Previous Table of Contents Next


COOPERATION, COMMUNICATION, AND MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING

Effective communication can improve the ISD process and is an important element in the development of mutual understanding between users and system developers. Mutual understanding provides a sense of purpose to the ISD process. This requires that users and developers perceive themselves as working toward the same goal and able to understand the intentions and actions of the other.

To improve communication and mutual understanding requires increased cooperation between users and developers. As a result, many of the inherent differences between these individuals are mitigated and the communications gap bridged; however, the balance of influence and their goals affects how they communicate and cooperate when developing information systems.

The Balance of Influence

In systems development, an individual possesses a certain degree of influence over others by having a particular knowledge or expertise. This knowledge or expertise provides the potential to influence those who have lesser knowledge. For example, a system developer uses his or her technical knowledge to influence the design of the information system. If the user has little or no knowledge of the technology, the system developer, by possessing the technical knowledge needed to build the application system, has a high degree of influence over the user. On the other hand, the user has a high degree of influence over the system developer if the user possesses knowledge of the domain needed to build the application system. By carefully employing their knowledge or expertise, the user and the developer cultivate a dependency relationship. Subsequently, the balance of influence between the user and developer determines how these individuals communicate with each other and how each individual tries to influence the other.

Reconciling the Goals between the User and Developer

Even though users and developers may work for the same organization, they do not always share the same goals. More specifically, the nature of the development process creates situations in which the user and developer have different goals and objectives. For example, the developer may be more interested in making sure that the IS project is completed on time and within budget. Very often the developer has several projects to complete, and cost/schedule overruns on one project may divert precious, finite resources from other projects.

Users, on the other hand, are more interested in the functionality of the system. After all, they must live with it. A competitive situation arises if increasing the system’s functionality forces the system to go over schedule or over budget or if staying on schedule or within budget limits the system’s functionality.

In 1949, Morton Deutsch presented a theory of cooperation that suggests cooperation arises when individuals have goals linked in a way that everyone sinks or swims together. On the other hand, a competitive situation arises when one individual swims while the other sinks.

This idea has been applied to the area of information systems development to provide insight as to how goals might affect the relationship between users and developers.

Cooperation arises when individuals perceive the attainment of their goals as being positively related (i.e., reaching one’s goals assists other people in attaining their goals). Cooperation, however, does not necessarily mean that individuals share the same goals, only that each individual will (or will not) attain their goals together. Here the individuals either sink or swim together.

The opposite holds true for competition. In competition, individuals perceive their goals as being negatively related (i.e., attainment of one’s goals inhibits other people from reaching their goals). In this case, some must sink if another swims.

Cooperation can lead to greater productivity by allowing for more substitutability (i.e., permitting someone’s actions to be substituted for one’s own), thus allowing for more division of labor, specialization of roles, and efficient use of personnel and resources. Cooperative participants use their individual talents and skills collectively when solving a problem becomes a collaborative effort. Conflicts can be positive when disagreements are limited to a specific scope, and influence tends to be more persuasive in nature.

Cooperation also facilitates more trust and open communication. In addition, individuals are more easily influenced in a cooperative situation than in a competitive one. Communication difficulties are reduced when persuasion rather than coercion is used to settle differences of viewpoints. Honest and open communication of important information exemplifies a cooperative situation. Competition, on the other hand, is characterized by a lack of communication or misleading communication.

The competitive process also encourages one party to enhance its power while attempting to reduce the legitimacy of the other party’s interests. Conflict is negative when discussions include a general scope of issues that tend to increase each party’s motivation and emotional involvement in the situation. Defeat for either party may be less desirable or more humiliating than both parties losing. In addition, influence tends to be more coercive in nature. Competitive individuals tend to be more suspicious, hostile, and ready to exploit or reject the other party’s needs and requests. The cooperative process supports trust, congenial relations, and willingness to help the other party’s needs and requests. In general, the cooperative process encourages a convergence of similar values and beliefs. The competitive process has just the opposite effect.


Exhibit 1.  Classification of User/Developer Relationships.

A CLASSIFICATION OF USER AND DEVELOPER RELATIONS

Exhibit 1 provides a classification scheme for viewing potential user/developer relationships based on the interdependency of goals and their balance of influence. Classification of relationships clarifies the social process of user involvement (i.e., how the user currently is involved or how the user should be involved) in ISD.

Quadrant I: The Student and Teacher

In this quadrant, the balance of influence is one sided; however, the goals between the user and the developer are positively related. Subsequently, this relationship resembles a teacher/student relationship for two reasons.

First, because the balance of power is one sided, the more experienced or knowledgeable individual most likely leads the ISD process. Because they both perceive their goals as being positively related, the less-experienced individual most likely follows the advice of the more influential individual.


Previous Table of Contents Next

Copyright © CRC Press LLC