Advertisement

Configurations of User Involvement and Participation in Relation to Information System Project Success

  • Phillip Haake
  • Johanna Kaufmann
  • Marco Baumer
  • Michael Burgmaier
  • Kay Eichhorn
  • Benjamin Mueller
  • Alexander Maedche
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10816)

Abstract

Information system (IS) project success is crucial given the importance of these projects for many organizations. We examine the role of user involvement and participation (UIP) for IS project success in terms of perceived usability in 16 cases, where an IS has been implemented in an organization. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) enables us to research multiple IS project configurations. We identify the participation of the appropriate users in the requirements analysis phase as the key condition for IS project success. Our research corroborates anecdotal evidence on key factors and informs practitioners about the most effective way to conduct UIP.

Keywords

Configurational theory Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) IS project success User involvement User participation 

References

  1. 1.
    The Standish Group International: Chaos Manifesto. The Standish Group International, Boston (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jetu, F., Riedl, R.: Determinants of information systems and information technology project team success: a literature review and a conceptual model. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 30(27), 455–482 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Verweij, S.: Producing satisfactory outcomes in the implementation phase of PPP infrastructure projects: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of 27 road constructions in the Netherlands. Int. J. Project Manag. 33(8), 1877–1887 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wagner, E.L., Newell, S., Piccoli, G.: Understanding project survival in an ES environment: a sociomaterial practice perspective. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 11(5), 276–297 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meyer, A.D., Tsui, A.S., Hinings, C.R.: Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Acad. Manag. J. 36(6), 1175–1195 (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ragin, C.C.: Fuzzy-Set Social Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schneider, C.Q., Wagemann, C.: Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bano, M., Zowghi, D.: A systematic review on the relationship between user involvement and system success. Inf. Softw. Technol. 58, 148–169 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fiss, P.C.: Case studies and the configurational analysis of organizational phenomena. In: Byrne, D., Ragin, C.C. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Case-Based Methods, pp. 415–431. SAGE, Thousand Oaks (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Byrd, T.A., Thrasher, E.H., Lang, T., Davidson, N.W.: A process-oriented perspective of IS success: examining the impact of is on operational cost. Omega 34(5), 448–460 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saleh, Y., Alshawi, M.: An alternative model for measuring the success of IS projects: the GPIS model. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 18(1), 47–63 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grudin, J.: Interactive systems: bridging the gaps between developers and users. In: Baecker, R.M., Grudin, J., Buxton, W.A.S., Greenberg, S. (eds.) Readings in Human-Computer Interaction - Toward the Year 2000, pp. 293–303. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Folmer, E., Bosch, J.: Architecting for usability: a survey. J. Syst. Softw. 70(1–2), 61–78 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Madan, A., Dubey, S.K.: Usability evaluation methods: a literature review. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 4(2), 590–599 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs): Part 11: Guidance on Usability (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schaefer, M., Xu, B., Flor, H., Cohen, L.G.: Effects of different viewing perspectives on somatosensory activations during observation of touch. Hum. Brain Mapp. 30(9), 2722–2730 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tullis, T., Albert, W.: Measuring the User Experience – Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, Waltham (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T.: An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 24(6), 574–594 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ives, B., Olson, M.H.: User involvement and MIS success: a review of research. Manag. Sci. 30(5), 586–603 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harris, M., Weistroffer, H.: A new look at the relationship between user involvement in systems development and system success. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24(42), 739–756 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hope, K.L., Amdahl, E.: Configuring designers? Using one agile project management methodology to achieve user participation. New Technol. Work Employ. 26(1), 54–67 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barki, H., Hartwick, J.: Measuring user participation, user involvement, and user attitude. MIS Q. 18(1), 59–82 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McGill, T., Klobas, J.: User developed application success: sources and effects of involvement. Behav. Inf. Technol. 27(5), 407–422 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baronas, A., Louis, M.: Restoring a sense of control during implementation: how user involvement leads to system acceptance. MIS Q. 12(1), 111–124 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barki, H., Hartwick, J.: Rethinking the concept of user involvement. MIS Q. 13(1), 53–63 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ragin, C.C.: Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carmel, E., Whitaker, R.D., George, J.F.: PD and joint application design: a transatlantic comparison. Commun. ACM 36(6), 40–48 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lynch, T., Gregor, S.: User participation in decision support systems development: influencing system outcomes. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 13(4), 286–301 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sabherwal, R., Jeyaraj, A., Chowa, C.: Information system success: individual and organizational determinants. Manag. Sci. 52(12), 1849–1864 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Damodaran, L.: User involvement in the systems design process-a practical guide for users. Behav. Inf. Technol. 15(6), 363–377 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schneider, C.Q., Wagemann, C.: Standards of good practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comp. Sociol. 9(3), 397–418 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pettigrew, A.M.: Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice. Organ. Sci. 1(3), 267–292 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Markus, M.L., Tanis, C.: The enterprise system experience — from adoption to success. In: Markus, M.L., Tanis, C., Zmud, R.W. (eds.) Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future Through the Past, pp. 173–207. Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Cincinnati (2000)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sykes, T.A., Venkatesh, V., Rai, A.: Explaining physicians’ use of EMR systems and performance in the shakedown phase. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 18(2), 125–130 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Myers, M.D.: Qualitative Research in Business & Management. Sage, London (2009)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., Christian, L.M.: Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Wiley, Hoboken (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: a retrospective. J. Usability Stud. 8(2), 29–40 (2013)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eisenhardt, K.M.: Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14(4), 532–550 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Scientific Software Development GmbH: ATLAS.ti (2015)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J.M.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1998)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sauro, J.: A Practical Guide to the System Usability Scale: Background, Benchmarks & Best Practices. Measuring Usability LLC, Denver (2011)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thiem, A., Duşa, A.: Qualitative Comparative Analysis with R - A User’s Guide. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4584-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ragin, C.C., Davey, S.: Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis 3.0 (2016)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Duşa, A.: User manual for the QCA (GUI) package in R. J. Bus. Res. 60(5), 576–586 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P., Miller, J.: Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 4(3), 114–123 (2009)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ragin, C.C.: Set relations in social research: evaluating their consistency and coverage. Polit. Anal. 14(3), 291–310 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ragin, C.C., Rihoux, B.: Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). In: Rihoux, B., Ragin, C.C. (eds.) Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, pp. 87–121. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phillip Haake
    • 1
  • Johanna Kaufmann
    • 2
  • Marco Baumer
    • 3
  • Michael Burgmaier
    • 3
  • Kay Eichhorn
    • 3
  • Benjamin Mueller
    • 4
  • Alexander Maedche
    • 1
  1. 1.Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)KarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.University of PassauPassauGermany
  3. 3.University of MannheimMannheimGermany
  4. 4.University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations