Definitional distinctions and implications for managing end user computing

115

Research

Definitional Distinctions and Implications for Managing End User Computing * 1. Introduction

Janice C. Sipior The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC27412. USA

G. Lawrence

Sanders

State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA

Research has addressed the impact, implications, and expectations of end user computing (EUC). However, the research has generally been exploratory in nature. Definitions in this area lack consistency and thus are unclear. Further, the primary focus has been on individuals, neglecting an understanding of group dynamics in EUC activities. To address these concerns, this paper advances a more explicit definition, recognizing both development and use activities performed either individually or in groups. Previous research is mapped according to these distinctions, enabling the identification of areas in need of future study. A discussion of issues facing organizations in integrating end user computing is presented. Finally, a framework for EUC in groups is provided. This is intended to advance an understanding of the implications that group dynamics have for the management of EUC activities. Keywords: End user computing, ing, Management of information tems

Managing end user computsystems, User developed sys-

In a 1972 article, Dearden [lo] attacked what he believed was the objective of the emerging MIS community: to develop organization-wide integrated management information systems. Our assessment of this then controversial article reveals two dominant themes. First, he did not believe that individuals with both functional area skills and system skills could be found or trained to develop large-scale organizational systems. Second, he believed that a large portion of systems development should be decentralized and placed in the hands of the users; in summary: a call for end user computing.

Janice C. Sipior is an Assistant

Professor in the Department of Information Systems and Operations Management at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. She was formerly an Assistant Professor in the MIS Program at Canisius College in Buffalo, New York. She recently earned her Ph.D. degree from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Previously, she had worked as a computer planning analyst for a major international commercial bank. Her current research interests include information technology assessment and adoption, system development strategies, and end user computing. She has previously published in Datama-

tion

* This is an extended version of a paper accepted for the 1987 Decision Sciences Institute Conference in Boston, Massachusetts. It was then titled: “End User Computing in Groups: A Conceptual Framework and Model for Research”. North-Holland Information & Management

0378-7206/89/$3.50

16 (1989) 115-123

Q 1989, Elsevier Science Publishers

G. Lawrence Sanders is an Assistant Professor of Management Science and Systems in the School of Management at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He received his Ph.D. degree from Texas Tech University in 1983. His current research interests include multicriteria decision making, strategies for systems development, information systems implementation, data modeling, and technology transfer. His papers have appeared in several journals including MIS Quarterly, Decision Support Systems, Information and Management, Decision Sciences and the Journal of Management Information Systems.

B.V. (North-Holland)

116

Information & Management

Research

The performance of managerial and analytical tasks with the aid of the computer by personnel other than systems professionals has become increasingly commonplace. The broad set of activities associated with the use of the computer for job related tasks has been referred to as end user computing (EUC). The impact, implications, and expectations of this area have been the focus of research intended to ensure that EUC be developed as a manageable and advantageous organizational resource. In an attempt to provide further definition, research has lead to various typologies of end users and the applications they develop. However, the definitions in this area lack consistency and are unclear. Further, the primary focus has been on end users as individuals. This focus neglects to advance the understanding of group dynamics in EUC activities.

2. A Definition of EUC A lack of a consistent definition for EUC is apparent in the current literature. Any definition should begin by explicitly recognizing the two distinct types of activities to which end user efforts are directed: development and use. A further and critical distinction is that these activities are provided by either individuals or groups of end users. The definition integrates these foundational properties as follows: End user computing includes the development and use activities associated with the employment of computer resources, by one or more non-DP professionals in functional areas, to perform or facilitate job-related tasks and responsibilities. Individuals are involved in EUC activities if, in employing computer resources, they either directly interact with the computer or are engaged in a task leading to direct interaction with the computer, such as coding. Interestingly, EUC can be traced back to the early when many early prodays of computing, grammers had transferred from functional areas. The limited availability of hardware, coupled with organizational demands for increased efficiency, inevitably led to specialization in the form of

systems professionals. The recent growth of the EUC phenomena caught researchers off guard. This certainly accounts, to a large measure, for the sparseness, diversity, and inconsistency of EUC definitions. A review of the various interpretations illustrates this and provides an understanding of how EUC has been regarded. McLean addressed the specific area of “end users as application developers” [21]. Rockart and Flannery referred to EUC as “user-developed and -operated computing” [28]. Benson considered “the varieties of interactive computer use in this area by persons who are using either timesharing computer services, internal and external, or microcomputer facilities” [7]. Rivard and Huff attempted to be more definitive by distinguishing between EUC and user developed applications, “UDA should be clearly distinguished from the much broader set of activities termed end user computing (EUC). The latter includes many types of computing activities outside the scope of ‘development and use of computer applications by end users”’ [25]. According to Alavi, “end-user computing means that the user of the results of the computing also creates the software specifications necessary to effect the computing itself. Software specifications may be created by the end-user alone or through assistance from a system analyst or a programmer” [l]. Kasper and Cerveny also provided a definition, “the capability of users to have direct control over their computing needs” [17]. As noted earlier, the inconsistency in the definitions is understandable since this area is relatively new: the literature in EUC has generally been exploratory and prescriptive in nature. While the volume of research is rather meager, leading systems professionals ranked EUC as the second most important IS issue of the 1980’s [13]. Indeed, the consensus among practicing managers is indicative of its importance and pervasiveness.

3. The Development Group Distinctions 3.1. Development

vs. Use and Individual vs.

vs. Use

Our definition of EUC explicitly recognizes development and use as two distinct activities. These are represented in Figure I. The specific concerns associated with each of these two types

J. C. Sipior, G. L. Sanders / Managing End User Computing

Information & Management

117

systems are generally for the purpose of either data retrieval or analysis; i.e., largely DSS. The perspective on DSS is that either an individual or a group of decision makers might benefit from a DSS. In practice, however, most systems have been designed for use by single decision makers. Although a DSS operating in a mainframe or micro computer environment might be available to many users simultaneously, the software itself accommodates the individual user faced with a particular decision for which he or she is responsible [12, emphasis added].

r g understandmq of user Interface svstem functions and niodel base components

e * analysis. design. and implementatiorl

Fig. 1. The Development

vs. Use Distinction.

differ. For example, training would depend on whether the trainee expects to engage in the analysis, design, and implementation of an application or needs to understand the model base and functions of a system to use it effectively. 3.2. The Individual

Although systems designed specifically to improve the process of group decision making, Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) [ll], are emerging, their availability will be limited for quite some time [12]. Since systems for group use are only marginally available, groups are forced to work with systems designed for the individual user.

vs. Group

End users may work either individually or in groups. As revealed in the literature, end user Table 1 Summary

of Research

Areas in End User Computing.

Author

McLean, 1979 Rockart and Flannery, 1983 Benson, 1983 Rivard and Huff, 1984 Rivard

and Huff, 1985

Alavi, 1985 Alavi and Weiss, 1985-1986 Kasper, 1985 Kasper

and CeNeny,

1985

Sanders and Courtney, 1985 Sumner, 1985 CeNeny and Joseph, 1986 Cheney, Mann and Amoroso, 1986 Lee, 1986 Leitheiser and Wetherbe, 1986 F’ybum, 1986-1987 Beheshtian and Van Wert, 1987 O’Donnell and March, 1987 Watson and Carr, 1987 Alavi, Nelson, and Weiss, 1987-1988 Munro, Huff, and Moore, 1987-1988

Type of Study

Single End User Development

Use

Development

Use

Conceptual Inteniews Interviews Field Investigation Field Investigation Survey Conceptual Laboratory Study Laboratory Study Survey Survey Survey Conceptual Survey Conceptual Interviews Conceptual Conceptual Conceptual Conceptual Interviews

X X X

X X X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Group

of End Users

X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

118

Informaiion & Management

Research

Thus, this paper is directed toward the need to gain an understanding of how groups of end users develop and use systems which do not have special features for group work. 3.3. Distinctions

in the Current Literature

The inclusion of an individual vs. a group of end users within the context of our representation enables the identification of those areas which have been addressed by past research as well as those where research is lacking (Table I ). Virtually all previous studies have considered the end user as an individual. An exception to this orientation is the work by McLean, incorporated into subsequent research by Rockart and Flannery and Sumner.

4. Issues in End User Computing There are several key issues facing organizations in the integration of EUC technology: (1) its growth rate and the factors contributing to the growth of EUC within organizations; (2) characterization of end users and their applications; (3) the computer facilities and software; (4) education, training, and support; (5) organizational implications and benefits of EUC; and (6) management concerns. These issues, however, may become quickly outdated because EUC is a dynamic phenomenon, experiencing rapid change as technology advances and the rate of technology transfer increases. 4.1. The Growth Rate and Factors Contributing this Growth

to

The rate of growth of EUC is about 50-90s annually, as measured by allocation of computer hardware and time-sharing expenditure, whereas the growth rate in traditional data processing in company operations is 515%. Reasons for the high growth are found in four areas [28]. The first is an increased awareness of EUC capabilities. Contributing to this is the influx of college graduates with knowledge of computing tools, business journal publications, and computer-re-

lated sales calls. Second, EUC is now feasible with the advent of fourth generation languages and decreased hardware cost. Software developments resulting in powerful, easy to use packages, result in rapid growth of user development of applications (UDA) [26]. The third reason for growth is the increasing complexity of the environment within which corporations operate, resulting in growing management demands for accurate and timely information. This contributes to the growing demand for computer-based IS in general. In turn, the inability of DP departments to keep pace with increasing application development requests is a fourth reason to encourage end users as application developers. The expression of user dissatisfaction with present application development procedures is indicative of the need to further examine EUC. Now that users are developing their own systems, it would be interesting to see whether there is still dissatisfaction. 4.2. Characterization plications

of End

Users and their Ap-

Exploratory research has led to various typologies of individuals involved in EUC (Table 2) and the systems developed and used by these individuals (Table 3). The end user community is comprised of individuals from diverse areas. To distinguish among their varying“orientations, end users were classified according to their DP orientation, computer skills, management level and microcomputer or mainframe usage, reasons for developing applications, and functional area. However, the studies that typify end users did not state whether they work along or in groups. The definition of system scope and type is an important distinction in the recognition of application development process differences. System scope refers to major system use by: individual users, single departments, or multiple departments. System type is the primary purpose or task of the system, for example: transaction processing, planning and control, or decision support. 4.3. Computer

Facilities and Software

Differences may be seen in EUC based on computer facilities and associated software. The type of system developed may differ with the use

J. C. Sipior, G.L. Sanders / Managing End User Computing

Information & Management Table 2 End User Typologies. TyPology

Author

DP Orientation:

McLean

(1979)

DP professionals DP users: DP amateurs non-DP trained users Computer

Rockart and Flannery (1983)

Skills:

Six-way typology of end users: nonprogramming end users command level users end user programmers functional support personnel end user computing support personnel DP programmers Management Level by Computer Facility Used: top upper middle lower

by

PC mainframe both

Reasons for Developing Applications: micro DP department staff analysts opportunity seekers Functional

Benson (1983)

Area:

Rivard and Huff (1985) users

Sumner (1985) and Pybum (1987-1987)

accounting/finance engineering MIS production sales and marketing transportation/distribution other

of personal computers compared to mainframes. Inquiry languages and report generators were installed on mainframes as early as 1977, in response to increased end user requests for data. At the same time, end users required applications for analytical tasks. As a result, appropriate software was installed. However, with the introduction of the microcomputer, the majority of the user developed applications tended to be analysis ori-

119

ented, while the majority of data retrieval applications remained on the mainframe. The most frequently utilized computer facility for end user activity was reported to be the mainframe. In a survey by Alavi, 70% of the respondents utilized the mainframe with terminals connected through a centralized configuration. About half indicated the use of stand-alone disconnected computers, assumed to be microcomputers. Outside timesharing facilities were occassionally utilized by about one third. A distributed microcomputer network was thought to be appropriate for end user computing. However, we believe this profile has changed considerably since of: the survey with the proliferation (1) networks with micro to mini and mainframe links, etc., of fourth generation languages for (2) availability micros, and of fourth generation languages (31 development for micros, minis, and mainframes with similar user and data interfaces. The identification of the types of software for EUC is important because it provides insight into the application types and development environments. In one study, nearly two-thirds of the respondents utilized report generators, modeling languages or systems, and spreadsheet programs [l]. Specific tools most frequently used for decision support needs were found to be FOCUS or RAMIS for over half of the users [33]. 4.4. Education,

Training,

and Support

Support of end user activities is extremely important to success. Sanders and Courtney revealed a significant positive relationship between decision making satisfaction and overall satisfaction to the level of training in a financial planning language. Several dimensions of support may be provided by MIS and DP departments, including end user education, consultation, central database administration, and hardware and software selection. Information centers to support EUC were present in over half of the responding companies surveyed by Benson. However, Alavi found only two of the information centers had support for microcomputer users; more training and support was available for end users of mainframe facilities. A recognition of the differences between the use of a

120

Research

Informalion & Management

microcomputer and mainframe is critical in providing appropriate support. Cerveny and Joseph found that traditional support of large-scale computer users does not appear to be effective for PC users. Generally, microcomputer users have been self or college trained, with very few reporting vendor training. An increase in the level of support is necessary. Benson had asked respondents what areas they would like for end user education. Most interest was expressed in advanced programming and/or systems analysis, software orientation, file management, and database technology. Further, education is desired for managers and professionals in introductory computing and training. 4.5. Organizational

Implications

and Benefits

Overall benefits of EUC cited by users include: faster response to user needs, reduced application development backlog, more successful system implementation, and improvement in work methods of users. Concerns include: overtaxing computer resources, incompatibility of both hardware and software, and threats to data integrity and security. Within the area of user development of applications, the most frequently cited advantage was the timeliness of application development. Additionally, users were able to apply their own expertise independently, allowing them to control the process. Disadvantages include lack of expertise with the use of both computers and programming languages. The process of learning to use unfamiliar tools was perceived to be too time consuming and infringing on job responsibilities. Overall, users involved in application development regarded the process as advantageous and generally were satisfied. In one study it was found that over 40% of the financial planning analysts and managers indicated that IFPS (Interactive Financial Planning System) encouraged organizational communication. It was further found that increased communication led to greater decision making and overall satisfaction [32]. 4.6. Management

Concerns

A number of management concerns toward EUC have arisen, including: data integrity and security guidelines; education, training and organizational support; hardware and software

acquisition procedures; the role of the information center; the impact of EUC on the role of MIS and DP professionals and on the organizational structure; and the need for top-level planning. The most crucial need is for increased awareness and knowledge by top management, and for strategic planning incorporating EUC as well as future technological developments. Additional issues, associated with application development by users, include the lack of requirements analysis, development, control and operational considerations for applications; technical limitations; the economic impact of UDA in terms of user productivity and and encouragement of application efficiency; organizational learning. The recommendations for management and control of EUC activities have basically been prescriptive in nature, directed toward the need to develop a strategy for EUC, to provide support for end user endeavers through the information center as well as support personnel within functional departments, and to implement and enforce well-defined control procedures and evaluation measures for EUC. There is a general lack of coherent organizational policies toward EUC [7]. This has resulted in increased managerial control and the emergence of frameworks for understanding the phenomena.

5. A Framework for End User Computing in Groups The literature generally focuses on EUC by individuals, but does provide a basis for an understanding of EUC in groups. Three major variables are central to group studies: group characteristics, environmental factors, and group performance. According to a seminal social psychological perspective on groups [34], variations in aspects of the environment and/or properties of the group are likely to impact the performance of the group. The relationship among these variables relative to EUC activities is represented in Figure 2. The particular type of EUC activity, either development or use, must first be recognized in order that the correct processes and outcomes be evaluated. Development activities entail system analysis, design, and implementation, resulting in computerbased systems; use activities include operational interaction with a system resulting in information retrieval, data analysis, and decision making.

Information

J. C. Sipior, G. L. Sunders / Managing End User Computing

& Management

Croup CharacterAcs

Table 3 User-Developed Application

Application

Typologies

Scope Typology

System Directed

Toward:

Author McLean (1979) and Pyburn (1986-1987)

personal use department use corporate-wide use EnvIronmental

Factors

Application

Typologies

System Type:

InformatIon

Technology

telecommumcatlons

for EUC in Groups.

Technology has an impact on each of the independent variables depicted within the large box, thereby affecting group performance. These include 4GL’s, microcomputers, networking, telecommunications, and data base technologies. Each of these may affect the processes of group functioning. Characteristics of a group include: its formation and composition, type and means of role differentiation, leadership presence and style, size, member proximity, individual member characteristics, interdependence, cohesiveness, and conformity. The environmental factors of prime interest pertain to management considerations: the extent of top management support and style. Additional variations may be in terms of the task to be accomplished and external threats and influences, such as time constraints, computer resource considerations, level and extent of training, and available support. Group performance may be viewed as goal attainment or problem solution, depending on the type of EUC activity. Finally, the dimensions of concern for interaction include the properties of the interaction process, norms, and roles. Consideration of such variables will provide a way to determine which factors lead to successful group interactions and outcomes. Questions include:

Rockart and Flannery (1983)

operational systems report generator inquiry/simple analysis complex analysis miscellaneous System Type:

Fig. 2. A Framework

Author

Benson (1983)

query language report generator analytical tasks System Type:

Rivard and Huff (1985)

modelling transaction processing data analysis simple query report generator graphics System Type:

Sumner (1985)

operational systems query and report generation simple analysis complex analysis other Major Application by Functional Area: sales and marketing sales reports budgeting market analysis profitability reporting finance and accounting corporate financial summary accounting variance reporting long-range production specific process reporting quality reports

Sumner (1985)

121

122

Research

Information& Management

TraInlap

Fig. 3. The Two-Step ion Leadership.

6. Conclusion

Flow of Technology

Transfer

with Opin-

Which and how many individuals should be involved in development and/or use activities for what types of tasks? Should member roles (such as analyst or programmer) be assigned or allowed to emerge? What impact does the availability of a new technology have on group interdependence and role differentiation, and in turn, group performance? Should just one or all group members (at a considerably greater expense)?

be trained

When high interaction is present, the knowledge may be transferred from one individual formally trained. This person becomes a “technical gatekeeper” [4], controlling the flows of technological transfer into the group. Additionally, the trained individual may be regarded as one of perhaps several opinion leaders [29], serving as a source of information and advice. The technology transfer would thus transpire in a two-step flow, as shown in Figure 3. This example illustrates how a group might assimilate knowledge about a technology such as 4GL’s. The application of a new technology has implications for EUC activities, group characteristics, group interactions, and environmental factors; this may, in turn, affect group performance. Empirical studies will provide the insight necessary to formulate management guidelines that suggest the most effective way for organizing and performing EUC activities in groups.

EUC is one of the dominant issues in this decade. Clearly, “since EUC transcends the whole organization, it is a concern of the entire enterprise. And this concern is magnified due to a lack of understanding of computing issues within the organization” [23]. It is therefore critical that management focus attention on EUC activities. It has been recognized that resisting the growth of user development is a losing battle and is not in the best interest of organizational growth and development. “If the change is not managed, possible excesses and failures in the organization could devastate its management of the information resources” [6]. Similarly, for use activities, it is certainly evident that the mere presence of PCs does not guarantee their effective utilization [18]. An organization must strive to achieve a careful balance between stringent controls and lax concern. The main managerial objective is to promote an environment wherein experimentation and learning are fostered, enabling end users to gain and apply skills necessary to achieve success. We have provided a foundation for understanding the development and use of computer-based systems by individual end users or groups. Particularly relevant to theory building for EUC in groups are the concepts of Social Psychology, Organizational Behaviour, and Technology Transfer. The body of knowledge on group dynamics from these fields will serve to guide advances in understanding and managing EUC groups. The realization of these advances is critical as EUC is more widely diffused in organizations, and enters the maturation stage of the technology life cycle.

References “End-User Computing: The MIS [l] Alavi, Maryam, Managers’ Perspective”, Information and Management, Vol. 8, 1985, pp. 171-178. [2] Alavi, Maryam, R. Ryan Nelson, and Ira R. Weiss, “Strategies for End-User Computing: An Integrative Framework”, Journal of Management Informafion Sysferns, Vol. 4, No. 3, Winter 1987-1988, pp. 28-49. [3] Alavi, Maryam and Ira R. Weiss, “Managing the Risks Associated with End-User Computing”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. II, No. 3, Winter 1985-1986, pp. 5-20. [4] Allen, J.J. and S.I. Cohen, “Information Flow in Research and Development Laboratories”, Administratioe Science Quarterly, 1969, pp. 12-19.

Information

& Management

[5] Attia, A.M. and T.C. Richards, “End User Computing: A Call for Research”, 1985 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the AIDS, Las Vegas, NOV. 11-13, 1985, pp. 325-321. [6] Beheshtian, Mehdi and Paul D. Van Wert, “Strategies for Managing User Developed Systems”, Information and Management, Vol. 12, 1987, pp. l-7. [7] Benson, David H., “A Field Study of End User Computing: Findings and Issues”, MIS Quarterly, December 1983, pp. 35-45. [8] Cerveny, Robert P. and Daniel A. Joseph, “Large Business Organization’s Use of PC Technology”, Journal of Systems Management, June 1986, pp. 14-17. [9] Cheney, Paul H., Robert I. Mann, and Donald L. Amoroso, “Organizational Factors and End-User ComJournal of Management Information Systems, puting”, Summer 1986, Vol. III, No. 1, pp. 65-80. [lo] Dearden, John, “MIS is a Mirage”, Haruard Business Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, January-February, 1972, pp. 90-99. [ll] DeSanctis, Gerardine and R. Brent Gallupe, “A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems”, Management Science, Vol. 33, No. 5, May 1987, pp. 589-609. [12] DeSanctis, Gerardine and R. Brent Gallupe, “Group Decision Support Systems: A New Frontier”, Data Base, Winter 1985, pp. 3-10. [13] Dickson, G.W., R.L. Leitheiser, J.C. Wetherbe and M. Nechis, “Key Information Systems Issues for the 1980’s”, MIS Quarterly, September 1984, pp. 135-159. ]14] Gremillion, L.L. and Pybum, P., “Breaking the Systems Development Bottleneck”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61, No. 2, March-April 1983, pp. 130-137. [15] Hoffman, Gerald M., “Every Manager is an Information Systems Manager Now, or, Managing User-Controlled Informafion Systems”, Information and Management, Vol. 11, No. 5, December, 1986, pp. 229-235. [16] Kasper, George, M., “Effect of User-Developed DSS Applications on Forecasting Decision-Making Performance in an Experimental Setting”, Journal of Management Znformation Systems, Vol. 2, No. 2, Fall 1985, pp. 26-39. [17] Kasper, George M. and Robert P. Cerveny, “A Laboratory Study of User Characteristics and Decision-Making Performance in End-User Computing”, Information and Management, Vol. 9, 1985, pp. 87-96. [18] Lee, Denis M.S., “Usage Patterns and Sources of Assistance for Personal Computer Users”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 4, December 1986, pp. 313-325. [19] Leitheiser, Robert L. and James C. Wetherbe, “Service Support Levels: An Organized Approach to End-User Computing”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 4, December 1986, pp. 337-349. [20] Mahmood, M.A. and J.D. Becker, “Organizational Ma-

J. C. Sipior, G. L. Sanders

turity tion

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29] [30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

123

and End-Users”, Journal of Management ZnformaVol. 11, No. 3, Winter 1985-1986, pp.

“End Users as Application Developers”, December 1979, pp. 37-46. Munro, Malcolm C., Sid L. Huff, and Gary Moore, “Expansion and Control of End-User Computing”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 4, No. 3, Winter 1987-1988, pp. 5-27. O’Donnell, Dale J. and Salvatore T. March, “End-User Computing Environments - Finding a Balance Between Productivity and Control”, Information and Management, Vol. 13, 1987, pp. 77-84. Pybum, Philip J., “Managing Personal Computer Use”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Winter 198661987, Vol. III, No. 3, pp. 49-70. Rivard, Suzanne and Sid L. Huff, “An Empirical Study of Users as Application Developers”, Information and Management, Vol. 8, 1985, pp. 89-102. Rivard, Suzanne and Sid L. Huff, “User Developed Applications: Evaluation of Success from the DP Department Perspective”, MIS Quarterly, March 1984, pp. 39-50. Robertson, Thomas S., “New Product Diffusion”, Proceedings of the American Markefing Association, June 1969, pp. 80-86. Rockart, John F. and Lauren S. Flannery, “The Management of End User Computing”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 26, No. 10, October 1983, pp. 776-784. Rogers, Everett M., and F. Floyd Shoemaker, Commumcation of Innovations, Free Press: New York, 1971. Sanders, G. Lawrence, “Conceptual Foundations for Measuring System Success”, Working Paper #650, School of Management, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1987. Sanders, G. Lawrence and James F. Courtney, “A Field Study of Organizational Factors Influencing DSS Success”, MIS Quarterly, March 1985, pp. 77-93. Sanders, G. Lawrence, James F. Courtney, and Stephen L. Loy, “The Impact of DSS on Organizational Communication”, Information and Management, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1984, pp. 141-148. Sumner, Mary, “The Impact of User-Developed Applications on Managers’ Information Needs”, 198.5 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the AIDS, Las Vegas, Nov. 11-13, 1985, pp. 328-330. Thibaut, John W. and Harold H. Kelley, The Soctal Psychology of Groups, John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1959. Watson, Hugh J. and Houston H. Carr, “Organizing for DSS Support: End-User Services”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Summer 1987, Vol. 4, No. 10, pp. 83-95. MIS

[23]

End User Computing

Systems,

37-64. [21] McLean, [22]

/ Managing

E.R.,

Quarterly,