Advanced Topics in End User Computing [Volume 4] 9781591402411, 1-59140-241-7

Citation preview

TEAM LinG

Advanced Topics in End User Computing Volume 4 M. Adam Mahmood University of Texas, El Paso, USA

IDEA GROUP PUBLISHING Hershey • London • Melbourne • Singapore

TEAM LinG

Acquisitions Editor: Development Editor: Senior Managing Editor: Managing Editor: Copy Editor: Typesetter: Cover Design: Printed at:

Renée Davies Kristin Roth Amanda Appicello Jennifer Neidig Sue VanderHook Cindy Consonery Integrated Book Technology Integrated Book Technology

Published in the United States of America by Idea Group Publishing (an imprint of Idea Group Inc.) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200 Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.idea-group.com and in the United Kingdom by Idea Group Publishing (an imprint of Idea Group Inc.) 3 Henrietta Street Covent Garden London WC2E 8LU Tel: 44 20 7240 0856 Fax: 44 20 7379 3313 Web site: http://www.eurospan.co.uk Copyright © 2005 by Idea Group Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this book are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI of the trademark or registered trademark.

Advanced Topics in End User Computing, Volume 4 is part of the Idea Group Publishing series named Advanced Topics in End User Computing Series (ISSN: 1537-9310). ISBN: 1-59140-474-6 Paperback ISBN: 1-59140-475-4 eISBN: 1-59140-476-2

British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

TEAM LinG

Advanced Topics in End User Computing Volume 4

Table of Contents Preface ............................................................................................................ vi M. Adam Mahmood, University of Texas at El Paso, USA SECTION I: ORGANIZATIONAL AND END U SER COMPUTING ISSUES, PERFORMANCE, PRODUCTIVITY Chapter I End User Computing Research Issues and Trends (1990-2000) ...... 1 James P. Downey, University of Central Arkansas, USA Summer E. Bartczak, Air Force Institute of Technology, USA Chapter II The Effect of End User Development on End User Success ........... 21 Tanya McGill, Murdoch University, Australia Chapter III Testing the Technology-to-Performance Chain Model ...................... 42 D. Sandy Staples, Queen’s University, Canada Peter B. Seddon, The University of Melbourne, Australia Chapter IV The Role of Personal Goal and Self-Efficacy in Predicting Computer Task Performance ................................................................... 65 Mun Y. Yi, University of South Carolina, USA Kun S. Im, Yonsei University, South Korea

TEAM LinG

Chapter V Measurement of Perceived Control in Information Systems ........... 90 Steven A. Morris, Middle Tennessee State University, USA Thomas E. Marshall, Auburn University, USA Chapter VI The Technology Acceptance Model: A Meta-Analysis of Empirical Findings ................................................................................... 112 Qingxiong Ma, Central Missouri State University, USA Liping Liu, University of Akron, USA SECTION II: C OLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES Chapter VII Success Factors in the Implementation of a Collaborative Technology and Resulting Productivity Improvements in a Small Business: An Exploratory Study .................................................. 1 2 9 Nory B. Jones, University of Maine, USA Thomas R. Kochtanek, University of Missouri in Columbia, USA Chapter VIII Supporting the JAD Facilitator with the Nominal Group Technique ................................................................................................... 1 5 1 Evan W. Duggan, University of Alabama, USA Cherian S. Thachenkary, Georgia State University, USA Chapter IX Applying Strategies to Overcome User Resistance in a Group of Clinical Managers to a Business Software Application: A Case Study .............................................................................................. 1 7 4 Barbara Adams, Cyrus Medical Systems, USA Eta S. Berner, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA Joni Rousse Wyatt, Norwood Clinic, USA Chapter X Responsibility for Information Assurance and Privacy: A Problem of Individual Ethics? ........................................................... 1 8 6 Bernd Carsten Stahl, De Montfort University, UK Chapter XI Organizational Knowledge Sharing in ERP Implementation: Lessons from Industry ............................................................................ 2 0 8 Mary C. Jones, University of North Texas, USA R. Leon Price, University of Oklahoma, USA

TEAM LinG

SECTION III: E-COMMERCE PROCESSES AND PRACTICES Chapter XII Electronic Banking and Information Assurance Issues: Survey and Synthesis ............................................................................... 2 3 3 Manish Gupta, State University of New York, USA Raghav Rao, State University of New York, USA Shambhu Upadhyaya, State University of New York, USA Chapter XIII Computer Security and Risky Computing Practices: A Rational Choice Perspective ............................................................. 2 5 7 Kregg Aytes, Idaho State University, USA Terry Connolly, University of Arizona, USA Chapter XIV A TAM Analysis of an Alternative High-Security User Authentication Procedure ...................................................................... 2 8 0 Merrill Warkentin, Mississippi State University, USA Kimberly Davis, Mississippi State University, USA Ernst Bekkering, Northeastern State University, USA Chapter XV A Blended Approach Learning Strategy for Teacher Development ............................................................................................. 3 0 1 Kalyani Chatterjea, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore About the Editor ....................................................................................... 3 2 2 About the Authors ................................................................................... 3 2 3 Index ........................................................................................................... 3 3 1

TEAM LinG

vi

Preface

This scholarly book is a collection of some of the best manuscripts published in the Journal of Organizational and End User Computing. This introduction is mainly a collection of abstracts provided by the authors for their manuscripts. The book is divided into three segments: Section I, which covers organizational and end user computing issues, trends, and success; Section II, which addresses collaborative technologies and implementation issues; and Section III, which discusses e-commerce processes and practices. Section I consists of six chapters. Chapter 1, by Downey and Bartczak, starts the section by providing a comprehensive framework for research that allows one to examine the trends and issues in end user computing. It is based on a comprehensive review of research articles from some of the leading journals in the information systems area. The review is precipitated, according to the author, by the fact that during the 1980s and early 1990s, end user computing was reported to be among the key concerns facing managers and organizations. The authors claim that the framework is parsimonious and allows a comprehensive classification of three major dimensions of end user computing: end user, technology, and organization. The authors conclude by discussing emerging trends, important themes, and journal differences in the area. Chapter II of this scholarly volume is penned by McGill. She discusses the contribution of systems developed by users on systems success. Her contention is that since end user systems development is a significant part of organizational systems development, it deserves attention. She investigated the role an application developed by the user developer plays on the eventual success of the application itself. The results of her study are intuitive but very important. She suggest that end users are likely to be more satisfied with systems they develop than with ones developed by others. More interestingly, the author found that end users also perform better with these systems.

TEAM LinG

vii

To help end users and organizations understand and make more effective use of information technology, Staples and Seddon proposed the Technologyto-Performance Chain (TPC) model in 1995. According to the authors, the TPC model combines insights from research on user attitudes as predictors of utilization and insights from research on task-technology fit as a predictor of performance. In Chapter III of this scholarly book, the same authors tested the TPC model in two settings—voluntary use and mandatory use. In both settings, they found strong support for the impact of task-technology fit on performance, as well as on attitudes and beliefs about use. Social norms also had a significant impact on utilization in the mandatory use setting. They also found that beliefs about use only had a significant impact on utilization in the voluntary use setting. Overall, the authors found support for the predictive power of the TPC model. In Chapter IV, Yi and Im suggest that computer task performance is an essential driver of end user productivity. Recent research, according to the authors, indicates that computer self-efficacy (CSE) is an important determinant of computer task performance. They argue that understanding the role of personal goal (PG) is also important in predicting and determining computer task performance. Employing CSE, PG, age, and experience, the authors developed a theoretical model that predicts individual computer task performance. They validate this model using PLS on data derived from a Microsoft Excel training class of 41 MBA students. They found PG, along with past experience and age, play a significant role in predicting computer task performance. Interestingly, the authors found no significant relationship between post-training CSE and task performance. In Chapter V, Morris and Marshall claimed that several disciplines have already identified and validated the importance of control in explaining human behavior and motivation. They report an exploratory investigation that assesses perceived control within the information systems (IS) area. The authors developed a survey instrument, based on the research literature in the IS area, to assess perceived control as a multi-dimensional construct. They validated this instrument using 241 subjects. They analyzed their results to produce a set of five factors that represent a user’s perceptions of control when working with an interactive information system: timeframe, feedback signal, feedback duration, strategy, and metaphor knowledge. In Chapter VI, the final chapter in this section, Ma and Liu conducted a meta analysis to synthesize and summarize the findings of 26 prior research studies on perceived ease of use and usefulness that used the technology acceptance model (TAM) as a framework to predict the acceptance of information technology. A number of past studies have empirically investigated these relationships, but, as the authors indicated, the findings of these research studies are mixed. The authors found that both the correlations between usefulness and acceptance, and between usefulness and ease of use are somewhat strong.

TEAM LinG

viii

They found the relationship between ease of use and acceptance as weak. As stated earlier, Section II addresses collaborative technologies and implementation issues. It consists of five chapters: Chapters VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI. In Chapter VII, Jones and Kochtanek recognize that literature provides many examples of performance improvements resulting from adoption of different technologies. The authors, at the same time, claim that they found very little evidence demonstrating specific and generalizable factors that contribute to these improvements. The authors’ qualitative study examined the relationship between four classes of potential success factors on the adoption of a collaborative technology and whether they are related to performance improvements in a small service company. They interviewed the users of a newly adopted collaborative technology to explore which factors contributed to the users’ initial adoption and subsequent effective use of this technology. Their results showed that several factors were strongly related to adoption and effective implementation. They further explored the impact on performance improvements. Their results showed a qualitative link to several performance improvements, including time savings and improved decision-making. In Chapter VIII, Duggan and Thachenkary start by suggesting that the Joint Application Development (JAD) was introduced to solve many of the problems system users experienced with the conventional methods used in determining systems requirements. They recognize that JAD helped produce noteworthy improvements over these methods. They suggest that a JAD session conducted with freely interacting groups is susceptible, however, to some problems that may curtail the effectiveness of groups. They further suggest that JAD outcomes are also critically dependent on excellent facilitation for minimizing dysfunctional group behaviors, and many JAD efforts fail because some group members are often unavailable. According to the authors, the nominal group technique (NGT) was designed to reduce the impact of negative group dynamics. The authors integrate JAD and NGT to reduce the burden of the JAD facilitator in controlling group sessions for determining systems requirements. They empirically tested their approach, which was found to outperform JAD in the areas tested and seemed to contribute to group outcomes even without excellent facilitation. Adams, Berner, and Wyatt in Chapter IX suggest that user resistance is a common occurrence when new information systems are introduced to health care organizations. They further suggest that individuals responsible for overseeing the implementation process of these systems in the health care environment may encounter more resistance than facilitators in other environments. The authors claim that proper training of end users is an important strategy for minimizing this resistance. Their research reviews the literature on the reasons for user resistance to health care information systems and the implications of this literature on the design of training programs. They illustrate principles for reducing user resistance (e.g., communication, user involvement, strategic use

TEAM LinG

ix

of consultants) using a case study that involved training clinical managers on business applications. The authors recommend that individuals responsible for health care information system implementations should recognize that end user resistance can lead to system failure and should employ these best practices when embarking on new implementations. In Chapter X, Stahl suggests that decisions regarding information assurance, IT security, and privacy can affect individuals’ rights and obligations. The author explores the question of whether individual responsibility is a useful construct to address ethical issues of this complexity. After introducing a theory of responsibility, he discusses the conditions that an individual typically is assumed to fulfill in such an environment. The author argues that individuals lack some of the essential preconditions necessary for handling responsibility. According to the author, individuals have neither the power, the knowledge, nor the intellectual capacities to successfully deal with the ethical challenges in the tension of privacy and information assurance. The author ends by suggesting that the concept of responsibility may be useful nevertheless in this setting, but it will have to be expanded to allow collective entities as subjects. In Chapter XI, Jones and Price put forth that knowledge sharing in ERP implementation is somewhat unique, because ERP requires end users to have more divergent knowledge than is required in the use of traditional information systems. They claim that, because of the length of the time and commitment that ERP implementation requires, end users often are more involved in ERP implementations than they are in more traditional information systems implementations. Their study presents findings about organizational knowledge sharing during ERP implementation in three firms. They collected data through interviews using a multi-site case study methodology. The authors analyzed the findings in an effort to provide a basis on which practitioners can more effectively facilitate knowledge sharing during ERP implementation. The last and final section in this compiled volume deals mainly with ecommerce processes and practices. It includes four chapters: Chapters XII, XIII, XIV, and XV. In Chapter XII, Gupta, Rao, and Upadhyaya assert that information assurance is a key component in e-banking services. They investigate the information assurance issues and tenets of e-banking security that would be needed for the design, development, and assessment of an adequate electronic security infrastructure. They present the technology terminology and frameworks with an understanding to equip the reader with a glimpse of the state-of-art technologies that may help toward making better decisions regarding electronic security. In Chapter XIII, Aytes and Connolly present the Check-Off Password System (COPS) for entering passwords that combines a high level of security with easy recall features for end users. They claim that COPS is more secure than self-selected passwords as well as high-protection assigned-password procedures (FIPS). The authors provide a preliminary assessment of the efficacy

TEAM LinG

x

of COPS by comparing COPS with three traditional password-assigning procedures. They showed that end users perceive all password-assigning procedures tested to have equal usefulness, but the perceived ease of use of COPS equals that of an established high-security password. They claim that the COPS interface does not negatively affect user performance compared with that of highsecurity passwords generating systems. In Chapter XIV, Warkentin, Davis, and Bekkering state that the main objective of information system security management is information assurance. The authors claim that user authentication is an important means toward achieving this objective, and password procedures have historically been the primary method for user authentication. As expected, the authors found an inverse relationship between the level of security provided by a password procedure and ease of recall for users. Also, as expected, the authors found the longer the password and the more variability in its characters, the higher the level of security provided by such a password. They state that such a password, however, tends to be more difficult for end users to remember, particularly when the password does not spell a recognizable word. Conversely, when end users select their own passwords that are easier to memorize and recall, the passwords may also be easier to crack. In Chapter XV, the last chapter in this scholarly volume, Chatterjea states that in-service upgrading has been provided for retraining teachers in Singapore to help them keep abreast of changing curriculum requirements as well as a way of infusing information technology in teaching and learning. She further states that upgrading courses are offered to the teachers primarily asynchronously, using the Internet platform, with some integrated synchronous sessions. The author provides rationales for the development of such Web-based teacherupgrading systems and discusses the developmental issues related to such systems. She also addresses issues of adult learning in a learner-controlled adaptive learning environment that provides the much-needed freedom to the participants for managing their own time. The author concludes by discussing the participants’ responses to such an upgrading system.

TEAM LinG

xi

Acknowledgments

I wish to recognize contributions made by the reviewers and associate editors in bringing this scholarly book to fruition. I thank them for diligently and professionally reviewing the manuscripts included in this volume. My thanks go to the authors for being highly responsive to reviewers’ and associate editors’ comments and promptly meeting the deadline imposed on them. They have made outstanding contributions to this volume. I express my special thanks to Hettie Houghton in the Department of Information and Decision Sciences at the University of Texas at El Paso. She was extremely diligent in keeping the project on track. Her effort toward the project is truly appreciated. I also want to thank Jan Travers for her help with the project. M. Adam Mahmood University of Texas at El Paso, USA

TEAM LinG

Section I: Organizational and End User Computing Issues, Performance, Productivity

TEAM LinG

End User Computing Research Issues and Trends (1990-2000)

1

Chapter I

End User Computing Research Issues and Trends (1990-2000) James P. Downey, University of Central Arkansas, USA Summer E. Bartczak, Air Force Institute of Technology, USA

ABSTRACT During the 1980s and into the early 1990s, end user computing (EUC) was reported to be among the key concerns facing managers and organizations. Is EUC still an important topic? This study examines academic research during this period. A research-focused framework is offered to provide a conceptual structure for examining the trends and issues in EUC. This framework is parsimonious and also allows a comprehensive classification of end user computing’s three major dimensions: end user, technology, and organization. The study examines every article from five leading information systems (IS) journals (ISR, MISQ, JMIS, I&M, and JEUC) for the 11 years 1990-2000. The results indicate that there has been no diminishing of EUC interest and studies during this time, either overall or in any journal or dimension. A discussion of emerging trends, important themes, and journal differences concludes this examination.

INTRODUCTION EUC has been evolving since the appearance of mainframe end users in the late 1960s; it was mainstreamed with the introduction of the personal computer more than 20 years ago. As organizations and individuals discovered the Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

TEAM LinG

2 Downey and Bartczak

advantages and capabilities of personal computing technology, new competencies and efficiencies were developed that transformed the workplace. The academic study of EUC grew out of an attempt to provide direction and control to managers, executives, and knowledge workers who persisted in using this new technology. The importance of EUC was evident early on as academics and practitioners consistently rated it as one of the key areas of concern. In a list of the most important managerial issues, Dickson, Leitheiser, Wetherbe, and Nechis (1984) reported EUC as the second-most important. Brancheau and Wetherbe (1987) placed it at number six. More recently, EUC has been ranked high in a number of different settings and nations. Managers of small businesses ranked training and education of end users as no. 2 and end user support as no. 4 (Riemenschneider & Mykytyn, 2000). U.S. multinational corporations ranked EUC as no. 4 of 32 top issues (Deans, Karwan, Goslar, Ricks, & Toyne, 1990-91), while U.S. public sector organizations ranked it no. 4, with office automation no. 5 (Caudle, Gorr, & Newcomer, 1991). Taiwanese managers ranked communications with end users no. 2 (Yang, 1996), while a similar study in China listed the same issue no. 1 (Wang, 1994). The importance of EUC, however, is not reflected in other studies. In the last few years, for example, the relative importance of EUC in the workplace has reportedly been diminishing, particularly in the U.S. Niederman, Brancheau, and Wetherbe (1991) reported that facilitating and managing EUC was the no. 18 most important managerial issue. Four years later Brancheau, Janz, and Wetherbe (1996) placed it as no. 16, as did Lee, Trauth, and Farwell (1995) in their study of critical IS activities. Clearly, there are some inconsistencies present regarding EUC’s importance. Part of the reason for these conflicting studies is the lack of concurrence as to what comprises EUC today. It is important to note that there is a distinction between managerial EUC and EUC as used in academic literature. To the manager in the organizational setting, end user computing comprises the functions of planning, managing, and supporting the computer needs of end users. As organizations gain computing experience and expertise, EUC becomes less important as a management issue, as is evident in some of the larger or more technologically advanced organizations (Essex, Magal, & Masteller, 1998; Guimaraes & Igbaria, 1994). To the IS academic community, however, EUC covers a wide range of themes and research, from investigations into the nature of individual attitudes and behaviors toward IT to organizational strategies for project development. In fact, there is disagreement as to what should be included in such research. In more than 20 years of research in EUC, there is no consensus as to what EUC success means or how organizations should assess their EUC needs (Harris, 2000). Despite this lack of agreement as to what constitutes EUC, a comprehensive examination of relevant EUC research reveals some consistent patterns and Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

TEAM LinG

End User Computing Research Issues and Trends (1990-2000)

3

themes. This study specifically examines all EUC articles from five leading IS journals for the years 1990-2000. The research indicates that EUC is still a wellresearched and relevant topic for practitioners and academics alike. The objectives of this book are (1) to examine the nature and characteristics of EUC and end users; (2) to present a comprehensive framework for the study of EUC based on the dimensions of end user, technology, and organization; (3) to assess how this framework characterizes the various themes of EUC as present in the literature between 1990 and 2000; and (4) to explore the position of EUC within the IS academic community by detecting and establishing EUC research trends and issues.

END USER COMPUTING AND END USERS EUC as a subset of IS has been examined since before 1980. In an early study, Benson (1983) noted the shift from mainframe computing to microcomputers and reported on relevant management issues concerning this change. As computing became available and useful to users and managers outside the data processing centers, it evolved along three paths: growth in number of users, growth in the hardware and software technologies, and growth in computer skills of users (Harris, 2000). Disagreement persists over what EUC actually is and even the identity of end users (Rainer & Harrison, 1993). There exist two widespread views or definitions of EUC, one broad and one that focuses on applications development. The more restricted definition states that EUC is the adoption and use of information systems by users outside the IS department to develop software applications to support organizational tasks and decision making (Aggarwal, 1994; Brancheau & Brown, 1993; Shah & Lawrence, 1996; Shayo, Guthrie, & Igbaria, 1999). Others define EUC more generally. Ein-Dor and Segev (1992) characterize it as any hands-on use of PCs. Essex, Magal, and Masteller (1998) describe it as the direct use of information technology by end users. Barker (1995) defines EUC as the application of computing resources for the purpose of producing information. Rainer and Harrison (1993) define EUC as the direct, individual use of computers encompassing all the computer-related activities required or necessary to accomplish one’s job. These definitions clearly recognize a more ubiquitous end user. Recent evidence suggests a rapidly closing gap between the typical end user and the data processing professional of 10 years ago (Aggarwal, 1996; McLean & Kappelman, 1992-93). As depicted in IS literature, end users are individuals who develop and/or use IS. In one of the earliest and most influential taxonomies of end users, Rockart and Flannery (1983) categorize users according to their skills and use of IS. Subsequently, users have been described as managers, professionals, and

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

TEAM LinG

4 Downey and Bartczak

supervisors (Aggarwal, 1994), software developers (Brancheau & Brown, 1993), and those who develop, interact, and otherwise utilize application systems (Glorfeld & Cronan, 1993). For the purpose of this study, EUC is defined as the use and/or development of computing technology and software applications by end users to solve organizational problems and assist in decision making. End users are non-IS department individuals who directly use and/or develop computing technology and application systems in an organizational setting. Thus, end users are direct (not indirect) IS users, using a variety of technologies that include group support systems, decision support systems, executive information systems, and a host of common software application systems such as word processing, spreadsheets, and databases.

EUC RESEARCH-FOCUSED FRAMEWORK A framework should partition and organize a topic into manageable parts to enable the user to easily traverse the subject (Kochen, 1985-86). In order to examine applicable EUC studies, a research-focused framework was developed to provide a conceptual structure for EUC literature that is parsimonious yet allows a comprehensive classification of its themes. This framework was adopted after careful examination of those available in the literature. Three in particular were used as a basis: the IS success framework of DeLone and McLean (1992), the EUC management research framework of Brancheau and Brown (1993), and the general framework of Harris (2000), which divided IS success into three factors—behavioral, technological, and organizational. As shown in Figure 1, EUC research can be divided logically into three dimensions, depending on the focus of the study. These three dimensions are the end user, the technology, and the organization. Although derived from the three frameworks mentioned, these three dimensions have, in fact, been used in the past in IS/MIS literature. For example, in one of the early frameworks for MIS, Mason and Mitroff (1973) recognized that the information system (application) consisted of a person attempting to solve a problem within an organizational context. Nolan and Wetherbe (1980) introduced a process model through which personnel transform inputs using MIS technology within an organizational context. Galliers and Land (1987) submitted a taxonomy of IS approaches that divides research into society, organization (or groups within the organization), individual, technology, and methodology. In a survey of academic and business practitioners, Aggarwal (1994) categorized their responses concerning IT into three categories: technical, organizational, and people. The division of IS/EUC research into the three areas of end user, technology, and organization has been a useful technique to describe and categorize IS and end user computing.

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

TEAM LinG

End User Computing Research Issues and Trends (1990-2000)

5

Figure 1. EUC research-focused framework

End User Dimension

Technology Dimension

Satisfaction Usage Anxiety Self-efficacy Attitudes Skills Norms Tech. Acceptance Training Task

TECHNOLOGY IMPACT: Systems Information Individual Group Organization

Organization Dimension Strategy Project Develop. EU Support Tech. Acceptance

There are some key differences between the proposed research-focused framework and others. DeLone and McLean (1992) studied the broad spectrum of IS, thereby including a variety of studies that did not directly involve EUC or end users. Many organizational or systems quality studies do not have an EUC component; for example, Benarock and Kauffman (1999) studied a nominal EUC issue—project development—but from a capital budget standpoint with no end user constructs. DeLone and McLean relied on empirical studies, which excluded some exceptional conceptual studies that focused on EUC. Brancheau and Brown (1993) defined end users as software developers only, which limited their framework and ability to categorize all EUC studies. The success framework of Harris (2000) is most similar, in that it included the same three dimensions of EUC. But it differs in usage and generalizability. For example, he examined only 16 articles, most employing some form of user satisfaction as the dependent variable. Classifying research based only on the dependent variable limits the rich aggregation of all EUC variables, both dependent and independent. The proposed EUC research-focused framework provides a taxonomy of EUC research. It divides EUC research based on the focus of the study. Fundamentally, an article can be classified into one of the three dimensions based on whether it concentrates on a particular technology, the individual end user, or some organization aspect. A description of these dimensions follows. End User Dimension. In one respect, all IS/EUC research involves an end user. An end user is an individual who directly uses and/or develops application systems in an organizational setting. In order for a study to be included in this dimension, it must focus on the end user, either empirically through constructs,

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

TEAM LinG

6 Downey and Bartczak

through variables at the individual level, or through a conceptually relevant theme. This includes identifying end users and their behaviors, attitudes, skills, and applicable antecedents. The end user themes identified in the literature include the two most common dependent variables—satisfaction and usage (DeLone & McLean, 1992). Other themes in the end user dimension include attitudes (toward a technology), skills, self-efficacy, anxiety, and technology acceptance and diffusion. They commonly measure cognitive or affective attributes of the end user. Technology Dimension. This component is reserved for those studies that focus on the technology itself. These articles typically include research on newer technologies of interest, such as group support systems (GSS), decision support systems (DSS), group decision support systems (GDSS), expert systems, executive information systems, and databases. The focus of such research is always on methods to assess and/or improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the technology. Merely focusing on such a technology is not enough for an article to be labeled as an EUC study. In order to be included in this study, the reference to the end user must be clearly established through a measured construct or variable, or other data that is unmistakable (such as may be present in a case or field study). An article that studies only the technology and not its relationship with an end user cannot be included in EUC. This end user relationship with technology is generally incorporated in these studies through an assessment of the impact on the end user. This impact assessment, or end user component, is what distinguishes the study as belonging to EUC literature.

Levels of Technology Dimension Impact Information systems (technologies) make an impact at four different levels (Brancheau & Brown, 1993; DeLone & McLean, 1992; Harris, 2000; Powell & Moore, 2002; Seddon, 1997): system or information level, individual level, group level, and organizational level. These are summarized below: •

• •

System or Information Level: Studies of the relationship between end user and the impact on system or information quality (i.e., impact of distortion effects by end users in Sussman and Sproull, 1999). Individual Level: Impact of technology on individual performance (such as decision-making time or accuracy). Group Level: Because end users may be members of groups, the effectiveness and/or efficiencies of group performance impacts the end user. DeLone and McLean (1992) fuse group impact into departmental performance, one of the descriptions of individual impact.

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

TEAM LinG

End User Computing Research Issues and Trends (1990-2000)

•

7

Organizational Level: Although there are many studies that examine the organizational and IS relationship, those in this category are constrained in that the article’s focus must be on the technology while simultaneously including an explicit end user and organizational measure. An example of this type of article is a field study by Vandenbosch and Huff (1997) that examined the factors affecting executive retrieval behavior using EIS technology and the impact of that behavior on organizational performance. It is useful to note the distinction between this subcategory and the organizational component covered next. Here, the focus is on the technology, with organizational measures to support this effect.

Organizational Dimension. As DeLone and McLean (1992) point out, there is inherent difficulty in assessing the “business value of information systems” (p. 80). Even so, there are several research streams that examine EUC in its organizational context. These studies do not necessarily measure IS success, but other facets of the relationship, including management, support, and planning. To be included in the organizational dimension of EUC, the article must have an explicit end user association. Measuring this end user relationship is frequently done through satisfaction and usage. The following subcategories are identified from the literature: •

•

•

Project and Applications Development: These articles focus on the management of systems or project development. Measures include satisfaction with the development process and usage of the developed system, as well as user participation in the process and the degree participation affects the developmental outcome. Because development typically remains an organization guided and managed function, and to promote parsimony, project and applications development studies (with explicit end user variables) will be categorized in this subgroup. End User Support: The information center (and other support mechanisms) and its effects have been the topic of much research in terms of EUC (Bowman, Grupe, Lund, & Moore, 1993; Guimaraes & Igbaria, 1992). These studies typically measure effectiveness at the individual level. EUC Strategy and Management: There is a plethora of strategy and management studies; in fact, in one respect almost all IS and EUC articles are management-directed. What distinguishes an EUC study, however, is its explicit end user measure(s).

In categorizing EUC studies along these three dimensions of end user, technology, and organization, an attempt was made to place them in only one dimension. So, for example, if the focus of the article was on applications development, it was placed in organizational project development, even though

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

TEAM LinG

8 Downey and Bartczak

it may have used satisfaction (with the process) as a dependent variable and end user skills as an independent variable. Likewise, a study of effective GSS systems, focusing on the technology, is placed in the technology dimension, even though group satisfaction with the system may be one of the dependent variables.

METHODOLOGY In order to examine the frequency, types, and themes of EUC research, five leading IS journals were scrutinized in their entirety for the years 1990-2000. Every article in each journal during these 11 years was examined and either was included as EUC-related or eliminated. For those articles labeled EUC, a subsequent assessment was conducted to categorize each. The journals selected included the following: Information Systems Research (ISR), MIS Quarterly (MISQ), Journal of Management Information Systems (JMIS), Information and Management (I&M), and Journal of End User Computing (JEUC)1. In selecting the journals, two criteria were used. The first was its reputation as reported in five recent reviews (Gillenson & Stutz, 1991; Hardgrave & Walstrom, 1997; Holsapple, Johnson, Manakyan, & Tanner, 1994; Walstrom & Hardgrave, 2001; Walstrom, Hardgrave, & Wilson, 1995). In each of these reviews, MISQ and ISR were in the top three in overall ratings (excepting ISR in the 1991 and 1994 studies, when it was a relatively new publication). In the five ratings, JMIS was rated between 3 and 7, while I&M was rated between 8 and 20. JEUC, rated 44 in 1997 and 34 in 2001, was included not only because of its reputation, but also because it is one of the only pure-EUC journals. The second criteria was based on IS emphasis; (i.e., whether a journal published primarily IS research or not). Because EUC research is a subset of IS research, it was considered important that the journals be recognized for top quality IS research. As ranked in Walstrom and Hardgrave (2001), the top four “pure” IS journals were ISR, JMIS, MISQ (all tied at number one) and I&M, rated no. 4. JEUC was rated no. 8 in this list. Some leading journals, such as Management Science and Communications of the ACM, were listed as “hybrid” or “partial” IS journals (p. 122) and were, therefore, not considered in this report. Examining each article in each journal for the given years was a meticulous process. The first step involved reading the abstract and checking the included variables (for empirical articles). If, at this point, the article did not involve EUC, it was eliminated from consideration. If the article was not eliminated, it was further examined and then categorized in a number of ways. Categorization involved examining each variable, dependent and independent, as well as themes for non-empirical articles.

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

TEAM LinG

End User Computing Research Issues and Trends (1990-2000)

9

Any classification of previous literature involves a certain amount of arbitrariness (DeLone & McLean, 1992). Steps were taken to reduce this by following some consistent procedures. If an article clearly pertained to just one dimension, it was categorized as such. This was determined by noting the focus of the article, which was usually ascertained by the dependent variable(s). For conceptual articles, the major theme determined the focus. Through this examination, the articles were categorized as end user, technology, or organizational. The themes or variables then were recorded. All variables were included (except demographics) in order to provide an accurate account of measures. When EUC articles appeared to belong in multiple dimensions, a different procedure was used. Generally, this resulted when an article had variables that measured multiple dimensions (such as organizational and end user variables). Placing it in more than one dimension required either a second dependent variable (in another dimension) or two or more independent variables in another dimension. There turned out to be only 15 articles (out of 463) classified in multiple dimensions.

RESULTS The examination of the five journals for the years 1990-2000 yielded a total of 463 EUC articles. Of these, 414 (89.4%) were empirical in nature. I&M had the highest number of EUC articles, a total of 179, due primarily to an increased number of articles per issue and shorter article length. The other four journals averaged 71 articles for the 11 years. To assess the findings, the results include an analysis of the three dimensions and a comparison of journals. Based on these findings, the discussion section addresses EUC trends found in the literature.

Dimensions of EUC The three dimensions of end user computing are displayed in Table 1. The end user dimension included 203 total articles (42.4%), while both the technology

Table 1. Articles per EUC dimension Dimension

Total

Empirical%

End User

203

183/90%

Technology

138

127/92%

Organizational

138

116/84%

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

TEAM LinG

10 Downey and Bartczak

and organizational dimensions had 138 total articles (28.8%). Although there were 463 total articles, the 479 presented below includes fourteen articles classified in two dimensions, and one article placed in all three dimensions. The percentage and number of empirical articles within each dimension are included. End User Dimension. Articles that focused on the end user dimension reflected more than 11 different themes (see Table 2). In these 203 articles, there were a total of 417 themes or variables, because most articles measured multiple variables. Excluding demographics, each study measured an average of 2.1 variables. These were aggregated into 11 themes. Usage and satisfaction comprised 36% of all variables. Acceptance/ diffusion comprised 15%. Ten percent of the total included variables or themes in an “other” category, each with less than 1%, such as computer playfulness, end user privacy/security, innovativeness, and end user personality.

Table 2. End user dimension themes Theme/Variable

Number

%

Usage

91

22%

Acceptance/Diffusion

62

15%

Satisfaction

57

14%

Training

45

11%

Skills

43

10%

Attitudes

33

8%

Self-Efficacy

17

4%

Anxiety

13

3%

9

2%

Task Norms

6

1%

Other

41

10%

Total

417

100%

Figure 2. End user themes trend

Satis faction

Us age

99 20 00

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

20 15 10 5 0

Te ch. Acc.

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

TEAM LinG

End User Computing Research Issues and Trends (1990-2000)

11

Figure 2 indicates the trends of the top three themes within the end user dimension. Usage, the most common variable in this dimension, averaged 8.3 per year and shows a crest in 1995. Satisfaction, with an average of 5.2 articles per year, was notable only in that there were no articles in 2000 (significant at p < .10). Technology acceptance, with an average of 5.6 per year, shows a slow steady rise from 1996-2000. However, none of the differences in these three themes for the 11 years was significant at p < .05. Most of the remaining themes also were consistent during this time period. Only two points are noteworthy. In 1995, there were eight articles on computer skills, significantly (p < .05) more than any other year. Likewise, the number of self-efficacy articles in 2000 was significantly higher than in other years (p < .05). Technology Dimension. Table 3 lists the themes/variables in the technology dimension. These articles focused on the impact (to the end user) of the object technology. There were a total of 138 articles in this dimension. Most of the variables pertaining to this dimension considered the impact of the technology on either the decision process or group processes. Decision time and quality were the most common for DSS and GDSS technologies. For GSS technologies, participation and number of unique ideas or solutions were most common. In terms of the themes under which the variables were categorized, group impact represented 54% of the total. This underscores the relative importance of studies of GSS and GDSS technologies. Individual impact, at 30%, primarily studied technologies such as DSS, ES, and databases. Figure 3 presents the trends for the two most common technology dimension themes—individual and group impact. While group impact studies were most numerous (average of 6.9 articles per year), there was not a significant difference in numbers per year (p < .05). In 1996 there was a high of 11 articles, (significant at p