Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

User participation in decision support systems development: Influencing system outcomes

  • Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Despite the widely held view that systems are more likely to be successful if users are involved during systems development, there is uncertainty about the exact nature of the relationship between user participation and system outcomes. There has been considerable research activity in this area but findings are inconclusive. Comparatively little qualitative research has been reported. This paper reports an interpretive study that examined the development process for 38 decision support systems in the Australian agricultural sector. The relationship between user participation and system outcome was explored. The degree of user influence in the design process was found to be an important component of this relationship. Degree of user influence was a result of both the type and depth of user participation. Much previous research has focused on whether users were involved in development without detailed consideration of the degree of influence on design features resulting from this participation. The results from this study are significant in that they yield theoretical insights into the phenomenon of user participation and related system outcomes. In addition, the results have practical significance for practitioners developing decision support software.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alavi M and Joachimsthaler EA (1992) Revisiting DSS implementation research: a meta-analysis of the literature and suggestions for researchers. MIS Quarterly 16(1), 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barki H and Hartwick J (1989) Rethinking the concept of user involvement. MIS Quarterly 13(1), 52–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barki H and Hartwick J (1991) User participation and user involvement in information system development. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Hawaii International Conference pp 487–492.

  • Barki H and Hartwick J (1994) Measuring user participation, user involvement, and user attitude. MIS Quarterly 18(1), 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JD, Walsh J and Pfeiffer WC (1990) Experts systems in agriculture: an assessment of their success. In Third International Conference on Computers in Agricultural Extension Programs (ZAZUETA FS, Ed), pp 264–269, University of Florida, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavaye ALM (1995) User participation in system development revisited. Information and Management 28(5), 311–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffey A and Atkinson P (1996) Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox PG (1996) Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems. Agricultural Systems 52(2–3), 355–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLone WH and McLean ER (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research 3(1), 60–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLone WH and McLean ER (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information system success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems 19(4), 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doll WJ and Torkzadeh G (1989) A discrepancy model of end-user computing involvement. Management Science 35(10), 1151–1171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards-Jones G and McGregor MJ (1992) Expert systems in agriculture – a history of unfilled potential?. In International Congress for Computer Technology in Agriculture pp 58–62, Versailles, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foale M, Mccown R, Carberry P, Hochman Z and Dalgliesh N (1997) Management of dryland farming systems in north eastern Australia. How can scientists impact on farmers' decision-making? Agricultural Science New Series 10 May–June, 34–37.

  • Gable GG (1994) Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems 3(2), 112–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill TG (1995) Early expert systems: where are they now? MIS Quarterly 19(1), 51–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginzberg MJ (1979) A study of the implementation process. TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences 13, 85–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzberg MJ (1981) Early diagnosis of MIS implementation failure: promising results and unanswered questions. Management Science 27(4), 459–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glyde S and Vanclay F (1996) Farming styles and technology transfer: sociological input in the development of a decision support system for viticulture. In Social Change in Rural Australia (LAWRENCE G, LYONS K and MOMTAZ S, Eds), pp 38–54, Rural Social and Economic Research Centre, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer JE, Falk S, Greer KJ and Bentham MJ (1994) Explaining and justifying recommendations in an agriculture decision support system. Agricultural Systems 44, 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover V, Lederer AL and Sabherwal R (1988) Recognizing the politics of MIS. Information and Management 14(3), 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD, Woodruff DR and Jamieson AM (1990) Role of computer-based decision aids in farm decision making and in agricultural extension. In Climatic Risk in Crop Production: Models and Management for the Semiarid Tropics and Subtropics (Muchow RC and Bellamy JA, Eds), pp 411–423, CAB International, Brisbane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilhorst R and Manders R (1995) Critical success and fail factors for implementation of knowledge based systems at the farm level. In Second Symposium on Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture (UDINK TEN CATE AJ, MARTIN-CLOUAIRE R, DIJKHUIZEN AA and LOKHORST C, Eds), pp 275–287, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, Wageningen, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim R (1983) Assessing participative systems design: some conclusions from an exploratory study. Information and Management 6(6), 317–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunton JE and Beeler JD (1997) Effects of user participation in systems development: a longitudinal field experiment. MIS Quarterly 21(4), 359–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang MI and Thorn RG (1999) The effect of user engagement on system success: a meta-analytical integration of research findings. Information and Management 35(4), 229–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ives B and Olson MH (1984) User involvement and MIS success: a review of research. Management Science 30(5), 586–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein HK and Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 67–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke EA and Schweiger DM (1979) Participation in decision-making: one more look. Research Organisational Behavior 1, 265–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luconi FL, Malone TW and Scott-Morton MS (1993) Expert systems: the next challenge for managers. In Decision Support Systems Putting Theory into Practice (Sprague RHJ and Watson HJ, Eds), pp 365–379, Prentice-Hall International, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch T (2002) Intelligent support systems in agriculture: a study of their adoption and use. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch T (2003) Intelligent support systems in Australian agriculture (a study of the adoption and use of 66 systems). Central Queensland University, Rockhampton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch T, Gregor S and Midmore D (2000) Intelligent support systems in agriculture: how can we do better? Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40(4), 609–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K (1988) Stakeholders, information system failures and soft systems methodology: an assessment. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 15, 61–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML and Bjorn-Anderson (1987) Power over users: its exercise by system professionals. Communications of the ACM 30(6), 498–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCown RL (2002) Changing systems for supporting farmers' decisions: Problems, paradigms, and prospects. Agricultural Systems 74(1), 179–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeen JD (1990) Successful development strategies for business application systems. Management Science 36(1), 76–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeen JD and Guimaraes T (1997) Successful strategies for user participation in systems development. Journal of Management Information Systems 14(2), 133–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeen JD, Guimaraes T and Wetherbe JC (1994) The relationship between user participation and user satisfaction: an investigation of four contingency factors. MIS Quarterly 18(4), 427–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded Handbook. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford E (1979) Consensus systems design: an evaluation of this approach. In Design and Implementation of Computer Based Information Systems (SZYPERSKI N and GROCHLA E, Eds), Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Gromingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford E (1981) Participative system design: structure and method. Systems, Objectives, Solutions 1(1), 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers MD (1994a) A disaster for everyone to see: An interpretive analysis of a failed is project. Accounting, Management and Information Technology 4(4), 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers MD (1994b) Dialectical hermeneutics: a theoretical framework for the implementation of information systems. Information Systems Journal 5, 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman WL (2000) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4th edn.) Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newett SDE, Mulo SF, Bezzina CP and Whiley AW (1999) AVOMAN and AVINFO: Software to improve the management of avocado productivity and quality. Revista Chapingo Serie Horticultura 5, 209–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman M (1984) User involvement – does it exist, is it enough? Journal of Systems Management 35(5), 34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker C and Sinclair M (2001) User-centred design does make a difference. The case of decision support systems in crop production. Behaviour & Information Technology 20(6), 449–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawstorne P, Jayasuriya R and Caputi P (2000) Issues in predicting and explaining usage behaviors with the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior when usage is mandatory. In International Conference on Information Systems (ORLIKOWSKI WJ, ANG S, WEILL P, KRCMAR HC and DEGROSS JI, Eds), pp 35–44, Brisbane, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds J (1998) Computer Software for Agriculture. NSW Agriculture, Paterson, NSW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robey D and Farrow DL (1982) User involvement in information system development: a conflict model and empirical test. Management Science 28(1), 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robey D, Farrow DL and Franz CR (1989) Group process and conflict in system development. Management Science 35(10), 1172–1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A and Corbin A (1994a) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, Newbury Park.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A and Corbin A (1994b) Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In Handbook of Qualitative Research (DENZIN NK and LINCOLN YS, Eds), pp 273–285, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Beek P (1995) A review of decision support tools (DSTs) (Workshop report). Alford: Scotland, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Beek P (1999) CottonLOGIC – Impact Assessment, Second Report. Brisbane, Queensland: SyTREC Pty. Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilde WD (1994) Australian expert systems for natural systems. AI Applications 8(3), 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilde WD and Lewis AV (1995) Expert systems in agriculture, 1995. In Eighth Australian Joint Artificial Intelligence Conference (MCDONALD C, Ed), pp 1–9, University College, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon Y, Guimaraes T and O'Neal Q (1995) Exploring the factors associated with expert systems success. MIS Quarterly 19(1), 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Qld, Australia

    Teresa Lynch

  2. Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Shirley Gregor

Authors
  1. Teresa Lynch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shirley Gregor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shirley Gregor.

Appendix

Appendix

The various terminologies used for user participation constructs and user influence have been summarized in Table A1 and Table A2

Table a1 Meanings assigned to user participation constructs
Full size table
Table a2 Guide to categorizing user influence
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lynch, T., Gregor, S. User participation in decision support systems development: Influencing system outcomes. Eur J Inf Syst 13, 286–301 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000512

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000512

Keywords

Search

Navigation