Encouraging user management participation in systems design

25

Research

Encouraging Participation William

User Management in Systems Design 1. Introduction

J. Doll, D.B.A.

Professor of MIS & Strategic Management, The Umuersity of Toledo, 2801 West Bancroft Street, Toledo, Ohio 43606, U.S.A. February 1987 Revised July 1987

Although the need for managers of user functions to be involved in the design of information or decision support systems (DSS) is broadly accepted as one of the essential principles of information systems development, we know little about why some firms have been able to achieve high levels of such managerial participation while others have been less successful. Through field interviews with MIS directors, it was possible to identify three widely held assumptions concerning the organizational level factors which might facilitate middle management participation from user organizations in systems design. To explore the relationship between these factors and user middle management participation, 152 user managers (functional area department heads) were studied from 55 firms. The results suggest that many firms may, unknowingly, manage their information system function in a manner which does not encourage user middle management involvement in the design of the systems they use. Keyw0rd.r: Management, User participation, committee, MIS planning, Top management

Executive steering commitment.

William J. Doll is currently a Professor of MIS and Strategic Management at The University of Toledo and serves as a management consultant for area companies. The author of many articles in academic and professional journals including the Academy of Management Journal, the MIS Quarterly, Information & Management, and the Journal of Systems Management, Dr. Doll has a doctoral degree in Business Administration from Kent State University and has worked as a senior management systems analyst on the corporate staff of Burroughs Corporation.

North-Holland Information & Management

037%7206/87/$3.50

13 (1987) 25-32

0 1987, Elsevier Science Publishers

Top management and MIS directors are frequently encouraged to pursue MIS development success by obtaining top management support and commitment [4,9,13,18,26], establishing an active executive steering committee comprised of top management personnel to set policies and priorities [12,20], developing a written plan for MIS development [10,17,19], and encouraging broadly based user management participation in the systems design process [3,8,21,24,25]. These four prescriptions for success have been widely endorsed in the literature and are accepted as common knowledge among practitioners. The literature usually focuses on one of these prescriptions at a time in isolation from the others. We have virtually no idea how they might be related to each other or what problems might arise in attempting to implement all four in the same organization. Specifically, little is known about how top management commitment, written plans, or executive steering committees may be related to user management participation in systems design. The need for managers of user functions to be directly involved and participate in the design of management information or decision support systems is broadly accepted as one of the essential principles of information systems development [23]. Studies of participation have focused on the project level at the time of implementation. At this project level, studies of participation have highlighted the conditions, the timing, and the nature of user involvement necessary to achieve successful project implementation [1,7,11,22]. Edstrom, in particular, points out that functional area user managers (i.e. department heads) play an important role in the early stages of the system life cycle by initiating project studies, shaping project

B.V. (North-Holland)

26

scope decisions, and guiding the project through the early gross design stages. However, none of these studies of participation have focused on how this behavior might be stimulated or restrained by organizational level factors. Thus, we know little about why some firms have been able to achieve high levels of user management participation while others have been less successful. This article explores organizational level factors which MIS directors consider important in encouraging middle level (functional area or department head) user management participation in systems design.

2. Myths Concerning

Managerial

To identify organizational might stimulate or impede

Table

1:

Participation level factors which middle level user

Respondents

by Type oP Business

Respondents

and Firm Size

by Type of Business

Number of Firms Frequency Manufacturing Finance, Banking, Ins. Educational Institutions Wholesale & Retail Trade Transportation, Communication and Utilities Government Agencies Health Services/Hospitals Other

management’s participation in systems design, 55 organizations in north-western Ohio and southeast Michigan were studied (Table I ). The sample represents a variety of industry groups and firm size categories. In structured interviews, the MIS directors were asked what organizational level (rather than individual project) factors they felt encouraged or restricted middle level user management’s participation in systems design. Almost all MIS directors felt that getting functional area managers involved in the design of their systems was important. However, many of these directors had not explicitly identified their own assumptions concerning which organizational level factors encouraged or restricted middle level user management participation. Through discussions with these MIS directors, it was possible to identify several widely held assumptions concerning the organizational level factors which encour-

363 2 5 1

Percentage 60.0% 10.9%

Number of Respondents Frequency 72

3.6% 9.1%

1.8%

2 5 1

3.6% 9.1% 1.8%

55

100.0%

Percentage

18 7 12

x: 4:6$ 7.9%

9 2 29

5.9% 1.3% 19.1%

3

2.0%

152

100.0%

-

Respondents by Number of hployees in Division or Organization

Number of Firms Frequency leas

than 499

500 to 999 1,000 to 4,999 5,000 to 9,999 10,000 or more

Percentage

13 11 17 ;

23.6% 20.0% 30.9% 12.1% 12.7%

55

100.0%

Number of Respondents Frequency

Percentage

23 22

17.8% 22.4% 30.3% 15.1% 14.5%

152

100.0%

;

W.J. Doll / User Management

age middle level user management participation in systems design. Since these assumptions have not been critically examined, they might be more appropriately labeled as myths. They include: * The Top Management Commitment Myth: When top management makes a clear long-term financial commitment to MIS development, user management involvement and participation is encouraged. * The Planning Myth: Developing a written overall plan for MIS development serves as a vehicle for encouraging broadly based user management participation in systems design. * The Executive Steering Committee Myth: An executive steering committee serves as a vehicle for encouraging managerial involvement and participation from user organizations. An examination of the MIS literature also revealed some support for these beliefs. Several practitioners and academics have observed that middle level user management’s willingness to get involved and participate in systems development may depend upon the signals they get from top management concerning the importance placed on this activity. However, most of these observations are anecdotal in nature [8,9,14-16,231. Several studies [6,17] have indicated that improving user communication and involvement is the top ranked objective for engaging in systems planning. Finally, an executive steering committee has been advocated as an effective way to improve communication with user management, enhance such management involvement and participation in systems planning efforts, and change the attitude of user towards data processing and vice versa1 [2,5,10,12,19,20]. To assess the myths, questionnaires were administered to the MIS directors and their major users (i.e. department heads) were interviewed by research assistants. The MIS directors were asked whether top management had made a long-term commitment to provide stable funding for system development activities, whether their firm had a written overall plan for systems development, whether they had an executive steering commitee, and what activities their committee engaged in. The user managers were selected by asking the MIS directors of the firms to identify the departments which were the major users of data processing services. The managers of these departments were asked for what functional or applica-

Parmpcrtron

21

tion areas they were responsible and whether they had participated in the design of the system(s) they were using. The researchers were able to interview only about one half of the department heads identified by the MIS directors. Many of the functional area department heads had several major applications in their department. If they had participated in the design of at least one of these applications, they were classified as having participated. Responses were obtained from 152 department heads. Accounting (69 managers or 45.4%) and finance (52 managers or 36.2%) were the most common areas of responsibility. Since the sample was select rather than random, these results should be interpreted with caution ~ causal inferences should be avoided. This study should be viewed as exploratory in nature rather than as definitive test of hypotheses. Statistics are presented for descriptive purposes.

3. Results The results show a significant (p < 0.03) positive association between top management commitment and user participation (Table 2). Where top management commitment was present, 69.6% of the functional area managers indicated that they had participated in the design of the systems they were using. Where MIS directors did not feel that top management had made a long-term financial commitment, only 54.8% of the user managers had participated in systems design. However, the increase in participation (14.8%) is moderate and may be due to increased development activity among firms with long-term funding commitments. Here. the existence of written overall plans for systems development had a significant (p -C 0.0007) negative correlation with participation. Where their firm had a written plan for systems development, only 48.5% of the functional area managers felt that they had participated in the design of the systems they were using. In contrast, when their MIS director indicated that no written overall plan for systems development existed, 73.8% of the functional area managers reported that they had participated. The contention that executive steering committees encourage participation in systems design by

28

Informution

Research

& Management

Table 2: The Relationship Between Organizational Level Factors and User Management Participation in Systems Design Did you participate in the design of the systems(s) you are using?

Organizational

Level

Factors

Y E Has top management made a long-term commitment to provide stable funding for systems development activity? *

Do you have a written overall plan for systems development? **

* **

Kendall's Kendall's

Tau Tau

(nZ7)

55 69.6%

24 30.4%

52.0%

45?%

73 48.0%

79

S

I

I

!

/

(

54?%

Y E S

33 48.5%

35 51.5%

68 44.7%

N

62 73.8%

22 26.2%

84 55.3%

Y E S

55 62.5%

33 37.5%

88 57.9%

N 0

40 62.5%

24 37.5%

64 42.1%

0

Do you have a systems policy committee comprised of managers from functional areas of the organization which is involved in setting priorities and/ or allocating resources for systems development?

YES (n=95)

B (r = . 15) significant B (r = -.26) significant

at p < .0300 at p < .0007

functional area managers (i.e. department heads) was not supported by the data. With or without a steering committee, the percentage of user department heads participating in systems design efforts was the same (62.5%). For the 88 department heads whose firm had an executive steering committee, Table 3 describes how specific committee activities correlate with participation. Interestingly, some committee activities have positive correlations with user management participation in systems design while other activities have negative correlations. Executive steering committee activities such as meeting regularly, setting development priorities, setting broad objectives for new project areas, deciding what projects to work on and in what order, and reviewing detailed system design pro-

posals in new project areas had significant (p < 0.05) positive correlations with participation. In contrast, other committee activities, such as discussing what operating functions of the firm are having performance problems, or how a systems study or the development of an information system could improve the performance of the operating function, had significant (p < 0.01) negative correlations with user department head participation. Committee discussions of the implications of programming the existing system as it is (i.e. vs. the benefits which might be achieved by an overall systems study of how work should be done and how decisions should be made) also had a significant (p < 0.01) negative correlation with participation.

Informatm

W.J. Doll / User Manqement

& Management

Table 3: Relationship Activities and User

Pclrticipatron

29

Between Executive Steering Committee Management Participation in Systems Design Did you participate in the design of the system(s) you are using?

Executive Committee

YES (n=55)

Steering Activities Y

E S Meet

45 67.2%

(

nZ3

)

22 32.8%

67 76.1%

52::%

21 23.9%

Regularly?

Kendall's Tau B = Sign. = .0500

.17

Decide what projects should be worked on and in what order (i.e., project priority and project implementation sequence)? Kendall's Tau B = Sign. = .0490

.18

Set broad objectives for project areas where new systems are authorized? Kendall's Tau B = Sign. = .0416

.19

Review general (gross) systems designs in new project areas? Kendall's Tau B = Sign. = .0771

.15

N 0

10

47.6%

Y E S

66.2%

25 33.8%

74 84.1%

N 0

6 42.9%

8 57.1%

14 15.9%

Y E S

40 69.0%

18 31.0%

58 65.9%

N 0

15 50.0%

15 50.0%

30 34.1%

Y E S

32 69.6%

14 30.4%

46 52.3%

N 0

23 54.8%

45.2%

49

4. Discussion The results suggest that, in some ways, the four basic prescriptions for MIS development success (i.e. top management commitment, written plans, executive steering committees, and managerial participation) may be in conflict with each other. Top management commitment and some activities of executive steering committees appeared to encourage functional area (i.e. department head) management’s participation in the design of the systems they use. In contrast, written development plans and other committee activities were inversely related to participation.

19

42 47.7%

One plausible explanation is that the degree of centralization of the planning process - rather than the existence of a written plan itself - may influence the functional area manager’s participation in systems design. Information systems planning has, traditionally, been viewed as primarily a corporate or divisional level staff activity (rather than a functional area line responsibility); this is carried out using a top-down approach. Establishing a top level executive steering committee and having corporate or divisional system’s staff develop a written plan almost always involves centralizing decision making concerning MIS development. The plan provides a framework for devel-

30

Resarch

In/ormurlon

_ Table 3: Relationship Activities and User

Between Executive Steering Committee Management Participation in Systems Design (Continued) Did you participate in the design of the system(s) you are using?

Executive Committee

Steering Activities

YES (n=55)

Y

Review detailed system design proposals in new project areas? Kendall's Tau B = Sign. = .0375

.19

N 0

Periodically review and/or revise a written overall plan for systems development in the organization? Kendall's Tau B = Sign. = .0627

E S

.16

Discuss what operating functions of the organization (i.e., inventory control, marketing, production control, etc.) are having performance problems?

Y

E S N 0

Y E S

5 100.0%

(

nZ3

0 0.0%

)

5 5.9%

48 60.0%

32 40.0%

80 94.1%

31 70.5%

13 29.5%

44 50.0%

24 54.5%

20 45.5%

44 50.0%

36 53.7%

31 46.3%

67 76.1%

2 9.5%

21 23.9%

N

19

0

90.5%

Y

27 41.4%

30 51.5%

57 64.8%

28 90.3%

3 9.7%

31 35.2%

21 46.7%

24 53.3%

45 52.9%

32 80.0%

8 20.0%

40 47.1%

Kendal Tau B = -.32 Sign. = .0013

Discuss how a systems study and the development of an information system could improve performance of the operating functions? Kendal Tau Sign. =

B = -.42 .OOOO

Discuss the implications of programming the existing system as it is and the benefits that might be achieved bv an overall systems st;dy of how the work should be done and how decisions should be made?

E S

N 0

Y

E S

N

0 Kendall's Tau B = -.34 Sign. = .0008

84 Mrrnugement

Informatron&

Management

opment activities restricts the of department In many the companies, steering committees top management ment but decision making. centralization reduced level of participation by department heads actually the systems. these firms, committee than department became primresponsible for how information might be Furthermore, top participation on executive steercommittee tended legitimize tentative ten plans cause rough or tentative to be as final and discouraged head involvement. the MIS director who has the staff develop a written plan and/or encourages a top level steering committee to become actively involved in the functional area details of information systems planning may be unintentionally preempting functional area management’s participation. Top management as well as MIS directors need to create an environment where ideas are expected to flow from the bottom-up (i.e. from functional area managers and department heads) as well as from the top-down. Using an executive steering committee in information systems planning improves the line-staff balance but is still, essentially, a top-down approach. MIS directors and top management may need to think through the executive steering committee’s role and ways of operating in order to avoid unintentionally discouraging middle level user management’s participation in systems design. Where encouraging such managerial participation in systems design is the objective, the executive steering committee should make it clear that functional area managers or department heads (not executive steering committees or corporate/divisional systems staff) are primarily responsible for identifying ways in which information systems can solve operational problems or improve performance of their department or functional area. To make this responsibility clear, one firm expected their functional area managers to present their department’s automation plans personally to the executive steering committee. Whether or not the firm has an executive steering committee, top management and MIS directors might consider decentralizing the information sys-

W.J. Doll / User Management

Participation

31

tems planning process by assigning a limited number of systems staff to key functional area Having titles such as “Manager of managers. Marketing Information Systems” or “Manager of Financial Information Systems”, these system personnel might report directly to the functional area manager. They could be given responsibility for assisting the functional area manager in systems planning, and coordinating plans with corporate and/or divisional systems staff. In the firms studied, none of the functional area managers enjoyed such planning assistance.

5. Conclusions We have examined three myths concerning the organizational causes of managerial participation in systems design. The results suggest that functional area management’s participation in systems design may be facilitated or restricted by the way in which the overall information system function is managed. The results tend to support the contention that top management’s willingness to make long-term financial commitments to MIS development encourages managerial participation. Also, these results suggest that the activities of an executive steering committee - rather than the mere presence or absence of such a policy making group have a substantial impact on the level of department head participation in systems design. The information system planning process, depending upon how it is implemented, might serve as a vehicle for either centralizing decision making concerning systems development or encouraging broadly based participation/influence on the part of functional area managers. However, in many of the firms studied, the way in which written plans were developed did not appear to encourage more broadly based participation among department heads. One should not infer from these results that firms should avoid written plans or restrict the discussions of executive steering committees. However, MIS directors and top level managers serving on executive steering committees need to become more aware of and sensitive to how their committee’s actions and activities might encourage or restrict opportunities for broader user management participation.

32

Research

The factors which affect participation by user management in systems design may be more complex than we had realized. The literature on participation has focused on the project level at the time of implementation and, for the most part, implicitly assumed that middle level user management’s participation was an easily manipulated variable under the control of the project’s systems analyst. The literature has not identified organizational level factors which facilitate or impede such managerial participation. These results suggest that the way in which the overall information system function is managed rather than the project analyst may be, in part, responsible for the unwillingness of functional area managers and department heads to participate in systems design. The findings should, however, be viewed as exploratory rather than definitive. Additional research is needed to confirm these findings and explore other factors which may influence the level of user management participation in systems design. Given the importance of functional area management’s participation in DSS, further research on innovative approaches to information systems planning would appear to be justified. Such work may reveal additional insights into why some firms have been able to achieve high levels of user management participation while others have been less successful.

References VI Alter, S.: “Development

PI

[31

[41

[51

[6]

Patterns for Decision Support Systems,” MIS Quarter!v. Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1978, pp. 33-42. Buss, Martin D.J.: “How To Rank Computer Projects,” Harvard Business Review, January-February, 1983, pp. 118-25. DeBrabender, Bert and Edstrom, Anders N.: “Successful Information System Development Projects,” Management Science, Vol. 24, No. 4, October 1977, pp. 191-99. Doll. William J.: “Avenues For Top Management Involvement in Successful MIS Development,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 1985, pp. 17-35. Doll, William J. and Meshad, Ahmed: “Tradeoffs In Selecting an Executive Steering Committee”, Journal of Systems Management, Vol. 35, No. 1, January 1984, pp. 6-11. Doll, William J. and Meshad, Ahmed: “Objectives For Systems Planning,” Journal of Systems Management, Vol. 35, No. 11. November 1984.

Informution

& Mancrgement

[7] Edstrom, A.: “User Influence and the Success of MIS Projects - A Contingency Approach,” Human Relations, Vol. 30, No. 7, 1977, pp. 589-607. ResponPI Ein-Dor, P. and Segev, E.: “Information-System sibility,” MSU Business Topics, Vol. 25, No. 4, Autumn 1977, pp. 33-40. and Computer Prof]91 Garrity, John T.: “Top Management its,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 41, No. 4, July-August, 1963, pp. 6-12, 172-174. Planning for Information HOI Head, Robert V.: “Strategic Systems,” Infosystems, October 1978, pp. 46-54. and MIS [Ill Ives, B. and Olson, M.H.: “User Involvement Success: A Review of Research,” Management Science, Vol. 30, No. 5, May 1984, pp. 586-603. Aids in Closing Manage[I21 Izzo, Joseph E.: “Committee ment-DP Gap,” Ifosystems. October, 1979, p. 16. ]I31 Lucas, Henry C.: u?ly Information Systems Fail, New York: Columbia University Press, 1975. and the Use of an H41 Lucas, Henry C. Jr.: “Performance Information System,” Management Sctence. Vol. 21, April 1975. pp. 908-19. H51 Lucas, Henry C. Jr.: “Systems Quality, User Reactions and the Use of Information Systems,” Management Informatics, Vol. 3, August 1974, pp. 207-212. Model of Informa1161 Lucas, Henry C. Jr.: “A Descriptive tion Systems in the Context of the Organization,” Data Base, Vol. 5, Winter 1973, pp. 27-39. Ephraim R., and Soden, John V.: Straiegtc ]I71 McLean, Planning for MIS, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1977. Quarterly, “Unlocking the Computer’s [ISI The McKinsey Profit Potential: A Research Report to Management,” Fall, 1968. a Long-Range EDP H91 Miller, William B.: “Developing Plan,” Journal of Systems Management, July 1979, pp. 36639. Information Systems by [201 Nolan, Richard L.: “Managing Committee,” Haruard Business Review, July-August, 1982, pp. 72-79. ]2Il Powers, Richard F., and Dickson, Gary W.: “MisProject Management: Myths, Opinions, and Reality,” California Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, Spring 1973. pp. 1477156. [221 Robey, D. and Farrow, D.L.: “User Involvement in Information System Development: A Conflict Model and Empirical Test,” Munagement Science, Vol. 28, No. 1, January 1982, pp. 73-85. Principles of Information Systems [231 Senn, J.A.: “Essential Development.” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2, June 1978, pp. 17-26. [24] Swanson, E. Burton: “Management Information Systems: Appreciation and Involvement,” Management Science, Vol. 21, No. 2, October 1974, pp. 178-188. [25] Vanlommel, E. and De Brabander, B.: “The Organization of Electronic Data Processing (EDP) Activities and Computer Use,” The Journal of Busmess, Vol. 48. No. 2, 1975. pp. 391-410. [26] Willoughby, Theodore C. and Pye, Richard A.: “Top Management’s Computer Role,” Journul of Sysfems Management, Vol. 28. No. 9, September 1977, pp. 10-13.