The Collaborative Use of Information Technology: End-User Participation and Systems Success

User participation seems especially important in the development of collaborative work systems where the technology is used by a work group to coordinate its joint activities. Users rather than systems analysts are often the best source of information on how they will use information technology to collaborate. It is almost an axiom of systems development that end users should participate in a broad range of activities/decisions, and that they should be permitted to participate in these decisions as much as they want. Despite these widely held beliefs, research has not focused on the differential efficacy of user participation in collaborative versus non-collaborative applications. Building upon the work of behavioral scientists who study participative decision making, Doll and Torkzadeh 1991 present a congruence construct of participation that measures whether end users participate as much as they want in key systems analysis decisions. Using a sample of 163 collaborative and 239 non-collaborative applications, this research focuses on three research questions: 1 Is user participation more effective in collaborative applications? 2 What specific decision issues enhance user satisfaction and productivity? and 3 Can permitting end-users to participate as much as they want on some issues be ineffective or even dysfunctional? The results indicate that user participation is more effective in collaborative applications. Of the four decision issues tested, only participation in information needs analysis predicts end-user satisfaction and task productivity. Encouraging end users to participate as much as they want on a broad range of systems analysis issues such as project initiation, information flow analysis, and format design appears to be, at best, a waste of time and, perhaps, even harmful. These findings should help managers and analysts make better decisions about how to focus participatory efforts and whether end users should participate as much as they want in the design of collaborative systems.

[1]  D. Vollrath,et al.  Employee Participation: Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes , 1988 .

[2]  Anders Edstrom,et al.  User Influence and the Success of MIS Projects: A Contingency Approach , 1977 .

[3]  Robert Johansen,et al.  Groupware: Computer Support for Business Teams , 1988 .

[4]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Participation in Decision-Making: One More Look , 1979 .

[5]  John A. Wagner,et al.  Shared influence and organizational behavior: A meta-analysis of situational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships. , 1987 .

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

[7]  William J. Doll,et al.  The measurement of end-user software involvement , 1990 .

[8]  Sumantra Ghoshal,et al.  The Individualized Corporation , 1997 .

[9]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Participation, Satisfaction, and Productivity: A Meta-Analytic Review , 1986 .

[10]  H. Harrington.  Business process improvement : the breakthrough strategy for total quality, productivity, and competitiveness , 1991 .

[11]  C. R. Franz,et al.  ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT, USER INVOLVEMENT, AND THE USEFULNESS OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS* , 1986 .

[12]  Frank Parry,et al.  Success and Pitfalls of Information Technology Management , 2000 .

[13]  Keith Davis,et al.  The case for participative management , 1963 .

[14]  Victor H. Vroom,et al.  Research: A new look at managerial decision making , 1973 .

[15]  Robert A. Hargrove.  Mastering the Art of Creative Collaboration , 1997 .

[16]  Bruce A. Pasternack,et al.  The CENTERLESS CORPORATION: A NEW MODEL FOR TRANSFORMING YOUR ORGANIZATION FOR GROWTH AND PROSPERITY , 1998 .

[17]  Norman R. F. Maier,et al.  GROUP DECISION IN ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES , 1962 .

[18]  Julie E. Kendall,et al.  Systems analysis and design (2nd ed.) , 1992 .

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

[20]  Hal B. Gregersen,et al.  Participative Decision-Making: An Integration of Multiple Dimensions , 1997 .

[21]  William J. Doll,et al.  Developing a multidimensional measure of system-use in an organizational context , 1998, Inf. Manag..

[22]  Tor Guimaraes,et al.  Exploring the Relationship Between EUC Problems and Success , 1996 .

[23]  Ned Kock,et al.  Process Improvement and Organizational Learning: The Role of Collaboration Technologies , 1999 .

[24]  Susan A. Sherer.  The integration of library, telecommunications and computing services in a university , 1999 .

[25]  William J. Doll,et al.  A Congruence Construct of User Involvement , 1991 .

[26]  William J. Doll,et al.  The test-retest reliability of user involvement instruments , 1994, Inf. Manag..

[27]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology , 1992 .

[28]  William J. Doll,et al.  The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction , 1988, MIS Q..

[29]  Tor Guimaraes,et al.  The Relationship Between User Participation and User Satisfaction: An Investigation of Four Contingency Factors , 1994, MIS Q..

[30]  Tor Guimaraes,et al.  Successful Strategies for User Participation in Systems Development , 1997, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[31]  B. Wilpert,et al.  Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in organizations: a critical evaluation. , 1978, Administrative science quarterly.

[32]  M. Schrage.  Shared Minds: The New Technologies of Collaboration , 1990 .

[33]  Milton Derber.  Worker Participation in Israeli Management , 1963 .

[34]  G. A. Ferguson,et al.  Statistical analysis in psychology and education , 1960 .

[35]  Blake Ives,et al.  User Involvement and MIS Success: A Review of Research , 1984 .