Variations in users' definitions of an information system

Abstract Information systems (IS) are complex and abstract. When users are asked to evaluate “the system,” there is no guarantee that they will all be thinking about the same object. Laboratory research has shown that differences in the way an IS is defined affect users' evaluations of the system. If such variations exist in the field (that is, if the term “the system” invokes different images in the minds of different users), they might affect user evaluations. This paper reports a study of variations in users' definitions of a human resource information system. There were significant variations in opinions about what the IS was. Most users were certain that their definitions were correct, even though they disagreed with one another. Users with more IS-related expertise included fewer objects in the system than less expert users. The findings have implications for MIS research and management. In particular, developers should provide each user with a definition of an IS from the time of their first contact with the system. The definition should be aligned with the organizational responsibilities of the developers.

[1]  Charles A. Gallagher.  Perceptions of the Value of a Management Information System , 1974 .

[2]  M. O'Connor,et al.  Variations in user satisfaction with MIS , 1990, Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[3]  Anthony G. Greenwald,et al.  The cognitive representation of attitudes. , 1989 .

[4]  William J. Doll,et al.  Test‐Retest Reliability of the End‐User Computing Satisfaction Instrument , 1991 .

[5]  Kieran Mathieson,et al.  Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[6]  P. Berger,et al.  Social Construction of Reality , 1991, The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society.

[7]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[8]  R. Boaden,et al.  Information technology, information systems and information management: definition and development , 1991 .

[9]  C. Steinfield,et al.  A Social Influence Model of Technology use , 1990 .

[10]  L. Ross,et al.  The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes , 1977 .

[11]  C. West Churchman,et al.  The Systems Approach , 1979 .

[12]  Donald R. Cooper,et al.  Business Research Methods , 1980 .

[13]  Paul H. Cheney,et al.  A tool for measuring and analyzing end user computing abilities , 1988, Inf. Process. Manag..

[14]  Kieran Mathieson,et al.  The effect of definitional variations on users' evaluations of information systems , 1994, DATB.

[15]  Sammy W. Pearson,et al.  Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction , 1983 .

[16]  Blake Ives,et al.  The measurement of user information satisfaction , 1983, CACM.

[17]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. , 1978, Administrative science quarterly.

[18]  P. J. Conover,et al.  The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-Identifications. , 1981 .

[19]  R. Fazio.  On the power and functionality of attitudes: The role of attitude accessibility. , 1989 .