Previous | Table of Contents | Next |
Jack T. Marchewka
The traditional approach to information systems development (ISD) assumes that the process is both rational and systematic. Developers are expected to analyze a set of well- defined organizational problems and then develop and implement an information system (IS). This, however, is not always the case.
The full extent of IS problems and failures may not be known, as most organizations are less than willing to report these problems for competitive reasons. However, a report by the Index Group indicates that 25 out of 30 strategic system implementations studied were deemed failures, with only five systems meeting their intended objectives. Moreover, it has been suggested that at least half of all IS projects do not meet their original objectives.
A lack of cooperation and ineffective communication between end users and system developers are underlying reasons for these IS problems and failures. Typically, the user an expert in some area of the organization is inexperienced in ISD, while the developer, who is generally a skilled technician, is unacquainted with the rules and policies of the business. In addition, these individuals have different backgrounds, attitudes, perceptions, values, and knowledge bases. These differences may be so fundamental that each party perceives the other as speaking a foreign language. Consequently, users and developers experience a communication gap, which is a major reason why information requirements are not properly defined and implemented in the information system.
Furthermore, differences in goals contribute to a breakdown of cooperation between the two groups. For example, the user is more interested in how information technology can solve a particular business problem, whereas the system developer is more interested in the technical elegance of the application system.
On the other hand, users attempt to increase application system functionality by asking for changes to the system or for additional features that were not defined in the original requirements specifications. However, the developer may be under pressure to limit such functionality to minimize development costs or to ensure that the project remains on schedule.
Subsequently, users and developers perceive each other as being uncooperative, and ISD becomes an us vs. them situation. This leads to communication problems that inhibit the user from learning about the potential uses and benefits of the technology from the developer. The developer, on the other hand, may be limited in learning about the users functional and task requirements. As a result, a system is built that does not fit the users needs, which, in turn, increases the potential for problems or failure. Participation in the ISD process requires a major investment of the users time that diverts them from their normal organizational activities and responsibilities. An ineffective use of this time is a waste of an organizational resource that increases the cost of THE application system.
The next section examines the conventional wisdom of user involvement. It appears that empirical evidence to support the traditional notion that user involvement leads to IS success is not clear cut. Subsequently, this section suggests that it is not a question of whether to involve the user but rather a question of how or why the user should be involved in the ISD process. In the next section, a framework for improving cooperation, communication, and mutual understanding is described.
The idea that user involvement is critical to the successful development of an information system is almost an axiom in practice; however, some attempts to validate this idea scientifically have reported findings to the contrary. Given the potential for communication problems and differences in goals between users and developers, it is not surprising, for example, that a survey of senior systems analysts reported that they did not perceive user involvement as being critical to information systems development.
Moreover, a few studies report very limited effects of user involvement on system success and suggest that the usual relationship between system developers and users could be described as one in which the IS professionals are in charge and users play a more passive role.
There are several reasons why involving the user does not necessarily guarantee the success of an information system. These include:
Despite equivocal results, it is difficult to conceive how an organization could develop a successful information system without any user involvement. It therefore may not be a question whether to involve the user, but how or why the user should be involved. More specifically, there are three basic reasons for involving users in the design process:
While the more traditional ISD methods view users as passive sources of information, the user should be viewed as a central actor who participates actively and effectively in system development. Users must learn how the technology can be used to support them, whereas the system developer must learn about the business processes in order to develop a system that meets user needs. To learn from each other, users and developers must communicate effectively and develop a mutual understanding. This leads to improved definition of system requirements and increased acceptance, as the user and developer co-determine the use and impact of the technology.
Previous | Table of Contents | Next |