Perspectives of the user interface

ABSTRACT

It has become increasingly popular for researchers to study management information system users and their relationships with system developers. Motivated by numerous reports of system failure, which were not technical in nature, investigators have sought a better understanding of the user interface. The ultimate objective of much of this research is to guide methodologies for user-oriented system development and design of systems which meet user needs more readily. In other words, the intent is to design systems which are behaviorally valid as well as technically valid. Such a quest necessarily requires us to draw upon concepts from the behavioral sciences. To study user behavior, interpersonal relationships and organizational settings, one must either invent new theories or use existing ones. The latter strategy is strongly recommended for many reasons not reiterated here. But within the behavioral sciences there are fundamental choices among perspectives, and these choices influence our view of the user interface quite profoundly. Adopting any one approach allows the investigator to see and understand certain phenomena but to ignore others. Like the blind man examining the elephant, each observer develops a “trained incapacity” to see the object from other viewpoints. As a result, alternative explanations of research findings are rarely considered, much less reported. The purpose of this paper is to examine four different perspectives of the user interface: (1) user motivation, (2) user-developer differences, (3) organization structure, and (4) the political perspective. Each highlights certain legitimate system development issues. However, each also narrows our view of the user interface. Awareness of these perspectives accomplishes two purposes. First, researchers will be more receptive to the alternative perspectives and aware of the consequences of their choices. Second, investigators will treat the user interface less naively, especially through increased sensitivity to the political factors in system development.

REFERENCES

• 1: Anshen, M. "The Manager and the Black Box," Harvard Business Review, 1960, 38.
• 2: Bariff, M.L., and Lusk, E.M., "Cognitive and Personality Tests for the Design of Management Information Systems," Management Science, 1977, 23, pp. 820-829.
• 3: Benbasat, I., and Taylor, R.N., "The Impact of Cognitive Styles on Information System Design," MIS Quarterly, 1978, 2, pp. 43-54.
• 4: Boland, R.J., "The Process and Product of System Design," Management Science, 1978, 24, pp. 887-898.
• 5: Churchman, C.W., and Schainblatt, A.H., "The Researcher and the Manager: A Dialectic of Implementation," Management Science, 1965, 11, pp. 69-87.
• 6: DeWaele, M., "Managerial Style and the Design of Decision Aids," Omega, 1978, 6, pp. 5-13.
• 7: Doktor, R.H., "Cognitive Style and the Use of Computers and Management Information Systems," Management Datamatics, 1976, 5.
• 8: Franz, C.R., "Organizational Factors Affecting User Involvement in Information System Design," Unpublished paper, University of South Caroline, 1980.
• 9: Galbraith, J., Organization Design, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1977.
• 10: Ginzberg, M.J., "Redesign of Managerial Tasks: A Requisite for Successful Decision Support Systems," MIS Quarterly, 1978, 2, pp. 39-52.
• 11: Heany, D.F., "Education: The Critical Link in Getting Managers to Use Management Systems," Interfaces, 1972, 2 pp. 1-7.
• 12: Lawrence, P.R., and Lorsch, J.W., Organization and Environment, Boston: Harvard University, 1967.
• 13: Leavitt, H., and Whisler, T.L., "Management in the 1980's," Harvard Business Review, 1958, 36.
• 14: Lucas, H.C., "Performance and the Use of an Information System," Management Science, 1975, 21, pp. 908-919.
• 15: MacIntosh, N.B., and Daft, R.L., "User Department Technology and Information Design," Information and Management, 1978, 1, pp. 123-131.
• 16: Markus, M.L., "Understanding Information System Use in Organizations: A Theoretical Approach," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, 1979.
• 17: Mintzberg, H., "Planning on the Left Side and Managing on the Right," Harvard Business Review, 1976, 54, pp. 49-58.
• 18: Pettigrew, A.M. The Politics of Organizational Decision-Making, London: Tavistock, 1973.
• 19: Pfeffer, J., Organizational Design, Arlington Heights, Ill.: AHM, 1978.
• 20: Robey, D., "Computers and Management Structure: Some Empirical Findings Reexamined," Human Relations, 1977, 30, pp. 963-976.
• 21: Robey, D., "MIS Effects on Managers' Task Scope and satisfaction," Proceedings of the National Computer Conference, 1979a, 48, pp. 391-395.
• 22: Robey, D., "User Attitudes and Management Information System Use," Academy of Management Journal, 1979b, 22, pp. 527-538.
• 23: Taggart, W.M., "The Other Half of the Systems Development Potential: Are we Half-Brained Systems Professionals?" Paper presented at the Advanced Information Systems Development Technology Symposium, Silver Springs, Maryland, April, 1977.
• 24: Taggart, W.M. and Robey, D., "Minds and Managers: On the Dual Nature of Human Information Processing and Management," Unpublished paper, Florida International University, 1980.
• 25: Ward, R.A., "More Implementation Through an OR/Behavioral Science Partnership and Management Training," Operational Research Quarterly, 1974, 25, pp. 209-218.
• 26: Zmud, R.W., "The Rule of Individual Differences in MIS Implementation," Unpublished paper, Georgia State University, 1980.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: User interface management systems (UIMS)

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces
          Subjects: Organizational design

  K. Computing Milieux
  K.6 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
      K.6.1 Project and People Management
          Subjects: Systems development

General Terms:
Management