University of Houston-Clear Lake. Abstract - A number of theories have been advanced in the information systems literature to rationafize the merits of.
Alternative Perspectives of User Participation: Practical Implications Naveed Saleem University of Houston-Clear Lake
Abstract - A number of theories have been advanced in the information systems literature to rationafize the merits of user participation as a strategy for successful introduction ofinformation systems in organizatious. Importantly, while these theories contain some common elements, they also comprise significant differences. Understanding these commonalities and differences can facilitate effective implementation of user participation and thereby can make a difference in the ultimate failure or success of a system. This paper analyzes the major user participation theories; derives, as well as integrates, their implications for system users, user managers, and system designers; and infers respective applicability of these theories to specific system introduction contexts. INTRODUCTION User participation in information systems development is considered a key ingredient for system success in organizations. However, there is a lack of consensus on how participation results in system success. Consequently, a number of theories exist in the information systems literature that clarify this phenomenon. Nevertheless, the existing research provides few practical guidelines for effective implementation of user participation. This limitation arises out of the fact that user participation theories primarily originate from organizational behavior discipline, in which contexts of these theories do not exactly match the information systems contexts. Typically, organizational behavior contexts concern only managers (or supervisors) and employees, and therefore represent direct interaction between them. Information systems contexts, on the other hand, typically involve system users, functional managers, and system designers. Consequently, effective user participation requires extrapolating the underlying theoretical contexts to IS contexts and deriving the roles of users, managers, and designers, respectively, during the participation process. Additionally, user participation theories have common aspects and unique features. Therefore, understanding these commonalities and differences becomes an imperative in order to map these theories to information systems contexts, to outline the system introduction process, as well as to devise and employ specific strategies during this process. Given the rampant system failures in organizations ComputerPersonnel - July 1994
(Tait & Vessey, 1988), the need to refine system introduction strategies becomes essential to enhance the chances of system success. This paper defines user participation construct, analyzes various user participation theories, and derives practical guidelines for effective user participation as a strategy for successful introduction of information systems in organizations. USER PARTICIPATION CONSTRUCT User participation is typically defined as the behaviors and activities performed by target users or their representatives during the system development process (Barki & Hartwick, 1989). Participation varies in terms of content, type, and degree (Ives & Olson, 1984). Content of participation refers to the issues addressed in the participation process, such as budgeting, cost allocation, and system development. Content of participation typically assumed in the literature is the physical development of the system. Type of participation specifies whether the users participated directly or through their representatives. Type of participation typically studied is the direct participation. Degree of participation reflects the extent or amount of user influence. It varies along a continuum. At one end of this continuum, user input is either not solicited or is ignored. At the other end of the continuum, user input forms the basis of system requirements and system quality (Lucas, 1974; Ives & Olson, 1984). THEORIES OF USER PARTICIPATION The theories typically cited in the IS literature, as the conceptual bases of user participation, include participative decision making (Hirschheim, 1983; Ives & Olson, 1984), planned organizational change (Ginzberg, 1979; Ives & Olson, 1984; Tait & Vessey, 1988), and involvement as a psychological state (Barki & Hartwick, 1989). These theories are briefly reviewed below together with their implications for user participation and information system introduction derived. Participative decision making is defined first, followed by the other two theories. PARTICIPATIVE DECISION MAKING Participative decision making (PDM), in essence, refers to group decision making situations, in which employees, who are affected by the decisions, and/or who are to execute the decisions, participate in the decision 2.5
making process (Locke & Schweiger, 1979). The primary argument, advanced in support of PDM, claims that a manager faced with a decision making task may not have all the pertinent information required to make the decision, and that the employees may be the ones, who can supply this information. Therefore, tapping the employees' decision-related knowledge helps the manager to reach a satisfactory decision (Davis, 1963; Maier, 1967; Seeborg, 1978; Locke & Schweiger, 1979). Incidentally, employees desire to participate in decisions related to their jobs and immediate work surroundings only, i.e., issues about which they are likely to have pertinent knowledge (Holter, 1965; Locke & Schweiger, 1979). Two major categories of benefits are attributed to PDM. The first category of benefits includes decision acceptance, improved morale, as well as job satisfaction achieved through intervening mechanisms such as feelings of decision ownership, decision understanding, trust in management, better understanding of decision, integration of knowledge, and value attainment (sense of achievement or contribution). The second category comprises benefits, such as better quality decisions and higher productivity, achieved through mechanisms of better evaluation of decision alternatives and integration of knowledge (Coch & French, 1948; Davis, 1963; Locke & Schweiger, 1979). PDM justifies user participation on the basis that users and designers possess different areas of expertise. Users have the functional expertise, while designers have the technical expertise. Users hold the most knowledge about information processing problems, while analysts are most familiar with the information technology. Consequently, development of a satisfactory system requires blending of these two areas of expertise (Lucas, 1978; Boland, 1978). DeBrabander and Thiers (1984) also support this view. They maintain that user participation is imperative for system success when task uncertainty is high.
It is not unusual to allow user participation just to give users a sense of participation, rather than seek substantive contribution from them (Newman & Noble, 1990). This strategy is used not to seek a better system, but to win user acceptance of the system. However, Doll and Torkzadeh (1989) suggest that such participation will not yield the expected results if users do not desire to participate. Furthermore, such participation could have demoralizing effect on participants (Rosenfeld & Smith, 1967) and could reinforce negative user attitudes toward the system (Hedberg, 1975). Consequently, according to the PDM perspective, the purpose of user participation is to incorporate users' system-related functional expertise in the system development process. It is believed that this strategy enhances the likelihood of system success through intervening mechanisms such as feelings of system ownership, better understanding of system capabilities and limitations, better evaluation of system alternatives, knowledge integration, and value attainment (Ives & Olson, 1984; Doll & Torkzadeh, 1989). Figure 1 depicts the PDM perspective of user participation. PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE The planned organizational change theory (POC) is based on the theory of social and individual change proposed by Kurt Lewin (1952). The change in this theory refers to a planned, deliberate change in organizations; rather than an inevitable, sudden change. The concept of planned change assumes that every change contains forces that are for it or against it. More importantly, increasing forces, which support a change, without decreasing forces, that oppose the change, creates tensions and conflicts due to the possible increase in the opposing forces. Moreover, increasing support forces beyond a certain level may result in a higher level of conflict and tension. Accordingly, a
FIGURE 1. PDM PERSPECTIVE OF USER PARTICIPATION
Intervening Mechanisms
User Participation
26
Feelings of System Ownership Better System Understanding Better Evaluationof System Alternatives Knowledge Integration Value Attainment
System Success
Computer Personnel - July 1994
preferred strategy to implement a change calls for a decrease in the forces opposed to the change (Lewin, 1952; Gibson, 1980; Huse, 1980). Thus, POC focuses to implement a change by primarily transforming employee attitudes and behaviors. According to POC, an organization needs to introduce a change in three distinct phases: unfreezing, moving, and refieezing. The first phase, unfreezing, involves establishing an accepted need for change, as well as identifying and reducing the forces which are likely to resist the change. The second phase, moving (or changing), comprises designing and implementing the change. During this phase, employee participation is strongly recommended, because employees typically are the most knowledgeable about the practical implications and functions of the change (Herbert, 1981, p. 358). Notedly, PDM posits the exact argument for employee participation in decision making. The third phase, refreezing, entails stabilizing the change through supporting mechanisms such as modifications in organizational policies, as well as changes in organizational structures and group norms (Huse, 1980). POC approach is expected to result in change acceptance through intervening mechanisms such as reduced resistance to change, feelings of change ownership, trust in management, and integration of knowledge (Strauss, 1963; Locke & Schweiger, 1979).
Now, suppose, the change comprises the update of an existing information system or the development of a new one. In this case, users need to be involved in three distinct phases of the system development and implementation process. First, involve users in the unfreezing phase of this process. The desired outcome of this phase is to convince users about the need for a new or updated system, and thereby alleviate potential and actual user concerns and resistance toward the system under consideration. Since a system is typically initiated by user managers (Long, 1989, p. 331; Senn, 1990, p. 673), the user participation within this phase simply embodies an interaction between management and users in order to prepare an appropriate environment to introduce the system. Occasionally, system designers assist management in this phase, but establishing the need for the system primarily remains the management's responsibility. The second phase comprises developing and implementing the system. The POC view encourages user participation in this phase, because, basically, the users possess the necessary system-related functional expertise (Boland, 1978; Lucas, 1978). Obviously, within this phase, users interact with the designers. Consequently, it allows system designers to elicit users' input and incorporate same into the system development process. Thus, the PDM and
FIGURE 2. POC PERSPECTIVE OF USER PARTICIPATION
User Participation Intervening Mechanisms Unfreezing
4, Change
Reduced Resistance to System Feelings of System Ownership Better System Understanding System Better Evaluation of System Alternatives -----~ S u c c e s s Knowledge Integration Value attainment
Freezing
ComputerPersonnel -
July 1994
27
POC guidelines for interaction between u s e r s and designers are identical. The third phase involves freezing the system implementation through user training, system evaluations, and organizational policies and controls. Again, akin to the unfreezing phase, management -- not system designers remains primarily responsible for this phase. Consequently, user participation in this phase implies interaction between management and users for designing and implementing appropriate policies and controls. User participation, implemented from the POC perspective, is expected to result in system acceptance through feelings of system ownership, better understanding of system objectives, superior understanding of system capabilities and limitations, improved evaluation of system alternatives, and integration of knowledge (Ives & Olson, 1984). Figure 2 delineates the POC view of user participation. INVOLVEMENT AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE Traditionally, IS researchers employ the terms user participation and user involvement interchangeably in order to refer to the set of activities and behaviors performed by users, during the system development process. Barki and Hartwick (1989) challenged this practice. Based on research in psychology, marketing, and organizational behavior (For a detailed discussion of the underlying research, please see Barki and Hartwick, 1989.), they argued that participation and involvement are two separate, distinct constructs, and therefore should not be treated interehangeably. User participation, according to Barki and Hartwick, is an antecedent of user involvement and refers to the set of activities and behaviors performed by users, during the system development process. This participation, they contend, is likely to affect system quality, system relevance to user needs, and user understanding of the system. Thus, this conception of user participation is identical to the PDM and POC conceptions of user participation, which therefore irr~lies same roles for u~rs, managers, and designers, during the participation process, as posited by PDM and POC.
User involvement, on the other hand, refers to users' subjective psychological state, with respect to a system, and reflects the importance, as well as personal relevance, that users attach to the system. This psychological involvement is determined by factors such as users' influence on system development, as well as u~rs' perceptions of system quality and system impact on their job performance (Barki & Hartwick, 1989). Barki and Hartwiek posit, that user involvement (i.e., users' psychological state with respect to a system) not only varies in degree -- high or low; but also determines users' attitudes toward a system -- positive or negative. The highly involved users typically have very positive or very negative attitudes toward a system. Users with highly positive attitudes typically accept the system. On the other hand, users with highly negative attitudes, mostly reject the system. More importantly, these users retain this attitude toward the system, unless they are presented with persuasive, factual arguments. Normative approaches, for example, top management support and peer pressure, are highly unlikely to bring a change in these users' attitudes. Users with a low degree of involvement, however, ordinarily have a weak positive attitude toward a system and are more susceptible to normative influence attempts. Figure 3 represents this concept of system development and implementation. Changing user attitudes through factual information or normative approaches is in a way justifying the need and value of the system. Consequently, as Long (1989) and Senn (1990) suggest interacting with users for this purpose remains the management's responsibility. However, system designers may assist management in this efforts. INTEGRATION OF USER PARTICIPATION THEORIES This section integrates the user participation theories described above, evaluates their respective applicability to specific information systems contexts, and synthesizes personnel roles in the system development process.
FIGURE 3. PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE PERSPECTIVE OF USER PARTICIPATION Degree of Involvement
Attitudes toward System
Approaches to Change Attitudes )
High /
+
User's
User Part.--b Psychological Involvement
""
Low "'-.
28
+
,
Present Syslem Facts to Users ~ Use Normative Approaches )
9ystem
l..IJSuc©ess
'7
)
Computer Personnel - July 1994
PDM view dearly aims to achieve system success through integration of users' functional knowledge and via the quality of user-designer interaction, during the system development process. Importantly, this approach does not expficitly focus on eliciting and alleviating sources of user resistance, nor developing and implementing controls and procedures to encourage system use. Consequently, this perspective becomes particularly useful in order to develop and implement DSS type applications or to make modifications to an existing system at users' request, i.e., in situations where the likelihood of users' resistance toward the system is minimal. Specifically, this approach is relevant when there is little organizational or procedural change introduced by the system. Importantly, however, one must take heed that using this approach in situations where users lack the expertise to make meaningful contribution can result in a poor system design. Furthermore, even if users participate in system development, they may still resist or sabotage the system if they aren't convinced of the system need. POC perspective differs from the PDM perspective, in that, POC explicitly addresses the actual and potential sources of user resistance before developing the system under consideration. Specifically, this approach focuses to achieve system success by placating user resistance toward the system, instilling in users "felt need" for the system, and by incorporating user input in system development. Once the system gets developed through user participation, controls and procedures are put in place in order to avoid any recidivism to old system. Consequently, this approach is particularly suitable when the system under consideration warrants significant procedural, organizational, or personnel changes which are likely to draw opposition from the affected personnel. For instance, a sales processing system that introduces significant procedural changes or an inventory management system that affects the authority of inventory management personnel are good candidates for the POC approach. Thus, this approach is likely to be more effective than the PDM approach if alleviating user resistance, rather than tapping their functional expertise, is the prime concern. One potential problem in this approach is that participants may not voice their concerns to managers (Gibson & Rose, 1986). In that case, managers can seek assistance from outside consultants. Furthermore, this approach is more time consuming than the PDM approach. Consequently, using this approach unnecessarily can result in time and cost overruns. Involvement as a psychological state perspective focuses on post-implementation user attitudes toward a system. According to this perspective, user attitudes are pr/marily determined by the perceived system effect on user's job performance. Factors such as system quality and nature of user participation during system development interact with the perceived effect to create positive or ComputerPersonnel - July 1994
negative user attitudes (psychological involvement) toward the system. This view prescribes the strategies one can use at this stage to change and induce positive user attitudes toward the system. This perspective, consequently, is particularly useful, when a system rims into unexpected user resistance or for supporting systems developed without user participation. In such situation this approach will prove more effective because PDM and POC views do not provide guidelines to follow in case user resistance continues after the system implementation. All perspectives provide a uniform personnel role in the system development process. System users' primary responsibilities pertain to providing the system-related functional expertise. Importantly, actual users of the system, not user managers, need to play this role (Powers & Dickson, 1973). The designers' responsibilities include providing the technical expertise and incorporating user input into system development (Now, it must be noted that the designers need not worry about user input, if the new, or updated system actually brings no overt change in the present mode of information processing. This will be the case, for example, when the new system is just a technical improvement over the old one, and all the changes are transparent to the user.) The managers' role requires justifying system needs, identifying system objectives, and devising control mechanisms to assure system success. CONCLUSION IS literature offers three major theories -participative decision making, planned organizational change, and involvement as a psychological state -- to rationalize user participation in system development and to explain its relationship to system success. However, existing research does not provide clear practical implications of these theories for effective user participation and system introduction. This paper analyzes these theories and concludes that they posit significantly common aspects and unique features. The common aspects of user participation theories pertain to the personnel role in system development. All theories prescribe the same role for system users, user managers, and system designers. Users' primary roles pertain furnishing system-related functional knowledge, which may take the form of providing system requirements, information processing, or system evaluation. Designers' primary roles involve providing the technical expertise, as well as eliciting and incorporating users' functional expertise into system development. User managers' primary responsibilities concern justifying system needs, alleviating potential sources of user resistance to system, and implementing control mechanisms in order to encourage and to stabilize system use. The unique features of the theories make them
29
inherently useful for different information system contexts. PDM perspective of user participation is particularly useful to develop user-initiated systems, to incorporate user-requested modifications to existing systems, or to develop DSS-type applications that cater to the specific information needs of decision makers. POC view is especially useful to develop and to implement systems that introduce significant procedural and organizational changes in organization, or systems that are likely to draw user resistance. Psychological involvement perspective is notably useful to salvage systems, whieh ran into unexpected user resistance after the system got implemented.
REFERENCES Barki, H. and J. Hartwick. (1989, March). Rethinking the Concept of Involvement. MIS Quarterly, 53-63. Boland, R. J. (1978). The Process and Product of System Design. Management Science, 24, 887-898. Coeh, L. and J. R. P. French. (1948). Overcoming Resistance to Change. Human Relations, 1,512-532.
Herbert, T. T. (1981). Dimensions of Organizational Behavior (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan. Hirschheim, R. A . (1983). Assessing Participative Systems Design: Some Conclusions from an Exploratory Study. Information & Management, 6, 317-327. Holter, H. (1965). ARitudes toward Employee Participation in Company Decision-making Processes. Human Relations, 18, 297-321. Huse, E. F. (1980). Organizational Development and Change. New York, NY: West Publishing Company. Ives, B. and M. Olson. (1984). User Involvement and MIS success: A Review of Research. Management Science, 30(5), 586-603. Lewin, K. (1952). Group Decisions and Social Change. In G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb, and E. L. Hartley (Eds.)., Readings in Social Psychology. New York, NY: Holt Rinehart. Locke, E.A. and D.M. Schweiger. (1979). Participation in Decision-Making: One More Look. In B. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 1,265-339.
Davis, K. (1963). The Case for Participative Management.
Business Horizons, 6, 55--60. DeBrabander, B. and G. Thiers. (1984). Successful Information Systems Development in Relation to Situational Factors Which Affect Effective Communication Between MIS-Users and EDP-Specialists. Management Science,
Long, L. (1989). Management Information Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Lucas, H. C. (1974). System Quality, User Reactions, and the Use of Information Systems. Management Informatics, 3(4), 207-212.
30(2), 191-199. Doll, W. J. and G. Torkzadeh. (1989). A Discrepancy Model of End-User Computing Involvement. Management Science, 35(10), 1151-1171.
Lucas, H. C. (1978, Winter). The Evolution of an Information System: From Key-Man to Every Person. Sloan Management Review, 39-52.
Gibson, C. F . (1980). Managing Organizational Behavior. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Maier, N. R. F. (1967). Assets and Liabilities in Group Problem Solving: The Need for an Integrative Function. Psychological Review, 74(4), 239-249.
Gibson, S. E. and M. A. Rose. (1986). Managing Computer Resistance. Computers in Nursing, 4(5), 201-204.
Newmann M. and F. Noble. (1990). User Involvement as an Interaction Process. Information Systems Research Journal. 1(1), 89-113.
Ginzberg, M. J. (1979). A Study of the Implementation Process. TIMS Studies in the Management Science, 13, 85-102.
Powers, R. F. and G. W. Dickson. (1973). MIS Project Management: Myths, Opinions, and Reality. California Management Review, 15(3), 147-156.
Hedberg, G. (1975). Computer Systems to Support Industrial Democracy. In Human Choices and Computers, G. Mumford and H. Sackman (Eds.), North Holland.
Rosenfeld, J. M. and M. J. Smith. (1967). Participative Management: An Overview. Personnel Journal, 46, 101-104.
30
Computer Personnel - July 1994
Seeborg, I. S. (1978). The Influence of Employee Participation. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 14(1), 87-98. Senn, J. A. (1990). Information Systems in Management. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Strauss, G. (1963). Some Notes on Power-Equalization. In H. Leavitt (FEd.), The Social Science of Organizations: Four Perspectives, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Tait, P. and I. Vessey. (1988, March). The Effect of User Involvement on System Success: A Contingency Approach. MIS Quarterly, 91-107.
Dr. Naveed Saleem Accounting, Legal Studies, and Information Systems Department University of Houston-Clear Lake 2700 Bay Area Boulevard Houston, Texas 77058
ComputerPersonnel - July 1994
31
