Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of User’s Internal Flexibility and Participation on Usage and Information Systems Flexibility

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Information systems (IS) need to be flexible enough to satisfy the users’ requirements especially in turbulent environments. The main purpose of this study is to empirically examine the impact of user’s internal flexibility and participation on usage and information systems flexibility. A research model has been evolved based on a review of the literature. Research hypotheses were derived to examine the various components of the model. In order to empirically test the model and hypotheses a questionnaire survey was administered to obtain responses from users of various levels. The survey data was collected from 296 users from 42 organizations spanning 8 industries and a statistical analysis was carried out. The major findings of the study are: (i) a user’s internal flexibility enables the user to effectively participate in IS planning and increases IS flexibility, (ii) user participation improves usage and IS flexibility, (iii) a user’s internal flexibility increases usage flexibility and (iv) usage flexibility increases IS flexibility. Based on the empirical findings, the implications for theory and practice are given along with future areas of research.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal, R. (2000). Individual acceptance of information technologies. In R. W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT management: Projecting the future through the past (pp. 85–104). Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Educational Resources Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Athey, S., & Schmutzler, A. (1995). Product and process flexibility in an innovative environment. Rand Journal of Economics, 26(4), 557–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahrami, H. (1992). The emerging flexible organization: Perspectives from Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 34, 33–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, J., & Pearson, S. (1983). Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Science, 29(6), 519–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bariff, M. L., & Lusk, E. J. (1977). Cognitive and personality tests for the design of MIS. Management Science, 23(6), 820–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (1989). Rethinking the concept of user involvement. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Baroudi, J. J., Olson, M. H., & Ives, B. (1986). An empirical study of the impact of user involvement on system usage and information satisfaction. Communications of the ACM, 29(3), 232–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belohlav, J. A., & Fiedler, K_ D. (1987). Assimilating new technology into the organization: an assessment of McFarlan and McKenney's model. MIS Quarterly, 11(l), 46–57.

  • Benamati, J., & Lederer, A. L. (2001). Coping with rapid changes in IT. Communications of the ACM, 44(8), 83–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beynon-Davies, P., Mackay, H., & Tudhope, D. (2000). It’s lots of bits of paper and ticks and post-it notes and things…: A case study of a rapid application development project. Information Systems Journal, 10(3), 195–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bharadwaj, A. S., Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (2001). IT capabilities: Theoretical perspectives and empirical operationalization. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Information Systems, New Orleans, Louisiana.

  • Bjorn-Andersen, N. & Hedberg, B. (1977). Designing Information Systems in an Organizational Perspective. In TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, Vol. 5. Providence, RI: The Institute of Management Sciences.

  • Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior in school: How does it relate to participation in decision making? Journal of Educational Administration, 43(5), 420–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracchi, G., & Francalanci, C. (1997). A model for information processing capacity: Formalizing the impact of structural and information system choices on organizational performance. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 3(3), 173–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brancheau, J. C., & Wetherbe, J. (1987). Key issues in information system 1986. MIS Quarterly, 11(1), 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, W, Jr., & MacFarlan, E. W. (1987). Information technology puts power in control systems. Harvard Business Review, 65(5), 89–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrd, T. A., & Turner, D. E. (2000). Measuring the flexibility of information technology infrastructure: Exploratory analysis of a construct. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3), 187–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrd, T. A., & Turner, E. D. (2001). An exploratory analysis of the value of the skills of IT personnel: Their relationship to IS infrastructure and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences, 32(1), 21–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, T. E., & Keenan, P. T. (1998). Making real options real. The McKinsey Quarterly, 3(1), 128–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damodaran, L. (1996). User involvement in the systems design process: A practical guide for users. Behavior & Information Technology, 15(6), 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, R. K., & Elango, B. (1995). Managing strategic flexibility: Key to effective performance. Journal of General Management, 20(3), 60–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewett, T., & Jones, G. R. (2001). The role of information technology in organization: A review model and assessment. Journal of Management, 27(3), 313–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diebold, J. (1965). What is ahead in information technology. Harvard Business Review, 43(5), 76–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doll, W. J., & Torkzadeh, G. (1990). The measurement of end-user software involvement. Omega, 18(4), 399–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duclos, L. K., Vokurka, R. J., & Lummus, R. R. (2003). A conceptual model of supply chain flexibility. Industrial Management and data Systems, 103(5/6), 446–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, N. B. (1995). Capturing flexibility of information technology infrastructure: A study of resource characteristics and their measure. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3), 187–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edstrom, A. (1977). User influence and success in MIS projects. Human Relations, 30(7), 589–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. (1991). Strategic flexibility for high technology maneuvers: A conceptual framework. Journal of Management Studies, 28(1), 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, G. (1990). Achieving flexible information systems: The case for improved analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 5(1), 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franz, C. R., & Robey, D. (1986). Organizational context, user involvement, and the usefulness of information systems. Decision Sciences, 17(7), 329–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebauer, J. & Karhade, P. (2004). A framework to assess the impact of information systems on the flexibility and performance of business processes. In 38th Hawaii international conference on systems sciences (HICSS-38), Maui, Hawaii.

  • Gebauer, J., & Lee, F. (2008). Enterprise system flexibility and implementation strategies: Aligning theory with evidence from a case study. Information Systems Management, 25(1), 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebauer, J., & Schober, F. (2006). Information systems flexibility and the cost efficiency of business processes. Journal of the Association for Information System, 7(3), 122–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1977). A theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanseth, O., Monteiro, E., & Hatling, M. (1996). Developing information infrastructure: The tension between standardisation and flexibility. Science, Technology and Human Values, 11(4), 407–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardgrave, B. C., & Wilson, R. L. (1999). Toward a contingency model for selecting an information system prototyping strategy. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), 113–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Science, 40, 440–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, J., & King, W. R. (2008). The role of user participation in information systems development: Implications from a meta-analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(1), 301–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, F., Pusic, E., Strauss, G., & Wilpert, B. (1998). Organizational participation: Myth and reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howcroft, D., & Wilson, M. (2003). Paradoxes of participatory practices: The Janus role of the systems developer. Information and Organization, 13(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, M. I., & Thorn, R. G. (1999). The effect of user engagement on system success: A meta-analytical integration of research findings. Information & Management, 35(4), 229–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). (1990). IEEE standard glossary of software engineering terminology. New York: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivari, N. (2006). Understanding the work of an HCI practitioner. In A. Morch, K. Morgan, T. Bratteig, G. Ghosh & D. Svanaes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human Computer Interaction, Oslo, 14–18 October (pp. 185–194).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1990). Information technology and corporate strategy: A view from the top. Information Systems Research, 1(4), 351–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorfi, S., Md Nor, K. H., & Lotfi, N. (2011). Assessing the impact of IT connectivity and IT capability on IT business strategic alignment: An empirical study. Computer and Information Science, 4(3), 76–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanellis, P., & Paul, R. J. (2005). User behaving badly: Phenomena and paradoxes from an investigation into information systems misfit. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 17(2), 64–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kautz, K. (2011). Investigating the design process: participatory design in agile software development. Journal of Information Technology & People, 24(3), 217–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, E., & Lee, J. (1986). An exploratory contingency model of user participation and MIS use. Information and Management, 11(2), 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, L. J., & Beath, C. M. (1996). The enactments and consequences of token, shared, and compliant participation in information systems development. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 6(4), 221–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Kulatilaka, N. (1994). Options thinking and platform investments: investing inopportunity. California Management Review, 36(4), 52–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kujala, S. (2003). User Involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langdon, C. S. (2006). Designing information systems capabilities to create business value: A theoretical conceptualization of the role of flexibility and integration. Journal of Database Management, 17(3), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leaderer, A. L., & Sethi, V. (1988). The implementation of strategic information systems planning methodologies. MIS Quarterly, 12(3), 445–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. (2001). The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability, and partnership quality on IT outsourcing success. Information & Management, 38(2), 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G. (2003). The flexibility and complexity of information systems development projects: Conceptual frameworks, measures, and empirical tests. Published Ph. D. thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

  • Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2005). The ability of information systems development project teams to respond to business and technology changes: A study of flexibility measures. European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowin, A. (1968). Participative decision-making: a model, literature critique, and prescriptions for research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 68–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, H. C, Jr. (1974). Systems quality, user reactions, and the use of information systems. Management Informatics, 3(4), 207–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maltz, L., & DeBlois, P. B. (2005). Top ten IT issues 2005. Educause Review, 40(3), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L., & Mao, J.-Y. (2004). Participation in development and implementation—updating an old, tired concept for today’s IS contexts. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(11–12), 514–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, S., & Merton, R. (1985). The role of contingent claims analysis in corporate finance. In E. I. Altman & M. G. Subrahmanyam (Eds.), Recent advances in corporate finance. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1973). A program for research on management information systems. Management Science, 19(5), 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mensah, K. (1989). Evaluating information systems projects: A perspective on cost-benefit analysis. Information Systems, 14(3), 205–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E. (1965). Human relations or human resources? Harvard Business Review, 43(4), 148–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, E. (1979). Consensus systems design: An evaluation of this approach. In N. Szyperski & E. Grochla (Eds.), Design and implementation of computer based information systems. Gromingen: Sijthoff and Noordhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, E. (1983). Designing human systems. Manchester: Manchester Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, E. (1995). Effective systems design and requirements analysis: The ETHICS approach. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. P. (2000). Reducing IT project complexity. Information Strategy: The Executive’s Journal, 16(3), 30–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, K. M., & Ghods, M. (1998). Measuring technology flexibility. European Journal of Information Systems, 7(4), 232–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, J. (2004). Management information systems (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palanisamy, R. (2005). Strategic information systems planning model for building flexibility and success. Industry and Management and Data System, 105(1/2), 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palanisamy, R., & Boyle, T. (2010). A framework for managing enterprise systems flexibility. Journal of E-Technology, 1(3), 131–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palanisamy, R., & Sushil. (2001). Empirically testing the relationships between user involvement, Information Waste, and MIS success. Journal of Services Research, 1(1), 70–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palanisamy, R., & Sushil. (2002a). User involvement in information systems planning leads to strategic success: An empirical study. Journal of Services Research, 1(2), 125–139, 141–157. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/195567477?accountid=13803.

  • Palanisamy, R., & Sushil. (2002b). Predicting flexibility and success in information systems planning: A system dynamic approach. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 1(2), 165–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palanisamy, R., & Sushil. (2003). Achieving organizational flexibility and competitive advantage through information systems flexibility: A path analytic study. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 2(3), 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioural research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Krishnan, M. S. (2002). The dynamic synchronization of strategy and information technology. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(4), 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Premkumar, G. (1992). An empirical study of IS planning characteristics among industries. Omega International Journal of Management Science, 20(6), 611–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robey, D., & Farrow, D. L. (1982). User involvement in information systems development: A conflict model and empirical test. Management Science, 28(1), 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agility through digital options: Re conceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 237–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrenk, L. P. (1969). Aiding the decision maker—A decision process model. Ergonomics, 12(4), 543–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A., Ramamurthy, K., & Sinha, A. P. (2012). A model of data warehousing process maturity. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 38(2), 336–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, A. K., & Sethi, S. P. (1990). Flexibility in manufacturing: A survey. The International Journal of Flexible manufacturing Systems, 2, 289–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slack, N. (1983). Flexibility as a manufacturing objective. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 3(3), 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soh, C., Sia, S. K., Boh, W. F., & Tang, M. (2003). Misalignments in ERP implementation: A dialectic perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16(1), 81–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil. (1997). Flexible systems management: An evolving paradigm. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14(4), 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil. (2000a). Situation-actor-process options: Mapping and enhancing flexibility. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(3), 301–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil. (2000b). SAP-LAP models of inquiry. Management Decision, 38(5), 347–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil. (2001a). Enterprise flexibility. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 2(4), 53–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sushil. (2001b). Flexibility metaphors. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18(2), 569–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, B. (1974). Management information systems: Appreciation and involvement. Management Science, 21, 178–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, E. B. (1982). Measuring user attitudes in MIS research: A review. Omega, 10, 157–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taskin, N., & Verville, J. (2010). An exploratory study on strategic alignment of enterprise systems and business strategies, performance, and flexibility. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Enterprise Systems, Accounting and Logistics (7th ICESAL 2010) 28–29 June 2010, Rhodes Island, Greece.

  • Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitudes and attitude change. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turban, E., McLean, E., & Wetherbe, J. (2001). Information technology for management: Making connections for strategic advantage (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upton, D. M. (1994). The management of manufacturing flexibility. California Management Review, 36(2), 72–89. Winter.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldwijk, R. J. (1993). Introspective systems design: Exploring the self-referential capabilities of the relational model. Ph.D. Thesis, Enschede.

  • Volberda, H. W. (1996). Toward the flexible firm: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7(4), 359–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H. W. (1998). Building the flexible firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vredenburg, K., Isensee, S., & Righi, C. (2002). User-centered design: An integrated approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J. A, I. I. I., Leana, C. R., Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1997). Cognitive and motivational frameworks in U.S. research on participation: A meta-analysis of primary effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J., & Peppard, J. (2002). Strategic planning for information systems (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, A., & Birnbaum, P. (1989). Technological infrastructure and the implementation of technical strategies. Management Science, 35(8), 1015–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitten, J. L., & Bentley, L. D. (1986). Projects and cases to accompany systems analysis and design methods. St. Louis: Times Mirror College Publishing. ISBN # 0-8016-5465-3

  • Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young-Ybarra, C., & Wiersema, M. (1999). Strategic flexibility in information technology alliances: The influence of transaction cost economics and social exchange theory. Organization Science, 10(4), 439–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zmud, R. W. (1979). Individual differences and MIS success: A review of the empirical literatures. Management Science, 25(10), 966–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems, The Gerald Schwartz School of Business, St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Canada

    Ramaraj Palanisamy & Neil Foshay

Authors
  1. Ramaraj Palanisamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neil Foshay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramaraj Palanisamy.

Appendices

Appendix: Measures for the Construct

Measures for User’s Internal Flexibility

While interacting with an analyst for IS planning, how frequently do you change yourself internally? (To be answered with a scale of VH, H, M, L, VL, AN)

  • The value system practiced is both subjective (attaching your own views) and objective (detaching your own views)

  • The decision-making approach is both rational and intuitive

  • The user’s thinking process in IS planning is both divergent and convergent

  • In IS planning situations, organization is considered to be both mechanistic (non-living) and organismic (living)

Measures for User Participation (in IS Planning)

What is your level of participation in the following IS planning activities? (To be answered with a scale of VH, H, M, L, VL, AN)

  • Explaining the business mission and the business strategies

  • Detailing the business strategies and directions

  • Analyzing the IT trends and their effect on their organization

  • Linking the IS plan with the business strategies

Measures for User Participation (in IRA)

What is your level of participation in the following information requirement analysis (IRA) activities? (To be answered with a scale of VH, H, M, L, VL, AN)

  • Stating the required information to achieve business success

  • Determining information requirements for the organizational sub-systems

  • Constructing a data model at the corporate level

  • Stating information links between the business units at the corporate level

Measures for Usage Flexibility

In using IS reports, what is the extent of usage in the following circumstances? (To be answered with a scale of VH, H, M, L, VL, AN)

  • The role of IS reports is for both understanding the situation (informative) and making decisions (decision support)

  • Using IS reports for both creative thinking and conservative thinking

  • Prefer to use both summary and detailed information reports

  • Using IS reports for both making decisions and supporting decisions

Measures for Information Systems Flexibility

In the context of any of your individual IS, what is the level of IS support in the following situations? (To be answered with a scale of VH, H, M, L, VL, AN)

  • The IS of your organization support for both operational and strategic management

  • The information support for strategic changes is both passive and active

  • The IS support is for both individual and group decision making

  • The information support for strategic changes is both proactive and reactive

Note: VH—very high; H—High; M—moderate; L—low; VL—very low; AN—almost nil.

Key Questions

  1. 1.

    What sort of internal flexibility does a user have in the dimensions of (i) Options (ii) Ease (iii) Speed of change (iv) variety and (v) Range?

  2. 2.

    How can users’ internal flexibility be enhanced in the above mentioned dimensions?

  3. 3.

    What sort of usage flexibility your information systems have in the dimensions of (i) Options (ii) Ease (iii) Speed of change (iv) variety and (v) Range?

  4. 4.

    How can usage flexibility be enhanced in the above mentioned dimensions?

  5. 5.

    How can information systems flexibility be improved by effectively involving users during the systems planning process?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Palanisamy, R., Foshay, N. Impact of User’s Internal Flexibility and Participation on Usage and Information Systems Flexibility. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 14, 195–209 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-013-0044-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-013-0044-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation