how involvement, is management effectiveness, and end-user computing impact is performance in...

How involvement, IS management effectiveness, and end-user

computing impact IS performance in manufacturing firms

Patrick J. Rondeau a,*, T.S. Ragu-Nathan b,1, Mark A. Vonderembse c,2

a Butler University, College of Business Administration, 4600 Sunset Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46208-3485, USAb The University of Toledo, College of Business Administration, IMES Department, Toledo, OH 43606, USA

c The University of Toledo, College of Business Administration, Management Department, Toledo, OH 43606, USA

Received 23 February 2004; received in revised form 15 February 2005; accepted 27 February 2005

Available online 6 June 2005

Abstract

A rapidly changing environment requires firms to adopt a customer-driven approach in managing their information systems.

Study results indicate that firms with high levels of organizational involvement in IS related activities have higher levels of IS

management effectiveness. In turn, these higher levels lead to lower levels of end-user self-reliance in application development

and higher levels of end-user dependence on IS expertise. In our study, end-user self-reliance indicated the presence of

independent end-users circumventing the IS unit by developing software applications and engaging in traditional IS activities. In

contrast, end-user dependence on IS expertise indicated that end-users believed that the IS unit was a valuable and reliable source

of technical knowledge and application support. More effective IS management practices, combined with higher end-user

dependence on the IS expertise, were found to lead to improved perceptions of IS performance. Data were collected from 265

senior manufacturing managers who were selected because their perspective of IS activities and performance was desired and

manufacturing units are an important user of the services. Structural equation modeling was used to test our hypotheses.

# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: User involvement; IS planning; IS strategy; IS responsiveness; User training; User dependence on IS expertise; User self-reliance

in application development; IS performance

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Information & Management 43 (2006) 93–107

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 317 940 9215;

fax: +1 317 940 9455.

E-mail addresses: [email protected]

(P.J. Rondeau), [email protected] (T.S. Ragu-Nathan),

[email protected] (M.A. Vonderembse).1 Tel.: +1 419 530 2427; fax: +1 419 530 7744.2 Tel.: +1 419 530 4319; fax: +1 419 530 7744.

0378-7206/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.02.001

1. Introduction

The information-based society requires firms to

develop IS that are more flexible, integrative,

responsive, and information rich. Firms must align

their IS unit with core business processes. Multiple

paths toward strategic alignment can exist and

conflicts may arise when a firm’s IS technology

strategies exceeds its ability to align them with its

business strategies.

.

P.J. Rondeau et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 93–10794

Misalignments in IS strategies, goals, and objectives

may be avoided by increasing end-user involvement

[20]. The implementation of cross-functional decision

processes creates greater work system integration,

collapses traditional organizational boundaries, and

promotes interdependent work [18]. With greater

organizational involvement comes a revised set of IS

management practices that better fit the IS requirements

of a firm operating in an information-intensive society.

The result is improved IS management effectiveness

[21,35]. In contrast, a lack of effectiveness is often cited

as a reason for end-users taking control of IS application

development [14].

Many firms remain dependent on the IS unit for

software application skill and knowledge as well as

technical expertise [29]. An IS unit that delivers

dependable and accurate service is viewed as reliable

[39]. Therefore, greater IS management effectiveness

and end-users’ willingness to depend on IS expertise

creates positive end-user perceptions of IS perfor-

mance. When IS management is viewed as highly

effective, users are more likely to report greater

satisfaction with their systems and to exhibit high

levels of IS performance [6].

We developed and tested a framework that relates

organizational involvement in IS development, IS

management effectiveness, end-user self-reliance in

application development, end-user dependence on IS

expertise, and IS performance. To test this framework,

valid and reliable measures were developed to assess

each variable, except for IS performance where a

proven measure by Raghunathan and Raghunathan

was used. To develop these instruments and to test the

structural model, data was collected from 265 senior

manufacturing managers who depend heavily on IT to

reduce costs and improve business processes effec-

tiveness. Structural equation modeling was used to test

the proposed relationships.

2. Research framework and hypotheses

development

As illustrated in Fig. 1, we assumed that:

1. o
rganizational involvement in application devel-
opment has a direct and positive impact on IS

management effectiveness;

2. I
S management effectiveness negatively impacts
end-user self-reliance in application development

and positively impacts end-user dependence on IS

expertise;

3. e
nd-user self-reliance in application development
has a negative impact on end-user dependence on

IS expertise; and

4. b
oth IS management effectiveness and end-user
dependence on IS expertise directly and positively

influence perceptions of IS performance.

2.1. Organizational involvement in IS related

activities

Organizational involvement is the extent to which

personnel are involved in IS software development.

Collaborative development involves some users and

user groups and the broader user community. Through

organizational involvement, the firm must define a

common IS vocabulary and publish its meaning, the

degree of information access, the quality of informa-

tion that is acceptable, and the efficiency of processes

[10]. Higher levels of systems’ success are associated

with the active involvement of members of the user

community [13].

2.1.1. End-user involvement in IS related activities

End-user involvement is vital because it helps to

ensure accurate requirements specifications, to facil-

itate the development of relevant application designs,

and to foster a greater sense of empowerment and

ownership among users of IS services. Prior research

suggests that end-user involvement is positively

associated with a desire to participate in the develop-

ment process [24]. By providing end-users additional

opportunities to influence IS decisions, their involve-

ment shouldcultivate agreater senseof control, increase

motivation and satisfaction with the products and

services, and reduce resistance toward change [2,27].

2.1.2. Cross-functional involvement in IS activities

Cross-functional efforts are required for the success-

ful development and administration of new software

applications. Research has shown that cross-functional

teams greatly improve firm communications, ensuring

the integration of business and IT capabilities [41].

They are empowered by the organizational culture and

structure in which the team operates [25], facilitating

P.J. Rondeau et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 93–107 95

Fig. 1. Research framework and hypotheses.

dialogue among team members in support of the

development of new innovations [38]. This exchange of

IT expertise and business knowledge improves the

firm’s ability to absorb innovations, creates important

benefits in support of strategic or operational activities,

and delivers increased value [12].

2.2. Information systems management effectiveness

Higher levels of IT management ability result in

improved customer service and higher performance

[40]. IS management effectiveness is assessed by three

elements: IS strategic planning effectiveness, IS

responsiveness to organizational computing demands,

and IS effectiveness in end-user training.

2.2.1. IS strategic planning effectiveness

IS planning should fulfill key business planning

objectives, particularly the support of business

strategies and objectives [46]. Formal IS planning is

critical. Specific IS goals and objectives emerge,

technologies are chosen, and policies and procedures


are adopted. Successful IS planning has been shown to

facilitate the deployment of information technologies

in a manner that is more congruent with organizational

computing needs [54].

2.2.2. IS responsiveness to organizational

computing demands

IS responsiveness involves the IS unit delivering

high quality, cost efficient services in a timely manner

[48]. Responsive IS units have a service-driven

culture. The IS staff demonstrate this by providing

assistance, as requested, by end-users. The IS staff

must be flexible and adaptive, quickly adjusting and

readjusting to environmental changes and the emer-

gence of new issues raised by the user community

[49]. Non-responsive IS departments can become

targets for IS downsizing or outsourcing [4]. IS

responsiveness is assessed in terms of the unit’s ability

and willingness to deal with software application

problems, software application upgrade requirements,

special software programming requests, computer

network problems, and general IS related questions

and concerns.

2.2.3. IS effectiveness in end-user training

IS must provide good end-user training to create a

productive and skillful technology users [1,55]. End-

user training increases the perceived value of the IS

[56]. It is a key facilitator in user understanding of

change initiatives and improves attitudes to change.

Both technical and business process training help

users overcome knowledge barriers [42]. While the

delivery of formal end-user training programs is

important, the development of informal training

mechanisms is growing through assistance from other

employees and self-learning [59]. Hands-on training

may actually result in improved retention of knowl-

edge and transfer of learning [50].

2.2.4. Research Hypothesis 1

Better performing IS units have more involvement

by key personnel. When end-users act in unison with

the IS unit, a more cooperative and cohesive IS

environment results. This participative approach

reduces project resistance, emotional responses, and

political maneuvering, giving the most affected

individuals a stake in IS projects [37,47]. The resulting

end-user partnerships with the IS unit determines

appropriate policies, procedures, and standards. It

further enables effective end-user training [23].

Accordingly, we hypothesize as follows.

H1. Firms with a high level of organizational invol-

vement in IS related activities will have a high level of

IS management effectiveness.

2.3. End-user self-reliance in application

development

Self-reliance in the use of information systems can

contribute to the building of products, delivery of

services, and the support of customer needs. It may be

viewed as positive when end-users engage in

productive, revenue producing work independent of

IS staff assistance. In contrast, end-user self-reliance

in IS application development is often associated with

downsizing and is motivated by poor IS service

quality. In our study, end-user self-reliance is their

ability to develop new software applications, make

computer-related decisions, and solve computer-

related problems. End-users who are self-reliant

frequently make IT decisions without IS staff member

help.

2.3.1. Research Hypothesis 2

End-users view information systems as tools that

assist or hinder them in performing tasks. As task

demands increase, users respond more positively to IS

features and support that help them perform tasks well

[19]. When both the quantity and quality of IS

planning, services, and training matches the support

levels needed, end-users are satisfied with the IS unit.

Conversely, when a significant difference exists

between desired and actual levels of IS support

needed, end-users express dissatisfaction with the IS

unit.

A decision to engage in software application

development is significant because end-user attention

is diverted from important revenue producing activ-

ities to cost incurring. End-users seek to build

applications when the IS unit is perceived as

ineffective and non-responsive to their needs. There-

fore, the next hypothesis is as follows.

H2. Firms with a high level of IS management effec-

tiveness will have low end-user self-reliance in soft-

ware application development.


2.4. End-user dependence on IS expertise

Successful IS development requires a blending of

functional system-level expertise and designer exper-

tise [44]. System related functional expertise captures

a detailed understanding of the business application,

its requirements, and its usage. The designer’s

technical expertise explains the ability of the IS unit

to transform business requirements into a technical

solution accepted and used by the organization.

Individuals wishing to develop new IS must

therefore demonstrate sufficient IT competency

[36], requiring both explicit IT knowledge and tacit

IT knowledge [3]. Explicit IT knowledge is body of

business and technical facts and concepts that can be

taught, read, and explained. Tacit IT knowledge is

gained by trial and error and effort over time; it is often

firm specific and may not be regained easily if lost.

When end-users fail to possess the business and

technical expertise required to develop new IS, or they

lack the experience in doing so, they must depend on

the IS unit to create software applications.

2.4.1. End-user dependence on IS technical

expertise

End-user dependence on IS technical expertise is

the degree to which end-users depend on the IS unit’s

technical knowledge and skills, but many end-users do

not possess the full complement of skills. Even when

end-users wish to develop and manage their applica-

tions, most still need technical assistance [43].

However, the vast majority of firms’ IS units can do

as well or better than most end-users or outsourcing

firms in the provision of IS services [33,34]. Within

these firms, end-users remain dependent on the IS unit

for their technical skills and experience in applying

these skills to develop new systems.

2.4.2. End-user dependence on IS application

expertise

Users expect and depend upon IS personnel to

provide cost-effective assistance across a variety of

software packages and configurations and to deliver

support across a variety of work domains. End-user

dependence on IS application expertise is the degree to

which end-users depend on the IS unit for business

application knowledge and skill. In our study, the

focus is on manufacturing. To perform effectively, the

IS unit must continually learn about the business

environment and application context, requiring it to

become knowledge-focused [45,53].

Although end-users are considered to be the

primary source of application domain expertise, they

are often unable to adequately explain the processes

and rules that govern their performance. One

explanation may be that the knowledge that end-users

possess is not always complete and uniform [57]. A

second reason may be that they lack sufficient training

and experience to identify, sort, and classify the

application knowledge they possess. A third explana-

tion may be the size and scope of large, integrated IS

may exceed individual knowledge boundaries, leaving

end-users with an incomplete understanding of the

total software environment needed [28].

2.4.3. Research Hypotheses 3 and 4

A significant problem faced by firms is that human

capacity for memory is often limited and fallible,

because the organization is only able to capture a small

portion of its information base. Organizationalmemory

should result in organizational effectiveness [51]. In

most firms, the IS unit is charged with preserving it via

the firm’s knowledge-base, including its record of IS

business processes and technical features. To succeed,

the IS unit must possess both a strong business and

technical focus that is supportive of end-users [11].

When the IS unit is effective, the relationship to end-

users is improved, increasing communication and

raising the visibility of the IS unit. An important tenet

is therefore that end-users will choose to depend on IS

unit expertise when they believe IS resources are being

managed effectively. Thus we have the following

hypothesis.


tiveness will have a high level of end-user dependence

on IS unit expertise.

End-users who attempt to build large systems, with

or without IS unit approval, often find their projects

consume time and are risky, costly, and often

unproductive [31,52]. Indeed, when rapid development

solutions are needed, end-user application developers

are seldom able to deal effectively with them [32] and

the applications frequently result in more problems

[16,30]. Furthermore, when end-users do not possess


necessary skills, they seldom possess the knowledge

and skills necessary to hire andmanage IS outsourcing.

Therefore we have the following hypothesis.

H4. Firms with a low level of end-user self-reliance in

software application development will have a high

level of end-user dependence on IS unit expertise.

2.5. Information systems performance

Management’s satisfaction with IS performance is

generally based on the ability of IS to provide better

decision-making. The quality of an IS is a major factor

in the performance evaluation of the IS unit [26]. End-

users recognize the benefits of the services provided by

the IS unit and recognize how these lead to better

management decisions. The challenge faced by the IS

unit is to develop clear, objective measures of IS

performance [9].

2.5.1. Research Hypotheses 5 and 6

While the role of IT may vary from firm to firm,

there are many ways that competitive advantage may

be derived from the IS strategies and practices [15].

The IS unit is viewed as most effective when its

activities are closely aligned with and strongly support

key business processes [7]. A lack of synchronization

has been found to reduce the contribution of the firm’s

IS unit from competitive advantage to competitive

burden with decreased performance [17,58]. User

intention to continue using an IS is determined by their

satisfaction with it and perceived usefulness of its use.

Thus we have the following hypothesis.


tiveness will have a high level of IS performance.

To make sure that their marketing and operations

units use IT strategically and to improve customer

service, firms are dependent on IS; end-users value and

cannot easily live without the IT services. Because the

IS unit serves as a central resource for IT-related

organizational knowledge, end-users must be able to

rely on the IS unit for business application and technical

expertise. Therefore we have the following hypothesis.

H6. Firms with a high level of end-user dependence

on IS unit expertise will have a high level of IS

performance.

3. Research methodology

3.1. Instrument development method

Items designed to measure end-user and cross-

functional involvement in IS were developed from a

review of the IS involvement literature. Items

designed to measure IS strategic planning effective-

ness, IS responsiveness to organizational computing

demands, end-user training effectiveness, end-user

self-reliance, and end-user dependence were devel-

oped from IS strategic planning literature, the IS

downsizing and outsourcing literatures, and the end-

user training literature. Items designed to measure IS

performance were adopted from an instrument by

Raghunathan and Raghunathan. All items are mea-

sured on a five-point Likert scale.

To refine the definitions and constructs, structured

interviews were conducted with four managers from

manufacturing firms (three production and one

product development manager). These were selected

as users of the IS environment. A pre-pilot test was

then given, it included three production managers and

eight academic experts who were asked to comment

on the appropriateness of the research constructs,

including the methods and measures. A pilot study that

targeted executive-level manufacturing managers was

then completed. Based on these tests, the items were

modified to create the instruments for the full-scale

study.

3.2. Data collection

Data were obtained as part of a mail survey

designed to capture both IS and manufacturing data.

Our mailing list was created from a commercial list

purchased from Manufacturers’ News, Inc. All firms

selected had at least 250 employees within US SIC

codes 25 and 34 to 38. Descriptions of these codes are

given in Table 1. An introductory cover letter, the

survey questionnaire, and postage paid return envel-

ope were mailed to 6269 manufacturing managers.

Manufacturing firms were targeted because they rely

heavily on the use of IT. Senior manufacturing

managers were selected because they understand the

issues.

The mailing yielded 265 responses: an effective

response rate of 4.3%. Possibly time constraints and


Table 1

Respondents by SIC code and number of employees

US SIC code or number of employees Percent of firms in mailing list Percent of respondents

By SIC code

25 (furniture and fixtures) 6.5 8.4

34 (fabricated metals) 17.2 20.1

35 (industrial machinery and equipment) 24.7 25.7

36 (electrical and other equipment) 23.8 23.4

37 (transportation equipment) 16.4 13.1

38 (instruments and related products) 11.4 9.3

By number of employees

250–499 52.1 56.0

500–999 25.6 28.0

>1000 22.3 16.0

the size of the instrument contributed to this low

response rate. However, the makeup of the respondent

pool was considered adequate. 44.9% of the respon-

dents reported a job title of president, CEO, vice

president, or general manager. 15.5% said that they

were plant managers, 15.1% were directors or senior

managers, 20.4% were managers, and 4.1% did not

provide job title information. The areas of respondent

expertise reported were 51.8% manufacturing, 27.9%

general (president, CEO, VP, or GM), 9.4% other

(non-manufacturing jobs), and 10.9% did not provide

job expertise information.

To support the use of the sample, tests of non-

response bias were conducted. There was no

statistically significant difference between the firms

on the mailing list and the responding firms for either

SIC code or firm size (number of employees) as shown

in Table 1. For SIC, the calculated x2 test statistic of

4.66 was less than the critical value of 5.99 ( p < 0.05,

d.f. = 2). For firm size, the calculated x2 test statistic of

5.78 was less than the critical value of 5.99 ( p < 0.05,

d.f. = 2). This supports our claim that characteristics

of the respondents and non-respondents are not

significantly different.

4. Results for the measurement model

Based on responses, factor analysis and reliability

estimates were completed. The items for all dimen-

sions of the IS environment and performance, were

submitted to exploratory factor analysis, simulta-

neously, to assess the variable’s internal consistency.

The extraction procedure was Principal Components

using the varimax method used for factor rotation. The

results are given in Table 2. Factor loads below 0.40

are not shown, there were no significant cross-loads,

and the minimum load exceeded 0.60 for all items. All

factors were composed of a single dimension.

Table 3 gives the means, standard deviations, and

reliability estimates for the scales. All reliabilities are

more than 0.77 with the majority at or above 0.90. The

final instruments, listed in Appendix A, are short and

easy to use. Each scale has seven or fewer items, and

the total number of items across all scales is 42. The

content domain of the constructs has been adequately

covered, because care was taken during item genera-

tion. The items are short and easy to understand. The

factor structure is simple and has high loadings, and

the scales demonstrate both discriminant and con-

vergent validity. The instruments exceed generally

accepted validity and reliability standards for basic

research.

5. Results for the structural model

LISREL was used to test the structural model of

Fig. 1. To assess its fit, standard measures of absolute,

incremental, and parsimonious fit were used [5,8]. The

model fit measures included normed x2, goodness of

fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI),

normed fit index (NFI), non-normed fit index

(NNFI), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean

square residual (RMSR), and the root mean square

error of approximation (RMSEA).

The GFI, AGFI, NFI, NNFI, and CFI range from

0.0 (no fit) to 1.0 (perfect fit) with values between 0.80

P.J.

Ro

nd

eau

eta

l./Info

rma

tion

&M

an

ag

emen

t4

3(2

00

6)

93

–1

07

100Table 2

Factor analysis for the scales used

Item # Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy = 0.90a

End-user

involvement

in IS (EI)

IS strategic

planning

effective-

ness (SP)

Cross-

functional

involvement

in IS (CI)

IS responsive-

ness to

org. computing

demands (RD)

End-user self-

reliance

in application

development (SR)

IS performance

(IP)

End-user

dependence

on IS technical

expertise (TD)

End-user

dependence

on IS application

expertise (AD)

IS effectiveness

in end-user

training (UT)

EI1 0.84

EI2 0.84

EI3 0.82

EI4 0.81

EI5 0.79

EI6 0.78

EI7 0.77

SP1 0.81

SP2 0.80

SP3 0.79

SP4 0.78

SP5 0.78

CI1 0.80

CI2 0.76

CI3 0.74

CI4 0.74

CI5 0.73

CI6 0.70

RD1 0.80

RD2 0.79

RD3 0.76

RD4 0.68

RD5 0.60

SR1 0.79

SR2 0.75

SR3 0.74

SR4 0.67

SR5 0.66

SR6 0.64

IP1 0.75

IP2 0.73

IP3 0.71

IP4 0.67

IP5 0.62


TD1

0.80

TD2

0.75

TD3

0.69

AD1

0.79

AD2

0.71

AD3

0.69

UT1

0.75

UT2

0.73

EVb

12.0

5.3

3.2

2.1

1.9

1.5

1.3

1.2

0.9

%c

28.7

12.8

7.7

5.0

4.6

3.7

3.2

2.9

2.2

CPd

28.7

41.5

49.2

54.2

58.8

62.5

65.7

68.6

70.8

aOnly

factorloadingsof0.40andaboveareshown.

bFactoreigenvalues.

cPercentoftotalvariance.

dCumulativepercentoftotalvariance.

and 0.89 considered acceptable and a good model fit

while values above 0.90 are most desirable. Smaller

values of RMSR (less than or equal to 0.10) and

RMSEA (less than or equal to 0.08) are considered to

show good model fit. A normed x2 value between 1.00

and 3.00 indicates that the model fits the data well

[25]. The magnitude of the path coefficients can also

be examined for statistical significance.

Fig. 2 and Tables 4 and 5 summarize the results of

our analysis. Overall, the hypothesized structural

model has a very good fit. The t-values in Table 5 show

that all paths coefficients are significant at the 0.01

level.

6. Implications for the IS manager

In our study, end-user self-reliance in IS develop-

ment activities is considered to possess negative

connotations as it indicates the presence of end-users

intentionally circumventing the IS unit and conducting

IS related activities. Our results indicated that the most

effective way to meet end-user needs was to engage

the IS unit rather than withdraw aid. Should end-users

choose to develop IS products or services themselves,

they must divert valuable and limited time from their

core responsibilities and there is no guarantee that the

final IS services will be better.

Apparently, organizational involvement is an

important vehicle for working out differences between

the IT unit and end-users. It facilitates the develop-

ment and adoption of a customer-driven approach.

This requires the IS unit to accept the idea that

end-users cannot be forced to ‘‘buy-in’’ to an IT

environment that they consider substandard or

inefficient.

Many IS departments struggle to identify reason-

able strategies that provide effective support for

business strategies. End-users and cross-functional

user teams provide the IS unit with better direction and

understanding of the firm’s business environment. If

successful, greater organizational involvement allows

end-users to create, share, and manage information.

End-user training effectiveness can greatly impact

end-user computing skill and end-user ability to use

software applications to perform work. They are then

able to contribute to the specification and implemen-

tation of new applications.


Fig. 2. Structural model.

Table 3

Statistical attributes of the scales used

Scale No. of items Mean Standard deviation Reliability

EI End-user involvement in IS related activities 7 2.9 0.96 0.93

CI Cross-functional involvement in IS related activities 6 2.4 0.86 0.91

SP IS strategic planning effectiveness 5 3.1 0.99 0.93

RD IS responsiveness to organizational computing demands 5 3.3 0.91 0.90

UT IS effectiveness in end-user training 2 3.0 1.03 0.77

SR End-user self-reliance in application development 6 2.7 0.79 0.82

TD End-user dependence on IS technical expertise 3 3.8 0.82 0.78

AD End-user dependence on IS application expertise 3 3.1 0.82 0.77

IP Information systems performance 5 3.1 0.99 0.90

Table 4

Fit indices of the hypothesized model

Abbreviation Full name ‘‘Ideal’’ value Model value

x2 Chi-square N/A 64.1

d.f. Degrees of freedom N/A 23

x2/d.f. Normed chi-square 1.00–3.00 2.7

GFI Goodness-of-fit index �0.90 0.95

AGFI Adjusted goodness-of fit index �0.90 0.90

NFI Normalized fit index �0.90 0.91

NNFI Non-normalized fit index �0.90 0.95

CFI Comparative fit index �0.90 0.94

RMSR Root mean square residual �0.10 0.06

RMSEA Root mean square error of approximation �0.08 0.08


Table 5

Path-analytic results of the hypothesized model

Hypothesis number Relationship hypothesized Hypothesized direction Path coefficient t-Value Hypothesis significant?

1 OIIS! ISME + 0.44 4.9 Yes

2 ISME! SR � �0.34 �4.9 Yes

3 ISME! EUD + 0.30 3.3 Yes

4 SR! EUD � �0.32 �3.9 Yes

5 ISME! IP + 0.74 8.4 Yes

6 EUD! IP + 0.15 2.5 Yes

Another major implication of this study is that

improved IS management effectiveness leads to lower

end-user self-reliance in software application devel-

opment and greater dependence on IS unit expertise.

Any adversarial relationship that exists between IS

and end-users is diminished when the IS unit develops

better strategies, is more responsive to organizational

computing demands, and provides better training.

When end-users feel comfortable with both the

quality and quantity of IS support they not only choose

to depend on it but also report greater satisfaction with

its use. In the end, the establishment of an environment

of greater organizational involvement can only result

in a better performing IS unit that users will value and

depend on to provide information services to the firm.

7. Conclusion

We explored the relationship between the IS unit

and end-user in the context of organizational

involvement in IS related activities. Managers can

create an environment that fosters cooperation and

teamwork towards organizational rather than func-

tional goals but in many firms, the relationship has

been framed in an adversarial manner. If the IS unit

asserts its authority to make the rules without the

participation and cooperation of the other business

units, end-users will continue to break them. If

organizations can create an atmosphere of mutual

respect and cooperation among these units for the

common good of the firm, IS resources will be highly

valued and effectively used and end-user perceptions

of IS performance will increase.

Increased IS strategic planning effectiveness, more

highly responsive and better designed computing

solutions, and more useful end-user training programs

are significant improvements resulting from this

process. Thus, self-reliant end-users or departments

currently circumventing their IS unit should reconsi-

der their actions and engage in a dialogue on the

current status and future directions of the firm’s IS

unit.

Our study provided valid and reliable measures

for end-user involvement in IS related activities,

cross-functional involvement in IS related activities,

IS strategic planning effectiveness, IS responsive-

ness to organizational computing demands, end-user

self-reliance in application development, and end-

user dependence on IS expertise. Measures were

developed carefully and proved through rigorous

validation methods. The final instruments are short

and easy to use. The instruments exceed generally

accepted validity and reliability standards for basic

research.

7.1. Limitations

Though precautions were taken to avoid obvious

limitations, some were still present. Both the

dependent and independent variables were measured

through a single respondent and this may introduce

response bias. Also our assumption that senior

manufacturing managers possess the greatest firm-

level knowledge of IS practices, products, and services

in their organizations may not be valid.

In addition, the IS variables in this study were not

exhaustive: other constructs may impact IS perfor-

mance. Also, the constructs were limited and focused

mainly on the internal aspects of the firm and not its

external links with customers and suppliers. Finally,

for end-user training effectiveness there were only two

items; this may not be enough and therefore they may

not have been a sufficiently reliable measure.


Appendix A. Questionnaire items

A.1. I. Organizational involvement in IS related

activities (OIIS)

A.1.1. End-user involvement in IS related

activities (EI)

Please circle the appropriate number which best

indicates your existing level of end-user involvement

in software application development.

1 = None, 2 = Low, 3 = Moderate, 4 = High, 5 = Very

High, NA = Not Applicable, or Do Not Know

EI1
Design of manufacturing software applications.
EI2
Development of manufacturing software applications.
EI3
Analysis of manufacturing software
application problems and opportunities.

EI4
Testing of manufacturing software applications.
EI5
Specification of manufacturing software
application requirements.

EI6
Management of manufacturing software
application development projects.

EI7
Implementation of manufacturing software
applications.

A.1.2. Cross-functional involvement in IS related

activities (CI)


indicates your existing level of cross-functional

involvement in the development and administration

of software applications.



CI1
Development of IS policies/procedures.
CI2
Enterprise-wide data management.
CI3
Integration of IS planning activities.
CI4
Integration of software applications.
CI5
Prioritization of IS related activities.
CI6
Resolution of software application problems.
A.2. Information systems management

effectiveness (ISME)

The following statements measure typical informa-

tion systems practices within a firm. Please circle the

appropriate number which best indicates the strength

of your agreement with each of the following

statements as they relate to your firm’s manufacturing

function.

1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Mildly Disagree, 3 = Neu-

tral, 4 = Mildly Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree, NA = Not

Applicable, or Do Not Know

A.2.1. IS strategic planning effectiveness (SP)

My firm’s IS function. . .

SP1
Has developed a well-defined set of IS
strategies.

SP2
Has developed a well-defined set of IS
objectives.

SP3
Has developed policies and procedures
that clearly define the scope of IS

functional activities within this

organization.

SP4
Has developed a well-defined mission
statement.

SP5
Has developed policies and procedures
that clearly define the scope of IS

responsibility within this organization.

A.2.2. IS responsiveness to organizational

computing demands (RD)

My firm’s IS function. . .

RD1
Promptly responds to special software
programming requests.

RD2
Promptly resolves software application
problems.

RD3
Promptly responds to end-user questions
and concerns.

RD4
Promptly implements software
application upgrades.

RD5
Promptly resolves computer network
problems.

A.2.3. IS effectiveness in end-user training (UT)

Within this manufacturing facility. . .
UT1 End-users receive extensive
on-the-job training on how

to use our existing

manufacturing information

systems.

UT2
End-users receive formal
classroom training on

how to use our existing

manufacturing information

systems.

P.J. Rondeau et al. / Information & M

A.3. End-user self-reliance in application

development (SR)

The following statements measure typical informa-

tion systems practices within a firm. Please circle the

appropriate number which best indicates the strength

of your agreement with each of the following

statements as they relate to your firm’s manufacturing

function.




Within this manufacturing facility. . .
SR1 E nd-users have become
self-reliant in developing

new software applications.

SR2 E
nd-users have become
self-reliant in making

computer-related decisions.

SR3 E
nd-users have become
self-reliant in solving

computer-related problems.

SR4 T
here is a growing
proliferation of end-users

performing traditional IS

tasks.

SR5 E
nd-users build software
applications to their own

unique needs.

SR6 E
nd-users make information
technology decisions without

IS staff input.

A.4. End-user dependence on IS expertise (EUD)


indicates your existing level of dependence upon your

IS department’s knowledge and expertise.



A.4.1. End-user dependence on IS technical

expertise (TD)

TD1
General software development expertise.
TD2
Computer hardware technical expertise.
TD3
Data communications/networking technical
expertise.

A.4.2. End-user dependence on IS application

expertise (AD)

anagement 43 (2006) 93–107 105

AD1
Engineering software knowledge and skill.
AD2
Administrative software knowledge and skill.
AD3
Manufacturing software knowledge and skill.
A.5. Information systems performance (IP)

The following statements measure typical percep-

tions about information systems performance within a

firm. Please circle the appropriate number which best

indicates the strength of your agreement with these

statements as they relate to your firm.




IP1
End-users recognize the benefits of our
IS function’s services.

IP2
Our IS function is perceived as facilitating
better decision making.

IP3
End-users are generally satisfied with the
services of the IS function.

IP4
The use of IS services has led to better
management of manufacturing activities.

IP5
Our IS function has failed to meet
end-user performance expectations.*

* This question is reverse scaled.

References

[1] A.K. Aggarwal, End user training—revisited, Journal of End

User Computing 10(3), 1998, pp. 32–33.

[2] K. Amoaka-Gyampah, K.B. White, User involvement and

satisfaction: an exploratory contingency model, Information

& Management 25(1), 1993, pp. 1–10.

[3] G. Bassellier, B.H. Reich, I. Benbasat, Information technology

competence of business managers: a definition and research

model, Journal of Management Information Systems 17(4),

2001, pp. 159–182.

[4] C. Benko, Outsourcing evaluation: a profitable process, Infor-

mation Systems Management 10(2), 1993, pp. 45–50.

[5] P.M. Bentler, Comparative fit indexes in structural models,

Psychological Bulletin 107(2), 1990, pp. 238–246.

[6] A. Bhattacherjee, Understanding information systems continu-

ance: an expectation-confirmation model, MIS Quarterly

25(3), 2001, pp. 351–370.

[7] C.V. Brown, S.L. Magill, Alignment of IS functions with the

enterprise: towards a model of antecedents, MIS Quarterly

18(4), 1994, pp. 371–403.


[8] P.Y.K. Chau, Reexamining a model for evaluating information

center success using a structural equation modeling approach,

Decision Sciences 28(2), 1997, pp. 309–334.

[9] I. Costea, The struggle for integration, Information Strategy:

The Executive’s Journal 6(4), 1990, pp. 38–42.

[10] T.H. Davenport, R.G. Eccles, L. Prusak, Information

politics, Sloan Management Review 34(1), 1992, pp.

53–65.

[11] R. Defiore, A. Gorewitz, Excellence in action: building a

competitive IS organization, Journal of Systems Management

42(11), 1991, pp. 13–16.

[12] T. Dewitt, G.R. Jones, The role of information technology in

the organization: a review, model, and assessment, Journal of

Management 27(3), 2001, pp. 313–346.

[13] N.F. Doherty, M. King, O. Al-Mushayt, The impact of inade-

quacies in the treatment of organizational issues on informa-

tion systems development projects, Information &

Management 41(1), 2003, pp. 49–62.

[14] W.J. Doll, The need to encourage research on information

systems downsizing, Journal of End User Computing 9(1),

1997, pp. 36–38.

[15] M.J. Earl, J.L. Sampler, J.E. Short, Strategies for business

process reengineering: evidence from field studies, Journal

of Management Information Systems 12(1), 1995, pp.

31–56.

[16] D.T. Edberg, B.J. Bowman, User-developed applications: an

empirical study of application quality and developer produc-

tivity, Journal of Management Information Systems 13(1),

1996, pp. 167–185.

[17] S.W. Floyd, B. Wooldridge, Path analysis of the relationship

between competitive strategy, information technology, and

financial performance, Journal of Management Information

Systems 7(1), 1990, pp. 47–64.

[18] D. Gerwin, H. Kolodny, Management of Advanced Manufac-

turing Technology: Strategy, Organizations, and Innovation,

Wiley, New York, NY, 1992.

[19] D.W. Goodhue, Understanding user evaluations of information

systems, Management Science 41(12), 1995, pp. 1827–1844.

[20] R. Hackney, J. Kawalek, G. Dhillon, Strategic information

systems planning: perspectives on the role of the end-user

revisited, Journal of End-User Computing 11(2), 1999,

pp. 3–12.

[21] R. Hirschheim, R. Sabherwal, Detours in the path toward

strategic information systems alignment, California Manage-

ment Review 44(1), 2001, pp. 87–108.

[23] A.H. Huang, A three-tier technology training strategy in a

dynamic business environment, Journal of End User Comput-

ing 14(2), 2002, pp. 30–39.

[24] J.E. Hunton, J.D. Beeler, Effects of user participation in

systems development: a longitudinal field experiment, MIS

Quarterly 21(4), 1997, pp. 359–388.

[25] J.J. Jiang, G. Klein, R.A. Pick, The impact of IS department

organizational environments upon project team performances,

Information & Management 40(3), 2003, pp. 213–220.

[26] J.J. Jiang, G. Klein, J. Roan, J.T.M. Lin, IS service perfor-

mance: self-perceptions and user perceptions, Information &

Management 38(8), 2001, pp. 499–506.

[27] J.J. Jiang, W.A. Muhanna, G. Klein, User resistance and

strategies for promoting acceptance across system types,

Information & Management 37(1), 2000, pp. 25–36.

[28] T. Kalling, ERP systems and the strategic management pro-

cesses that lead to competitive advantage, Information

Resources Management Journal 16(4), 2003, pp. 46–71.

[29] J. Karimi, T.M. Somers, Y.P. Gupta, Impact of information

technology management practices on customer service, Jour-

nal of Management Information Systems 17(4), 2001, pp. 125–

158.

[30] J. Kreie, T.P. Cronan, J. Pendley, J.S. Renwick, Applications

development by end-users: can quality be improved? Decision

Support Systems 29(2), 2000, pp. 143–152.

[31] M. Lowell, Managing your outsourcing vendor in the financial

services industry, Journal of Systems Management 43(5),

1992, pp. 23–36.

[32] N.McBride, A.T.Wood-Harper, Towards user-oriented control

of end-user computing in large organizations, Journal of End

User Computing 14(1), 2002, pp. 33–41.

[33] G.E. McRay, T.D. Clark, Using system dynamics to anticipate

the organizational impacts of outsourcing, System Dynamics

Review 15(4), 1999, pp. 345–373.

[34] T.J. McGill, User-developed applications: can end users

assess quality? Journal of End User Computing 14(3), 2002,

pp. 1–15.

[35] A.R. Montazemi, D.A. Cameron, K.M. Gupta, An empirical

study of factors affecting software package selection, Journal

of Management Information Systems 13(1), 1996, pp. 89–105.

[36] M.C.Munro, S.L. Huff, B.L. Marcolin, D.R. Compeau, Under-

standing and measuring user competence, Information &

Management 33(1), 1997, pp. 45–57.

[37] N.J. Muller, Planning technology transitions, Information

Systems Management 14(3), 1997, pp. 70–72.

[38] S. Nambisan, R. Agarwal, M. Tanniru, Organizational

mechanisms for enhancing user innovation in information

technology, MIS Quarterly 23(3), 1999, pp. 365–395.

[39] M.L. Peskin, J.J. Hart, Measuring the quality of computer

systems development, Benchmarking for QualityManagement

& Technology 3(2), 1996, pp. 68–82.

[40] L.F. Pitt, R.T. Watson, C.B. Kavan, Service quality: a measure

of information systems effectiveness, MIS Quarterly 19(2),

1995, pp. 173–184.

[41] B.H. Reich, I. Benbasat, Factors that influence the

social dimension of alignment between business and informa-

tion technology objectives, MIS Quarterly 24(1), 2000, pp. 81–

113.

[42] D. Robey, J.W. Ross, M.C. Boudreau, Learning to implement

enterprise systems: an exploratory study of the dialectics of

change, Journal of Management Information Systems 19(1),

2002, pp. 17–46.

[43] H.W. Ryan, User-driven systems development: defining a new

role for IS, Information Strategy: The Executive’s Journal 9(4),

1993, pp. 66–68.

[44] N. Saleem, An empirical test of the contingency approach to

user participation in information systems development, Journal

of Management Information Systems 13(1), 1996, pp. 145–

166.


[45] R.D. Savoia, J.M. Jordan, How IS organizations dropped the

ball: the crisis of expertise, Information Strategy: The Execu-

tive’s Journal 13(1), 1996, pp. 17–21.

[46] P.B. Seddon, V. Graeser, L.P. Willcocks, Measuring organiza-

tional IS effectiveness: an overview and update of senior

management perspectives, Database for Advances in Informa-

tion Systems 33(2), 2002, pp. 11–28.

[47] A.H. Segars, V. Grover, Strategic information systems plan-

ning success: an investigation of the construct and its measure-

ment, MIS Quarterly 22(2), 1998, pp. 139–163.

[48] S.K. Shah, Improving information systems performance

through client value assessment: a case study, Review of

Business 22(1/2), 2001, pp. 37–42.

[49] N.C. Shah, W.H. DeLone, F. Niederman, Sources of

dissatisfaction in end-user support: an empirical study, Data-

base for Advances in Information Systems 33(2), 2002, pp. 41–

55.

[50] S.J. Simon, V. Grover, J.T. Teng, K. Whitcomb, The relation-

ship of information system training methods and cognitive

ability to end-user satisfaction, comprehension, and skill

transfer, Information Systems Research 7(4), 1996, pp. 466–

490.

[51] E.W. Stein, Organizational memory: review of concepts and

recommendations for management, International Journal of

Information Management 15(1), 1995, pp. 17–32.

[52] R. Suh, Guaranteeing that outsourcing serves your business

strategy, Information Strategy: The Executive’s Journal 8(3),

1992, pp. 39–42.

[53] C.B. Tayntor, New challenges or the end of EUC? Information

Systems Management 11(3), 1994, pp. 86–88.

[54] T.S. Teo, W.R. King, Integration between business planning

and information systems planning: an evolutionary-contin-

gency perspective, Journal of Management Information Sys-

tems 14(1), 1997, pp. 185–214.

[55] G. Torkzadeh, J. Lee, Measures of perceived end-user comput-

ing skills, Information & Management 40(7), 2003, pp. 607–

615.

[56] V. Venkatesh, R.H. Smith, Creation of favorable user percep-

tions: exploring the role of intrinsic motivation, MIS Quarterly

23(2), 1999, pp. 239–260.

[57] C. Wagner, End users as expert system developers? Journal of

End User Computing 12(3), 2000, pp. 3–13.

[58] T.N. Warner, Information technology as a competitive burden,

Sloan Management Review 29(1), 1987, pp. 55–61.

[59] L. Wu, B. Rocheleau, Formal versus informal end user

training in public and private sector organizations, Public

Performance & Management Review 24(4), 2001, pp. 312–

321.

Patrick J. Rondeau is an Assistant Pro-

fessor at Butler University. He holds a

Ph.D. in Manufacturing Management

from The University of Toledo and is

APICS certified in production and inven-

tory management (CPIM). He is a former

information systems manager with exten-

sive experience specializing in manufac-

turing and accounting systems. Dr.

Rondeau has published in several journals

including Decision Sciences, Journal of

Operations Management, OMEGA: International Journal of Man-

agement Science, Production and Inventory Management Journal,

and others. His research interests are at the interface between

manufacturing and information systems. He is a member of AIS,

APICS, ASQ, and DSI.

T.S. Ragu-Nathan is Professor of Infor-

mation Systems and Operations Manage-

ment in the College of Business

Administration at the University of

Toledo. He holds a Ph.D. in Management

Information Systems from the University

of Pittsburgh. Dr. Ragu-Nathan has pub-

lished in many journals including Infor-

mation Systems Research, Decision

Sciences, OMEGA: International Journal

of Management Science, Journal of MIS, Journal of Information

Systems, and Journal of Strategic Information Systems. His current

research interests are in information systems strategy, quality issues

in information systems, and use of information technology in

manufacturing, Supply Chain Management, and E-Commerce.

Mark A. Vonderembse is a Professor ofOperations Management at The Univer-

sity of Toledo. He earned a Bachelors of

Science in Civil Engineering from The

University of Toledo in 1971 and anMBA

from The University of Pennsylvania in

1973. He earned a Ph.D. from The Uni-

versity of Michigan in 1979. He has

published in academic and professional

journals including Management Science,

Decision Sciences, Journal of Operations Management, OMEGA:

International Journal of Management Science, International Journal

of Production Research, and Industrial Engineering Transactions.

His research interests are Time-based Competition, Quality Man-

agement, and Manufacturing Strategy.

how involvement, is management effectiveness, and end-user computing impact is performance in...

Documents