Effects of User Participation in Systems Development: A Longitudinal Field Experiment

This study examines the efficacy of user participation in developing an accounting application. The research takes place over a 19-month time frame, involves 516 clerical-level accounting subjects, and includes experimental manipulations in a field setting. The model of user participation and involvement proposed by Hartwick and Barki (1994) provides the foundation for the research framework. Their model is augmented by the inclusion of concepts from procedural justice and self-efficacy research. Participation is manipulated at three increasing levels: (1) no voice, (2) non-instrumental voice, and (3) instrumental voice.Research findings suggest that users' pre-experiment level of involvement with and attitude toward the present system are positively associated with their desire to participate in the development of the new system. Study results also indicate that users' a priori self-efficacy beliefs regarding their perceived ability to effectively contribute to the development process are positively related to desired participation. Pre- to post-experiment gains in psychological and behavioral variables are next assessed. In the instrumental voice condition, user involvement, user attitude, and performance gains are significantly highest. User attitude and involvement gains are significantly higher in the non-instrumental voice condition than in the no voice condition; however, gains in user performance are not significantly different between these treatment conditions. Research findings indicate that user participation can be effective, particularly when users perceive a noticeable degree of instrumental control over the decision outcome.

[1]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Application of Social Cognitive Theory to Training for Computer Skills , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[2]  Enid Mumford,et al.  Designing participatively : a participative approach to computer systems design : a case study of the introduction of a new computer system , 1979 .

[3]  Marint James.  An information systems manifesto , 1984 .

[4]  J. Thibaut,et al.  Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis , 1976 .

[5]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Attitudes toward objects as predictors of sin-gle and multiple behavioral criteria , 1974 .

[6]  G. Leventhal.  What Should Be Done with Equity Theory? New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships. , 1976 .

[7]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test , 1995, MIS Q..

[8]  B. Wheaton,et al.  Assessment of Fit in Overidentified Models with Latent Variables , 1987 .

[9]  Graham C. Low,et al.  Exploring Individual User Satisfaction Within User-Led Development , 1993, MIS Q..

[10]  M. Konovsky.  The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations , 1988 .

[11]  Blake Ives,et al.  An empirical study of the impact of user involvement on system usage and information satisfaction , 1986, CACM.

[12]  J. Thibaut,et al.  Preference for Modes of Dispute Resolution as a Function of Process and Decision Control. , 1978 .

[13]  Henry L. Tosi.  A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance , 1991 .

[14]  John Thibaut,et al.  A Theory of Procedure , 1978 .

[15]  P. Bentler,et al.  Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures , 1980 .

[16]  P. Christopher Earley,et al.  Procedural justice and participation in task selection: The role of control in mediating justice judgments. , 1987 .

[17]  P. Bentler,et al.  Comparative fit indexes in structural models. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  James E. Hunton,et al.  User Participation in Defining System Interface Requirements: An Issue of Procedural Justice , 1997 .

[19]  S. Breckler,et al.  Applications of covariance structure modeling in psychology: cause for concern? , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[20]  Henri Barki,et al.  Rethinking the Concept of User Involvement , 1989, MIS Q..

[21]  P. Earley,et al.  Voice, control, and procedural justice : instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments , 1990 .

[22]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles. , 1974 .

[23]  Henri Barki,et al.  Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use , 1994 .

[24]  Peter M. Bentler,et al.  EQS : structural equations program manual , 1989 .

[25]  Eva Nick,et al.  The dependability of behavioral measurements: theory of generalizability for scores and profiles , 1973 .

[26]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Independent Variables , 1992, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[27]  James E. Hunton,et al.  Involving Information System Users in Defining System Requirements: The Influence of Procedural Justice Perceptions on User Attitudes and Performance , 1996 .

[28]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow , 1990 .

[29]  T. Tyler,et al.  The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice , 1988 .

[30]  M. Fishbein.  A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications. , 1980, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[31]  Ichiro Innami.  The Quality of Group Decisions, Group Verbal Behavior, and Intervention , 1994 .

[32]  V. Barnett,et al.  Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1975 .

[33]  Henri Barki,et al.  Measuring User Participation, User Involvement, and User Attitude , 1994, MIS Q..

[34]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[35]  Jay Hall,et al.  The Effects of a Normative Intervention on Group Decision-Making Performance , 1970 .

[36]  W. Doll,et al.  A discrepancy model of end-user computing involvement , 1989 .

[37]  R. Folger.  Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement on experienced inequity. , 1977 .

[38]  Michael H. Kutner.  Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1974 .