaken, whereby the criteria selected from the exploratory stage were incorporated into a questionnaire. This study entailed the selection of a sample of 265 ex- perts on the subject, who were approached to rate the importance of the criteria listed. The panel of experts that was assembled included individuals known to the researchers for their expertise in the field. The aim was to canvass the opinions of aca- demics and professionals with various qualifications and backgrounds to ensure the comprehensiveness of the study. Their involvement in researching and operating DMS projects was a critical criterion for their selection and involvement. A total of 18 ex- perts returned the questionnaire. Third, results ob- tained from the survey were analyzed and discussed in depth with six selected experts. This qualitative exercise aimed attesting the importance and validity of the list of criteria obtained from the research and to justify the emerging results. In addition, experts were encouraged to provide insightful examples of suc- cessful systems and to highlight factors that have stimulated or impeded their development thus far. The findings of both quantitative and qualitative re- search formed the main platform for the final discus- sion, from which a conclusion and a set of recom- mendations for future research were drawn. Research Design and Tools The underlying question in appraising the suc- cess criteria of DMSs was to ask: "successful criteria for whom?" Through extensive literature review and the collaboration of five experts, six main stake- holders of both destinations and DMSs were identi- fied, namely Consumers/Tourists, Tourism Suppli- ers, the Public Sector, Investors, Tour Operators, and Travel Agents. Similar stakeholders have also been identified in previous research as the most impor- tant actors for the development of tourism destina- tions (Buhalis & Fletcher, 1995). After having iden- tified DMSs' stakeholders, an average of 10-12 success criteria per stakeholder were developed to- taling 68 success criteria. These criteria included an appreciation of all the importance issues from the viewpoint of each stakeholder. In addition, explor- atory research focused on selecting those techno- logical developments and drivers that are likely to influence the development of DMSs, and that for- mulated the seventh area of research. A question- naire was developed to incorporate the 68 criteria established in the exploratory research. The survey also included 10 technological developments and drivers that are likely to shape the future of DMSs. Consequently, the questionnaire comprised of seven sections (six for stakeholders plus one on techno- logical trends), and required experts to rate 78 suc- cess criteria from very unimportant to very impor- tant. The aim of the survey was not only to develop a comprehensive list of all issues raised on DMSs' success factors in previous literature, but also to assist their assessment. The issues raised in the sur- vey, although far from exhaustive, nevertheless con- stitute an extensive list of criteria that are set to aid future research in this field area. Overall, 265 questionnaires were distributed and 18 replies were received, providing a 6.8% response rate. Although the number of respondents was not satisfactory, the research was complemented by a rich qualitative survey. The results obtained from the quantitative exercise were used to conduct in- depth, structured interviews with six selected ex- perts on the third stage. This exercise aimed at ana- lyzing the findings of the questionnaire, in terms of finding out expert opinions on the validity of the findings as well as to canvass their views on the major impediments to the development of these sys- tems. In addition, experts were asked to state their opinions on the type of technological developments and competitive drivers that will affect DMSs in the future. 44 BUHALIS AND SPADA The analysis and discussion of the research find- ings integrate results from both quantitative and qualitative research. Combining the two research approaches provides a better understanding and interpretation of the criteria. The complementary contributions of both quantitative and qualita- tive research provided the opportunity to chal- lenge some issues with experts in these field ar- eas. Particularly, in-depth discussions with ex- perts represented a sound basis for the analysis of research findings and for exploring whole new areas of interest to this study. Hence, the combi- nation of these two methods provided invaluable information. Tourism Supplier Eduction of seasonality Use of DMSs as promotional tools 'Provisioned guaranteed bookings DMSs' ability to distribute information globally Market inf ormation collection. Ecductionof IT costs ■Cost of commissionfees Uscr-f riendly system ■ Reliability of Information-Accuracy ■DMSs' multi-channel delivery loir Qy«ratorj (TPs) ■ Reduction of distribution costs Ecduction of communication costs DMSs" support for market information Ecductionof seasonality Use of DMSs as marketing tools DMSs' ability to manage inventory Minimum membership fees , Uscr-f risndly system Quality information-Unbiased DMSs' ability to make a profit Ecductionof IT costs 1 Private-public sectors partnership Operating efficiency of the system DMSs ability to embrace new technology DMSs ability for strategic alliances DMSs' ability to interface with multiple systems [Prof itability of membership fees C«stom.*rf Visitor tallie Sector Use of DMSs as a promotional tool Use of DMSs to support SllTEs DMSs' economic benefits Eeluctionof seasonality Use of DMSs for strategic alliances Eeluctionof IT costs Reliability of Information-Accuracy Quality Information- Unbiased Use of DMSs as management tools Tra-relAgcxJts (TAj) Reliability of Information-Accuracy Eeal-time availability information Commission Eates Use of DMSs to compete withTOs User-friendly system Ability to make on-line reservations , Quality information-Unbiased Guaranteed bookings Depth of information C omprehensive destination information before, during and after the trip Speedy transactions Secure payment methods User-friendly system Multi-channel access ■Option to conduct virtual tours late availability information ■On-line booking facility ■On-line booking confirmation 'On-line help function Availability of a range of prices Distribution of IT to remote regions DMSs' multi-channel delivery ■Standardisationof DMSs' information ■Convergence of separate appliances ■Multimedia presentation of information On-line bookings and payment security Digital Television technology Personalised intenet commerce Figure 1. Success criteria for DMSs' stakeholders. 44 BUHALIS AND SPADA The analysis and discussion of the research find- ings integrate results from both quantitative and qualitative research. Combining the two research approaches provides a better understanding and interpretation of the criteria. The complementary contributions of both quantitative and qualita- tive research provided the opportunity to chal- lenge some issues with experts in these field ar- eas. Particularly, in-depth discussions with ex- perts represented a sound basis for the analysis of research findings and for exploring whole new areas of interest to this study. Hence, the combi- nation of these two methods provided invaluable information. Tourism Supplier Seduction of seasonality Use of DMSs as promotional tools Provision o£ guarantee! lockings DMSs" ability to distribute information globally -Market information collection ■ Seduction of IT costs ■ C ost of commission fees ■ UseK-f rie ndly system Reliability of Information-Accuracy DMSs' multi-channel delivery latlie Sector ■ Use of DMSs as a promotional tool Use of DMSs to support SllTEs DMSs' economic benefits Seduction of seasonality Use of DMSs for strategic alliances Reduction of IT costs Eeliabilityof Information-Accuracy Quality Information-Unbiased Use of DMSs as management tools loir Q;«rators (TOa) Seduction of distribution costs i Seduction of communication costs DMSs' support for market information Induction. o£ seasonality Use of DMSs as marketing tools DMSs' ability to manage inventory , Minimum membership fees User-friendly system ■ Quality information-Unbiased DMSs' ability to make a profit Seduction of XI costs ■ Irivate-public sectors partnership Operating efficiency of the system DMSs ability to embrace new technology DMSs ability for strategic alliances 'DMSs' ability to interface with multiple systems [Profitability of membership fees Cistomcrl Visitor Travel Agtmti (TAj) Reliability of Information- Accuracy Seal-time availability information C ommission Sates Use of DMSs to compete withTQs User-friendly system Ability to make on-line reservations Quality information-Unbiased Guaranteed bookings Depth of information Comprehensive destination information before, during and after the trip Speedy transactions ■Secure payment methods ■ User-friendly system ■ Multi-channel access Option to conduct virtual tours Late availability information ■On-line booking facility ■On-line booking continuation ■On-line help function Availability of a range of prices T« etiological l>€T«lo jmemts Distribution of IT to remote regions ■I>MSs' multi-channel delivery Standardisation of DMSs' information Convergence of separate appliances Multimedia presentation of information On-line bookings and payment security ■ Digital Television technology Personalised, intenet commerce Figure 1. Success criteria for DMSs' stakeholders. CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL DMS 45 Research Findings As part of the quantitative research, experts were asked to rate the importance of 78 DMSs' success criteria, from very unimportant to very important. Inevitably, the success criteria analyzed in this ar- ticle are simplified and the list obtained cannot be exhaustive. However, they comprise a comprehen- sive framework reflecting human/visitor aspects, the challenging technical, commercial and political environment, as well as the industry structure within which DMSs operate and compete. The analysis of both quantitative and qualitative research findings has been divided into six main sections to reflect principal stakeholders, namely the Customer/Visi- tor, Tourism Suppliers, Public Sector and Investors, Tour Operators, and Travel Agents, and a seventh section on anticipated technological developments. A conceptualization of the success criteria identi- fied for each stakeholder is provided in Figure 1. Success Criteria From the Customer'sNisitor's Point of View As illustrated in Table 1, experts felt that, among the many criteria suggested for the customer/visi- tor, the provision of tourist information is of para- mount importance. User friendliness and easiness of understanding was rated as very important by 77.7% of the experts with limited variation, as illus- trated by the fairly small value of the standard de- viation (SD). Similarly, experts agreed on the un- equivocal importance for DMSs to supply accurate and comprehensive destination information before and during the trip. Against these ratings, the abil- ity of DMSs to provide services such as online book- ing is also justified. Equally, secure payment meth- ods, speedy transactions, and ability to book from a variety of distribution channels attracted high rat- ings. Interestingly, the "after-visit" information was rated as unimportant, although opinions varied as illustrated in the SD. This illustrates that experts failed to identify the opportunity for DMSs to de- velop relationships with consumers. Expert opinions were analyzed to define what a user-friendly system should consist of. This issue triggered unanimous responses among experts that this is mainly related to DMSs' functionality and interaction. Many argued that a user-friendly sys- tem should be an easy-to-understand and navigate system. Systems should be easy to operate, should provide the entire range of information needed to help customers solve problems encountered, and should allow for a transaction to be carried out from beginning to end, without the need for professional Table 1 Success Criteria for the Consumer/Visitor Very Unimportant Unimportant What do Consumers Want Out of a DMS? 1 (%) 2 (%) Very Average Important Important 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) Mean SD 16.6 77.7 4.82 0.39 22.2 72.2 4.61 0.78 11.1 33.3 55.5 4.44 0.71 11.1 33.3 50.0 4.41 0.71 11.1 38.8 50.0 4.39 0.69 16.6 27.7 50.0 4.35 0.79 11.1 27.7 50.0 4.29 0.92 16.6 50.0 33.3 4.17 0.71 16.6 55.5 33.3 4.16 0.69 27.7 38.8 38.8 4.11 0.81 22.2 38.8 38.8 4.05 0.91 22.2 16.6 16.6 3.90 0.88 44.4 11.1 11.1 2.94 1.06 1. User-friendly and easy-to-understand system 2. Comprehensive destination information before their trip 5.5 3. Comprehensive destination information during their trip 4. Online booking confirmation 5. Speed of transactions 6. Range of prices available to accommodate different budget needs 7. Late-availability information 5.5 8. Secure payment methods 9. Option to conduct virtual tours and view pictures of a destination 10. Book products from a variety of distribution channels, such as via computer, Travel agency, TIC, etc. 11. Online bookings through DMSs 5.5 12. Availability of help function such as a toll-free telephone, intuitive online help 13. Obtain comprehensive destination information 5.5 27.7 after the trip 46 BUHALIS AND SPADA assistance. However, one expert also suggested that the existence of a toll-free telephone or intuitive online help would be crucial in boosting consumer confidence, and in encouraging usage. A user- friendly system should also provide an instant re- sponse and information in the language required by consumers or at lease in the four to five main lan- guages of their markets. The definition of a user- friendly system was extended to the physical and virtual accessibility of DMSs, usually requiring a link to a variety of distribution channels. The rel- evance of these results in defining the success crite- ria for DMSs lies in understanding customers' point of view, whereby the availability of comprehensive, timely, and reliable information is increasingly criti- cal to travel decisions. Success Criteria From the Tourism Suppliers' Point of View Survey findings regarding the expectations of tourism suppliers from DMSs highlighted a number of prominent success factors. The management, marketing, and planning functions of DMSs were considered to be very important attributes of these systems for tourism suppliers, as can be seen in Table 2. Experts again almost unanimously rated the reli- ability, accuracy of information, and services as well as the user friendliness as some of the most critical criteria for the success of DMSs. However, experts emphasized that from the suppliers' point of view, DMSs should play a key role in marketing the des- tination. This can be achieved through increasing awareness and visitor levels due to the ability of DMSs to distribute information and services glo- bally. DMSs also enable SMTEs to overcome their dependence on monopolistic tour operators, who currently control the marketing and distribution channels of smaller tourism organizations, and to reach wider markets. However, tourism suppliers are likely to attach great importance to the cost of mem- bership fees, commissions, and technology. It is these costs that have hitherto inhibited the participation of many suppliers in DMSs, especially of the SMTEs. In addition, the expert panel rated the ability of DMSs to aid the reduction of seasonality peaks, as well as the importance of sharing information lo- cally, as important to tourism suppliers, while they claimed that DMSs cannot reduce labor cost by giv- ing a fairly unimportant rating. The low scores of these attributes and the fairly high SD illustrate that experts feel that the prospect of suppliers taking full advantage of the strategic benefits of DMSs as a mechanism to reduce operational costs is still quite remote. Experts also explained the factors that might attract or inhibit tourism suppliers' participation to DMSs as divergent opinions were put forward Table 2 Success Criteria for Tourism Suppliers Very Very Unimportant Unimportant Average Important Important What do Suppliers Want Out of a DMS? 1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) Mean SD 1. Reliability and accuracy of services provided by a DMS 22.2 77.7 4.78 0.43 2. User-friendly and easy-to-understand system 44.4 61.1 4.58 0.51 3. Distribution of information globally 11.1 44.4 44.4 4.33 0.69 4. Collection and compilation of market information 5.5 5.5 55.5 4.17 0.79 5. DMSs' commission fees charge on bookings 5.5 22.2 27.7 38.8 4.06 0.97 6. The role of a DMS be in increasing awareness and 5.5 22.2 33.3 33.3 4.00 0.94 visitor levels for a destination 7. Impact of cost of membership of tourism organizations 5.5 22.2 27.7 33.3 4.00 0.97 on tourism suppliers 8. Reduction in cost of computer equipment and 5.5 22.2 38.8 27.7 3.88 1.05 telecommunications 9. Need to receive guaranteed bookings 5.5 33.3 33.3 22.2 3.71 1.05 10. Interface and share information with other trade suppliers 5.5 5.5 38.8 38.8 5.5 3.35 0.93 11. The role of a DMS be in reducing seasonality peaks and 16.6 22.2 50.0 11.1 3.56 0.92 troughs for a destination 12. Role of DMSs in minimizing labour costs 16.6 27.7 33.3 5.5 16.6 2.78 1.31 46 BUHALIS AND SPADA assistance. However, one expert also suggested that the existence of a toll-free telephone or intuitive online help would be crucial in boosting consumer confidence, and in encouraging usage. A user- friendly system should also provide an instant re- sponse and information in the language required by consumers or at lease in the four to five main lan- guages of their markets. The definition of a user- friendly system was extended to the physical and virtual accessibility of DMSs, usually requiring a link to a variety of distribution channels. The rel- evance of these results in defining the success crite- ria for DMSs lies in understanding customers' point of view, whereby the availability of comprehensive, timely, and reliable information is increasingly criti- cal to travel decisions. Success Criteria From the Tourism Suppliers' Point of View Survey findings regarding the expectations of tourism suppliers from DMSs highlighted a number of prominent success factors. The management, marketing, and planning functions of DMSs were considered to be very important attributes of these systems for tourism suppliers, as can be seen in Table 2. Experts again almost unanimously rated the reli- ability, accuracy of information, and services as well as the user friendliness as some of the most critical criteria for the success of DMSs. However, experts emphasized that from the suppliers' point of view, DMSs should play a key role in marketing the des- tination. This can be achieved through increasing awareness and visitor levels due to the ability of DMSs to distribute information and services glo- bally. DMSs also enable SMTEs to overcome their dependence on monopolistic tour operators, who currently control the marketing and distribution channels of smaller tourism organizations, and to reach wider markets. However, tourism suppliers are likely to attach great importance to the cost of mem- bership fees, commissions, and technology. It is these costs that have hitherto inhibited the participation of many suppliers in DMSs, especially of the SMTEs. In addition, the expert panel rated the ability of DMSs to aid the reduction of seasonality peaks, as well as the importance of sharing information lo- cally, as important to tourism suppliers, while they claimed that DMSs cannot reduce labor cost by giv- ing a fairly unimportant rating. The low scores of these attributes and the fairly high SD illustrate that experts feel that the prospect of suppliers taking full advantage of the strategic benefits of DMSs as a mechanism to reduce operational costs is still quite remote. Experts also explained the factors that might attract or inhibit tourism suppliers' participation to DMSs as divergent opinions were put forward Table 2 Success Criteria for Tourism Suppliers Very Very Unimportant Unimportant Average Important Important What do Suppliers Want Out of a DMS? \{%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) Mean SD 1. Reliability and accuracy of services provided by a DMS 22.2 77.7 4.78 0.43 2. User-friendly and easy-to-understand system 44.4 61.1 4.S8 0.51 3. Distribution of information globally 11.1 44.4 44.4 4.33 0.69 4. Collection and compilation of market information 5.5 5.5 55.5 4.17 0.79 5. DMSs' commission fees charge on bookings 5.5 22.2 27.7 38.8 4.06 0.97 6. The role of a DMS be in increasing awareness and 5.5 22.2 33.3 33.3 4.00 0.94 visitor levels for a destination 7. Impact of cost of membership of tourism organizations 5.5 22.2 27.7 33.3 4.00 0.97 on tourism suppliers 8. Reduction in cost of computer equipment and 5.5 22.2 38.8 27.7 3.88 1.05 telecommunications 9. Need to receive guaranteed bookings 5.5 33.3 33.3 22.2 3.71 1.05 10. Interface and share information with other trade suppliers 5.5 5.5 38.8 38.8 5.5 3.35 0.93 11. The role of a DMS be in reducing seasonality peaks and 16.6 22.2 50.0 11.1 3.56 0.92 troughs for a destination 12. Role of DMSs in minimizing labour costs 16.6 27.7 33.3 5.5 16.6 2.78 1.31 CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL DMS 47 with regards to the importance of commission fees costs. On the one hand, some argued that suppliers would be prepared to pay a fee, provided that the services offered by DMSs enabled them to enhance their business profitability and thus increase their return on investment. If DMOs can demonstrate that DMSs offer real returns, even smaller tourism suppliers would be prepared to pay, regardless of their poor financial resources. Hence, for DMOs to achieve a comprehensive list of destination sup- pliers participating to the system, they not only need to ensure that DMSs provide suppliers with more cost-effective services, but they also need to adopt a sensible pricing strategy that offers value- for-money. On the other hand, others suggested that tourism suppliers, especially SMTEs, are gen- erally very price sensitive and that "the lower the fee, the more suppliers will participate in the sys- tem." It is for this reason that DMSs' fees should be more attractive in comparison to fees and commis- sions of other distribution channels. Hence, the dissimilar requirements of different operators of different size and activity should be incorporated in the fee structure of DMSs. Unfortunately, how- ever, many DMOs lack a sound commercial back- ground for the application of the right price struc- ture. Hence, they fail to attract a representative number of supplier members, which in return jeop- ardizes their comprehensiveness. Success Criteria From the Public Sector's Point of View Traditionally, the public sector has overall respon- sibility for planning, management, and marketing of destinations. Survey findings in Table 3 revealed that the public sector is likely to attach great impor- tance to the marketing functions of DMOs. Experts agreed that the public sector should consider DMSs as a very important promotional tool that will en- able destinations to increase their market awareness, and thus rated these criteria very highly. Similarly, the management and planning functions of DMSs emerged to be critical attributes. The public sector should regard DMSs as tools for the planning, man- agement, and marketing of destinations, which will also offer reliable and accurate information to con- sumers and promote the region and its enterprises. The expert opinion varied more on the strategic role of DMSs on supporting strategic alliances or reduc- ing seasonality problems at destinations and as a result not only lower means were attributed but also higher SDs were evident. Much debate revolves around the involvement of the public sector in DMSs in terms of whether the latter should develop, lead, or finance these sys- tems or whether it should be involved in all of these activities. Indeed, the public sector has a poor record in implementing projects of a commercial nature. Table 3 Success Criteria for the Public Sector Very Very Unimportant Unimportant Average Important Important What Does the Public Sector Want Out of a DMS? K%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) Mean SD 1. Reliability and accuracy of a DMS for overall 38.8 44.4 16.6 4.61 0.73 destination credibility 2. Promotional tool 5.5 38.8 50.0 4.47 0.62 3. Support of SMTEs 16.6 38.8 44.4 4.28 0.75 4. Increasing awareness and visitor levels for a destination 5.5 11.1 44.4 33.3 4.12 0.86 5. DMS as a management and planning tool, for the 11.1 5.5 50.0 33.3 4.06 0.94 compilation of tourism statistics, etc. 6. Reduction in cost of computer equipment and 5.5 27.7 27.7 44.4 4.00 1.11 telecommunications 7. Increase the competitiveness of SMTEs in 11.1 27.7 16.6 38.8 3.88 1.11 the marketplace 8. Redistribution of benefits to local or regional economies 5.5 38.8 27.7 27.7 3.78 0.94 9. Display of unbiased supplier information 16.6 33.3 27.7 16.6 3.78 0.73 10. Promote strategic alliances with other destinations 5.5 11.1 16.6 38.8 27.7 3.72 1.18 11. Reduce seasonality peaks and troughs 16.6 27.7 27.7 16.6 3.47 1.01 48 BUHALIS AND SPADA One expert suggested that public agencies' failure in developing successful DMSs to date is due to the fact that the implementation of DMSs has been "po- litically correct" or "we must do this because every- body else does it" approach. It was also argued that often public agencies invest in DMSs without car- rying out a situation analysis, or without establish- ing objectives and benefits, if any, that the develop- ment of a DMS should create for stakeholders at the destination. Many experts were also of the opinion that the public sector "must" be involved in the DMSs' de- velopment in order to secure the comprehensive- ness, quality, and integrity of destination informa- tion displayed. However, some experts raised concern about the cost involved in building DMSs and the need to establish partnerships with the private sec- tor. They therefore suggested that while the public sector should play a leading role in establishing the direction of DMSs and in providing the financial resources for the development of these systems, the future viability of DMSs is highly contingent upon private investors' involvement. In effect, the com- mercial viability of DMSs rests upon the public sector's determination to establish a viable partner- ship with members of the private sector. Neverthe- less, some experts explained that the private sector is commercially driven and has the know-how to operate DMSs in a profitable manner. Private inves- tors also have considerable financial resources at their disposal to invest in the right IT systems in order to boost the functionality of the system. Success Criteria From the Investors' Point of View Many DMOs recognized that they lack the capi- tal and expertise to develop and operate DMSs. As a result, they have either privatized their DMSs to provide more freedom to attract private sector capi- tal (e.g., TisCover), sold their system to private op- erators (e.g., Gulliver), or outsourced their DMSs to a private organizations or partnerships. In this sense there is an increasing number of privately owned or managed DMSs and experts were asked to rate the criteria of success for DMSs from the investors' (pri- vate and public) point of view. As shown in Table 4, investors' criteria for success mainly lie in the com- mercial attributes of these systems and their ability to generate profitability. Apart from the reliability and efficiency of the system, experts claimed that investors consider DMSs' ability to develop a suc- cessful revenue model, which will enable them to create adequate return on investment, as very im- portant. Not surprisingly, the survey also revealed Table 4 Success Criteria for Investors Very Very Unimportant Unimportant Average Important Important What do Investors Want Out of a DMS? I(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) Mean SD 1. Operating reliability and efficiency 11.1 22.2 66.6 4.56 0.70 2. Public-private sectors partnerships relevance on the 44.4 44.4 4.50 0.52 DMS revenue model 3. Ability for a DMS to interface with a multiple 16.6 22.2 61.1 4.44 0.78 distribution channel in the placement of investments, such as CRS, GDS, and digital TV 4. DMSs' ability to embrace new technology such as 5.5 11.1 22.2 61.1 4.39 0.92 open platforms and scaleability 5. Impact of pressure to make a profit on the development 11.1 44.4 38.8 4.29 0.69 of DMSs 6. Ability of a DMSs to make a profit 5.5 38.8 44.4 4.21 0.79 7. Need to boost membership 5.5 16.6 27.7 44.4 4.18 0.95 8. Role of type of visitors attracted to a destination play in 22.2 50.0 22.2 4.00 0.71 the placement of investment decisions 9. Reduction in cost of computer equipment and 5.5 5.5 27.7 33.3 27.7 3.72 1.13 telecommunications 10. Use of a DMS for strategic alliances with 5.5 22.2 27.7 16.6 27.7 3.39 1.29 other destinations 48 BUHALIS AND SPADA One expert suggested that public agencies' failure in developing successful DMSs to date is due to the fact that the implementation of DMSs has been "po- litically correct" or "we must do this because every- body else does it" approach. It was also argued that often public agencies invest in DMSs without car- rying out a situation analysis, or without establish- ing objectives and benefits, if any, that the develop- ment of a DMS should create for stakeholders at the destination. Many experts were also of the opinion that the public sector "must" be involved in the DMSs' de- velopment in order to secure the comprehensive- ness, quality, and integrity of destination informa- tion displayed. However, some experts raised concern about the cost involved in building DMSs and the need to establish partnerships with the private sec- tor. They therefore suggested that while the public sector should play a leading role in establishing the direction of DMSs and in providing the financial resources for the development of these systems, the future viability of DMSs is highly contingent upon private investors' involvement. In effect, the com- mercial viability of DMSs rests upon the public sector's determination to establish a viable partner- ship with members of the private sector. Neverthe- less, some experts explained that the private sector is commercially driven and has the know-how to operate DMSs in a profitable manner. Private inves- tors also have considerable financial resources at their disposal to invest in the right IT systems in order to boost the functionality of the system. Success Criteria From the Investors' Point of View Many DMOs recognized that they lack the capi- tal and expertise to develop and operate DMSs. As a result, they have either privatized their DMSs to provide more freedom to attract private sector capi- tal (e.g., TisCover), sold their system to private op- erators (e.g., Gulliver), or outsourced their DMSs to a private organizations or partnerships. In this sense there is an increasing number of privately owned or managed DMSs and experts were asked to rate the criteria of success for DMSs from the investors' (pri- vate and public) point of view. As shown in Table 4, investors' criteria for success mainly lie in the com- mercial attributes of these systems and their ability to generate profitability. Apart from the reliability and efficiency of the system, experts claimed that investors consider DMSs' ability to develop a suc- cessful revenue model, which will enable them to create adequate return on investment, as very im- portant. Not surprisingly, the survey also revealed Table 4 Success Criteria for Investors Very Very Unimportant Unimportant Average Important Important What do Investors Want Out of a DMS? K%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) Mean SD 1. Operating reliability and efficiency 11.1 22.2 66.6 4.56 0.70 2. Public-private sectors partnerships relevance on the 44.4 44.4 4.50 0.52 DMS revenue model 3. Ability for a DMS to interface with a multiple 16.6 22.2 61.1 4.44 0.78 distribution channel in the placement of investments, such as CRS, GDS, and digital TV 4. DMSs' ability to embrace new technology such as 5.5 11.1 22.2 61.1 4.39 0.92 open platforms and scaleability 5. Impact of pressure to make a profit on the development 11.1 44.4 38.8 4.29 0.69 of DMSs 6. Ability of a DMSs to make a profit 5.5 38.8 44.4 4.21 0.79 7. Need to boost membership 5.5 16.6 27.7 44.4 4.18 0.95 8. Role of type of visitors attracted to a destination play in 22.2 50.0 22.2 4.00 0.71 the placement of investment decisions 9. Reduction in cost of computer equipment and 5.5 5.5 27.7 33.3 27.7 3.72 1.13 telecommunications 10. Use of a DMS for strategic alliances with 5.5 22.2 27.7 16.6 27.7 3.39 1.29 other destinations CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL DMS 49 that it is important to investors to operate profitable DMSs while other strategic issues such as cooperate with other destinations were rated of lesser impor- tance. Many experts agreed that the profit orientation of private sector investors can have considerable impacts on these systems, such as the marginalization of SMTEs and suppliers who cannot be easily con- nected or administrated through DMSs. The migra- tion of DMSs from the public to the private sector often entails a central change in scope, from serving the competitiveness and economic development of destinations to becoming a business unit seeking to generate direct profit. Experts interviewed high- lighted that the pressure to make a profit has far- reaching implications for the future of DMSs. This could lead to two scenarios. First, some SMTE ser- vices, which are not considered profitable, may be discarded, and second, a private sector-driven DMS, in the pursuit of increasing profit margins, may wish to charge higher fees. This can jeopardize the repre- sentativeness and comprehensiveness of the system. Indeed, it was suggested that the private sector may only be concerned with providing customers with a reasonable choice about a destination, regardless of the comprehensiveness of the choice and the pro- motion of smaller players. In order to avoid these types of impact or conflict, the public sector should play a critical role in the DMSs, alongside private investors, to safeguard its strategic objectives. This in turn will not only ensure the comprehensiveness of DMSs, but also their commercial viability. Success Criteria From the Tour Operators' Point of View Table 5 illustrates that many criteria raised in rela- tion to tour operators (TOs) were rated by experts of average importance or unimportant. The ratings are consistently lower than other stakeholders and a higher SD illustrates that experts are less confident about the ways DMSs can assist the needs and wants of TOs. This is consistent with trends for disintermediation as well as the strategic role of DMSs to reduce dependency on existing distribution chan- nels and support the bridging of destinations with their markets. It is also consistent with previous re- search findings (Buhalis, 1995). The only criteria that were rated on the important range were the user friend- liness and unbiased service of the system. Experts rated most other criteria as average to unimportant, illustrating that DMSs will probably facilitate the disintermediation of the channel. Surprisingly, the ability of DMSs to provide TOs with access to market information was underrated (mean 3.4, SD 1.3), al- though smaller tour operators can use this facility for their research and development function without having to travel to the destination. Given that criteria relating to the reduction of distribution costs and access to market information were found of average or no importance, interviews aimed to investigate the reasons as to why DMSs were not considered important tools for TOs. Ques- tioned on the use of DMSs for the reduction of TOs' distribution and research costs, experts highlighted Table 5 Success Criteria for Tour Operators Very Very Unimportant Unimportant Average Important Important What do TOs Want Out of a DMS? 1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) Mean SD 1. User-friendly and easy- to-understand system 5.5 5.5 33.3 50.0 4.29 1.0S 2. Provision of unbiased service 11.1 16.6 11.1 22.2 33.3 3.53 1.46 3. Access a range of market information 11.1 11.1 33.3 22.2 27.7 3.42 1.30 4. Use of DMSs as a marketing tool 16.6 22.2 16.6 16.6 27.7 3.17 1.50 5. Manage product inventory 16.6 22.2 16.6 16.6 27.7 3.17 1.50 6. DMSs ability to reduce seasonality 11.1 22.2 33.3 22.2 16.6 3.11 1.24 7. Minimum membership charges 11.1 22.2 16.6 16.6 11.1 2.93 1.33 8. Minimize trading communication costs for tour operators 16.6 22.2 27.7 27.7 . 5.5 2.83 1.20 9. Role of DMSs in supporting the bulk-buy process of 22.2 22.2 27.7 16.6 11.1 2.72 1.32 tour operators 10. Role of DMSs in the cost of distribution for 16.6 27.7 22.2 16.6 5.5 2.63 1.20 tour operators 50 BUHALIS AND SPADA that a distinction can be made between the benefits that DMSs are likely to create for larger and smaller TOs with small operators enjoying higher benefits. Generally, experts argued that DMSs cannot re- duce TOs' distribution costs if they were to distribute packages. On the contrary, DMSs mightincrease TOs' costs as DMSs can represent an extra intermediary, and thus extra commissions and additional costs. Equally, given that DMSs encourage customers to make direct bookings, these systems can also be viewed as a potential threat to TOs' business. One expert pointed out that the above arguments are par- ticularly relevant to larger TOs, who arrange holi- days for millions of people yearly, such as Airtours and TUI. For instance, in the UK large, integrated TOs have their own multiple travel agencies for the distribution of their packages, and the benefits that DMSs would bring to their business are minimal. However, in countries where the distribution chan- nel is constituted by smaller TOs, DMSs could play a critical role in terms of reducing costs of distribu- tion for principals. For example, for outbound op- erators from Mediterranean countries, where the majority of TOs are small, independent, and have limited financial resources in comparison to their Northern European integrated counterparts, DMSs could be a benefit. DMSs could assist smaller TOs in the distribution of their packages online, directly to consumers, as well as the research and develop- ment phases. This in turn would reduce their depen- dence on integrated TOs and travel agencies (TAs), as well as their commission costs. Success Criteria From the Travel Agents' Point of View As illustrated in Table 6, expert opinions indi- cated that TAs attach great importance to criteria relating to the accuracy and functionality of DMSs. Experts rated DMSs' information accuracy very im- portant (mean 4.8, SD 0.38) for TAs. In addition, the majority of experts (77.7%) found DMSs' ability to provide expeditious and reliable responses to que- ries very important, as this will enable them to an- swer specific requests and provide specialized con- tent to their clients. Not surprisingly, many experts (55.5%) also agreed that DMSs' provision of real- time information is very important for TAs, while only a few experts (11.1%) found this criterion of average importance. Understandably, guaranteed bookings are also rated highly because TAs would like to provide confirmed bookings on the spot to their clients. However, experts rated the unbiased information criterion as less important, illustrating that as long as a booking is easy to make, secured, and guaranteed it may be based on biased informa- tion. These findings confirmed that TAs' global sur- vival is highly contingent upon their ability to add Table 6 Success Criteria for Travel Agents Very Very Unimportant Unimportant Average Important Important What do TAs Want out of a DMS? K%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) Mean SD 1. Accurate and reliable information 16.6 83.3 4.83 0.38 2. Quick and reliable responses 22.2 77.7 4.78 0.43 3. Instant online reservations 38.8 61.1 4.61 0.50 4. User-friendly and easy-to-understand system 5.5 33.3 61.1 4.56 0.62 5. Depth of information and product range 5.5 33.3 55.5 4.53 0.62 6. Guaranteed bookings 16.6 11.1 66.6 4.53 0.80 7. Real-time availability of information 11.1 22.2 55.5 4.50 0.73 8. Booking commissions from a DMS on the 5.5 16.6 33.3 44.4 4.17 0.92 travel agency business 9. Unbiased destination information 16.6 16.6 5.5 38.8 3.86 1.29 10. Compete alongside tour operators in terms of 11.1 16.6 5.5 50.0 11.1 3.53 1.27 commission revenues 11. Reduction in cost of computer equipment and 5.5 5.5 38.8 38.8 11.1 3.44 0.98 telecommunications 12. Compete alongside airlines in terms of 16.6 11.1 11.1 38.8 5.5 3.07 1.33 commission revenues 50 BUHALIS AND SPADA that a distinction can be made between the benefits that DMSs are likely to create for larger and smaller TOs with small operators enjoying higher benefits. Generally, experts argued that DMSs cannot re- duce TOs' distribution costs if they were to distribute packages. On the contrary, DMSs might increase TOs' costs as DMSs can represent an extra intermediary, and thus extra commissions and additional costs. Equally, given that DMSs encourage customers to make direct bookings, these systems can also be viewed as a potential threat to TOs' business. One expert pointed out that the above arguments are par- ticularly relevant to larger TOs, who arrange holi- days for millions of people yearly, such as Airtours and TUI. For instance, in the UK large, integrated TOs have their own multiple travel agencies for the distribution of their packages, and the benefits that DMSs would bring to their business are minimal. However, in countries where the distribution chan- nel is constituted by smaller TOs, DMSs could play a critical role in terms of reducing costs of distribu- tion for principals. For example, for outbound op- erators from Mediterranean countries, where the majority of TOs are small, independent, and have limited financial resources in comparison to their Northern European integrated counterparts, DMSs could be a benefit. DMSs could assist smaller TOs in the distribution of their packages online, directly to consumers, as well as the research and develop- ment phases. This in turn would reduce their depen- dence on integrated TOs and travel agencies (TAs), as well as their commission costs. Success Criteria From the Travel Agents' Point of View As illustrated in Table 6, expert opinions indi- cated that TAs attach great importance to criteria relating to the accuracy and functionality of DMSs. Experts rated DMSs' information accuracy very im- portant (mean 4.8, SD 0.38) for TAs. In addition, the majority of experts (77.7%) found DMSs' ability to provide expeditious and reliable responses to que- ries very important, as this will enable them to an- swer specific requests and provide specialized con- tent to their clients. Not surprisingly, many experts (55.5%) also agreed that DMSs' provision of real- time information is very important for TAs, while only a few experts (11.1%) found this criterion of average importance. Understandably, guaranteed bookings are also rated highly because TAs would like to provide confirmed bookings on the spot to their clients. However, experts rated the unbiased information criterion as less important, illustrating that as long as a booking is easy to make, secured, and guaranteed it may be based on biased informa- tion. These findings confirmed that TAs' global sur- vival is highly contingent upon their ability to add Table 6 Success Criteria for Travel Agents Very Very Unimportant Unimportant Average Important Important What do TAs Want out of a DMS? 1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) Mean SD 1. Accurate and reliable information 16.6 83.3 4.83 0.38 2. Quick and reliable responses 22.2 77.7 4.78 0.43 3. Instant online reservations 38.8 61.1 4.61 0.50 4. User-friendly and easy-to-understand system 5.5 33.3 61.1 4.56 0.62 5. Depth of information and product range 5.5 33.3 55.5 4.53 0.62 6. Guaranteed bookings 16.6 11.1 66.6 4.53 0.80 7. Real-time availability of information 11.1 22.2 55.5 4.50 0.73 8. Booking commissions from a DMS on the 5.5 16.6 33.3 44.4 4.17 0.92 travel agency business 9. Unbiased destination information 16.6 16.6 5.5 38.8 3.86 1.29 10. Compete alongside tour operators in terms of 11.1 16.6 5.5 50.0 11.1 3.53 1.27 commission revenues 11. Reduction in cost of computer equipment and 5.5 5.5 38.8 38.8 11.1 3.44 0.98 telecommunications 12. Compete alongside airlines in terms of 16.6 11.1 11.1 38.8 5.5 3.07 1.33 commission revenues CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL DMS 51 value and therefore DMSs can assist them to de- velop their products and offer improved service. All criteria are consistently rated higher than TOs and there is higher consistency through small SD for most of the criteria. Having established that DMSs can greatly en- hance the service delivery of TAs, interviews aimed to canvass expert opinions as to whether DMSs can potentially provide TAs with better commission rev- enues than TOs. Commission revenue earned on the sale of tourism products is of crucial importance to TAs' business. Experts claimed that unless DMSs offer agencies with competitive incentives in com- parison to TOs' commission rates, it is highly un- likely that they would sell DMSs' products. Due to the concentration and vertical integration of distri- bution channels in most Northern European coun- tries it is expected that independent and special- ized TAs will use and benefit from DMSs more than all other intermediaries. Technological Developments In addition to the main stakeholders this research project examined the main technological develop- ments that are expected to influence the expansion of DMSs. Experts suggested that emerging technolo- gies are likely to have an impact on the future de- velopment of DMSs. Clearly, all technological is- sues rated in Table 7 constitute very important success criteria for DMSs. The digitalization of tour- ism information and the ability to undertake the entire information-seeking and reservation processes electronically will increase the utilization of DMSs and will create a critical mass. Experts observed that as the cost of technology is constantly reduced, the ability of SMTEs to participate in DMSs is enhanced greatly. This will also have tremendous impacts on the competitive position of DMSs, as the competi- tive advantage of these systems depends on their comprehensiveness and their ability to cover all services and facilities locally. Many experts (61.1%) considered online services and the digitalization of destination information as very important criteria for the success of destina- tion systems (mean 4.6 and4.5, respectively). Simi- larly, experts considered multimedia presentations of tourism products as a very important criterion for the success of DMSs (mean 4.37). In addition, em- phasis was given on the usage of multiple distribu- tion channels for communicating information. These services enable consumers to "surf significant amounts of information and to add value to their activities by customizing products according to their preferences. Comprehensive multimedia can pro- vide consumers with information-rich presentations and not only add value to their product but also influence their destination selection. Hence, DMSs distributed through the Internet can develop to criti- cal promotional tools for tourism suppliers and des- tinations. In addition, many experts suggested that the price of technology is a very important factor Table 7 Technological Criteria for the Success of DMSs Very Very Unimportant Unimportant Average Important Important How Important Are Future Tech. Developments for DMS? 1 (%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) Mean SD 1. Online booking and payment for DMSs 38.8 61.1 4.61 0.50 2. Digitalization of destination information 11.1 3.3 61.1 4.47 0.70 3. Multimedia presentation of tourism products 5.5 5.5 38.8 55.5 4.37 0.83 4. Service multiple distribution channels and 5.5 38.8 33.3 4.36 0.63 communication technologies 5. Adoption of personalized internet commerce 5.5 5.5 33.3 50.0 4.35 0.86 6. Distribution technology of remote or peripheral regions 16.6 33.3 38.8 4.06 0.93 7. Significance of cheaper technologies for the representation 5.5 11.1 11.1 33.3 44.4 3.95 1.22 of SMTEs 8. Emergence of digital TV 38.8 38.8 27.7 3.89 0.81 9. Impacts of convergence of separate appliances such as 5.5 38.8 38.8 16.6 3.78 0.87 TV, PC, and telephone for DMSs 10. Standardization of information for all DMSs 5.5 11.1 27.7 33.3 16.6 3.47 1.12 52 BUHALIS AND SPADA for the participation of SMTEs in DMSs. The reduc- tion of prices for technological equipment and ser- vices will enable the participation of all destination suppliers, including SMTEs. These results closely reflect the fact that increas- ingly consumers have little time at their disposal, and thus require more expeditious information. DMSs should enable users to access reliable and accurate information as well as to undertake reser- vations in a fraction of time, cost, and inconvenience required by traditional methods. A variety of appli- cations and appliances should facilitate the interac- tion with consumers. All the technological criteria listed in Table 7 highlight that the ultimate success criterion for DMSs consists of their ability to em- brace new technology. Expert opinion was sought with regards to the issue of standardization of information for all DMSs, which is considered to have wider implications for the global accessibility to products and services on display. The main constraints on DMSs' ability to embrace new technology are not only of a technical nature, but also a combination of technical, cul- tural, and financial characteristics of both the tour- ism industry and the public sector. As these are closely interrelated, it is often difficult to identify which one generates the other. Many interviewees observed that the technical limitations are mainly due to the fact that many DMSs have legacy sys- tems. The pace at which new technologies are emerg- ing renders the task of keeping pace with these changes difficult. Hence, just as much as IT facili- tates existing needs and business prospects, DMSs' costs still represent major obstacles. Lessons and Issues for the Future of DMSs and the Role of the Public Sector Overall, the analysis of qualitative research high- lighted that despite the many, and often dissimilar, needs and wants of the various stakeholders, there are also many homogeneous requirements. Respon- dents almost unanimously illustrated that stakehold- ers demand reliable and accurate systems, which provide user-friendly interfaces for communications with consumers, suppliers, and the travel trade. The criteria obtained and analyzed pointed out the need for functional, effective, efficient, and profitable DMSs that would be of a great benefit to all stake- holders. Despite the variable importance that crite- ria hold for different stakeholders, it is also clear that coordination and cooperation are essential for the success of DMSs. Incompatibilities and diver- gences that emerge from the different stakeholders' criteria can only be overcome if communication is established, and if the common aim of making DMSs successful drives the deployment of these systems. The role of public sector is critical, not only be- cause it has the overall responsibility for the coor- dination, planning, management, and marketing of destinations, but also because it has hitherto lead the development of DMSs. The list of success criteria that emerged from pri- mary research would be of little or no use if its ap- plicability was not investigated. Indeed, there may be substantial agreement among experts on DMSs' success criteria, but this does not make the applica- tion of these criteria less complex. As the various stakeholders bring with them a set of aims and ob- jectives, they also have their own needs and wants from DMSs. Few stakeholders realize the synergies that can emerge as a result of their cooperation with others. National Tourism Organizations (NTOs) and public sector agencies have traditionally been slow in recognizing that their active involvement may be the key in fostering cooperativeness among the different stakeholders. Despite their role as plan- ners, coordinators, regulators, and promoters of des- tinations, NTOs have done little to assume the role of "active IT leaders" in guiding and stimulating change that purposively benefits all stakeholders at the destination region. Only a few exceptions can be observed globally, namely, Ireland, Tyrol, Aus- tria, and Singapore. The identification of DMSs' success criteria shown in Figure 1 clearly raises a question of feasibility. A close collaboration between public and private sec- tors at the destinations and communication as well as coordination between the different levels of tour- ist offices throughout the country would be instru- mental for the success of DMSs. Significantly, the intervention of the public sector's agencies in the development of these systems is necessary for the mitigation of conflicts and for enabling DMSs to achieve their full potential. The public sector con- ditions the environment within which private enter- prises develop and manage their offerings. In addi- tion, the public sector often manages all public 52 BUHALIS AND SPADA for the participation of SMTEs in DMSs. The reduc- tion of prices for technological equipment and ser- vices will enable the participation of all destination suppliers, including SMTEs. These results closely reflect the fact that increas- ingly consumers have little time at their disposal, and thus require more expeditious information. DMSs should enable users to access reliable and accurate information as well as to undertake reser- vations in a fraction of time, cost, and inconvenience required by traditional methods. A variety of appli- cations and appliances should facilitate the interac- tion with consumers. All the technological criteria listed in Table 7 highlight that the ultimate success criterion for DMSs consists of their ability to em- brace new technology. Expert opinion was sought with regards to the issue of standardization of information for all DMSs, which is considered to have wider implications for the global accessibility to products and services on display. The main constraints on DMSs' ability to embrace new technology are not only of a technical nature, but also a combination of technical, cul- tural, and financial characteristics of both the tour- ism industry and the public sector. As these are closely interrelated, it is often difficult to identify which one generates the other. Many interviewees observed that the technical limitations are mainly due to the fact that many DMSs have legacy sys- tems. The pace at which new technologies are emerg- ing renders the task of keeping pace with these changes difficult. Hence, just as much as IT facili- tates existing needs and business prospects, DMSs' costs still represent major obstacles. Lessons and Issues for the Future of DMSs and the Role of the Public Sector Overall, the analysis of qualitative research high- lighted that despite the many, and often dissimilar, needs and wants of the various stakeholders, there are also many homogeneous requirements. Respon- dents almost unanimously illustrated that stakehold- ers demand reliable and accurate systems, which provide user-friendly interfaces for communications with consumers, suppliers, and the travel trade. The criteria obtained and analyzed pointed out the need for functional, effective, efficient, and profitable DMSs that would be of a great benefit to all stake- holders. Despite the variable importance that crite- ria hold for different stakeholders, it is also clear that coordination and cooperation are essential for the success of DMSs. Incompatibilities and diver- gences that emerge from the different stakeholders' criteria can only be overcome if communication is established, and if the common aim of making DMSs successful drives the deployment of these systems. The role of public sector is critical, not only be- cause it has the overall responsibility for the coor- dination, planning, management, and marketing of destinations, but also because it has hitherto lead the development of DMSs. The list of success criteria that emerged from pri- mary research would be of little or no use if its ap- plicability was not investigated. Indeed, there may be substantial agreement among experts on DMSs' success criteria, but this does not make the applica- tion of these criteria less complex. As the various stakeholders bring with them a set of aims and ob- jectives, they also have their own needs and wants from DMSs. Few stakeholders realize the synergies that can emerge as a result of their cooperation with others. National Tourism Organizations (NTOs) and public sector agencies have traditionally been slow in recognizing that their active involvement may be the key in fostering cooperativeness among the different stakeholders. Despite their role as plan- ners, coordinators, regulators, and promoters of des- tinations, NTOs have done little to assume the role of "active IT leaders" in guiding and stimulating change that purposively benefits all stakeholders at the destination region. Only a few exceptions can be observed globally, namely, Ireland, Tyrol, Aus- tria, and Singapore. The identification of DMSs' success criteria shown in Figure 1 clearly raises a question of feasibility. A close collaboration between public and private sec- tors at the destinations and communication as well as coordination between the different levels of tour- ist offices throughout the country would be instru- mental for the success of DMSs. Significantly, the intervention of the public sector's agencies in the development of these systems is necessary for the mitigation of conflicts and for enabling DMSs to achieve their full potential. The public sector con- ditions the environment within which private enter- prises develop and manage their offerings. In addi- tion, the public sector often manages all public CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL DMS 53 facilities and services, such as heritage attractions, infrastructure, and utilities. The quality assurance role of the public sector not only safeguards the quality of offerings but also protects consumers and suppliers. In this sense, the public sector is a cata- lyst for the development of tourism at any destina- tion, and therefore it determines the conditions of tourism operations and can encourage collabora- tion of all local suppliers through DMSs. Unlike any other stakeholders, the range of policy instru- ments available to governments and DMOs is con- siderable and enables the public sector to exercise influence over the direction and implementation of DMSs' success criteria. Some experts maintained that public sector agen- cies often lack the commercial background or the know-how to make the right business choices for the deployment of successful DMSs. Others argued, however, that even if resources and know-how are available, decision making is often burdened by bureaucracy and internal conflicts. Repeatedly lo- cal public sector agencies find themselves under considerable pressure to demonstrate to central gov- ernment, or other sponsors, that public funds are being adequately invested. As a consequence, inter- nal conflicts might arise as to whether to use finan- cial resources to invest in the traditional marketing or develop DMSs. Against this background, it is not surprising that to date DMSs have not been widely deployed or that they have not developed to their full potential. An integral part of public sector's responsibili- ties should be to mitigate conflicts between stake- holders and to encourage a cooperation philoso- phy. Suppliers within the same destination should not view each other as competitors, but rather as "conglomerate allies" against competing destina- tions. Public sectors' agencies should be charged with the responsibility of fostering greater coopera- tion between the various stakeholders at the desti- nation. Greater emphasis should be placed on the importance of private-public sector partnerships for the successful development and implementation of DMSs. Using the Internet, extranets, and intranets through DMSs can facilitate the development of innovative and user-friendly platforms for efficient and timely exchange of ideas and information be- tween suppliers. An informed understanding of these attributes will support the penetration of DMSs for the benefit of entire destinations, particularly for peripheral locations. A crucial objective should be to support SMTEs and encourage their participa- tion and involvement in DMSs, which in turn en- sures the wider economic development of the desti- nation (Buhalis, 1993, 1994, 1995). It is also crucial for the public sector to seek the partnership of private investors for the development and implementation of DMSs in order to safeguard the commercial viability of DMSs. Indeed, private investors are commercially driven, and thus have the know-how to operate DMSs in a profitable man- ner. In addition, private investors have greater fi- nancial resources at their disposal than the public sector, for investment in the right ITs. The public sector is also required to certify the accuracy and neutrality of information, to certify the quality of the provided products, as well as to protect custom- ers and smaller principals. DMSs should be regu- lated against unbiased or false information display. A certain degree of standardization of information should be achieved for two main reasons, especially for the SMTEs. The invaluable information content that SMTEs bring to DMSs is of limited use unless this is standardized, properly communicated, and bookable. That entails a degree of compliance to a standardized format that should be overseen by the public sector. Standardization will allow DMSs to truly become global marketing and distribution tools with obvious benefits for the destination and for their suppliers. This will be critical for the abil- ity of destinations to develop and sustain competi- tive advantage, and DMSs should be playing a criti- cal role as info-structures for destinations (Buhalis. 2000; Buhalis & Cooper, 1998). Therefore, unless local cooperation is encouraged and a strong public-private sector partnership is established for the management and marketing of destinations the success of DMSs will be doubtful. This will require the public sector to assume a lead- ing role as information broker and "assurer," as well as mitigator, partner, brand developer, coordinator, and regulator. Without public leadership, DMSs may be steered towards responding to increasing market demands, which may conflict with the sustainability of destinations, while it may jeopardize the inter- ests of SMTEs. The public sector in partnership with the private sector and other key stakeholders should assume a strategic role, provide leadership, formu- 54 BUHALIS AND SPADA late a strategic vision, and plan for the management of destinations through DMSs. The strategy should give due consideration to all stakeholders' require- ments to ensure the long-term sustainability of lo- cal resources. Developing a Framework to Ensure Benefits for all Stakeholders Through DMSs A more in-depth examination of the criteria that affect the ultimate success of DMSs reveals that dif- ferent stakeholders place different importance on the criteria examined. For DMSs to be successful in the future they will need to balance the require- ments of all stakeholders in a satisfactory manner. DMSs' success criteria apply differently to destina- tions according to their individual market position. To synthesize the research results, this article pro- poses a "5Cs" framework, namely: Choice, Conve- nience, Confidence, Consistency, and Competitive Pricing, as illustrated in Figure 2. This framework should encourage the maximization of benefits for all stakeholders. There are two preconditions to the achievement of the 5Cs framework. First, all tourism suppliers and intermediaries will need to adapt to current market trends. This implies that all stakeholders at the destination region need to change their busi- ness focus, reengineer their practices, and acquire an "awareness of customer expectations." Second, all destination suppliers, including SMTEs, will need to participate in DMSs and provide a wide and comprehensive range of information on destination products and facilities. It is argued that DMSs will provide stakeholders with the 5Cs that will enable them to gain competitive advantage for destinations and stakeholders. Choice A variety of information and facilities offered by all local different suppliers at the destination should be available on DMSs. Information on the whole range of amenities, activities, support facilities, and services that make visitors' stay more enjoyable should also be included. This becomes increasingly more important as new niche markets emerge, re- quiring specialized experiences and resources. Hence, information on resources, activities, shop- ping, food, catering, commercial activities, open- ing times, access to and within the destination, etc., are also essential elements of choice. Convenience Ease to access information and purchase prod- ucts through DMSs will be critical for their success. Equally, user-friendly interfaces will encourage sup- Figure 2. DMSs' 5Cs framework. 54 BUHALIS AND SPADA late a strategic vision, and plan for the management of destinations through DMSs. The strategy should give due consideration to all stakeholders' require- ments to ensure the long-term sustainability of lo- cal resources. Developing a Framework to Ensure Benefits for all Stakeholders Through DMSs A more in-depth examination of the criteria that affect the ultimate success of DMSs reveals that dif- ferent stakeholders place different importance on the criteria examined. For DMSs to be successful in the future they will need to balance the require- ments of all stakeholders in a satisfactory manner. DMSs' success criteria apply differently to destina- tions according to their individual market position. To synthesize the research results, this article pro- poses a "5Cs" framework, namely: Choice, Conve- nience, Confidence, Consistency, and Competitive Pricing, as illustrated in Figure 2. This framework should encourage the maximization of benefits for all stakeholders. There are two preconditions to the achievement of the 5Cs framework. First, all tourism suppliers and intermediaries will need to adapt to current market trends. This implies that all stakeholders at the destination region need to change their busi- ness focus, reengineer their practices, and acquire DMSs' criteria :lnternal Environment an "awareness of customer expectations." Second, all destination suppliers, including SMTEs, will need to participate in DMSs and provide a wide and comprehensive range of information on destination products and facilities. It is argued that DMSs will provide stakeholders with the 5Cs that will enable them to gain competitive advantage for destinations and stakeholders. Choice A variety of information and facilities offered by all local different suppliers at the destination should be available on DMSs. Information on the whole range of amenities, activities, support facilities, and services that make visitors' stay more enjoyable should also be included. This becomes increasingly more important as new niche markets emerge, re- quiring specialized experiences and resources. Hence, information on resources, activities, shop- ping, food, catering, commercial activities, open- ing times, access to and within the destination, etc., are also essential elements of choice. Convenience Ease to access information and purchase prod- ucts through DMSs will be critical for their success. Equally, user-friendly interfaces will encourage sup- Figure 2. DMSs' 5Cs framework. CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL DMS 55 pliers, TOs, and TAs to contribute and retrieve in- formation from DMSs, as well as provide incentives for using the system. Hence, DMSs should be made accessible by a variety of distribution channels such as PC, digital and satellite television, and other emerging distribution media, mobile devices such as palmtops, mobile phones, as well as more tradi- tional distribution mechanisms such as kiosks, Tele- text, tourist boards, and GDSs. The speed at which DMSs will allow the relevant information to be re- trieved and reserved vis-a-vis the speed of service offered by traditional distribution channels is cru- cial. Satisfied users will become repeat customers, and will promote the system by word of mouth. Consistency A reliable and accurate evaluation and classifica- tion system should be adopted by all DMSs. Where a product is not standardized, potential visitors and users find it difficult to comprehend the type of ser- vice or facility they can expect. Consequently, all properties and products on display on DMSs should be explained and made to fit into defined inventory categories, both in terms of style and facilities. Prob- ably the major difficulty of achieving consistency is that of including the sheer number of products and facilities of SMTEs. However, this is not impossible as such consistency has, for instance, been achieved by TIScover, the Tyrolean DMS, whereby a well-de- fined grading system of hotels and tourism products has been formulated. Ultimately, consistency should also extend to standardization of information. This entails the introduction of a query language that sim- plifies customers' and suppliers' access to heteroge- neous tourism information, and thus removes the need for users to navigate different interfaces that are found within the DMS' structure. Confidence The quality and accuracy offered by DMSs play a critical role in establishing a degree of confidence amongst users, including potential visitors and sup- pliers, on the reliability of the system. If the data are false or misleading there is the danger that the en- tire DMS may lose its credibility. Hence, when sup- pliers provide product information DMOs may find it necessary to check its accuracy and use a rigid classification system. Each supplier should ensure that information is reliable and regularly updated, as malpractice not only jeopardizes the credibility of their individual business, but also of the entire DMS. Competitive Pricing A whole range of product prices to suit all bud- gets and requirements should be provided by DMSs. Clearly, this usually depends on the number and types of suppliers participating to the system. As a general rule, the more suppliers participating the better are the chances that a balanced range of com- petitive prices will be available through DMSs. Al- though DMSs should aim to maximize expenditure in order to create economic benefits for the destina- tion, pricing policies should be realistic and com- petitive. Pricing policies should also be coordinated with the overall marketing strategy of the destina- tion. DMOs should encourage suppliers participat- ing in DMSs to formulate demand-oriented pricing strategies, and to take advantage of new marketing techniques such as last minute offers, auctions, etc. The latter can assist destination suppliers to combat the problem of seasonality and spread visitation all- year round and thus minimize the sociocultural and environmental problems at destinations. DMSs can assist destinations and suppliers to apply a yield management system at both the micro and macro levels. DMSs and Electronic Travel Intermediaries: Future Scenarios The deployment of efficient and effective DMSs for the dissemination of destination information and distribution of tourism products is an undisputed market opportunity. Nonetheless, the ability of DMSs to satisfy this market demand vis-a-vis alter- native distribution channels will determine the fu- ture of these systems. DMSs do not only face direct competition from the traditional distribution chan- nels, but also from the more aggressive and techno- logically advanced Internet-based travel agencies such as Microsoft Expedia, Worldres, Preview Travel, Travelocity, Leisure Planet, etc. As these commer- cial entities continue to capture market share and to invest in state-of-the-art technology, they will con- tinue to be "slicker, quicker, and often cheaper" than DMSs. At present, most DMSs do not even qualify 56 BUHALIS AND SPADA to compete with these commercial entities. Indeed, the commercial organizations that operate online travel agencies have financial resources, market share, and know-how at their disposal, which DMSs lack at present. However, functional and efficient DMSs provide comprehensive destination informa- tion, including information on SMTEs' products, which commercial operators wish to obtain but cur- rently find difficult to access. In addition, DMSs have detailed information on local resources as well as reliable classification and control systems for the operation of local facilities. Hence, emerging elec- tronic intermediaries such as Expedia.com, as well as representing a threat to DMSs' viability, could also be considered as a unique opportunity for stra- tegic partnerships. The complementary attributes of DMSs and the Internet-based travel agencies would appear to build a case for cooperation more than for competition. Hence, DMSs can form strate- gic partnerships with electronic intermediaries in order to provide content and quality assurance. DMSs could play a "consolidator" role, whereby DMOs provide commercial operators and electronic intermediaries with comprehensive and reliable in- formation as well as reservation capabilities for des- tinations. Electronic intermediaries in turn could provide DMSs with the distribution mechanisms to reach the emerging cyber marketplace. Given the synergetic linkages that exist between DMSs and electronic intermediaries, the formulation of virtual networks will benefit all parties involved. A Word of Conclusion Technological developments revolutionize busi- ness processes and reengineer the business model in most industries. In tourism, IT provides new op- portunities and challenges for all players. In par- ticular, at the destination level IT enables organiza- tions to collaborate locally and use DMSs to represent their entity to global markets. The impor- tance of cooperation stems from the fragmented na- ture of the tourism product and from the mutual interdependencies within the industry for the de- velopment, sale, and delivery of travel and tourism services. Few practitioners in the various sectors of the tourism industry understand that their partici- pation in a cooperative network can enable the cre- ation of a value chain that strengthens the perfor- mance of all actors in a synergetic manner. On the contrary, conflicts created by the dissimilar objec- tives and interests of the various stakeholders often represent obstacles to the development and imple- mentation of DMSs. It is increasingly becoming evident that instead of competition, local coopera- tion will need to drive the competitiveness of both independent enterprises and destinations as a whole. Research on the criteria that determine the suc- cess of DMSs indicates that unless the requirements of all stakeholders are satisfied, the effective de- ployment of these systems will find it difficult to develop viable solutions. It also demonstrates that some stakeholders exercise a more influential role in the application of the identified criteria and in satisfying all other stakeholders' requirements, par- ticularly the public sector and private investors. The intervention and active involvement of the public sector emerges as an essential catalyst in balancing the needs and wants of the various stakeholders, as well as in ensuring their satisfaction from DMSs. The considerable degree of influence that the pub- lic sector can have through planning, legislation, and incentives represents a unique tool for foster- ing cooperativeness among the various stakehold- ers at the destination region. Equally, the participa- tion and investment of private sectors in DMSs appears to play a significant role in contributing essential capital, know-how, and industry drive, and thus could determine the future profitability and viability of these systems. The expertise and financial resources that the pri- vate investors bring to DMOs for the development of DMSs is essential in ensuring that these systems deploy state-of-the-art technology and operate in a cost-efficient manner. The formulation of destina- tion networks, in turn, will represent a unique com- petitive advantage that will make some DMSs stand out from others. The emphasis in the future will need to be on how DMSs provide their stakeholders with a set of benefits, as illustrated in the 5Cs value frame- work, namely: Choice, Convenience, Confidence, Consistency, and Competitive Pricing. These five values synthesize the requirements of the various stakeholders and provide guidance for decision makers in DMSs' development. The criteria and val- ues illustrated can only be achieved with coordina- tion and cooperation among the various stakehold- ers at the destination region towards enhancing their 56 BUHALIS AND SPADA to compete with these commercial entities. Indeed, the commercial organizations that operate online travel agencies have financial resources, market share, and know-how at their disposal, which DMSs lack at present. However, functional and efficient DMSs provide comprehensive destination informa- tion, including information on SMTEs' products, which commercial operators wish to obtain but cur- rently find difficult to access. In addition, DMSs have detailed information on local resources as well as reliable classification and control systems for the operation of local facilities. Hence, emerging elec- tronic intermediaries such as Expedia.com, as well as representing a threat to DMSs' viability, could also be considered as a unique opportunity for stra- tegic partnerships. The complementary attributes of DMSs and the Internet-based travel agencies would appear to build a case for cooperation more than for competition. Hence, DMSs can form strate- gic partnerships with electronic intermediaries in order to provide content and quality assurance. DMSs could play a "consolidator" role, whereby DMOs provide commercial operators and electronic intermediaries with comprehensive and reliable in- formation as well as reservation capabilities for des- tinations. Electronic intermediaries in turn could provide DMSs with the distribution mechanisms to reach the emerging cyber marketplace. Given the synergetic linkages that exist between DMSs and electronic intermediaries, the formulation of virtual networks will benefit all parties involved. A Word of Conclusion Technological developments revolutionize busi- ness processes and reengineer the business model in most industries. In tourism, IT provides new op- portunities and challenges for all players. In par- ticular, at the destination level IT enables organiza- tions to collaborate locally and use DMSs to represent their entity to global markets. The impor- tance of cooperation stems from the fragmented na- ture of the tourism product and from the mutual interdependencies within the industry for the de- velopment, sale, and delivery of travel and tourism services. Few practitioners in the various sectors of the tourism industry understand that their partici- pation in a cooperative network can enable the cre- ation of a value chain that strengthens the perfor- mance of all actors in a synergetic manner. On the contrary, conflicts created by the dissimilar objec- tives and interests of the various stakeholders often represent obstacles to the development and imple- mentation of DMSs. It is increasingly becoming evident that instead of competition, local coopera- tion will need to drive the competitiveness of both independent enterprises and destinations as a whole. Research on the criteria that determine the suc- cess of DMSs indicates that unless the requirements of all stakeholders are satisfied, the effective de- ployment of these systems will find it difficult to develop viable solutions. It also demonstrates that some stakeholders exercise a more influential role in the application of the identified criteria and in satisfying all other stakeholders' requirements, par- ticularly the public sector and private investors. The intervention and active involvement of the public sector emerges as an essential catalyst in balancing the needs and wants of the various stakeholders, as well as in ensuring their satisfaction from DMSs. The considerable degree of influence that the pub- lic sector can have through planning, legislation, and incentives represents a unique tool for foster- ing cooperativeness among the various stakehold- ers at the destination region. Equally, the participa- tion and investment of private sectors in DMSs appears to play a significant role in contributing essential capital, know-how, and industry drive, and thus could determine the future profitability and viability of these systems. The expertise and financial resources that the pri- vate investors bring to DMOs for the development of DMSs is essential in ensuring that these systems deploy state-of-the-art technology and operate in a cost-efficient manner. The formulation of destina- tion networks, in turn, will represent a unique com- petitive advantage that will make some DMSs stand out from others. The emphasis in the future will need to be on how DMSs provide their stakeholders with a set of benefits, as illustrated in the 5Cs value frame- work, namely: Choice, Convenience, Confidence, Consistency, and Competitive Pricing. These five values synthesize the requirements of the various stakeholders and provide guidance for decision makers in DMSs' development. The criteria and val- ues illustrated can only be achieved with coordina- tion and cooperation among the various stakehold- ers at the destination region towards enhancing their CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL DMS 57 collective competitiveness and long-term sustain- able prosperity. Acknowledgments This research has benefited from the expertise, knowledge, and precious time of Alyson and Olivier Dombey (Partners in Marketing). We also wish to thank all experts who have contributed to this study, and especially Dr. Andrew Frew (Napier University) and Peter O'Connor (IMHI) for sharing their exper- tise with us. Biographical Notes Dr. Dimitrios Buhalis is Senior Lecturer in Tourism, Univer- sity of Westminster, and visiting faculty in several European universities. He is a Committee Member of the Tourism So- ciety and the International Federation of Information Tech- nology and Tourism. He has chaired the scientific section of the ENTER 1998, 1999, and 2000 conferences and has advised the World Tourism Organization and the European Commission on IT issues for tourism. Antonella Spada completed her degree in Tourism and Plan- ning at the University of Westminster. She is currently em- ployed as a Marketing Executive for a European company. She has an interest in Destination Management Systems and has presented papers in several conferences. References Archdale, G. (1994). Destination databases: Issues and pri- orities. In A. V. Seaton et al. (Eds.), Tourism: The state of the art (pp. 246-253). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Archdale, G., Jones C, & Stanton, R. (1992). Destination databases: Issues and priorities. San Francisco: Pacific Asia Association (PATA). Buhalis, D. (1993). Regional integrated computer informa- tion reservation management systems as a strategic tool for tourism. Tourism Management, 14(5), 366-376. Buhalis, D. (1994a). Information and telecommunications technologies as a strategic tool for small and medium tourism enterprises in the contemporary business envi- ronment. In A. V. Seaton et al. (Eds.), Tourism: The state of the art (pp. 254-275). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Buhalis, D. (1994b). Regional integrated computer infor- mation reservation management systems and tourism dis- tribution channels. In W. Schertler, B. Schmid, A. Tjoa, & H. Werthner (Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, ENTER '94, Conference Pro- ceedings (pp. 56-72). New York: Springer-Verlag. Buhalis, D. (1995). The impact of information and commu- nication technologies on tourism distribution channels: Implications for the small and medium tourism enter- prises ' strategic management and marketing. Ph.D. the- sis, Department of Management Studies, University of Surrey, Guildford. Buhalis, D. (1997). Information technologies as a strategic tool for economic, cultural and environmental benefits enhancement of tourism at destination regions. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5(1), 71-93. Buhalis, D. (1998). Strategic use of information technolo- gies in the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 19(5), 409-421. Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97-116 Buhalis, D., & Cooper, C. (1998). Competition or co-opera- tion: The needs of small and medium sized tourism en- terprises at a destination level. In E. Laws, B. Faulkner, & G. Moscardo (Eds.), Embracing and managing change in tourism (pp. 324-346). London: Routledge. Buhalis, D., & Fletcher, J. (1995). Environmental impacts on tourism destinations: An economic analysis. In H. Coccosis & P. Nijkamp (Eds.), Sustainable tourism de- velopment (pp. 3-24). England: Avebury. Buhalis, D., & Main, H. (1998). Information technology in peripheral and small and medium enterprises: Strategic analysis and critical factors. International Journal of Con- temporary Hospitality Management, 10(5), 198-202. Cano, V., & Prentice, R. (1998). Opportunities for endear- ment to place through electronic visiting: WWW homepages and the tourism promotion of Scotland. Tour- ism Management, 19(1), 67-73. Frew, A. J., & O'Connor, P. (1998). A comparative examina- tion of the implementation of destination marketing sys- tem strategy: Scotland and Ireland. In D. Buhalis, A. M. Tjoa, & J. Jafari (Eds.), Information and Communication Technology in Tourism, ENTER '98, Conference Pro- ceedings (pp. 460-475). New York: Springer-Verlag. Frew, A. J., & O'Connor, P. (1999a). Destination marketing system strategies: Refining and extending an assessment framework. In D. Buhalis, A. M. Tjoa, & J. Jafari (Eds.), Information and Communication Technology in Tour- ism, ENTER '99, Conference Proceedings (pp. 439-507). New York: Springer-Verlag. Frew, A. J., & O'Connor, P. (1999b). Destination marketing system strategies: Refining and extending an assessment framework. Information Technology & Tourism, 2(1), 3-15. Go, F. M. (1992). The role of computerised reservation systems in the hospitality industry. Tourism Management, 5(3), 22-76. O'Connor, P. (1999). Electronic information distribution in tourism & hospitality. Oxford: CAB International. O'Connor, P., & Rafferty, J. (1997). Gulliver: Distributing Irish tourism electronically. Electronic Markets, 7(2), 40- 45. Pollock, A. (1998a). Creating intelligent destinations for wired customers. In D. Buhalis, A. M. Tjoa, & J. Jafari (Eds.), Information and Communication Technology in Tour- ism, ENTER '98, Conference Proceedings (pp. 235-247). 58 BUHALIS AND SPADA New York: Springer-Verlag. Pollock, A. (1998b). New technologies as help for inte- grated quality management. In European Tourism Fo- rum, Conference Proceedings (pp. 78-87). Vienna, Aus- tria 1-3 July. Pollock, A. (1999, May). Marketing destinations in a digital world. Insights, A149-158. Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, technology and competitive strat- egies. Oxford: CAB International. Pringle, S. (1994). Destined to fail? An introduction of the Hi-Line Destination Marketing System. In A. Seaton et al. (Eds.), Tourism: The state of the art (pp. 500-509). Chichester: John Wiley. Sheldon, P. (1993). Destination information. Annals of Tour- ism Research, 20(4), 156-212. Sheldon, P. (1997). Tourism information technology. Ox- ford: CAB International. Vlitos-Rowe, I. (1992). Destination databases and manage- ment systems. Travel and Tourism Analyst, 5, 84—108. Werthner, H., & Klein, S. (1999). Information technology and tourism: A challenging relationship. Wien: Springer- Verlag. Wober, K. W. (1998). Improving the efficiency of market- ing information access and use by tourist organizations. Information Technology & Tourism, 1, 23-30. World Tourism Organization. (1999). Marketing tourism destinations on-line. Madrid: World Tourism Organiza- tion.